Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Green gets a mild spanking

I wondered whether he could get away with a TV spot in which the narrator actually claims the Journal Sentinel said something it didn't say, like: "The Journal Sentinel reports Doyle secretly rigged the State Elections Board vote to try to steal the election."

The newspaper responds with a mild rebuke, flogging Green with a wet noodle:
Editorial: Green ad steps over the line

A recent television ad for Rep. Mark Green includes the caution, "Don't be fooled."

We agree. The ad says the Journal Sentinel reports that Gov. Jim Doyle "secretly rigged a state Elections Board vote to try and steal the election."

Don't be fooled. The newspaper didn't write that. News stories reported on calls from a Doyle campaign attorney to Democratic members of the Elections Board before a key vote that was to determine if Green should return nearly $468,000 that went from his congressional campaign fund to his governor campaign. Another news report cited a call from the state Republican Party head to a board member on the same matter.

A Sept. 22 editorial mostly bemoaned the blatant partisanship of the Elections Board in that vote and urged reform that would remove partisanship from such decisions. Specifically, it urged passage of legislation that would have removed the partisanship.

But the editorial also agreed with board counsel that there was likely nothing illegal about those calls, though it welcomed an investigation into whether open meeting laws were broken. So, "rigged?" "Steal?"

There is something rigged here, but that would be the system itself. In campaign finance generally and on the Elections Board, partisanship trumps the public good. Board members are chosen in a system that ensures partisanship.

Yes, some of Doyle's campaign finance actions do raise smoke. As does the timing of an endorsement of Green by Realtors and home-builders, more than $100,000 from these interests and a proposal he issued on housing regulations.

Ethics is a worthy issue in this campaign. But misrepresenting what's reported won't help the cause.
Boy, that smarts.


At 9:44 PM, Blogger Art said...

Note the editorial said "calls". They weren't calls, they were e-mails.
Other than if you're dealing with a "walking quorum" issue related to rapid fire e-mails, there's not any difference.
But the blogosphere demands stone cold accuracy. I wonder if anyone else will catch this.

At 10:41 PM, Blogger christopher robin said...

This is the same elections board lawyer who told the board that the transfer Green made wasn't illegal.

I'm sure more e-mails are on the way from Doyle's lawyers instructing the board how to react.

The differance between the phone call from the Republicans and the e-mails from Doyle's lawyers is one instructed the board how to penalize the opponent and the other was to inquire as to the status of the boards decission.

Whether or not the system of appointments for the board makes the decisions political is the least of the problems in this decision.

The fact that the Doyleys felt coaching the members behind closed doors was appropriate and the fact that they were successful is frightening enough. True believers in fair elections should be ashamed that this could happen at all, regardless of the process of how the board was put together.

For those of you who feel this sort of manipulation of the process is okay because your side gains an advantage should be a little nervous about the prospects for the future if you find your interests on the wrong side of governor Doyle and his contributors.

If you were ever sued and later learned that the plaintiffs lawyer had contacted and coached the jury on how to frame their decision would you be crying foul? Is this all that different?

At 10:47 PM, Blogger boblaughalott said...

Uh, mild rebuke. The paper nailed Green lying. I mean Green had a decent issue with the lobbying -- and he way overreached and flat out lied. He was called on it. Yet another screw up by his campaign.

At 1:28 AM, Blogger Forward Our Motto said...

Well if it makes you feel better, Green might be in for a severe, er, spanking, from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign:

At 6:31 AM, Blogger Silent E said...

Can someone tell me if there is a difference between being a lawyer for a specific campaign and being the head of a political party? It seems to me that the head of a particular political party would not be controlled by one candidate where the lawyer for a specific candidate would.

At 11:32 AM, Blogger Interloper said...

Why should we expect ethics from someone like Green who learned the game in DC from the likes of Delay and Ney? No surprises here.

At 12:47 PM, Blogger Karliots said...

So Doyle runs ads this past week accusing Green of breaking the law, based on an ethics board decision that Doyle's attorney helped write, and the editorial board has no problem with that. Now the editorial board criticizes a questionable ad by Green. Either criticize both ads, or don’t criticize either ad. To question Green’s ad and not Doyle’s ad is wrong.

It probably doesn't matter, since everyone knows the JS editorial board is a joke anyways.

At 4:46 PM, Blogger Bookman said...

karliots sad: "It probably doesn't matter, since everyone knows the JS editorial board is a joke anyways."

Actually the editorial board is the only bit of sanity left at the Journal/Sentinel. Excuse me, Eugene Kane is also an island of sanity there as well.

I find it very interesting that almost none of the grundge team supporters are responding to the specifics of this Xoff post: that team grundge lied about the text and tone of the J/s story.

At 5:01 PM, Blogger Silent E said...


Post a Comment

<< Home