Some Executives Lead the Way

Earlier this week the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia held a hearing on domestic partnership benefits legislation. The hearing consisted of three panels of experts including Wisconsin's own Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Her presence was certainly no surprise since she was the one to introduce the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (DPBO). Baldwin was also joined by an executive from American Airlines, who helped make the case for full benefits for gay and lesbian employees and their partners. In many ways American Airlines has led the way in this specific area and the executive encouraged that the government do the same for its employees.

In the area of domestic partnership benefits and LGBT equality, a good portion of corporate America is certainly leading the way. For example, in the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) annual Corporate Equality Index report, 260 companies scored a 100 percent. For comparison, only 13 scored that high back in 2002 when HRC first published the report. Two of those 260 are corporations that are headquartered in Wisconsin. Those two are Milwaukee-based law firm Foley and Lardner and Racine's S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. Wisconsin corporations scoring a 100 percent on the Equality Index were behind all of our neighboring states with the exception of Iowa.

Illinois 22

Minnesota 12

Michigan 8

Wisconsin 2

Iowa 0

Surly there are other Wisconsin-based corporations that would do just as well on the Equality Index, perhaps they simply didn't know how to participate. One would think that organizations such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), that purport to represent these corporations, would make it their job to inform their members of such honors (especially if they have earned them through outstanding policy). On the other hand, WMC was found severely lacking when the question of equality came in the form of the discrimination amendment of 2006. Perhaps the new Wisconsin Business Council will do a better job for Wisconsin and its membership in this area. Perhaps they will see the value in following the strong national trend toward equality for LGBT workers.

Read the full 2009 Corporate Equality Index (large pdf)

Latest Brief Filed in Fight Over Amendment

Yesterday a brief was filed in the case William C. McConkey v. J.B. Van Hollen. The case is a challenge to the discrimination amendment that was passed in Wisconsin in 2006. Michael Leon gives us the details in the following blog posting at MAL Contends today.

Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban

The Attorney General's reply is due on August 13. It will be interesting to watch him try and make the argument that the discrimination amendment didn't violate the "single subject" rule provided in our state constitution.

Robin Vos Tinfoil Hat Business

A new business group has been formed by a diverse set of Wisconsin business leaders. It is called the Wisconsin Business Council, and according to the initial reports, it will broaden advocacy for business and lessen the poisonous politics of groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC). WMC had become little more than the sugar daddy arm of the Republican Party and its increasingly narrow and negative advocacy has became a major part of what is wrong in our state. If this new group is set to take a more productive track, then I think that this could be very welcome news. We shall see.

But not everyone is happy about the forming of the Wisconsin Business Council (WBC). One such person is the clueless (but ever talkative) State Representative Robin Vos (R-Caledonia). Perhaps he feels threatened because he and his party may not get the unquestioned support that they have enjoyed from WMC. Reacting to the new group, Vos made the absurd claim that it was simply a "front group" for Governor Doyle. He says this based only on the fact that one person on the organization's board used to work for the Governor. Perhaps Vos should have checked the list of other names involved before he shot off his mouth so quickly.

For example, are we really supposed to believe that former Thompson aide Jim Klauser is part of a "front group" for Governor Doyle? He is already the lead cheerleader for Mark Neumann. Joining Klauser on the advisory board is Republican money bags Fred Luber who has repeatedly been a fundraiser for Scott Walker's endless campaigns for governor. If you believe Vos, then Luber is apparently a double agent. The WBC board also includes former Thompson aide Phillip Prange and former Scott Walker Chief of Staff Jim Villa. Oh the betrayal! This grand conspiracy (that only Robin has detected) is getting more complicated by the moment!

Doesn't Robin own a popcorn business? Maybe he missed his true calling. Given this knee jerk reaction, maybe he would be better at manufacturing tinfoil hats.

Professor McBride Lectures Jim Klauser

Great news for the Scott Walker campaign! Recently popular UWM journalism instructor, Jessica McBride, has offered her endorsement of him. She did so in her most recent column in the Waukesha Freeman. She also takes the opportunity to lecture Republican big-wig and former Tommy! official Jim Klauser. It has been no secret that Klauser has been courting any Republican but Scott Walker to run for governor next year. He has clearly settled on former congressman Mark Neumann, who made it official a few days ago. Well, Mark Neumann and Jim Klauser should know that the professor does not agree.

In her Freeman column she makes the following pointed observations:

The Republican Party needs to unite around one candidate early and the powers-that-be or want-to-be (are you listening, Jim Klauser?), need to keep Neumann from entering the ring in the first place. (One could argue that the party already has rallied around Walker, but let's end the Neumann speculation now). For the life of me, I can't understand why Klauser and other holdovers from the Tommy Thompson regime are not rallying around Walker but are, to the contrary, attempting to recruit opponents against him.
I respect Neumann, but I think he's vulnerable to caricature by some of his extreme comments on social matters. I also think that the general public has largely forgotten his name.

For the rest of the column McBride offers a glowing (and delusional) review of the Walking failure from Wauwatosa.

Neumann: In Your Face Walker

We have already been tracking the many ways that perpetual candidate Scott Walker has delivered an "in your face" to his Republican Primary challenger Mark Neumann. Now that the former congressman has made his run against Walker official, he has delivered a few "in your face" moments back to Walker this week.

First, Neumann has received a ton of press for making his run official this week. The number of stories about him across the state absolutely dwarfs any coverage that Walker had recently (including his failed self promotion tour last week). Also Neumann took the opportunity to repeatedly drive home the talking point that he is a better choice than Walker because of his private sector experience and Walker's extreme lack thereof.

Now that this primary is officially on, it will be interesting to watch the coming "in your face" moments. Perhaps even more interesting will be what is said and done behind the scenes. For example, Walker recently announced that right-wing sugar daddy Michael Grebe as the chair of his campaign. At the same time Republican big wheel Jim Klauser is actively backing Neumann. Something tells me that we might miss some of the most interesting "in your face" moments but we will do our best to watch for them and blog all about it.

Is MacIver Tolerant of Racist Jokes?

Yesterday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Daniel Bice reported on a very racist comment made by the blogger for the MacIver Institute. Apparently the MacIver blogger felt it was appropriate to make the following comment on his Twitter account:

"Got my stimulus package in the mail today. It contained watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and ten coupons to KFC."

These words are obviously very offensive and inappropriate on all levels. Given the wild rhetoric coming from the right-wing since we elected our first African American president, I'm not that surprised to see such words. Sadly it isn't the first example and it wont be the last. However I am a little surprised at the lack of a response by the conservative MacIver Institute.

When asked by Bice about his blogger's comments, MacIver President Brett Healy decided to give no comment at all. He claimed that he had not seen the tweet and wanted to read it first. I wonder if Brett has bothered to look at the comment yet and if he can now give an actual statement? How does he feel having his org's blogger making such statements? Does his silence equal official MacIver approval of such racist jokes?

In Your Face Neumann: The Gingrich Edition

I have been trying to track the several ways that Scott Walker has been delivering an "in your face" to his Republican primary opponent for governor, former Congressman Mark Neumann. First it was Walker making his official announcement in what could be seen as Neumann's own backyard. Then he hired a guy that ran Neumann's failed run for U.S. Senate in 1998. In another "in your face" moment, Walker trounced Neumann in a Wispolitics straw poll of Republican party members. I also highlighted how Walker's supporters are being quite nasty towards the idea of Neumann running against their guy. Yesterday yet another "in your face" moment came but this time Walker had a nationally known figure to help deliver it.

GOP has-been Newt Gingrich came to Milwaukee to attend a fund raiser for Scott Walker. Although Gingrich claimed that his appearance was not an official endorsement of Walker, The Hill newspaper described the event as being a clear snub to former Congressman Mark Neumann. Neumann served in Congress during Gingrich's infamous time as Speaker of the House (before being forced to resign in shame). It seems pretty clear that this was just the latest in what is becoming a long line of "in your face" moves by Walker. I have to wonder how many more are planned before Neumann even gets out of the box and how nasty will they get after he formally jumps into the contest?

UPDATE: Now read Heartland Hollar's interesting take on the Gingrich visit and why some people are clearly not being honest with the people of Wisconsin.

Walker Wink and Nod Watch #3

LaCrosse Tribune reports: "Walker said the promotional ride will do no more to boost his gubernatorial campaign than doing a good job back home."

Surprise! This small story is less about promoting Milwaukee and more about Walker's campaign and whether this trip was on the level.

It is worth noting that while Walker was on his self promotion tour, he had to "call it in" to get into a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story yesterday. It was about a major Milwaukee based company being sold. Not only is it Milwaukee County based but it is also the biggest tenant at the Milwaukee County run airport, Midwest Airlines. While other local officials were on hand to meet and speak with all parties involved, Walker was too busy doing a bad job of promoting himself and was satisfied with only a canned press release. What did he say about "doing a good job back home" again?

Walker's little bike ride ends today and I am actually quite surprised at how little coverage the stunt has received outstate. I'm talking about coverage at all. So far I have found 3 stories that mention his campaign for governor and only 2 stories that mention strictly tourism in Milwaukee County. With a wink and a nod you can check one more in the fail column for Walker.

Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine (HAARM)

I found a new convservative group that appears to be passing all of their talking points directly to Republican officials, Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine or HAARM for short. Take a look at their message strategy sessions in the videos below:

By the way, I have been meaning to ask conservatives why they want to take away my free choice of having a public health care option? I thought they were against taking away consumers choice when it comes to healthcare reform?

Michael Steele’s $100k Joke

Last week I blogged about getting an "urgent!!!" email from RNC Chairman Michael Steele. He was faking all sorts of outrage that ABC News was going to cover the issue of health care reform including a town hall on the subject at the White House. Steele and the media arm of the Republican Party at Fox News kept calling it "unprecedented" coverage even though Fox specialized in much worse coverage when Bush tarnished the White House. As part of last week's fake outrage, Steele asked me to contribute money to help fund an ad on ABC to put out an attack ad on real health care reform.

Yesterday Michael Steele was kind enough to send me another email updating me on the status of this "urgent!!!" fundraiser. Based on that email I found out the "great" news that they had reached their fundraising goal of $100,000!!! Is he serious? Their goal to run an ad on a national TV network in prime time was $100,000? What markets were they planning on running this ad in exactly, Minot North Dakota? I'm starting to wonder if this was all some kind of joke. They sent out a pretty large email blast last week because it somehow included me and yet they only reached a $100,000 goal? Wow, either this really was a joke or perhaps the Republican Party has become a total joke.

Speaking of jokes…in this weeks email Steele misrepresents the President's goals for real health care reform. Stuffed with the usual hyperbole and straw man fallacies, the Steele update attacked the public OPTION piece of the President's plan. If Steele is going to continue sending out "urgent!!!" fundraising emails to a wide cross section of Americans, he may want to do a little better market tested research next time. New polls show overwhelming support for a public OPTION. Attacking such a popular feature might not be the best strategy when you are trying to raise money…unless the average American isn't really your prime constituency.

One Question that the Journal Sentinel Must Answer

There has been much discussion about the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's report regarding the affair between UW-Milwaukee Journalism instructor, Jessica McBride and Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn. The day that the story appeared on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's front page I even heard a sports program talking at length about the subject. Thus far I have not addressed it at all on my blog. Although I don't care about what other people do behind closed doors, in this case I think that the Journal Sentinel was justified in reporting the story. It involves a prominent public official and a well known reporter/commentator who also happens to teach journalism at a public university. I think that it is nearly impossible to deny that there are very legitimate ethical questions that should be asked regardless of the exact timeline of events. So I think on several levels this story was a legitimate one to print.

The fact that I think that the MJS was justified in running the story does not mean that I agree with the way that they handled it and with every word that they have and have not printed about it. In fact, based on Michael Mathias blog at Pundit Nation, I think that there is still at least one important question that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel must still answer. Michael blogged Tuesday about a list of questions that he sent to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel managing editor George Stanley and he gave some of Stanley's responses to them. One of Stanley's responses stuck out to me and I think it calls for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to answer at least one more important question regarding this entire issue. If the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says that this was a print worthy story, then why didn't some of these same MJS people report on a similar incident with McBride while she was still working for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?

While reporting about this current scandal, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel disclosed that when McBride was working for them as a reporter that they had to move her assignment when they found out that she was dating then-Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher. They obviously couldn't allow her to continue reporting on Bucher once they found out that she was dating him. But given their defense of their current reporting, why didn't they report this incident? How was it any different other than it would have made them look bad instead of their competitor Milwaukee Magazine? It appears that they discovered that she was dating Bucher while she was also responsible for reporting on him. He was a prominent law enforcement official and appeared to still be married to his previous wife at the time (based on the date of the divorce filing). So what exactly is the difference between this incident, which the MJS didn't say a peep about and the one that they promoted to the front page last week? Although there are many other legitimate questions being raised right now, this is one that George Stanley and the other officials at MJS must answer.