Spot the typo

Because I can't:

"As the only statewide Republican candidate in the entire nation to defeat an incumbent Democrat in 2006, we know what has to be done," Van Hollen wrote. "We know what it takes to win and we'll do it again, but I need your continued support to get there."

In reality, Van Hollen's predecessor, Peg Lautenschlager, lost in the Democratic primary to Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk. Van Hollen never got the chance to defeat the incumbent Democrat in '06.

"It may be time to find a hobby for those whose feathers were ruffled by the typo," snickered Darrin Schmitz,* Van Hollen's campaign spokesman.

Dan Bice.

I wonder what the typographical error is. "Statewide," "entire nation," and "incumbent Democrat" all appear to be spelled correctly.

I don't know how far through the alphabet you have to go, but in 2006 in Alabama, Republican Beth Killough Chapman defeated the incumbent Democrat, Nancy L. Worley, to become Secretary of State.

I'm pretty sure that's a statewide office too.

* An intriguing selection by Attorney General Van Hollen, the State of Wisconsin's top law enforcement officer.

Darrin Schmitz also engineered the political campaign of one Mike Gableman, who currently faces potential expulsion from the Wisconsin Supreme Court for violations of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct committed during that campaign.

Clearly, Gableman received some quality advice from Darrin Schmitz.

And Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, another Republican seeking statewide office, has enlisted the services of yet another supportive associate of Mike Gableman's, R.J. Johnson.

Both Messrs. Schmitz and Johnson appear to specialize in races to the bottom. Must be the Republican way.

Burnett County: Litigation hell

Gableman upheld on 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets
Better record than the Ninth Circus, says StopTheACLU.com

Darrin Schmitz, the professional Republican "persuader" who is coordinating the election campaign of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman, tells us that Gableman has "presided over" 23,545 cases. He uses this figure to compare against Gableman's reversals on appeal, and calculates the judge's reversal rate thereby at .02%

During the calendar years 2003-2007 inclusive, for example, the Burnett County (pop. 16,595) Circuit Court disposed of 8,800 uncontested traffic tickets. Is Gableman seriously counting uncontested traffic tickets to calculate his reversal rate?

Because when you're calculating a judge's relative success on appeal, you probably don't get to include for uncontested traffic tickets, the statistical likelihood of whose appeal approaches roughly zilch.

It's also a rather unusual method of response to someone else's calculation of your man's reversal rate that you feel is unfair. It's especially unusual in light of Gableman's own portrayal of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler's record:

Gableman said the [sided with criminals] 60% [of the time] figure came from a study by an outside group.

"I don't know if the number is 30%, 60%, 80%, or 90%," [Gableman] said, before adding, "I'm unaware of any study that contradicts those numbers."

Good thing he's not running for State mathematician.

All of which is made the more amusing by Schmitz's self-righteous railing about 'outright lies' and 'patent and demonstrative falsehoods.' Because if Schmitz is using uncontested traffic tickets to arrive at Gableman's advertised reversal rate on appeal of .02%, then it seems to me he's made a demonstrable falsehood of his own right there.

What's particularly significant, however, is that Darrin "The GOP Persuader" Schmitz is howling against a third-party interest group, which even Justice Butler has denounced, whereas Schmitz's data is issuing directly from the Gableman campaign itself.

Your Wisconsin politics laugh of the morning

Darrin Schmitz called the charges "false and misleading."

Darrin Schmitz was Mike Gableman's campaign manager.

Schmitz once calculated that then-Burnett County circuit judge Gableman's rate of reversal on appeal was very low because Gableman had "presided over" 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets. Seriously.

These people take you for utter fools. Why do you put up with it?

Butler and Prosser, judicial traditionalists

A few items related to the ongoing election campaign between incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler and his challenger, Burnett County Judge and sometime Republican gubernatorial contributor Michael Gableman.

First off, a very thoughtful and well written piece in the Badger Herald by Suchita Shah, a UW student of neurobiology (and the courts, it would appear), is worth checking out here.

Next we have the campaign watchdog committee, the WJCIC, issuing a couple of warnings, one to Gableman, and the other to some anti-Gablemans (nothing for Butler, however).

The WJCIC goes after a third-party outfit called the Greater Wisconsin Committee for a 30-second spot it produced called "Meet Mike Gableman." There's a QuickTime version at this link (it's actually pretty funny, and Wisconsinites sure do love their bobblehead dolls).

The spot presents a number of documented facts, and suggests there may have been some partisan political shenanigans leading to Gableman's Burnett County judgeship. Cory Liebmann has some more documentation on "Gableman's Suspicious Appointment" here and here.

But the WJCIC says the ad "implies, without explicitly stating, that Judge Gableman somehow committed an ethical lapse in the events leading to his appointment by [Republican] Governor Scott McCallum as a circuit court judge in Burnett County," and calls for the GWC to "immediately remove this ad from the airwaves."

That ain't going to happen.

The other WJCIC tongue-lashing concerns the Gableman campaign's characterization of State v. Brown, which is discussed below. (I don't know why the WJCIC is focused on the Margaret Farrow letter; the identical claims appear in Gableman's own official literature).

Butler the traditionalist

A more general concern voiced by the WJCIC is primarily of interest to law nerds, although it's probably the most salient point in the press release. According to Gableman, Justice Butler cast "the deciding vote" in State v. Brown, the implication being that if not for Butler, Richard A. Brown's petition for supervised release would have been ultimately denied.

But that isn't the way it works. It isn't as if six judges are deadlocked 3-3 on a question and Justice Butler happens to walk by and one of the six yells, "Hey Louis, what do you think? We need a tie breaker."

More importantly, as the WJCIC suggests, according to the deciding vote theory, Justice David Prosser is equally responsible for allowing Brown's petition to move forward and Prosser is, according to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, not only the most "traditionalist" member of the court, he's also its least "activist."

So it's practically a self-defeating claim for the Gableman campaign to criticize Butler's vote in Brown when Prosser voted exactly the same way. Not only that but Justice Patrick Crooks, who WMC places on the "activist" side of the ledger, dissented in Brown. But obviously the Gableman campaign doesn't want you to know that, otherwise they wouldn't be able to shout, "zOMG sex offender on the loose!!!1"

Besides, if Prosser the traditionalist hero voted to reverse the court of appeals, doesn't that mean Butler got this one right? It also means that Michael "Stark Contrast" Gableman would eschew the traditionalist position in favor of the activist. And that can't be good.

No wonder he refused to engage further questioning on Monday.

One thing's for sure, Butler's recently hired communications director, Erin Celello, is no shrinking violet, and the AP's Scott Bauer reports that Celello sets up the Brown trilemma as follows:

Celello said Gableman's comments show that he either hasn't read the court's decision, doesn't understand it "or is purposely lying about it as a desperate attempt to get any traction in this race."

Lastly, a stellar example of responsible journalism from the Inter-County Leader, which published an unsigned piece describing the GWC effort as "smear television ads launched by a shadowy special interest group" and quoting Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz as saying, "It looks like Louis Butler sent his liberal, special interest friends to do his dirty work for him."

The item goes on to again state that the GWC is "a shadowy group, which launches smear campaigns that mislead voters and do not pass the truth test." At the very end we find the source of the article: "submitted." Submitted by Darrin Schmitz, I think is a pretty safe bet to place. It's also likely a shoe-in for the Columbia Journalism Review's "Darts & Laurels" section, in that it's practically a bullseye.

It is, however, a clever "pot v. kettle" game Schmitz is playing.

[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]

WJCIC statement on Gableman ad

Available here (.pdf; 2 pgs.).

Unbecoming a sitting judge and a candidate for our state's highest court. ... disgraceful and deliberately misleading ... a gross violation of [Gableman's own campaign] pledge. ... Offensive, race-baiting ... contemptible ...

Here's the money:

We believe Judge Gableman is deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding this case and Justice Butler’s role in it, and it appears Judge Gableman is doing so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his campaign statements.

No wonder Plaisted hears nothing but chirping crickets. Who's going to defend textbook defamation? (Aside from this guy, of course.)

Good and timely thing that conservatives managed to unearth a preacher who said something ridiculous (now that is news!).

One of the (innumerable) funny things about political conservatives, they constantly rag on the "drive-by" media for downplaying important issues, or else emphasizing what conservatives consider irrelevancies.

Yet here they are chomping into and dragging this Jeremiah Wright character around like a pack of rabid, starving pit bull terriers, all the while perfectly content to let Gableman's reprehensible advertisement fester away out there, since whatever positive effect it has for Gableman suits their purposes just fine.

"Gableman's campaign adviser Darrin Schmitz said the ad is factual." Darrin Schmitz wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit him on the ass.

Gableman campaign funnies

Two fascinatingly disparate items appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently, one by reporter Stacy Forster (me and Stacy go way back; we both used to hang in internet chatrooms during judicial candidate debates omg *lulz*) and the other by intrepid columnist Dan Bice.

The first item reports that the campaign of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman has formulated its own "clean campaign pledge," which it's apparently asked Gableman's rival, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, to sign.

One of the pledge elements is framed thusly:

Ensure the integrity of claims made by our campaigns by providing supporting evidence.

Meanwhile, in Bice's column, Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz is quoted as saying, by way of commenting on a television ad produced by a third-party interest group, "Louis Butler sent his liberal, special interest friends to do his dirty work for him."

As for "providing supporting evidence," obviously there is zero to be found, so I expect it will be pretty hard to come by. This Darrin Schmitz fella sounds like a real piece of work his own self. Good thing the J-S has us bloggers to knit the puzzle together though, ain'a?

For free! No attribution necessary.

Also, more laughs here: "I do not own any sweater vests."

bbl!

[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]

In re Randy Hopper: Only 15,268 signatures to go

Recall organizers having reportedly obtained the support of the State Senator's estranged wife: Via Mal Contends and Blogging Blue.

Little of the above appears to have been confirmed by more traditional means, but it is true that Randy Hopper, Republican of Fond Du Lac, is embroiled in divorce proceedings and headed for trial, and it is true that Persuasion Partners Inc. scrubbed Sen. Hopper's alleged Madison girlfriend from its website yesterday.

Domestic arrangements substantially similar to marriage neither valid nor recognized in this State.

— Shorter Wis. Const., J. Appling, ed.

Persuasion Partners is a Republican PR/lobbying outfit operated by Darrin Schmitz,* famed orchestrator of the notorious Mike Gableman for Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign of 2007/08. Schmitz helped Gableman get formally charged with ethics violations, a case that dragged on for many months and the charges remain pending against Gableman: the State Supreme Court split 3-3 on its disposition, with Justice David Prosser, who himself stands for reelection on April 5, holding in sympathy with Gableman's aggressive rationalizations.

Hopper is believed to be the most vulnerable of the eight Republican State Senators against whom recall efforts are underway. If organizers can topple three of them then Democrats might regain control of the 33-member body. The others would most likely be the 8th Senate district's Alberta Darling and the 32nd's Dan Kapanke.

Sen. Darling's constituency presents an interesting challenge, as it straddles the affluent and increasingly liberal northern lakeshore Milwaukee County suburbs and the three most defiantly conservative counties in the State: Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha.

Sen. Kapanke's district spreads over five counties along the State's western border. Kapanke won the district in 2008 but narrowly lost the most populous (by far) of the five, La Crosse County. So the signature-gatherers know exactly where to concentrate their labors.

As for Randy Hopper, he should probably just resign.

* Schmitz calculated then-circuit court judge Gableman's rate of reversal on appeal by counting as cases thousands of uncontested traffic tickets, which Schmitz claimed Gableman had "presided over."

That a sly (or possibly clueless) partisan operator would pull such a risible stunt is unsurprising, but that a State judge with an advanced degree in law would let him get away with it is almost beyond belief.

Gableman panel empaneled

After a false start.

Reportedly, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is planning on challenging the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules provision he stands accused of violating:

A candidate for a judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent. A candidate for judicial office should not knowingly make representations that, although true, are misleading, or knowingly make statements that are likely to confuse the public with respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in the American adversary system.

Emphases added.

This means Gableman will have to show that the above Rule (SCR 60.06(3)(c)) operates as an abridgment of free speech under the First Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gableman, despite having been narrowly elected nearly seven months ago, continues to speak through his campaign manager, Darrin Schmitz. Schmitz appears to claim that because each and every individual sentence in the contested advertisement is "truthful," so therefore is the overall communication conveyed by the ad.

Thus I suppose if I tell you that the moon is made of green cheese, it must be true because there is a moon, there is cheese, and there are things that are green, out of which other things can be made.

My question is, how many Gableman votes was the ad's alleged "truthfulness" responsible for. The panel may not reach that question, but it seems pretty much dispositive to me.

It certainly was intended to sway voters.

WI judges support Butler 24:1

The JS Online has a handy searchable database for comparing the official endorsements of both Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler and challenger Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman.

In response to Butler's new television ad, Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz says, "A bi-partisan majority of sheriffs and district attorneys have spoken loud and clear that Judge Gableman is their choice for the Court; not Louis Butler. Slick television ads can’t erase a long record of anti-law enforcement decisions and loopholes."

Aside from the latter claim being comically preposterous (par for the course), Schmitz's "bi-partisan majority" can't touch the regard in which Butler is held by his professional peers, Wisconsin judges.

According to the database, Butler's April 1 retention is supported by 146 judges, compared to just six who favor Gableman. That's a ratio of 24:1. I respect law enforcement as much as the next guy, but if the fear — groundless or otherwise — is that Butler's jurisprudence makes their jobs more rigorous by holding their feet to the constitutional fire, then the civil libertarian in me says, so be it.

Gableman gets one more kick at the can

Beleaguered State judge Mike Gableman has until tomorrow to counter the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's rebuttal to his attempt to have the ethics case against him dropped.

It appears that Gableman's impending response will be the last paper filing before the matter is finally set for a public hearing in front of a three-judge panel. The judges and the venue, Waukesha County, have long since been selected and it's about time Wisconsinites are entertained to Gableman's oral presentations.

According to the WJC, a teevee advertisement approved by Gableman during his 2008 election campaign "contains a false statement of fact that [Gableman] made intentionally or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity."

Doing so is a violation of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct for which Gableman may face a number of sanctions, including his removal from the Supreme Court.

Gableman has continued to insist variously that all of the messages contained in the ad were "true" and even if they weren't, whatever he said or implied is protected by the First Amendment.

Ironically, Gableman and his well heeled supporters had referred disparagingly to some provisions of the Constitution and other statutory protections as "loopholes" and "technicalities."

But apparently they come in mighty handy once you find yourself the respondent in a disciplinary proceeding.

In the meantime, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has reportedly hired Gableman's campaign manager, Darrin Schmitz, as his political spokesperson. Schmitz is a real class act.

And according to Van Hollen's website, his campaign treasurer is Margaret Farrow, another Gableman supporter who helped spread misinformation and falsehoods about former Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler. It's quite the little gang State Republicans have here.

Over the last couple of years I've had occasion to meet a lot of lawyers who know Louis Butler and have known him for decades. Without exception they have nothing but the highest praise for his skill and integrity as a lawyer, as a judge, and as a person.

I've always maintained that the 2008 judicial election was a travesty and that impression is only reinforced by the regard his peers have for Butler. It's an absolute disgrace how Gableman and his supporters and enablers attempted to destroy this man's good character.

Gableman needs to pay something for that.

Loophole Randy

Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy R. Koschnick, who today announced his upcoming challenge to Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, worked as a public defender for 14 years prior to securing his present occupation.

As we all learned last spring, being a public defender involves "looking for loopholes" through which to set hordes of indigent criminal defendants loose on the streets so they can reoffend.

Even decades after the public defender has become an appeals court judge, he's still doing it.

Looks like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce may need to retool its multi-million-dollar advertising campaign and their fluffers like Charlie Sykes will have to fabricate a whole new schtick.

In another sense, however, we could be in for more of the same:

Judge Koschnick said he was a judicial conservative and that his opponent was an activist who legislates from the bench.

The only missing magic word there is "restraint."*

His consultant is Darrin Schmitz, a Republican who ran Gableman's campaign for the court earlier this year.

That's one busy consultant.

I must say, Schmitz is an excellent choice and should serve well to erase any residual cynicism left over from that most recent contest.

:rolleyes:

* Please see Erratum, supra.

Gableman grievance has merit

Unlike the United States Constitution, which places only a requirement of "good Behavior" on Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin a "supreme court justice ... must be an attorney licensed to practice law in this state."

Because of that State constitutional provision, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman's investigation by the Office of Lawyer Regulation might be even more troublesome for him than is his concurrent inquiry with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

While removal from the bench is by far the most severe disposition that may result from the Judicial Commission's activities, the OLR, depending on the circumstances of its investigation, can petition the Supreme Court to suspend Gableman's license to practice law, the granting of which petition would render Gableman ineligible to serve on the court (or any State court, for that matter).

Gableman's campaign consultant, Darrin Schmitz, calls the grievance filed with the OLR "frivolous." Unfortunately for Schmitz, it's his own objection that's without any merit because the OLR would not have appointed a special investigator unless "there [was] sufficient information to support an allegation of possible misconduct."

In other words, the Office of Lawyer Regulation has already made a determination that the complaint against Gableman has some merit. Otherwise the OLR would have closed the matter had the grievance not "present[ed] sufficient information of cause to proceed."

But why a Republican "campaign consultant" is still speaking on behalf of a sitting State Supreme Court Justice is anybody's guess. After all, it's consulting with Republican operatives that got Michael Gableman into this latest pickle in the first place.

eta: Gableman merits Howard Bashman's blawg.

Ron Johnson's Headlines of the Damned

The Chief rounds 'em up:

Wis. Senate candidate wavers on sale of BP stock

— Chicago Tribune

Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson undecided about selling BP stock

— Appleton (WI) Post-Crescent

Republican Wis. Senate candidate Johnson who said he'd sell BP stock, now says he may not

— Minneapolis Star Tribune

(Schmitz as in Darrin Schmitz, that is.)

Koschnick launches website

And this is big news, apparently.

A tip o' the toque to Grumps, who inquires: 'Whatever happened to Todd Allbaugh?' To which one might add, 'Whatever happened to Darrin Schmitz,' the Republican operative and erstwhile Gableman campaign guru in whose name KoschnickForSupremeCourt.com is registered.

(Whereat Judge Koschnick is still soliciting both completed nomination papers* and Facebook friends.)

* Minimum 2,000 required by the Feast of the Epiphany, 5 p.m. Facebook friends quantity currently undetermined.

Supreme Court race is warming up

The other day I mentioned a complaint that One Wisconsin Now lodged with a campaign watchdog group (WJCIC) over some election literature put out by Michael Gableman, the Burnett County Circuit Court judge who's challenging incumbent Louis Butler's seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

OWN raised a question of whether Gableman had made any “pledges, promises, or commitments” in an attachment to a letter that briefed a handful of Butler's opinions and stressed the “stark contrast” in which Gableman comparatively stands. Aspirants to the bench may not make such promises connected to certain “cases or controversies” that might come before the court.

OWN's concern arose because Butler's opinions are necessarily quite specific with respect to questions of law and, essentially, the narrower the question, the closer Gableman comes to making a “promise” by presenting himself in “stark contrast” to Butler's disposition. It's a tricky business made trickier by Gableman's own (no pun intended) right to free speech.

While the WJCIC decided not to take formal action, which according to its regulations and procedures includes investigations and formal notification of the parties involved, it issued a statement in response to OWN's complaint that primarily consisted of a reiteration of the intent behind the relevant sections of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct. End of story? Not quite.

The Gableman campaign responded with its own (pun intended) press release, which contained what turns out to be the unfortunate remark, “Louis Butler and his allies cannot hide the fact that he consistently sides with criminals over law enforcement.”

The implication being, it seems to me, that Gableman's "stark contrast" means consistently siding with the government in criminal cases. Hence the question of whether such pronouncements are edging toward "pledge, promise, or commitment" territory.

Now it seems that Tom Basting, the President of the State Bar and chair of the WJCIC, is not amused. And he directed a letter today to Gableman himself, saying so.

In it, Basting upbraids Gableman's lieutenant Darrin Schmitz for the remark and expresses dismay at the Gableman campaign's broad mischaracterization of the original WJCIC reply: “This is precisely the kind of campaign rhetoric that I and other members of WJCIC hoped we would not hear or read.”

I expect there is — and will be — much consternation in the one camp, and considerable chuckling in the other. Perhaps now is the time for the third candidate, Charlie Schutze, to leap into the fray. Virtually nothing has been heard from him, apart from a gratuitious "also running" in the occasional press report.

eta: And a bit warmer yet.

Recalling DOMA sponsor Sean Duffy

Item: Among co-sponsors is Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI)

Earlier: Crudely drawn penis raises ire at Tea summit

feat. "Duffy campaign spokesman Darrin Schmitz."

And: "Social conservative" explains gay agenda

Your daily irony

If you spend all of your time and resources responding to these negative, slimy attacks, you're not doing the best job you can in terms of delivering your own positive message.
— Republican "Persuader" Darrin Schmitz

Something's in the Hopper with Randy

WKOW27's Tony Galli is relentless:

Candidates for various jobs in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s administration were passed over despite recommendations from high-level officials, while a woman with ties to Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) was hired to a position with an immediate thirty five percent salary increase, without formally being recorded as a job applicant.

And now that lovable zany Reince Priebus is in the Hopper also.

Valerie Cass, 26, was with the Madison Republican PR and quasi-lobbyist outfit Persuasion Partners* for a time, until she got disappeared when the randy saga first got hopping. PP's Darrin Schmitz helped Republican State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman traffic in the basest of base political sleaze. Gableman was elected to the court on April Fools' Day 2008 and promptly and formally charged with violating the Wisconsin code of judicial ethics.

* It even sounds like a dating service.

On teh web: Thoughts of Chairman Priebus

Concern troll GOP candidate is concerned

Butler's narrow defeat in his run for a full term on the court came after special interest groups poured millions of dollars into a sleazy and dishonest attack campaign that played on racial stereotypes and was condemned by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

— The (Madison, WI) Capital Times

Dave Westlake, candidate for U.S. Senate from Watertown, announced today his concern regarding the nomination of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler to the U.S. District Bench by Sens. Feingold and Kohl.

— Westlake campaign press release

First of all, Senators don't nominate federal judges, Presidents do. An aspirant to the U.S. Senate might want to check into that, just in case that's one of the imaginary powers he's seeking as a candidate.

Second, round about 20% of the State's registered voters turned out to do so on April 1, 2008. The other 80% are probably wondering how in the world they've been "disrespected." That is, if they even care.

Third, and most importantly, there is the brute fact that State elections have absolutely nothing to do with either the federal judicial nominating process or the qualifications of the nominees.

And rightly so. It was never intended to be a popularity contest.

Bewitched, bothered, and a little insulted

The Republican candidate Dave Westlake said he was "surprised," "puzzled," and a "little insulted" by the nomination, citing Butler's narrow electoral loss to a person, Michael Gableman, who is currently under investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for lying about Butler's record as a public defender two decades ago.

Nevertheless, apparently the foregoing "concern" has become the latest petulant conservative Republican fauxtrage du jour, spearheaded by F. James Sensenbrenner (R-West Bend G&CC), a member of the House of Representatives and as such having nothing whatsoever to do with either the nomination or confirmation process.

On cue, the utterly predictable right-wing "opinion makers" have since weighed in, including a reputed local university instructor in the finer points of journalistic ethics who, in concert with an outfit called the Coalition for America's Families, was personally (and professionally, assumedly) responsible for some of the most scurrilous and defamatory attacks against Justice Butler.

"Butler," that journalist opines today, "possesses a great deal of integrity." One needn't require any additional evidence that irony died a gasping and unceremonious death a long time ago.

For some people, at least.

But even assuming that State election results are somehow at all relevant to the Article III judiciary, consider the following.

Eleventy thousand uncontested guilty pleas

The Western District of Wisconsin, the federal jurisdiction Louis Butler has been nominated to, is comprised of 44 of the State's 72 counties and in fact Butler won the aggregate vote there by a margin (53% to 47%) greater than was Gableman's statewide.

Within the Western District of Wisconsin, Louis Butler prevailed in five of the eight most populous counties, including the most populous one — Dane County — where the federal court is situated, and where he received more than 72% of the votes cast.

Additionally Butler even won Ashland County, where Gableman prosecuted the "war on crime" as district attorney and presumably where they might well have known Gableman the best.

True, Gableman strutted away with the prize in Burnett County (pop. 16,196) at least partly on the strength of the fact that not one of the 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets over which he presided there as a circuit judge was ever petitioned before any courts of appeal.*

So, yeah, according to Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-Concours Motors) et al's own reasoning, Wisconsin voters did indeed choose Louis Butler for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Most of Gableman's 2008 electoral patrons live in the remaining 28 of 72 counties within the Eastern District, a separate federal jurisdiction, so none of them has anything to worry about anyway.

They might just as effectively complain about Obama's nomination of Abdul K. Kallon to the Northern District of Alabama.**

* Lest anybody thinks that I'm making this up or kidding around, that was an actual claim made by Michael Gableman and his delightfully urbane campaign manager, Mr. Darrin Schmitz. Seriously.

** Come to think of it, they probably will.

Charlie's Club For Mirth

Another brouhaha has broken out in the election campaign pitting incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler against challenger Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman. Some Republicans calling themselves the Club For Growth got their hands on a series of e-mails among some members of the WJCIC, a watchdog committee set up by the president of the State Bar of Wisconsin to monitor campaign materials and statements.

One supposedly "influential" local blogger describes the e-mails as "breathtaking" and claims the WJCIC has been "Caught In Blatant Lying." He also obsequiously credits right-wing Milwaukee radio and teevee shouting head Charlie Sykes with "tak[ing] the trouble to excerpt some of the more troubling bits" (in fact all Sykes did was copy and paste material from the Republican outfit's webpage. Sykes can't even be troubled to spell Justice Butler's name correctly).

Some of the more entertaining portions of the e-mails concern Sykes himself. The committee briefly discusses, for example, an earlier Sykes cut-and-paste job from the Club For Growth's website alleging the committee's supposed "direct ties" to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and wonders whether it should formulate a response. Committee member Bill Kraus observes, "Replying to Charlie is the equivalent of getting into a pissing contest with a skunk."

Interestingly, in the same Sykes blog entry of January 3, which described the WJCIC as "a scam," longtime Republican Kraus is portrayed as the only committee member without a tie to Doyle.

In another instance of Sykes and his fellow GOP hatchet-persons wanting it both ways, the Club For Growth's initial complaints centered on the WJCIC's lack of ideological, gender, and "minority" diversity. Since then, committee chairman Tom Basting has apparently sought (and implemented) ways to increase both the size of the committee and its diversity, citing recommendations made by similar judicial watchdog groups in other States.

But since many of the e-mail messages also express concerns about the committee's perception among the public, Club For Growth cherry picks through these to portray Basting as a liar — a liar for making moves to rectify complaints the Club For Growth made in the first place. Or, as the blogger in the funny pants puts it, "Blatant lying."

Last I checked, that's a pretty serious charge.

For a crowd that has devoted so much time and energy to dissecting the WJCIC and pooh-poohing its power, mandate, influence, legitimacy, etc., they sure do seem to take it pretty seriously nonetheless, don't they.

If the WJCIC ever desired a higher media profile — and there is considerable evidence in the e-mails that it does — this gang of Republican hucksters is sure handing it over on a silver platter.

Meanwhile, Basting and Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz continue their war of words, in a pair of letters available via WisPolitics.com, here (.pdf) and here. And the ever dependable young GOP operative Daniel Suhr proves once again that he's incapable of reading a Louis Butler opinion by wondering why the Butler campaign describes its principal as a scholar, preferring instead a definition that includes 'student editor of the law review and writer of magazine articles.'

Doubtless there will be much more to come in the days hence. Grumps of the Happy Circumstance fortuitously provides the appropriate words of wisdom, from the desk of H.L. Mencken:

Has the art of politics no apparent utility? Does it appear to be unqualifiedly ratty, raffish, sordid, obscene, and low down, and its salient virtuosi a gang of unmitigated scoundrels? Then let us not forget its high capacity to soothe and tickle the midriff, its incomparable services as a maker of entertainment.

Finally, One Wisconsin Now reveals its own rummaging into the circumstances of Michael Gableman's current employment:

Gableman's Suspicious Appointment