A h/t to TPT's Almanac for the reminder of this very famous HHH speech.

As we have seen, at their respective conventions, Republicans have not changed, and the conservatives among them - the only members they tolerate after repeated purges - are still opponents of civil rights and pro-discrimination.  Democrats are still the inclusive progressives, making speeches that hold up well across history.

It will be an embarrassment to conservatives as historians look back at this period that they were so regressive and so divisive, embracing all matters of discrimination and exclusion.  President Obama echoed Hubert Humphrey's speech in Philadelphia in 1948 when he spoke about the arc of history.  It is a particular shame that we must continue to rely on our judicial branch to overturn voter suppression laws, like those which were just overturned recently in Wisconsin, Texas, Kansas and North Carolina.  Conservatives are still trying to keep minorities from voting -- and shame on them for it.

Per the accompanying Youtube notes, this speech ranked 66 in the top 100 speeches of the 20th century.

   

Additional bits of history -- this speech, like the ones this past week, were made in Philadelphia, 68 years ago. At that convention, instead of Bernie supporters, Conservative democrats walked out in protest to the addition of a civil rights plank that would correct the wrongs of Jim Crow. This makes it all the more poignant that this convention was addressed by a sitting black president. Moderates did not want to upset the conservative 'Dixie-crats', but liberal democrats pushed the civil rights position. Wikipedia provides the details:

In response, all 22 members of the Mississippi delegation, led by Governor Fielding L. Wright and former Governor Hugh L. White, walked out of the assembly. Thirteen members of the Alabama delegation followed, led by Leven H. Ellis. The bolted delegates and other Southerners then formed the States' Rights Democratic Party ("Dixiecrats"), which nominated Strom Thurmond for President and Wright for Vice President. ...In the absence of three dozen Southern delegates who walked out of the convention with Thurmond, 947 Democrats voted to nominate Truman as their candidate (against 263 for Senator Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia).

We have seen a variety of sources, from the conservative Wall Street Journal to Think Progress acknowledge that conservatives opposed civil rights, regardless of party, while the progressive wing of the Democratic party spearheaded the legislation in cooperation with liberal Republicans like the gravel-voiced Everett Dirksen of Illinois.  From Think Progress:

...it simply highlights the fact that politics in 1964 were not ideologically aligned. The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time. It’s a very interesting historical fact about the United States of America that for most of the twentieth century conservative southerners generally belonged to the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that if you think of American politics in terms of the history of ideological struggle, civil rights is clearly an issue on which the liberals were right and over time conservatives came around to that view.

After the Cleveland and Philadelphia conventions this month, we can see that at least the GOP is undergoing a similar fracturing process between extreme conservatives, and moderates who are consistently repudiating the excesses of the majority right represented at the convention.

Now that we have seen the increasingly radical and more extreme right have attempted to hijack credit for civil rights, it is worth noting where the votes came from, and whom, to pass the subsequent legislation that was drafted by Hubert Humphrey as a continuation of his efforts in 1948.(wikipedia again):

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

If the same vote were held in Cleveland, or in the Republican majority House and Senate, I would expect a vote that mirrored the conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans of 1968.

It is also worth noting that the right is STILL making many of the same arguments that went through the courts following enactment of the legislation. For example, Senator Rand Paul has promoted the position that businesses should have the right to discriminate for ANY reason, as a right of private property ownership. Humphrey was in the Senate representing Minnesota in cooperation with President Lyndon Johnson at the time this legislation, a direct extension and continuation of the policies in the 1948 speech,  Again, Wikipedia has an excellent summation:

There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims. Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.

In view of the acceptance of White Supremacists, John Birchers and others that were rejected by mainstream conservatives in 1948 and 1968 it is well past time that the right came out of the darkness of bigotry and regressive politics. It is time the right stopped trying to turn the clock back to Jim Crow and worse.  It is time the right stopped their concerted efforts to make this a country that only acknowledges and gives preference and advantage to heterosexual white christian males (and even then mostly protestant males).

We've waited way to long already as a nation, especially a nation in the 21st century, not the 19th or shameful first half of the 20th.  THIS is just part of what makes the 2016 election so significant.

If you wonder why I prefer the UK to the US.  Yesterday's referendum was carried out in a peaceful manner, despite strong sentiments on both sides.

On the other hand, it seems that in the US some people feel that they have a right to prevent people from voting.  I believe there are federal laws which prevent this sort of activity, but still:





In Wisconsin, it is a Class I felony to use or threaten to use force, violence, or restraint to compel a person to vote or not vote in an election. It is also a felony to impede or prevent someone’s ability to vote in an election, to bribe voters, or to coerce someone to vote for a particular candidate or ballot measure.

Voter intimidation is also illegal under federal law. The Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act make it a crime for election officials to attempt to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” anyone from voting or attempting to vote, or registering to vote.

Call the police immediately if you see these people.

In fact, contact and file a report with the DoJ's Civil Rights Division:

• www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/contact.php

And

• Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (in charge of elections)

The facebook page has been mirrored.

"Law abiding gun owners", my arse.

The more I see of you, the more I am convinced that the US needs strong gun regulations.  The pro-gun side is the best argument for strong gun control.

See also:
Legal Protections Against Voter Intimidation in Wisconsin.pdf
Government Accountability Board | STATE OF WISCONSIN
Voter Intimidation Complaints | Government Accountability Board

The World Bank defines corruption as use of public office for private gain.

The activities of conservative legislators and corporations, acting outside the states where the legislators are elected, for the benefit of those legislators above and beyond their legislative compensation, and where they draft legislation to give preferential treatment and profit to those select corporate donors.

Or, as I have called them before here - Corp-o-rats.

This occurs in every state.  It occurs here in Minnesota, and most of it occurs in secret, which is utterly and completely contrary to citizen participation government and the promised transparency.  It IS however utterly consistent with conservative polititicians saying insincerely they serve smaller government and the people in public, while slavishly serving private interests in reality.
Shame on conservatives, and look out because as ALEC is phased out, or at least minimized after this attention, we're already watching where the action on the right to slavishly serve private special interests while taking money corruptly will go  next to operate clandestinely.


From the Uptake, relating to the utterly corrupt conservatives next door, who are just like the conservatives HERE in Minnesota doig business with - and for - ALEC.  Hooray for the Wisconsin Watch Dogs!!!!  Get all those damnably corrupt, crooked, unethical, hypocritical, lying conservatives!!!! 

They are anti-democracy, making up claims of voter fraud, while themselves defrauding legitimate voters of the right and ability to exercise their constitutional rights at the ballot box.



From the Uptake:
Corporate money may have illegally influenced Wisconsin’s state government says a report from the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.

It’s report on the influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Wisconsin details how at least 17 legislators have received thousands of dollars in gifts from the corporations that pay for ALEC and those gifts have often not been disclosed to the public.
According to the report:
“ALEC has created a “scholarship” scheme to help cover the costs for legislators to travel to out-of- state resorts for these meetings, where the children of lawmakers and lobbyists are entertained and state legislators and their spouses are wined and dined. On these trips, ALEC arranges “task force” meetings that take place behind closed doors, away from the view of the press and public, where corporate lobbyists and elected officials vote as equals on ‘model’ legislative templates to change the laws in states across the country.”
Press release about the report
CMD Releases New Report “ALEC Exposed in Wisconsin: The Hijacking of a State”
Watchdog Groups Call for Attorney General Investigation of ALEC Lobbying Activities
MADISON — Today, the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) released a new report that details the exclusive network of corporate lobbyists and special interest groups that influence the Wisconsin legislature through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
“This report reveals details of the extraordinary influence of ALEC and its agenda on the Wisconsin legislature and our laws over the past 16 months,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy. “This corporate-backed agenda undermines the rights of Wisconsin families while advancing the agenda of huge corporations and special interest groups.”
Six weeks ago, corporate members of ALEC started jumping ship when it became known that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law” — linked to the Trayvon Martin shooting — spread to over two dozen states via ALEC. So far, 14 corporate members and 45 legislators from other states have quit the organization.
“We document how global corporations are buying influence with Wisconsin legislators through potentially illegal gifts called ALEC ‘scholarships,’” said CMD Law Fellow Brendan Fischer, the report’s author. “ALEC’s corporate members are not only giving Wisconsin legislators thousands of dollars of campaign contributions, they are also buying flights and hotel rooms. These gifts undermine Wisconsin’s reputation for clean government and the strict ethics rules designed to protect the voices of Wisconsin residents in our state’s democracy.”
CMD asked the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board in March to determine whether ALEC member legislators receiving gifts of flights and hotel rooms from ALEC’s corporate members violates state ethics and lobbying laws. Now, CMD and Common Cause in Wisconsin are asking Wisconsin’s Attorney General to look into ALEC’s lobbying activities.
“It is time for the Attorney General to determine that ALEC is primarily a corporate lobbying group masquerading as a charity,” said Common Cause in Wisconsin Executive Director Jay Heck. “ALEC’s corporate members fund the organization to access and influence state legislators, and it is unacceptable to get a tax deduction for doing so.”
Here are some of the key findings from the new report:
32 bills or budget provisions reflecting ALEC model legislation were introduced in Wisconsin’s 2011-2012 legislative session;
21 of these bills or budget provisions have passed, and two were vetoed;
More than $276,000 in campaign contributions were made to ALEC legislators in Wisconsin from ALEC corporations since 2008;
More than $406,000 in campaign contributions were made to ALEC alumnus Governor Walker from ALEC corporations over the same time period for his state campaign account;
At least 49 current Wisconsin legislators are known ALEC members, including the leaders of both the House and Senate as well as other legislators holding key posts in the state. Additionally, the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Administration, and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission are ALEC alumni; and
At least 17 current legislators have received thousands of dollars of gifts cumulatively from ALEC corporations in the past few years, in the form of flights and hotel rooms filtered through the ALEC “scholarship fund” (complete “scholarship” information is not available).

The dates are set!  Let the campaigning commence!
Two states which are like Minnesota, in having northern borders with Canada, in having Republican majorities which have been destructively polarizing, are Michigan and Wisconsin.  Both of those states have recall options built into their government. I'm undecided if that would be a good course of action for Minnesota to follow, but it makes a heckuva lot more sense than any of the Constitutional Amendments the Republicans in Minnesota are putting on the ballot for November 2012.
Here is an update from Ballot News, an excellent non-partisan site that generally does a very good job of being unbiased.  In addition to accessing the specific article through the link, readers can access it through the listing on our blog roll at any time; our blog roll is on the lower left column alongside our posts.  (There is a small blurb on a successful recall of an Arizona extremist, included for interest; the same nut job is running again in the November 2012 Arizona elections.)

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin State Senate finished its work for the year on Thursday, the last day scheduled for passing bills, after meeting for less than an hour. The Assembly, however, did not adjourn until late Friday after Democrats held a 30-hour long filibuster over a bill that would have dissolved the Milwaukee Area Technical College board. Democrats returned to the floor at 3 a.m. on Friday, giving speeches and interrupting GOP attempts to adjourn until Republicans finally agreed late in the afternoon to reappoint the current members of the MATC board.^[9]
The contentious end of the two-year long session was just the latest in a long line of partisan fighting that began in February 2011 when Gov. Scott Walker (R) introduced his budget repair bill which limited collective bargaining rights, compensation and fringe benefits of public employees. Also noteworthy was the passage of a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons and one to require photo ID at the polls, which Democrats argued was unconstitutional.^[10] Last week a circuit court judge agreed with Democrats, issuing a permanent injunction against the Voter ID measure.^[11]
The end of the session saw a firestorm over a mining reform bill aimed at getting Florida-based Gogebic Taconite to open an iron mine in northwestern Wisconsin, creating hundreds of jobs. Republicans were unable to amass the necessary number of votes when Sen. Dale Schultz (R) sided with Democrats against the bill. Schultz and Democrat Bob Jauch are being targeted for possible recall over their opposition to the bill, while Republican leaders are said to be considering a special session to try and get the measure passed.^[12]

Recalls

Currently, 18 states permit the recall of state officials. Between 1913 and 2008, there were just 20 state legislative recall elections in five states. Of the 20 state legislative recall elections, 13 out of 20 resulted in the state legislator being recalled. In 2011, there were 11 state legislative recalls in three states, 4 of which resulted in the legislator being recalled.

Arizona

Former state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) became the first legislator to be removed in state history when voters recalled him from office last November. Up till now he has not made his future plans clear, but that could change today – Pearce is speaking at an event where many expect him to announce a campaign for state Senate. Following redistricting, Pearce was moved from the 18th to the 25th District – if he does chose to run that could set up a primary between Pearce and current Republican incumbent Rich Crandall.^[13]

Michigan

2011 saw a wave of recall attempts in Michigan. While most of those efforts dried up, at least two campaigns are continuing on (the recall of Paul Scott was successful on November 8, 2011). Organizers of the campaigns to recall Bruce Caswell (R) and Phil Pavlov (R) are aiming for the August 2012 ballot.

Wisconsin

Democrats in Wisconsin filed recall petitions on November 15, 2011 against four Republican state senators – Pam Galloway, Scott Fitzgerald, Terry Moulton and Van Wanggaard.^[14] Campaign organizers turned in more than the necessary number of signatures in each of the four races on January 17, 2012.
Last week was a busy one – on Monday the board dismissed all of the challenges submitted by the senators against the petitions, voting unanimously to order recalls against all four.^[15] On Tuesday, GAB received an extension on their deadline to certify the results, giving them until March 30. The following day Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess signed an agreement scheduling primaries for May 8 with general elections on June 5. If there is no primary the general election takes place on May 8.^[16]
The Senate wrapped up their 2012 session on Thursday^[17], and on Friday Sen. Galloway announced she was resigning her seat, effective the following day, but said it had to do with her family and not the recall. GAB said the recall will continue as scheduled and Republicans are now seeking a candidate to take Galloway’s place.^[18]
Meanwhile, conservative group Citizens for Responsible Government said they are going forward with plans to recall senators Dale Schultz (R) and Bob Jauch (D) who both worked to reject a compromise on a bill aiming to increase the speed of the state’s approval for iron ore mines. CRG is expected to announce more details about their plans today.^[19]

Here is the link to their web site; along with GoJo, this is one of the best non-partisan sources for information on the web, nationwide, not only for Wisconsin. But I have been relying on them for accurate WI information throughout 2011. Check them out for yourself, here. And/or follow them using the link on our blog roll in the left-hand bar of this blog.

Wisconsin recall fever, take 2

By: Greg Janetka
MADISON, Wisconsin: Less than two months ago Wisconsin held the last of the nine state Senate recall elections that dominated the state’s politics for most of 2011. Total campaign spending for the recalls surpassed $44 million, while costing state and local governments approximately $2.1 million.^[1] With the state still working to put itself back together (there’s a special election for Assembly District 95 taking place November 8 to fill the seat left open when Jennifer Shilling (D) defeated Dan Kapanke (R) in a recall), it looks as if it may all happen again in 2012.
Democrats made no bones about their desire to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) for his role in targeting the repeal of most collective bargaining rights for public employees, officially announcing on October 10 that they, in conjunction with United Wisconsin, would officially begin the recall campaign against Walker on November 15.^[2] They would have likely have gone after him sooner, but under Wisconsin law incumbents are not eligible for recall until they have been in office for a year.
It was due to this rule that more state legislators were not targeted this year. 17 of Wisconsin’s 33 incumbent state senators, 6 Democrats and 11 Republicans, won election or re-election on November 2, 2010, meaning they could potentially be recalled in 2012. They are:
Additionally, two Republicans and four Democrats who were targeted last year but did not see enough signatures collected against them to face recall could see a second attempt.
With the Republicans holding a 17-16 majority in the Senate, state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he expects his party will run recall efforts against Walker as well as GOP senators. “It would be irresponsible of the party to not jump on that opportunity,” he said.^[3]
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, meanwhile, said of trying to recall Democratic senators, “I haven’t ruled it out, that’s for sure.”^[3] Dan Romportl, head of the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate, said, “At this point, all options are on the table. We are waiting to see what transpires on the Democrat side and then we will go from there.”^[4]
Hold on Wisconsin, it’s gonna be a bumpy 2012.

Let the collection of petition signatures commence (soon)!

From Chris Bowers of the Daily Kos:

	Dog gone, Last night, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin announced it will begin gathering petition signatures to recall Governor Scott Walker on November 15. They will have 60 days to gather a minimum of 540,206 signatures, with a filing deadline of January 13. Further, the Wisconsin Democrats have confirmed to Daily Kos they will work with citizen-driven, grassroots efforts to recall additional Republican state senators. After Democrats picked up two seats in August through successful recalls, Republicans now hold only a 17-16 advantage in the chamber. As you read this, the Wisconsin Dems are training volunteers to gather petition signatures. Let's help them out, and finish what was started during the epic protests back in February. Keep fighting, Chris Bowers Campaign Director, Daily Kos

Note - a fundraising paragraph was removed for posting here, consistent with Penigma policy on soliciting donations. - DG

I will be following developments on this campaign from some of the same excellent Wisconsin non-partisan sites that covered the previous elections.  These have been unprecedented political actions, in terms of scale and type of activity, in U.S. history, so I hope that our readers will apperciate this in terms not only of politics, but the larger perspective and context.

Below is an insightful analysis from the Milwaukee Wisconsin Sentinel Journal online, by way of the excellent site (see the link on our blog roll) 'GoJo' for short, aka the Governor's Journal. 

Before you read the analysis, I would call our readers attention to a few things, notably  that the Sentinel won Pulitzers in 2008, 2010 and 2011, in evaluating their coverage and analysis.  And especially that this analysis cuts through the partisan bullshit that has been flying through the air like a poo-fight in the monkey cages at the zoo, before, during and after this particular series of elections. 

While the right has been trying to spin the two seat loss, and downplay, even outright LIE about the outside big money, big business, corporatists and billionaires who paid for the GOP wins, including through funding an unprecedented amount of dirty and illegal dealings in WI (similar activites in Maryland in the 2010 elections resulted in Republican felony convictions), we should be looking at these elections as well as the Wisconsin Surpreme Court election last April, as trends worth watching in the rest of 2011 and in the 2012 elections, both Presidential and other federal elections, and the more parochial state and local elections across the country.

Also, as you look at the number crunching analysis below, consider the numbers that are NOT included.  No, not the third party candidate numbers, the numbers of the respective failed recall petitions (another area rife with GOP cheating, those stalwart defenders of lawful elections, except when they are not).  There were attempts to recall 16 state senators initially; 8 Republicans, and  8 Democrats.  From those attempts we had six Republicans and three Democrats defending their seats in the recall elections.  But that indicates that there were five FAILED petition attempts to recall Democrats, which is a number that should be added to the other Republican losses in the actual election.  While Democrats failed to win only one challenge to a sitting Republican state senator, and only three failed recall petition attempts.  Which suggests to me, and I would hope suggests to readers here, that the Wisconsin political landscape is not a cakewalk, not a lead-pipe cinch for either party, but that the inroads into the Republican voter block are larger than the elections alone indicate.  This would bode gaurdedly well for a recall attempt on Walker, and he must be well aware of it.  I'm sure if he wasn't, the Koch Brothers could get through to him by phone to explain it to him.  That is why Walker is trying to make it MORE difficult to recall a seated governor than the current rules which apply to him now - the same rules which applied to his Republican friends in the senate.

In the article below, please note that embolded or larger letters are my emphasis added - DG.

The Wisconsin VoterThe Journal Sentinel's Craig Gilbert explores political trends in a purple state.
Summing up the Wisconsin recalls (by the numbers)
By Craig Gilbert of the Journal Sentinel
 
With all nine Wisconsin recall elections in the books, here’s a recap by the numbers, based on the unofficial results gathered by AP:

Close to half a million people voted in these nine races, with about 51% casting their votes for Democrats and 49% casting their votes for Republicans. There was less than a 7,000-vote difference between the combined vote totals for the two parties, with Democrats winning five races and Republicans winning four, narrowing GOP control of the state Senate from 19-14 to 17-16:
Nine Democratic candidates: 244,978 votes
Nine Republican candidates: 238,527 votes

Close to 41% of the voting-age adults across these nine districts turned out to vote in the recalls. That is about six points higher than the turnout in these districts for the state Supreme Court race in April and about seven points lower than the turnout in these districts for governor in last fall’s mid-terms.

These contests were fought on mostly GOP-friendly turf. The nine districts combined (six held by Republicans, three by Democrats) gave Republican Scott Walker 56% of the two-party vote in 2010, about three points higher than his statewide total, reflecting their overall GOP tilt. Only one of the nine was more Democratic than the state as whole based on the last governor’s race (the 32nd district held until last week by Republican Dan Kapanke).

In those six races, the GOP Senate incumbents got a combined 52% of the two-party vote, roughly four points lower than Walker’s performance in those same districts last year. (My broader take on what the results say about the Wisconsin electorate can be found here.)

Below is a race-by-race comparison of the Walker vote in 2010 and the GOP Senate vote in the 2011 recalls. One note about these numbers: the percentages reflect the GOP share of the combined two-party vote in both elections. Votes for third-party candidates are not included here for either year, since they weren’t reported in the initial AP recall returns. As a result the final official numbers will look slightly different.

The six seats held by GOP incumbents:

This breakdown shows that Republican support more or less “held” in three districts, in the Milwaukee (Darling), Twin Cities (Harsdorf) and Green Bay (Cowles) metropolitan areas. It eroded significantly in the other three seats. These numbers reaffirm that the key race in the broader recall war was in the 14th district, where the GOP erosion from Walker’s 2011 numbers shows that Democrats had a real opportunity there to pick up the third seat they needed to win control of the state Senate but fell a little more than 2,000 votes short.

Here are the same numbers for the three seats held by Democratic incumbents:

As these numbers show, these races weren’t very competitive. This wasn’t because the districts themselves tilted Democratic. They didn’t. The GOP had problems fielding effective candidates, and there simply wasn’t as much energy and support behind the GOP effort to recall Democratic senators as there was behind the Democratic effort to recall GOP senators.

As noted above, turnout averaged more than 40% of voting-age adults. The judgment here is that’s a very impressive number, given the fact that these were special legislative elections with no statewide races to draw voters and were held in the middle of the summer. It reflects both voter interest in these contests and the massive resources poured into them by both sides.

Turnout varied dramatically by district. In one district (the 10th) it exceeded the 2010 turnout for governor and in another it came close (the 32nd). Turnout was lowest in the three races that were considered the least competitive and attracted the lowest levels of spending and media attention, the 2nd, 22nd and 30th:

It intrigued me that in his recent bus tour that of the states Obama toured, he essentially went AROUND Wisconsin, where I would have expected him to go through it, or at least some small part of it, as it is, like the other states he toured, also a very important state for the 2012 elections. This particularly surprised me in the context of actual elections taking place, versus silly and unimportant Republican-only straw polls being held in Iowa.

The above analysis by the Journal Sentinel author of what happened in Wisconsin is very correct to focus on the numbers and on the turnout.  GoJo also drew my attention to a longer range polling project by Gallup which looked at partisan trends since the 2008 elections to present, nationwide.  That polling project still showed a Democratic majority among the more highly populated states, and Republican majorities in the very sparesely populated ones, but an overall trend to people self-identifying as Republican or Republican leaning Independents.  This is significant in so far as there seems to be greater disapproval of Republican policies and progress in Congress and in state governments in 2011 polling, with Republicans receiving far higher disapproval ratings, from all demographics, than Democrats.  That suggests to me that the Republican party is fracturing, with the minority being in the driver seat of policy, but the majority of the right not in agreement with their efforts.  This would parallel the drop off in GOP territory support in Wisconsin, which included support in the recall elections for Democratic candidates FROM Republicans, including Republicans who had voted that way in 2010.  If this long term trend, as noted by Gallup continues, it will be an interesting backdrop to current and future trends in politics.  I'm already noticing that Governors, like Ohio Governor Kasich, are beginning to back down from their union busting agenda, which was a significant right wing overreach in the first place.  Kasich who was incredibly belligerant and intransigent to compromise before is now begging for it over HS5.

The story is in the numbers; high voter turn out, high voter participation and awareness, tends to trend in the favor of Democrats, not Republicans.  To the extent that these trends hold through the remainder of 2011 and into 2012, it argues against the success of the farther right wing candidates to win the next presidential election, and argues against Republicans holding much less expanding their gains made in 2010.  If we are seeing such large turnout in off season, never mind off-year elections, it suggests strongly there will be a larger turnout in 2012 over the turnout in 2008, even in spite of the right wing attempts to pass voter suprressing legislation.

The other story from the Wisconsin recall elections that will prove prophetic for the 2012 elections was the role that outside, special interest group money played in the elections.  One of the more articulate statements came from Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (a nonpartisan group), in a Ch. 2 WBAY interview with Matt Smith:

In 2010 there were 116 legislative races. According to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, $17.5 million dollars was spent on all of these races.

For these nine Senate recall elections this summer, the amount reported so far is $37 million spent by the campaigns and interest groups -- more than double those 116 races last year -- according to the non-partisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

"When you have interest groups doing most of the talking, they take the campaign down into the gutter. If a candidate runs a really despicable ad, that candidate risks a backlash from voters, but these interest groups aren't on the ballot, voters can't punish them in any way; they don't risk backlash," Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said.

All of which suggests we can expect more dirty politics, less accountability, less transparency, and a lot more money spent by special interest groups in the elections ahead.  And you can bet that the biggest losers will be the voters, and the truth.

It is also worth noting when reading the following article, that the right may have won, barely, in the senate recall elections in Wisconsin, but they were only able to do so through a wide range of dirty tricks, illegal voter suppression through robocalls and mass mailing to Democrats, and a whole lot of money, notably from the Koch brothers, and the Amway family fortune.  What started as another election ended as another political auction.

Keep that in mind the next time you fill up your vehicle with gasoline, or consider an amway product...

I like to go to the primary sources whenever I can, and encourage readers here to do the same; so here is the link to the study referenced below:

Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality


Bruce Western[a]
Jake Rosenfeld[b]

aHarvard University
bUniversity of Washington
Abstract
From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution’s shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions’ effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality—an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education.

And here is an excellent analysis of how that study is reflected in the politics taking place right next door; a dangerous political ideology which the right would love to extend into Minnesota if they could, and across the country.  This would be disastrous, because the right endorses an utterly failed economic policy which only advantages the 2% who are very wealthy, and the uppermost executives of corporations.
from aol news:

Declining Union Power To Blame For Rising Wage Inequality


By Claire Gordon, Posted Aug 10th 2011 @ 11:58AM

Wage inequality has ballooned in the last forty years, thanks in large part to the declining power of unions, according to a study published this month in the American Sociological Review, and reported by the New York Times.

Between the years 1973 and 2007, the study found that wage inequality rose 40 percent. In this same period, private sector union membership plummeted 34 to 8 percent among men and 16 to 6 percent among women. These drops explain one third of the increase of wage inequality among male workers and one fifth of the increased inequality among their female counterparts, the study concludes.


Climbing income inequality is usually blamed on technological changes, immigration, outsourcing, and the relative increase in wages for college graduates. The studies two authors found, however, indicate that waning union power is just as significant as any of these factors.

Private sector union membership is now lower than it was in 1935, when the Wagner Act, which protects workers' right to organize, came into force. Unions swelled after World War II, but since the early 1970s, Big Labor has been steadily and relentlessly shrinking.

This has reduced the political power of all workers, according to the study. Unions have long advocated for more equalized wages for labor, by opposing, for example, the radical deregulation of financial markets and the explosion of executive pay. "Union decline marks an erosion of the moral economy and its underlying distributional norms," the study claims. "Wage inequality in the nonunion sector increased as a result.

These findings support past research, which has shown that countries with strong unions, like Canada and Germany, have a flatter economic playing field.

The declining power of private sector unions has also produced another kind of wage inequality: between public and private sector workers. 36.2 percent of government workers are unionized, and thus have greater political clout on average than private employees.

As Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker likes to say, unions are the "haves" and the largely private-sector employed taxpayers are the "have-nots." But as this study tells us, organized Labor has been critical in battling the other war of "haves" and "have nots": corporate and Wall Street interests versus the average worker.

It is these tensions that came to ahead in Wisconsin's recall elections on Tuesday. Of the four Republican state senates seat up for grabs, Democrats managed to wrest only two away. Republicans have successfully kept control of the senate, and are calling it a big win. But if Wisconsin is a microcosm of the country on this issue, Americans are split almost perfectly down the middle, divided on which "have not" to defend.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note, that the required ID is available through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.  In Wisconsin, there are a number of offices scheduled to be closed, with allegations that more of these will close in areas which are predominantly Democratic in their demographics based on voter history, while those in Republican dominated parts of the state are rumored to be expanding their hours.  Because of the rural nature of much of Wisconsin, there will be numbers of people who will not have ready access to the new ID, not for this election, not in 2012.  This is what raises the issue of voter suppression, in the context of Republican voter policies, policies which address a non-existant voter fraud problem in Wisconsin elections, except in the conspiracy theories of some on the right.  I will expand on the cost to Wisconsin taxpayers of this new law, as well as the disproportionate effect it will have on partisan lines that benefit Republicans and disadvantage Democrats later this morning.

For now, here is the official web site statement.

From the offical web site of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which regulates and polices elections in Wisconsin:

Voter Photo ID Law Information.Wisconsin's New Voter Photo ID Law


Voter Photo ID is now the law in Wisconsin.

Starting in 2012, voters will be required to show a photo ID such as a driver license or state-issued ID in order to receive a ballot and vote.

At the recall and special elections in 2011, voters will be asked to show a photo ID for a "soft implementation" of the new law. Voters who do not have the required ID will will be able to vote, but will also receive a document explaining the requirements of the law for 2012 and how to receive a free ID.

To learn about getting a free Wisconsin ID card, please visit the Wisconsin Department of Transportation website: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

The law contains several other provisions affecting elections, including residency and absentee voting. Please see the links below.

The Government Accountability Board is developing education and outreach campaigns for the public.

This page contains information for voters and local election officials about the law and its requirements. It will be updated as the Board develops new educational materials.

Does this mean the investigation by the Dane County Sheriff is complete?

Does this mean that there WILL be an arrest and prosecution? 

Or is this just CYA for the Dane County District Attorney's office? 

Are we ANY closer to a determination of events, and fault - if any? 

If we are closer, will an announcement of that determination be provided BEFORE the August recall elections?

From the Wisconsin Radio Network:

Special prosecutor requested in Supreme Court investigation

by Andrew Beckett on August 1, 2011
in Crime & Courts,Politics & Government
The Dane County District Attorney wants a special prosecutor appointed to review an investigation into an alleged physical confrontation between two state Supreme Court justices. The request comes now that the Dane County Sheriff’s Office has completed its investigation into accusations that Justice David Prosser put Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a chokehold during a confrontation in her office in June.

The case has been handed off to Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne, who is asking the County’s Chief Judge to appoint a special prosecutor to review the findings and to determine if any charges should be filed.

The alleged confrontation between Prosser and Bradley came as the high court debated the release of its ruling on an open meetings lawsuit filed against the Legislature by Ozanne. The DA says his office would be fair in handling the case, but he feels a special prosecutor is needed so that any decisions will be free from accusations that they are politically motivated.

and here is the pdf of the Dane County District Attorney's Press Release.

The Right wing blogosphere is contorting themselves into granny knots trying to justify, and even defend, the alleged actions of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser.  Some sites, such as Fox News Propagandist Gretchen Van Susteren, are trying to twist this incident on purely partisan lines, seriously ignoring the facts. 

THIS IS SO WEIRD…..did Justice Prosser choke Justice Bradley? or did she attack him first? did he choke her or did she make it up? And what’s up with the CHIEF JUSTICE? Where was she and why does her name surface in all these incidents? Something really, really, really, really weird is going on…..

The propaganda spin, in a dizzying lack of reason, and excess of hypocrisy, tries to shift responsibility for the incident to Justice Bradley, and to Chief Justice Abrahamson.  The only 'something' that is weird is how the heck voters could have elected Prosser (if they did - his re-election had serious problems with vote security and legitimacy), given his past record of issues, including control of his temper.

Let me quote to you from the applicable Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, that applies to judicial discipline, including the Wisconsin Supreme Court members, and give credit to the Wisconsin State Journal for confirming my reading of the Code of Conduct:

"discipline and correct judges who engage in conduct which has an adverse effect upon the judicial administration of justice and the confidence of the public and the judiciary and its process."

Judges, which includes Justices and the Chief Justice, are required by chapter 60 of the Judicial Code to :

"uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary"
"avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety"
"be civil in their dealings with one another"
"abstain from any conduct that may be characterized as uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile or obstructive."

Although I am not a legal professional, it would seem obvious to anyone that Justice Prosser's previous swearing at Chief Justice Abrahamson, calling her a bitch, and threatening to destroy her would appear, clearly and overwhelmingly, to violate those parts of the Judicial code. 

A brief summation of events, Justice Prosser, who has lost control of his temper on multiple previous occasions and behaved  inappropriately and abusively, was asked by Justice Bradley to leave her chambers. 

There doesn't appear to be any controversy or disagreement about the request for Prosser to leave.

He refused to leave.  Right here, before the physical part of the alleged conflict, I have a problem with Prosser's conduct.  It would seem prima facie that in refusing to leave, Prosser behaved uncivilly, and that in refusing to leave, PROSSER precipitated what followed, that it is PROSSER who is clearly the catalyst.

Justice Bradley reportedly approached Justice Prosser, expressing displeasure with offensive comments made by Prosser and his persistent refusal to leave.   Justice Bradley had the right to be in her chambers; Justice Prosser, once any permission was rescinded, did not, and under the common law premise of interference, which appears to occur as well in Wisconsin Law relating to self-defense, from my limited and untrained background, gave Justice Bradley some reasonable right to approach Justice Prosser in any reasonable way that defended herself from that interference.

Some versions of the events say she had her hands balled into fists.  None of the accounts appear to assert that she struck at, or swung at, or reached out towards Prosser.  Only one account, apparently from someone aligned politically with Prosser, interprets having her fists balled up was a POSSIBLE threatening gesture.  I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be one here; but Prosser appears to me to so clearly be in the wrong, that it seems ludicrous to claim PROSSER is the victim, not Justice Bradley.

If Prosser felt threatened at any time.......WHY (allegedly) did he put his hands on Justice Bradley, instead of using good judgement, good manners, and self control, BY SIMPLY LEAVING?  His actions suggest far more strongly that he was angry and lacking self-control, that he was belligerent (AGAIN), and that HE was acting in a physically confrontational manner.  To leave a confrontation rather than to engage physically, so far as it is possible, is something we instill in children, and expect from rational adults as mature behavior.

Prosser himself has been known to ball up his fists in anger, as these two YouTube videos demonstrate, and he has on those occasions gestured in a threatening manner, all too quick to use his hands aggressively:

This is not the behavior of a man with appropriate judicial temperament. 

Had it not been for the intensity of political division brought on by Governor Walker's actions, it is far more likely that Prosser would have been treated more as an individual, assessed on his merits, and less as an expression of political solidarity.  It appears clear to me that the heat of partisan politics put conservatives in the position of supporting a bad candidate, and that the conservatives did not appear to concern themselves with the merits of their candidate, but acted out of strictly partisan issues.  And now that is coming back to bite them in the backside, so the conservatives who like to talk loud and large about supporting people being responsible must, out of embarrassment, try to dodge that responsibility, trying to shift responsibility and blame to someone else, to anyone in opposition to them.

Justice Bradley has not claimed that Prosser applied pressure, actively choking her; she has claimed that he put his hands on her neck in a choke hold position, which was interrupted by another Justice.  I don't particularly find it plausible that Justice Bradley posed a reasonable threat to Justice Prosser.

It was inappropriate for Prosser to touch Bradley AT ALL in anger. Doing so appears to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

An utterly lame explanation for this was that Justice Prosser accidentally 'touched' Bradley's neck in a defensive gesture.

Reaching for Justice Bradley's throat is not a defensive gesture.  Crossing one or both of his arms to block Justice Bradley - had she actually moved her hand and arm towards him - would have been a defensive gesture.  Turning away from Justice Bradley would have been a defensive gesture.  Reaching past her arms to her throat? That is NOT a defensive gesture, that is an offensive gesture.

Don't simply accept my interpretation of the body language, however obvious it appears to be.  Loot at these sites which address variations of clenched fists and defensive arm gestures:

http://www.indiabix.com/body-language/hand-and-arm-gestures/

"Research by Nierenberg and Calero on the hands-clenched position brought them to the conclusion that this was a frustration gesture, signalling that the person was holding back a negative attitude."

http://learn-skills.org/wordpress/body-language-and-the-nonverbal-dictionary/10/2008

 Leaning forward with closed arms and/or hands = Aggression, fighting stance
 Clenched hands = Frustration, anger

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php

Interactions and Reactions
• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.

http://www.efficient-technologies.com/bodylanguage/armsgestures.html

Hand and Arms Gestures
Tightly clenched hands on the other hand (no pun intended!) reveal that a person is frustrated or has a hostile attitude.  Arms Gestures:   When a person folds his/her arms about the chest firmly, a feeling of being threatened may exist, since most people may use this gesture as a defensive manoeuvre . (my emphasis added - DG)

Defensive gesture - fold arms across chest, not reach for someone's throat.

While I am certainly not especially knowledgable about Wisconsin laws pertaining to battery, the generally applicable duty to retreat would appear to pertain to any unwelcome or aggressive contact made by Justice Prosser towards Justice Bradley, in Justice Bradley's chambers after he was asked to leave:

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

and

Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, 

and

Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when a victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. [1]. The Model Penal Code [2] suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work.

Many states employ "stand your ground" laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."

After being requested to leave Justice Bradley's chambers, arguably Justice Prosser had NO right to remain, or even to defend himself had he incorrectly interpreted that Justice Bradley was attacking him or about to attack him.

But the right continues to assert that apparently Justice Prosser is innocent by reason of right wing insanity, on the sole justification that he is a Republican, and as one of theirs, they will defend him no matter what he does. 

In aid of this defense of the indefensible, we have the call for Chief Justice Abrahamson to resign:
And while I have no idea who is off the wall (Justice Prosser or Justice Walsh or both), I do know one thing, CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON sure is not doing her job to lead the court and to give confidence to the people of Wisconsin. She needs to step aside and let someone else attempt to run that zoo.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is one of the most respected jurists in the country, and in our history.  Discipline of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices is the responsablity of the Judicial Commission, which must bring a complaint before the court for action.

To suggest that Chief Justice Abrahamson should resign, for not controlling the outbursts by Justice Prosser, while conspicuously NOT calling for the resignation of Justice Prosser, who has appeared to repeatedly violate the laws relating to judicial conduct, is the height of irresponsibility, insanity, and hypocrisy.  Where is the call from the right to hold Justice Prosser accountable for not leaving Justice Bradley's chambers, ESPECIALLY if he felt he was attacked or could be attacked, under the Duty to Retreat?  Where is the call for resignation and accountability for Justice Prosser's attack on Chief Justice Abrahamson?

WHERE?

I am appalled that this patently unfair double standard is blithely accepted by the right without a break, a pause, without the slightest critical thinking or questioning.  SHAME ON YOU.  YOU, yes YOU, are facilitating precisely this kind of apparent misconduct by Justice Prosser.

Is THIS what it means now to be conservative? Because there is NOTHING prinicpled about it.