Ah, to be a baggage-free blogger;The Yorkster has figured out how

Let me apologize in advance if this is too inside baseball. My worst fear is that I become part of the blog world where bloggers spend all of their time writing to and about each other.

I'm still new at this blogging business, but I'm starting to think I might have gone about it all wrong.

I've done this in a very public way, putting myself out there on a wide range of topics (some would say whether I know anything about them or not.)

Everyone who reads this has a pretty good idea where I'm coming from. I've been doing Democratic campaigns in the state for 20 years. That's a lot of baggage. A quick Google will produce all sorts of information, which provides a background and sometimes a filter or prism through which some people view my comments.

That also allows critics to dismiss most anything I say by questioning my motives. I'm just a Doyle/liberal/Democratic/pinko/whatever flack, they say. And that relieves them of any obligation to deal with the substance.

But what if I could reinvent myself and start with a blank slate? Maybe write under a pen name. Chris Williams? Christine Williamson? Whatever.

That's the approach my blogging associate on the right, Dennis York, has taken.

I first encountered his blog awhile back when he had a piece on WisOpinion. I checked out the blog, found it interesting, insightful, and well-written, and began to link to entries there. He thanked me, via e-mail, for helping to expand his audience when he was just getting started.

I was naive enough to think that his name was Dennis York. Turns out it wasn't, that it is a nom de plume he uses online. His "complete profile" on his blog says he is a male from Madison. There is no way to know if that's even true. Maybe her name is Denise. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's telling the truth about his gender and location.

What an advantage to have no past, no baggage, no political connections that anyone knows about. That is freedom of speech in its purest form.

I stumbled onto the fact that Dennis is actually his Clark Kent identity when he named five "good" Democrats and asked me to come up with five Republicans I could stand to be in the same room with. I asked him in an e-mail for a little more information about himself. He replied:

I'd just prefer to let people keep playing the guessing game as far as who I am. I just started this blog to make a couple of my buddies who work in the Capitol laugh - they feed me the good stuff, and I write. It's kind of scary now - nobody was really ever supposed to actually read it, but it looks like they are.

OK, fair enough. I went ahead and did an item about the "best" Republicans, just to be a good sport, although I qualified it by saying I am not a Capitol dweller, live in Milwaukee, and am blissfully ignorant of the identify of many state leggies. I hope to keep it that way. I called York someone "who dwells in the shadows," but the light still had not come on that he was not really Dennis York.

When Wisconsin Public Radio called to ask if I would do a show with Dennis York to discuss and compare our respective lists (not debate), I said yes. I was curious to see what he would say -- which was no. He talks about it on his blog:

Followers of my blog know that, for obvious reasons, I couldn't possibly go on air - although it would be a blast. So I propose that anyone that wants to go on air as Dennis York, be my guest. We could even turn it into a little competition, to de-pants Xoff on air. Debate to your heart's content. I already told them I couldn't do it, so it may take a little backtracking.

I am almost serious.

So, have I helped to create a monster? He posts my photo, but won't tell us his identity. He invites me to name some decent Repubs, then critiques my choices. (I restrained myself from commenting on his five Dems, even when one was Julie Lassa!)

Does his Man in the Mask routine disqualify him from participating in this great debate in the blogosphere? Of course not. It simply means that you have to read his comments in a vacuum, without having any idea what his own motives or biases might be. There is simply no context.

Would you read him with a grain of salt if you knew he worked for John Gard, for example? Or if you knew he was a lobbyist for the Realtors? Or whatever? What are those "obvious reasons" he can't identify himself? Is he a Supreme Court justice? Covered by the federal Hatch Act? On Huber Law work release? Married to Julie Lassa?

One thing his anonymity does do is allow him to speak his mind about Republicans as well as Democrats without having to worry about fallout. That is the best argument for a secret identity. I would probably -- no, undoubtedly -- be a little more candid and tougher on some Dems if I had the luxury of being anonymous.

Maybe one of these days the real Dennis York will stand up. Until then, keep a sharp watch. If you uncover his identity, I'd be curious. I'd even offer a reward -- maybe $2. (I didn't say I was that curious. I'm just somewhat bemused by the whole concept.)

Keep on blogging, Dennis, whoever you are. As we used to say in the newspaper business, "I read all your stuff."

---

On the McBride matter:

The Yorkster wonders why I mention Jess/Jessie/Jessica McBride/Bucher so often. Simple explanation, the same one I offered when one of Scott Walker's people asked why I write about him so much: Easy target.

McBride burst onto the Wisconsin blogging scene in earnest recently and has gotten a fair amount of attention, and not just from me.

But she seems conflicted about what role she wants to play. She has three personas; no wonder she needs three names.

Sometimes she wants to be taken seriously as a political pundit, offering her advice to Walker, for example, about how to get his gubernatorial campaign back on track. I don't know that she's ever run a campaign, but it ain't brain surgery, so have at it, I say. Walker needs all the advice he can get, good and bad.

Then she'll turn around and act like a playground gossip, chanting "I know something you don't know and I'm not gonna tell you." Typical post: "There's some really big news going to break tomorrow, and I know all about it, and it's really exciting, and people will be really surprised, and I can't wait until people find out, but I just can't tell you."

And, finally, she's a media and writing critic. When someone who teaches college journalism and makes fun of reporters' writing on her blog writes something like,

There will be a surprise twist in the Waukesha County executive race on Monday morning. I know what it is, but I can't reveal it yet. All I will say is that I think it's a really good decision for all parties involved. But it will definitely surprise people, because it's unexpected.

I feel an obligation to point it out. (After I did, she edited it to get rid of "because it's unexpected.") She needs an editor, but I'm not volunteering.