Dumb and Dumber - The Wisconsin State Journal Opinion Page

With apologies to Monona resident and WSJ editorial writer Chuck Martin. Don't blame him, he's just the hired help.

The Opinion page in today's WSJ reminds me why we are going to be so much poorer for the loss of paper-edition of The Capital Times .

First, the State Journal's editorial board refuses to make an endorsement in the state Supreme Court race! Instead, they tell the readers that they want an elitist 'merit' selection system (see last Sunday's editorial). Whatever. Right now, much to the chagrin of the editors the voters still choose our state justices. It should go without saying that this race is of vital importance. The differences between the candidates could hardly be clearer.

The Milwaukee JS had no qualms endorsing Butler. State Supreme Court: Butler the clear choice for bench

Yes, it has been a nasty race especially from Gableman's side (yes, Virginia, in a mud-slinging race one side is often worse than the other). Gableman does not believe that defense attorneys should provide zealous representation to criminal defendants - even though they are required to do so by the code of ethics (Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys).

It is impossible to believe that the WSJ editors don't know which candidate they support. Isn't the point of editorials to give readers the benefit of their informed opinion? If they can't endorse in this race, they should quit writing editorials.

Which observation leads me to Scott Milfred's unintentionally uproariously funny column (Milfred: Odd race Downtown could be telling) in which he suggests that challenger Scott Heyn might just be able to pull off an upset of County Board Chair Scott McDonell. Put down the pen and step away from the table, Mr. Milfred. This district is in the heart of Downtown Madison, McDonell is a politician who takes his job seriously. McDonell is not the kind of politician who will be caught napping - and even if he is pulling a Rip Van Winkle, McDonell will still awake Wednesday morning with a lopsided win.

Milfred recognizes the improbability of the upset, but suggests that the margin of victory could be telling. Of course, he doesn't tell the readers what margin of defeat would be a victory for the forces of conservatism in Downtown. The entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated argument that all those new condo dwellers (not all of the condos are empty) must be making Downtown more conservative. Maybe, maybe not. These folks have more money, but are people who want to live in the heart of a more urban Downtown really likely to be in the vanguard of the Right?

Milfred cherry picks his data to make an upset seem plausible, if unlikely. "McDonell won his seat with only 550 votes the last time he faced competition". Well, that's almost true, McDonell actually got 555 votes, but his opponent only got 110. That's like more than 4 to 1. Milfred also relates that in the 2004 Presidential election, Bush got 1500 votes. Yeah, but Kerry received about 6500 votes!

One wonders what's the point of writing this column. Amongst all the races on our plate, the best he can do is construct this fairy tale of gossamer thread?