Archive for January 2012
For the 3rd Time, Federal Judges Rule that WI Legislature Cannot Keep Redistricting Info from Dems
For the third time since December 8, 2011, a three-judge panel comprised of federal judges has ruled that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin Legislature cannot keep information regarding the redistricting process away from the Democrats who filed suit over it. The judges were obviously exasperated, saying that the GOP lawmakers are actually trying to hide the information from the public regarding the redistricting process and basically said that they will not stand for it.
Please see this link from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s January 3, 2012, edition for further details:
As for a relevant quote, how’s this for you?
“Quite frankly, the Legislature and the actions of its counsel give every appearance of flailing wildly in a desperate attempt to hide from both the court and the public the true nature of exactly what transpired in the redistricting process,” the ruling reads.
You don’t read language like this from federal judges every day, folks.
So here’s the deal. On December 8, 2011, and again on December 20, 2011, the three federal judges ruled against the Republicans. Yet the Legislature has refused again and again to turn over the documentation explaining why the redistricting was done so radically — instead, they just obfuscate while they dilly-dally, perhaps hoping that by sitting on their hands that the judges will just get bored and go away.
But that hasn’t happened.
Lest you think these are liberal appointees, think again. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., was appointed by George W. Bush. Only Judge Diane P. Wood was appointed by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton.
So we have two conservative judges who are most unamused by the Republicans; as another quote from the recent Journal-Sentinel article puts it:
In essence, the judges again found there was little the Republicans can keep from the plaintiffs, a Democratic group.
The panel of judges – two of whom are Republican appointees – gave a rhetorical smack to the GOP lawmakers and their attorneys.
The court “will not suffer the sort of disinformation, foot-dragging, and obfuscation now being engaged in by Wisconsin’s elected officials and/or their attorneys,” the ruling reads.
Once again, judges rarely are this angry, and even more rarely do they show their anger in this fashion.
So here’s the deal; the GOP redistricting plan appears likely to go down in flames. The Democrats who challenged it (none of whom are in office right now) did so on the basis that the new districts’ boundaries violate the Federal Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution because of the way these new proposed boundaries would treat minorities and by how many people (well over 300,000) are shifted arbitrarily for what seems like little or no reason except for blatant political advantage.
The reason this is of interest to me, and to anyone in Southeastern Wisconsin, is simple: Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) is my current state Senator. He voted for Senate Bill 10 — that is, to get rid of collective bargaining for public employee unions, with the sole exceptions of police and fire personnel. And in exchange, he appears to have received a really nice benefit from the redistricting in that his new district 21 would include most of rural Kenosha County and most of rural Racine County — while the urban areas of Racine and Kenosha would become district 22.
District 22 is Bob Wirch’s district; he’s a Democrat. While I greatly admire Sen. Wirch and worked on his behalf last summer to help him withstand recall and be retained, I would prefer the boundaries to stay as they’ve traditionally been; district 22 is most of Kenosha County, including the City of Kenosha, while district 21 is mostly made up of Racine County, including the City of Racine. This arrangement means that both district 22 and district 21 are “in play,” so that a good legislator of either party can potentially win the seat of either district; it also means that the legislator who’s in office had better listen to the will of the people, or he or she will end up getting recalled and replaced.
This, currently, is the case with regards to Van Wanggaard in district 21. Signatures have been gathered, and there are more than enough to get Wanggaard recalled, I’m reliably informed — which means that the Racine office has, bare minimum, over 16,000 people who’ve signed to force Wanggaard to a recall election. (Signatures will be filed on January 15, 2012.) Wanggaard went against the will of his district in casting his vote for Senate Bill 10 — the stripped-down bones of Scott Walker’s “budget repair bill” minus any obvious financial verbiage — despite being a past member of the police union; worse yet for him, Wanggaard was a union representative way back when, something he probably hopes most people in Racine have forgotten. This was extremely hypocritical and is not something Racine voters are likely to forgive, which is why I firmly expect Wanggaard to be replaced as soon as the recall election is called.
Note that Wanggaard was very well aware that a Republican legislator had been recalled in district 21 before; this was George Petak, and I wrote about him and his recall race here. Which is why he probably had to be promised something in exchange for his vote; elsewise, why would he do it? And promising him a more favorable district 21 — one where he’d have a tougher time getting recalled, as the rural areas of both Kenosha and Racine Counties tend to be more conservative — was probably the likely thing that changed Wanggaard’s mind to vote in favor of SB 10.
So Wanggaard, the former union member, the former union representative, voted against collective bargaining. Then he voted in favor of the new redistricting plan later on; this passed on a party-line vote in the Senate, meaning all 14 Dems voted no, while all 19 Rs voted yes. (In the Assembly, a few Rs voted against it, along with almost all the Dems. But it was still a largely party-line vote.) And Wanggaard had to think he’d be less likely to be recalled this way.
But I have news; the people who voted Wanggaard in, including those voters in the City of Racine, are the ones who get the privilege of voting him right back out again (or possibly retaining him, though that doesn’t seem too likely an outcome). And that’s the way it should be.
So bring on the recall election for Senator Wanggaard, right along with the recalls of Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. All three will be gone within months. Then watch as the new, gerrymandered districts get tossed out via the federal court panel . . . so ultimately, Wanggaard will have ended up squandering his own seat for nothing. (Them’s the breaks, Van.)
Quick Iowa Caucus Observation
Folks, I’m watching the coverage of the Iowa Caucuses right now, and it’s pretty much going the way I’d expected. Paul, Santorum and Romney all have around 23% of the vote, while Gingrich has fluctuated at 14-15%, sometimes dropping a bit, sometimes rising.
Here’s my observation, though; in politics, 5% of the vote can often determine the outcome of a close election. We know this from history; there have been many races that had more than two candidates, and every time, if one of those “extra” candidates garnered 5% or more, that definitely affected the outcome.
But the pundits aren’t mentioning it on any of the channels I’ve monitored this far — Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Instead, they’re concentrating on the “sexier” three-way race between Romney, Paul, and Santorum.
But the fractured electorate in Iowa is the real story (make no mistake about it). Consider that Rick Perry, a candidate basically left for dead, has a solid 10% of the vote — this is actually a story, folks, because if you get over 10% in an election you’re expected to lose, that shows you do have some traction even in “unfriendly territory.”
Even Michele Bachmann has a very solid 6% — this means she has considerable support, and yet the pundits have written her off in the same way they’ve written off Gingrich and Perry.
Look. It’s obvious that the Iowa electorate isn’t impressed, at all, with Mitt Romney, as overall he’s getting fewer votes this time around than when he last ran in 2008. It’s also obvious that the Iowa electorate likes many of the other candidates — and if there was an “anyone but Romney” option on the ballot, I bet that option would win in a landslide.
So keep this in mind as you listen to the after-action reports from the pundits, folks: 5% of the vote is a significant slice of the electorate. And know that every serious Republican candidate who went to Iowa (remember, Jon Huntsman didn’t, which is why he’s sitting at 1%; in some ways to have even that much is a shock) did accomplish something, because getting 5% or more of the vote is significant and every single last one of them — even Bachmann — accomplished this goal.
Whither Iowa? Thoughts on the 2012 Iowa Caucuses
If you watch politics on television as much as I do, you probably have seen a great deal of hoopla surrounding the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. This is the first test of several Republican candidates** who’ve had their moments in the sun — including Michele Bachmann (who won the Ames Straw Poll last year), Newt Gingrich (ahead in the polls in Iowa in early December), Rick Perry (ahead in the polls in mid-September), Ron Paul (ahead in some Iowa polls as little as two weeks ago), the hard-charging Rick Santorum (who could actually win tonight) and, of course, well-heeled frontrunner Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and whose support seems to run a steady 25% whether he campaigns hard — or doesn’t — in Iowa.
But the question remains, “Why does what the people in Iowa think of these candidates matter so much year after year?”
There’s an easy answer that goes like this: “Well, c’mon, Barb! These Iowans see the candidates every four years. They’re less likely to glom onto a candidate who’s all talk and no action — that goes without saying!”
But that’s a facetious answer. The real reason Iowans matter so much is because most of ’em are middle-income folks and below. These are as close to “real people” as the candidates on both sides are likely to see; between Iowa and New Hampshire, ordinary citizens get to have more dialogues with candidates than anywhere else. And this may give campaigns like Romney’s a better idea of what middle-income people want out of their government, especially as the words “Romney” and “middle-income” go together about as well as a bullwhip and iced tea.
As a long-time political watcher, I’ve seen candidates do well in Iowa but flash-and-fade otherwise (2008 Republican winner Mike Huckabee comes to mind, here; so does 1980 Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush). I’ve seen some candidates, like Barack Obama, do very well — surprisingly so — in Iowa, which helps them overall, yet others who’ve done well in Iowa, like Howard Dean and/or John Edwards, aren’t able to maximize their opportunities down the road and end up with that flash-and-fade effect, which looks the same regardless of party.
See, some of the candidates just peak too soon, that’s all. Newt Gingrich seems to be one example of this, though he may well rally as he’s an intelligent, highly-seasoned political operative and if anyone can do it, he can. Rick Perry is yet another one, though in Perry’s case he’s been his own worst enemy in the debates and that has definitely hurt him.
Over time, what the Iowa caucuses have shown is this: if a politician is smart, and can rally from this experience (whatever it may be), he or she will do well. But you must learn from whatever it is the Iowans are telling you; if they’re saying, as I believe they are to Rick Perry, “Rick, we really like you, but you don’t have the gravitas. You need to go work on your public speaking, develop a foreign policy, and come back in four to eight years,” the best thing Perry could do going forward is give himself a crash course in foreign policy, do his best to look like a statesman, and study up before he goes into another debate lest he have another one of those “oops!” moments.
Or if they say to Ron Paul, “Ron, we really like your energy. You’re a breath of fresh air and we wish that more Republicans were like you in speaking their minds,” Paul needs to realize that what they’re saying, while gratifying personally, may not translate to electoral success in other states. I’ll be interested to see if Paul can indeed follow up what I’m sure will be a very strong showing tonight — top four, easily, and he could possibly win the state as Romney isn’t beloved in Iowa — with a good showing in New Hampshire and a halfway decent one in South Carolina. If he can do that, then he has real potential nationally.
And the guy with the most to gain — or lose — is obviously Rick Santorum. The pundits have claimed for the past several days that Santorum will win, or come in second or maybe a close third, but that Santorum will definitely be a major factor.
As I see it, Santorum could gain much if he wins Iowa; he’ll have instant national attention, a bigger flow of money toward him (as many people back a winner, but fewer flock to those who are seen to lose unless they’re super-committed — and those, in this crowd, mostly go for Paul or Gingrich, not Santorum), and more media types reporting on what he does every day, thus an easier way to get on free TV and make a bigger difference nationally.
But what he loses if he doesn’t come in the top four (assuming the top four will be nearly evenly split) is breathtaking, considering how far the expectations for his campaign have been ratcheted up.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich will all have around 15% of the vote (or a bit more). I think it’s more likely than not that Paul will win Iowa because his voters are passionate, committed, will caucus, will stay as long as is necessary and are vocal about their support. But I have a sneaky suspicion that Gingrich will do better than he’s polled, too, because the folks who are backing Gingrich do it for these reasons: he’s smart. He has good answers in the debates. He’s a wily, resilient old pol in the best sense of that word; he knows how to roll with the punches. And best of all for Gingrich’s supporters, Gingrich is the only one of the lot who seems to understand that to become President someday, you must turn your liabilities into strengths. (I’m not totally sold on whether or not Gingrich has actually done this. But I can see that he’s really tried to do so and that attempt matters.)
And I believe that Santorum, at the end of tonight, will either be ecstatic — in that he’s greatly exceeded expectations — or crushed. I’m unwilling to say at this time which is more likely.
———–
Note: As President Obama is running unopposed in the Democratic caucuses, those are expected to be far more quiet — and far less well attended — than the Republican caucuses. (As you might expect.)**
Time to throw the confetti — Johnny Weir Gets Married
Folks, figure skater Johnny Weir, 27, got married on New Year’s Eve to Victor Voronov, an aspiring lawyer. He announced this via his Twitter feed and with an interview to Ice Network; Yahoo Sports picked it up as Weir is one of the most popular figure skaters in the world today even though he hasn’t competed since the 2010 Olympics (where he undeservedly finished sixth when he deserved, bare minimum, the bronze medal after his excellent free skate).
While I’m unsure of Weir’s husband’s age, as he’s preparing for his 2012 bar exam, he sounds like he’s reasonably close in age to Weir. This should be a plus, as will the fact that Mr. Voronov (who’s now going by Weir-Voronov) is from Russia and Weir is a well-known Russophile.
The happy couple plans to live in New York City according to this report.
Congratulations to the newlyweds! (Confetti all around!)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 