• Wisconsin’s dump of Trump

    April 7, 2016
    media, US politics, Wisconsin politics

    Christian Schneider on The Donald:

    Up until this week, Trump had been a tsunami, gathering size and strength as he moved closer to the Republican nomination. A Trump nomination would drown the party’s chances of winning the presidency, keeping the U.S. Senate and could even put Republicans’ historic majority in the U.S. House in play. Clinton couldn’t have planned it better herself.

    But then Wisconsin happened.

    On Tuesday, like parents scolding a young child, Republican voters in Wisconsin sent Trump to sit in the corner to think about the damage he had done. Ted Cruz’s landslide victory in Tuesday’s primary deeply wounded Trump’s chances of earning enough delegates to win the nomination at the party’s convention in July and exposed Trump’s dreadful lack of judgment for voters in upcoming states. As New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza put it on Twitter, Wisconsinites are now the GOP’s “designated drivers.”

    In the days leading up to Tuesday’s primary, pundits had been saying Trump imploded in Wisconsin, which drove his negatives higher and fueled his flaccid showing. But this is wrong. Trump, in fact, behaved in Wisconsin the same way he had in every other state. In the past two weeks, he was just as boorish, poorly informed and vulgar as he has been for the previous year, only this time, he ran up against two weeks of uninterrupted coverage in a state where conservatives can spot a phony.

    Perhaps the worst sideshow in Trump’s parade of cluelessness through Wisconsin was attacking Gov. Scott Walker, for whom conservatives have spent five years walking over hot coals to defend. At one point, Trump even rapped Walker for not having raised taxes to give to schools and highways — which is a bit like strolling into a Weight Watchers meeting chowing down on a double Whopper with cheese. Often, Trump would use anti-Walker facts and figures provided by Wisconsin Democrats; when Republicans heard him blame Walker for phony state “deficits,” they likely had flashbacks to the union protests of 2011.

    To his credit, Cruz took advantage of other candidates dropping out of the field, quickly gathering their support. But Cruz’s support is still milquetoast among state GOP voters; it remains to be seen how much of the Cruz vote was “stop Trump” and how much was real enthusiasm.

    Cruz has a 58% approval rating among Wisconsin Republicans. Compare that to the 84% approval enjoyed by Scott Walker and Paul Ryan’s 75% approval. In fact, many Wisconsin voters may have simply voted for Cruz thinking it was the best way to get to an open convention where the wildly popular Paul Ryan could step in and become the party’s nominee.

    But all those machinations are for another day. For now, Wisconsin can take pride in being the state that stood athwart the tide and yelled “Stop!”

    On Tuesday, Wisconsin Republicans slapped Donald Trump with a restraining order — now it’s up to the remaining states to enforce it.

    William F. Buckley Jr., perhaps the only person in American history to use “athwart” in a sentence, was no fan of Trump, as you know.

    Trump’s bizarre on-the-stump behavior is apparently making an increasing number of people wonder how serious he really is in running. Stephanie Cegielski, formerly of the Make America Great super-PAC, wrote …

    You can give Trump the biggest gift possible if you are a Trump supporter: stop supporting him.

    He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.

    … which made Richard Zombeck conclude:

    Donald Trump does not want to be president. In fact, he never wanted to be president. His entire campaign has been a long con and a ruse to strengthen his brand and feed his ego. ..

    So let’s assume that all of that is true. Donald Trump can’t just quit. After all, he’s Donald Trump. The next logical step would be to take a fall — possibly losing the nomination by a small margin. But again, if you’re Donald Trump you don’t lose. If you’re Donald Trump and want to get out while still maintaining your brand and your dignity, you play the long game and come out looking like a victim. In a sense, you spin it so that your supporters think you’re so accurate in your assessment of the world that it frightens the establishment into shutting you down — you’re that powerful.

    Over the course of the last week, Trump has made headlines and drawn attention by doing and saying things that are completely contrary to what anyone would consider sane.

    Trump’s conversation with Chris Matthews on MSNBC about abortion was just the beginning. During the interview he told Matthews that women who seek abortion should be punished — a stance even the hardliners in the GOP think is preposterous. Not to mention, women are the largest demographic in this country. There is no path to nomination without their support. Why would anyone alienate them?

    Speaking of women, Trump completely fumbled the issue of his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who was criminally charged for an altercation with a reporter. Rather than remain impartial or simply fire the staffer, Trump instead impugned the character of the reporter who was manhandled by Lewandowski.

    Later that week while speaking at an event in Wisconsin, Trump told the audience that the Geneva Conventions hinder our efforts. The Geneva Conventions are made up of four treaties, most of which cover the humane treatment of enemy combatants and civilians.

    “The problem,” Trump said, “is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight. We can’t waterboard, but they can chop off heads. I think we’ve got to make some changes.” Trump also suggested that South Korea and Japan be allowed access to nuclear weapons, a suggestion that deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said would be “catastrophic.”

    “The entire premise of American foreign policy as it relates to nuclear weapons for the past 70 years has been focused on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states,” Rhodes said.

    Trump also said he would not be opposed to using nuclear weapons in the Middle East or in Europe, during the above-mentioned interview with Chris Matthews. …

    Adding whipped cream to this well-crafted sundae of incompetence and ignorance, Trump called in to a conservative Wisconsin radio show and blasted Gov. Scott Walker.

    But you had a $2.2 billion budget deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he [Walker] didn’t want to raise taxes because he was going to run for president. So instead of raising taxes he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, cut back on a lot of things. And that’s why…Wisconsin has a problem.

    The host of the show, Charlie Sykes, is probably one of the most influential voices in Wisconsin’s talk radio arena. Sykes is also so strongly opposed to Trump that he’s vowed never to support him in any election. This is clearly something Trump had to have known going into the interview. It’s hard to believe he didn’t.

    The cherry on the aforementioned sundae? Wisconsin is home of 42 delegates. All of which are up for grabs and could potentially put Trump closer to the nomination. Rather than appear himself, he sent Sarah Palin. One more time: He sent Sarah Palin. The Huffington Post reported:

    Palin’s speech at a Republican gathering in Milwaukee  fell flat and earned little applause from about 750 attendees, according to the Journal Times. The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker reported that Palin got some laughs when she said, “Trump talks rationally.”

    And in that same speech—the one in which she claims that Trump talks rationally—she said this about Trump’s opponents:

    What the heck are you thinking, candidates? What the heck are you thinking when you’re actually asking for more immigrants — even illegal immigrants, welcoming them in.  Even inducing and seducing them with gift baskets: “Come on over the border and here’s a gift basket of teddy bears and soccer balls.”

    Trump is no dummy and is not known for making stupid mistakes. Yes, he’s brash, uncouth, and maybe even ignorant on many issues, but he is not stupid.

    Trump started the layout’s role of victim on Fox News last week. On Friday during a phone interview, Donald Trump, when asked about his comments on MSNBC, said, “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.”

    MSNBC quickly responded with a statement, saying, “The town hall interview with Donald Trump was taped in advance and then aired in its entirety. Absolutely no part of the exchange between Trump and Chris Matthews was edited out.”

    Even Chris Wallace, during a “Fox News Sunday“ interview, asked Trump, “Are you in the process of blowing your campaign for president?” …

    Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus, who had met with Trump about becoming their communications director, confirms most of this, telling the National Review:

    I believe Trump senses he is in over his head and doesn’t really want the nomination. He wanted to help his brand and have fun, but not to be savaged by the Clintons if he’s the candidate. He wouldn’t mind falling short of a delegate majority, losing the nomination, and then playing angry celebrity victim in the coming years.

    What began as a con will end as a con. Trump will continue to make bombastic, ludicrous and inane comments, proving to the media—who are all too eager to give him all the attention he wants—that he is wholly unqualified for the job. Other republicans will chastise him for the things that he says, proving to his followers that he is being targeted by an establishment that is afraid of him. Trump will walk away unscathed, his brand strengthened and his dignity intact. He will be the guy who nearly became president, but was too much for people to take. In many ways and on many levels nothing could be more accurate.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Wisconsin’s dump of Trump
  • Our partisan cold civil war

    April 7, 2016
    US politics

    UCLA Prof. Lynn Vavreck:

    Americans are angry. That’s the sentiment that many believe is driving the 2016 election. They are angry because the rich are getting richer, the average guy is struggling and the government in Washington hasn’t done anything to stop the trend.

    But it may not be that simple.

    Data on the nation’s economic recovery, people’s reactions to current economic conditions and their overall sense of satisfaction with life doesn’t suggest Americans are angry. In fact, historical measures indicate people are about as happy and satisfied with the economy and with their lives as they were in 1983 when Ronald Reagan told us it was “morning again in America.”

    If that’s the case, why does it feel more like a 1 a.m. bar brawl?

    The answer may have more to do with political parties than economics, or at least with the interaction of the two. Today’s voters have sorted themselves and polarized into partisan groups that look very different than they did in the late 1980s. To make matters worse, members of each side like the other side less than they did before. Americans aren’t annoyed only by the economy; they’re also annoyed with each other.

    Objective economic conditions measured by the Federal Reserve suggest that the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession began in 2010, when gross domestic product began to expand, unemployment began to fall and real disposable income began to increase. By 2015, the misery index — a combined measure of unemployment and inflation — was about as low as it had been since the 1950s, which means there was an active demand for goods and services along with low unemployment and inflation.

    Most Americans seemed to appreciate this growth. Data on the Index of Consumer Sentiment, one of the longest-running measures of Americans’ views of the economy, show that by the end of 2015, consumer sentiment was as positive as it had been in the mid-2000s and mid-1980s. It was nearly identical to where it was at the end of 1983, when Mr. Reagan’s re-election romp — based almost entirely on the victory over stagflation — began to take shape.

    Even breaking the consumer sentiment data down by income levels does little to buoy the argument that Americans were pessimistic. From 2009-2015, the average gap in economic satisfaction between the upper and lower thirds of the income distribution was 13.7 points, much lower than it was during the Reagan years (21.3) and lower than the gap during the administrations of George H.W. Bush (14.7), Bill Clinton (16.7) and George W. Bush (18.4).

    As we entered 2016, Americans — of all income levels — felt positively about the economy even though by some indicators many people had not recovered their losses. The employment-population ratio and median household income, for example, had only begun to recover in 2015.

     

    To get a sense of whether these economic factors were affecting the general mood of the nation in a way not captured by consumer sentiment, I examined one of the longest-standing measures of general happiness. Since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked people to “take things all together” and rate their level of happiness. The 40-year trend shows only modest changes — and may actually suggest a small increase in happiness in recent years.

    Describing Americans’ mood as distinctively angry in 2015 elides this evidence. Americans were optimistic about the nation’s economy and generally happy — in fact, no less optimistic or happy than they had been historically.

    But there was an increasing sense in the fall and winter of 2015 that many Americans were filled with contempt. Using analytic tools provided by Crimson Hexagon, I calculated the average monthly increase in the share of news articles about the 2016 election that contained the word “angry.” Between November 2015 and March 2016, the share of stories about angry voters increased by 200 percent. Where was the sense of gloom coming from?

    Some evidence suggests that the ire was derived directly from politics. When asked by various pollsters about trusting the government, the direction of the country, American progress or the president, Americans were gloomy — gloomier than their economic assessments might have predicted. When broken out by party, these pessimistic views reveal a growing partisan divide, one that has been distilling around racial attitudes for nearly two decades.

    The increasing alignment between party and racial attitudes goes back to the early 1990s. The Pew Values Survey asks people whether they agree that “we should make every effort to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment.”

    Over time, Americans’ party identification has become more closely aligned with answers to this question and others like it. Pew reports that, “since 1987, the gap on this question between the two parties has doubled — from 18 points to 40 points.” Democrats are now much more supportive (52 percent) of efforts to improve racial equality than they were a few decades ago, while the views of Republicans have been largely unchanged (12 percent agree).

    That Democrats and Republicans have different views on issues — even issues about race and rights — is not surprising. But recent work by Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his co-authors shows something else has been brewing in the electorate: a growing hostility toward members of the opposite party. This enmity, they argue, percolates into opinions about everyday life.

    Partisans, for example, are now more concerned that their son or daughter might marry someone of the opposite party (compared with Britain today and the United States in 1960). They also found that partisans are surprisingly willing to discriminate against people who are not members of their political party.

    We’ve entered an age of party-ism.

    Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Tesler, a University of California, Irvine, political scientist, explained that because the growing partisan divide is partly fueled by racial attitudes, partisans (in Washington and in the electorate) also take increasingly opposite positions on many racially inflected controversies.

    Some are squarely political like police misconduct. But others spill over into areas like sports, music and movies, which we often think of as more social than political. Disagreements between people about nominations for the Academy Awards, for example, may now become emotional as well as political if they involve racial attitudes because of the sorting of these attitudes by party and the contempt people feel for the other side.

    Democrats and Republicans like each other a lot less now than they did 60 years ago in part because they have sorted into parties based on attitudes on race, religion and ethnicity. These attitudes and emotions have been activated in the lead-up to the 2016 election, sometimes by terrorist violence and other times by candidate language itself. Add to this mix the fact that the country is becoming less white and that nonwhites are disproportionately more likely to be Democrats, and an explanation for the anger that filled the air in 2015 emerges.

    Vavreck terms this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing, when if you’ve been reading social media comments over Donald Trump it’s a Republican vs. Republican (as self-described) thing too. There is less hate between Democratic supporters of Hillary! and Comrade Sanders, but it shows up on occasion as well.

    You will not be surprised that the vast majority of the comments blame Republicans for this, thus proving Vavreck’s point. It is impossible to imagine how this will go away. It is hard to imagine that the hate will not spiral until, sometime this year, a political candidate or supporter (or maybe more than one) will be assassinated by someone from the other side.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Our partisan cold civil war
  • Presty the DJ for April 7

    April 7, 2016
    Music

    Today in 1956, the CBS Radio Network premiered Alan Freed’s “Rock and Roll Dance Party.”

    The number one single today in 1958:

    Today in 1962, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met someone who called himself Elmo Lewis. His real name was Brian Jones.

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 7
  • The April 5 Demodisaster

    April 6, 2016
    US politics, Wisconsin politics

    On Friday, my opponent on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Joy Cardin (or substitute host) Week in Review predicted, among other things, that Hillary Clinton (for whom she apparently is an official representative, whatever that means) would win the Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary and Joanne Kloppenburg would be elected to the state Supreme Court, while claiming that the Republican Party is “in ruins.”

    Her conclusions began with a false premise. I am not a Republican, but an objective observer who can count would notice that 31 states have Republican governors, and 23 states, including Wisconsin, have Republican governors and GOP control of both houses of their legislature. In contrast, there are 18 Democratic governors, and only seven states have complete Democratic control of their executive and legislative branches. All of that took place before Donald Trump decided to run for president as a “Republican.” Perhaps she meant “ruins” as an acronym, something like Republicans United In Neutralizing Socialists, or something.

    So what happened in Wisconsin yesterday?

    First: The anointed Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost, by 13 percent to Comrade Sanders.

    I maintain that Hillary! will still get the Democratic nomination, because the fix is clearly in thanks to her support among Democratic superdelegates. It is not, however, a good sign for her that Sanders has won seven of the last eight Democratic votes, despite the fact that Democratic economists from the last two Democratic presidential administrations have nothing good to say about Sanders’ economic ideas.

    Yesterday I got an email from someone from the Hillary! campaign suggesting I read the transcript of Sanders’ meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board. The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart summarizes:

    The more I read the transcript, the more it became clear that the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination doesn’t know much beyond his standard stump speech about breaking up the banks and how he had the good judgment to vote against the Iraq War in 2002. …

    From his own plans for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks to how he would handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to dealing with the Islamic State, the man giving homegirl Hillary Clinton a run for her money seemed surprisingly out of his depth. …

    1. Breaking up the banks …

    2. The legal implications of breaking up a financial institution …

    3. Prosecuting Wall Street executives for the financial collapse of 2008 …

    Considering this is the core of his campaign message, Sanders should know all of the points covered in 1, 2 and 3 inside and out. He should have been able to lecture his interrogators into a stupor with his detailed knowledge. Instead, Sanders sounded slightly better than a college student caught off-guard by a surprise test in his best class just before finals. …

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most vexing and vital for the occupant of the Oval Office. It bedeviled Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. And as we learned from Jeffrey Goldberg’s excellent piece on “The Obama Doctrine,” our current president has given up. Solve that foreign policy Rubik’s Cube and you might unleash broader peace on the Middle East. But it requires being able to answer 4, 5 and 6 with finesse, which can’t be done if you “don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions.” …

    Paris was attacked. Istanbul was attacked. Brussels was attacked and is basically a bedroom community for terrorists seeking to destabilize Europe. And several African nations have been terrorized by Islamic State affiliates. That Sanders “[doesn’t] know the answer” to whether the president has the right policy against the Islamic State is unacceptable. …

    “Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot”?!  C’mon, man! What makes Sanders’s responses to all of these foreign policy questions even more troubling is that he spoke with more clarity and certainty on foreign policy during a speech on March 21.

    That is who a majority of self-identified Democrats voted for yesterday. That proves that Sanders is indeed the Democrats’ answer to Trump, which brings us to …

    Second: The Democrats’ preferred Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, lost, by 13 percent, to Ted Cruz.

    As a Cruz non-supporter, I find this good news merely because it makes Trump’s path to the GOP nomination more difficult, and makes the bizarre specter of a brokered convention more likely. Like Sanders instead of Clinton, Cruz has the momentum and not Trump. Although the numbers people say Cruz cannot win the nomination on the first ballot, it’s starting to look as if, unless momentum swings differently in the coming weeks, Trump can’t either. It seems that Trump, who polls enormously negatively in November poll questions, can only get the support of about one-third of Republicans, and he’s been winning because the anti-Trump vote has been spread among too many candidates. Now it’s not.

    Trump may never come to Wisconsin again given how his week went. He began with the smart move of going on conservative talk radio with four hosts who have made clear their opposition to Trump — Charlie Sykes, Jerry Bader, Vicki McKenna and Mark Belling. It was a smart move, until Trump opened his mouth and revealed himself to be unprepared (the biggest sin of all when appearing on talk radio) and basically making it up as he goes.

    Trump then doubled down by going on Illinois talk radio to castigate Gov. Scott Walker, who earlier that day had endorsed Cruz. (Walker said when his presidential campaign ended that the GOP needed to unite behind a candidate not named Trump, so his endorsement was certainly not unexpected.) Trump attacked the Act 10 reforms that are only the most successful Republican policy objective in my lifetime in this state, and on which, following Recallarama, Walker and Republicans maintained control of the executive and legislative branches of state government. Then came his taking five different, and of course contradictory, positions within one day on abortion rights.

    There are Trump supporters who are rightly angry with the state of things, political, economic and otherwise, in this country today. (The same applies to some Sanders supporters, even if their anger is focused on the wrong things and they have absolutely wrong policy solutions for those issues.) There are Trump supporters whose anger blinds them to political realities, such as the fact that Americans do not support stopping immigration of Muslims or anyone else, or deporting Muslims (both of which I think are Trump’s position, at least until he changes them again), and the fact that supposed Republicans In Name Only like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan are vastly preferable to the Democratic alternative. (Remember when Peter Barca represented Ryan’s House of Representatives district?)

    How did Trump react? This is his campaign’s purported statement:

    (Note to future non-establishment presidential candidates, regardless of party: Feel free to castigate the party establishment, or establishments, but for your campaign find someone who knows what the hell he or she is doing.)

    The biggest non-politician winners of Tuesday, in fact, may well have been Sykes, Bader, McKenna and Belling, who were castigated by some people I mentioned one paragraph ago as establishment toadies, Republicans In Name Only, sellouts, etc. Those four dared to ask Trump questions and bring up issues that such national talk show hosts as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and others failed to do in their Trump worship. I may well be biased in believing that Republicans need to do a better job in and with the news media, and politicians and candidates shouldn’t complain about being asked tough questions, but if Trump folds like a cheap folding chair against conservative talk show hosts, what do you think will happen when he faces the national media this fall?

    Third: There were, according to current unofficial totals, 96,000 more votes cast in the Republican primary than in the Democratic primary.

    My theory for several weeks has been that Trump has gotten a lot of votes from Democrats who either crossed over in open-primary states (of which Wisconsin is one), or even changed their party identification to vote for the GOP candidate easiest for Hillary! to beat in November. That could help explain why Trump suddenly is not so successful the past few weeks, in that he’s lost Democratic votes as the Democratic primary has gotten more competitive.

    The bigger issue for Democrats is that the GOP would seem to have an advantage going into the fall vote, which is good news for U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin) and whoever wins the Eighth Congressional District GOP primary, along with chances for the GOP to finally end the Democratic run of wins of Wisconsin’s Electoral College vote. As the financial types say, past performance does not necessarily predict future results, but any Democratic excuse for falling nearly 100,000 voters shy of Republicans when there was one big statewide race fails to hold water. And speaking of which …

    Fourth: The Democrats’ preferred state Supreme Court candidate, Joanne Kloppenburg, lost to Rebecca Bradley, appointed last year by Walker after the death of Justice Patrick Crooks.

    Kloppenburg wasn’t only the Democratic choice. My opponent Friday claimed that Milwaukee County lawyers had determined Bradley to be “not qualified.” Kloppenburg also got the endorsements of the liberals who run the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal opinion pages. And yet, Kloppenburg has now equaled the state Supreme Court election success level of former Justice Louis “Loophole Louie” Butler. (Butler, however, still has the edge in being (1) the first sitting justice to be defeated for reelection since the mid-1960s, and (2) having been nominated and rejected by non-vote three times by the U.S. Senate for a federal judgeship.)

    Republicans obviously need to not get a big head or exaggerate the state of things based on last night. (To quote the financial types, past performance does not necessarily lead to future results.) It is possible, though no better than a 50–50 chance, that Democrats could take over the Legislature by winning at least 11 of the 16 state Senate races this year. (There are eight Democrats and eight Republicans whose seats are up this year; for the Democrats to gain control of the Senate they have to hold all eight of their seats and flip three Republican seats. As of now two GOP incumbents, Sen. Rick Gudex (R–Fond du Lac) and Mary Lazich (R–New Berlin), are not running, but Democrats have little hope of winning Lazich’s seat, while Gudex won a narrow election against a Recallarama winner in a good Democratic year, but Gudex’s seat at least leans Republican. Sen. Duey Strobel (R–Saukville) was elected in a special election last year without Democratic opposition after winning a three-way GOP primary; that tells you how likely Democrats are to win that seat.) There is less chance than that for Democrats to win back control of the state Assembly. (Democrats would have to retain all 36 of their Assembly seats and win 14 seats now held by Republicans.)

    Even if both of those events were to happen, a Republican with the strongest veto power in the U.S. — either Walker or, if a Republican president appoints Walker to a cabinet post (someone online suggested making Walker secretary of labor, which would make Wisconsin Democrats’ heads explode), Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch — will be governor, and five of the seven Supreme Court justices will be conservatives. Whether you like Republicans or not, the GOP is definitely in charge in Wisconsin politics even in statewide races, as proven yesterday.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    1 comment on The April 5 Demodisaster
  • Looney Tune La Follette

    April 6, 2016
    Wisconsin politics

    Actually, my headline is an insult to the art form known as Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons. A thousand apologies.

    And Secretary of State Douglas La Follette owes Wisconsinites at least 1,000 apologies for what Media Trackers reports:

    The current Wisconsin Secretary of State, Doug La Follette, has written a book titled Survival Handbook: A Strategy for Saving Planet Earth in which he calls for population control, saying parents should be sterilized after having a maximum of two kids.

    The book is conspicuously placed outside of his office in the basement of the Wisconsin state Capitol.

    Doug LaFollette is a self-proclaimed American academic and  environmental activist.

    He ran in the 2012 Democratic primary during the special election to recall Governor Scott Walker.

    For all of the attention liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media have given to old editorials penned by a Supreme Court candidate decades ago, they have for some reason managed to overlook applying that same scrutiny to the incumbent Secretary of State. Perhaps his party affiliation plays a role in that lack of scrutiny.

    Besides promoting multiple weird ideas on how the world is being polluted by noise and how the automobile may be our “worst addiction” (pg 69), La Follette also devotes an entire chapter of his book to advocating for population control.

    La Follette, who is elected to his office by voters across the state, claims in the beginning of the chapter on population control that the current population of the world is wantonly destroying the environment.

    LaFollette argues for the increased support of, and funding for, all international organizations working to limit population growth. One strategy he suggests is for the federal government to increase financial incentives  for smaller families through changes in the tax code. He also claims the state should fund and support family planning programs.

    LaFollette is third in line to be Governor under the succession of office sequence set up by the Wisconsin Constitution.

    Think Media Matters is making this up? Read for yourself:

    Your tax dollars at work, voters.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    2 comments on Looney Tune La Follette
  • Intellectual discrimination

    April 6, 2016
    Culture, US politics

    Virginia Postrel:

    A few days after the 2004 election, Gabriel Rossman went for a job interview with the UCLA sociology department. Rossman was finishing a doctorate at Princeton, and his research on how ownership affects mass-media content was a good fit for a school in the entertainment capital. He got the job as an assistant professor.

    But he also got a warning about academic culture. At a dinner following his day on campus, two of his future colleagues started ranting about George W. Bush’s re-election. One called it “a referendum against the Enlightenment.” Rossman smiled and nodded, never letting on that he’d cast his ballot for Bush.

    Rossman’s story appears anonymously in Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University, just published by Oxford University Press. He agreed to break cover because, he said, “I have tenure.” In an interview, he noted that staying in the intellectual closet doesn’t require actively lying, merely letting colleagues assume that everyone shares the same political views.

    For the book, political scientists Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr., who are themselves on the political right, conducted detailed interviews at 84 universities with 153 conservative and libertarian professors from six disciplines — economics, political science, sociology, history, philosophy and literature. Participants also completed a formal survey.

    Unlike the many conservatives who attack the academy, Shields and Dunn believe in its scholarly mission, and they maintain that right-of-center professors can flourish. “Right-wing hand-wringing about higher education is overblown,” they write in a recent op-ed drawn from the book, declaring that “conservatives survive and even thrive in one of America’s most progressive professions.” Many of those they interviewed expressed love for their institutions. “The university has really given me my life,” a literature professor told them. “It’s a very wonderful place.”

    Unfortunately, this happy portrait of thriving conservative scholars depends heavily on economists and professors old enough to recall the Carter administration. Unless left-wing academics come to value, or at least tolerate, political diversity, the study portends a bleak future for intellectual inquiry in the humanities and social sciences.

    Only the economists interviewed routinely expressed the conviction that their political convictions were irrelevant to their professional advancement and to the standards of research quality. (The authors seem surprised that right-of-center economists spoke highly of Paul Krugman’s scholarship, if not his New York Times columns.) Economics is also the only field Shields and Dunn studied where professors’ partisan affiliations mirror the general public’s. Marxists are more common in the social sciences and humanities than conservatives.

    The modern academy pays lip service to diversity. Yet as a “stigmatized minority,” the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments. “I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a prominent full professor told Shields and Dunn. He’s still hiding because he hopes for honors that depend on maintaining his colleagues’ good will. “If I came out, that would finish me,” he said.

    More often, conservatives follow Rossman’s strategy, hiding their views until they’re safely tenured. “Nearly one-­third of professors in the six disciplines we investigated tended to conceal their politics prior to tenure,” write Shields and Dunn. The number rises to nearly half when you exclude economics.

    The pattern has also worsened in recent decades. Among those over 65, only 7 percent hid their politics before tenure, compared to 46 percent of those under 45. Without the young economists, that number would look even more extreme.

    In their op-ed, Shields and Dunn downplay the common pre-tenure deception as “a temporary hardship.” But the dishonesty corrodes the mission of the university. For instance, a political scientist at a research university told the authors that he wouldn’t assign works byFriedrich Hayek in his political economy class before he was tenured. His fears of political ostracism thereby deprived students of exposure to an influential 20th-century thinker.

    Right-of-center scholars also learn not to ask research questions that might suggest the wrong political views. A historian told the authors he’d decided not to write his dissertation on the history of supply-side economics, because he feared the mere choice of the topic might reveal his deviance. So a significant movement in American political and intellectual history went unexamined.

    Conservatives can safely study ancient history but not modern American history, economics but not sociology. Literature, largely a politics-free zone until the 1980s, has become hostile territory. When a literature professor suggested that his department could increase enrollments by teaching Jane Austen, he told Shields and Dunn, one colleague “got very upset.” She said “that this was just a way of catering to the prejudices that students learned in high school, and after that she never spoke to me at all,” the professor reported.

    When scholars do venture into forbidden territory, or get politically unpopular results, they face stricter scrutiny than their peers. For empirical work, observes Rossman, reviewers ask “Must we believe this?” rather than “Can we believe this?” Quantitative methods do at least provide an accepted, apolitical basis for making one’s case. For historians and literary scholars, a leftist spin is all but required, with apolitical work often deemed boring. Shields and Dunn cite a literature professor who is a permanent adjunct despite a long record of publications. When he asked a colleague what was wrong with his vita, he was told, “It was a nice resume for 1940.”

    Shields and Dunn put a positive spin on their results because, like many of their subjects, they want to encourage others on the right to pursue scholarly careers. Research and teaching benefit from a variety of political lenses, they argue. The paucity of conservative professors also gives liberal scholars a misleading picture of the American right, reinforcing the idea that conservatism is incompatible with intellectual rigor. Liberal academics picture Rush Limbaugh rather than an intellectual peer.

    To the contrary, most of those interviewed expressed what the authors call a “Madisonian” political philosophy: “It is a political vision that values the discovery of common ground over ideological purity, learned elites over charismatic leaders, and reasoned appeals over passionate exhortations.” If institutions of higher learning refuse to make a place for scholars who share this vision, they will not only stifle inquiry. They will also deprive themselves of vital allies when the inevitable backlash comes to pull them down.

    Liberals wonder why there hasn’t been more hue and cry about UW System funding cuts. This helps explain the reason. When the intellectuals don’t support your right to have a point of view different from yours, and their party isn’t in control, the result should be obvious.

     

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Intellectual discrimination
  • Presty the DJ for April 6

    April 6, 2016
    Music

    Today in 1956, Elvis Presley signed a seven-year contract with Paramount Studios.

    The movies won no Academy Awards, but sold a lot of tickets and a lot of records.

    The number one album today in 1968 was the soundtrack to “The Graduate”:

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 6
  • A thought for those voting today

    April 5, 2016
    US politics

    It comes from Nick Gillespie, who starts with a Tweet and a chart:

    New York Times staffer and author of The True American: Murder and Mercy in TexasAnand Giridharadas posted the above to Twitter this morning.

    You never want to ascribe too much meaning to a single point, especially one made on Morning Joe, but the implications here are not only pretty clear, but pretty striking, particularly on the Republican side. Of course conservatives think things were better 50 years (or 100 years ago, or 25 years ago, depending on the personality and age of the person in question). That’s pretty much the definition of conservatism, isn’t it? That it “stands athwart history, yelling Stop,” or at least begging, Slow Down.

    So it’s not surprising that supporters of the two candidates who inveigh against political correctness, want to make the country more homogenous by kicking out (mostly Mexican) illegals and stop immigration more broadly, and invoke American Greatness like they’re being paid by the mention are fonder of the past than the present.

    More interesting to me are the barely optimistic responses by supporters of Sanders and Clinton. Even they cannot muster much fun feelings about the present. Are they too young to remember 50 years ago or too senile not to remember? Either way, there is simply no reason to believe that life was better in 1966, despite an absolutely killer year in music (more on this in a moment).

    To be fair, the presumption that those good old days were a) much better than today and b) gone for good is such a feature of the American psyche that it predates the founding of the country. The settlers in New England were convinced that things were going to shit about 15 minutes after docking at Plymouth Rock. By the late 1600s, pastors were already proposing “half-way covenants” to second-generation puritans who were drifting into secularism and a generation before the American Revolution we were already “sinners in the hands of an angry God.”

    Throughout the 1990s—those glorious, go-go years when even those of us who didn’t become tech gazillionaires saw our wallets fatten up and our life possibilities expand geometrically!—Reason published a never-ending stream of rebuttals (like this and that) to people proclaiming the death of the American Dream and invoking that old, horseshit-covered chestnut that “this next generation may be the first to have a lower standard of living than its parents…”

    So to me, what’s most striking to the chart above isn’t the spread between Trumpists and Clintonistas (though it is stunning, to be sure), it’s that only a bare majority of the latter feel things are better now than they were 50 years ago.

    In such a tepid response to the present, you see the failure not of America to deliver on the promise of a better, richer, freer life for those of us lucky enough to wash up on these shores before they are barricaded against foreign people and foreign goods (all the remaining Dem and GOP candidates are to varying degrees protectionist against both), but the failure of politics and the two major parties.

    I don’t mean to scant the authenticity of respondents and their feeling of despair, but c’mon already and get a grip. By orders of magnitude, we are all richer, smarter, and better off. We are more educated, we live longer, we smell better, we DIE LESS. In terms of lifestyle and speech, we are freer to express ourselves; we are objectively less racist, homophobic, sexist, and generally uptight. There are many serious problems in today’s world and this country: We document those several times an hour at Reason.com, in fact, and offer ways to remedy many of them.

    As Matt Welch and I argued in The Declaration of Independents, in most aspects of our lives—our personal lives, cultural lives, work lives—things are in fact improving. It’s in the areas of our lives governed by politics that things are stagnant, declining, or barely improving. The only large parts of our lives that haven’t gotten obviously better over the past 50 years include areas like K-12 education (where we spend about 2.5 times as much money to achieve exactly the same results), government spending (the government spends vastly more money per person and is succeeding mostly only in bankrupting future generations via old-age entitlements and dampened economic growth), and foreign policy (in 1966, we were in Vietnam; in 2016, we’re everywhere but Vietnam).

    You leave the hothouse sphere of politics—harder and harder to do, for all sorts of reasons—and most people suffer not from too few choices and opportunities but too many. That’s where our lives should be lived, far away from the madding crowd filled Team Blue and Team Red tribalists who vote on what kind of food we can eat, dope we can smoke, sex we can have. Party identification is “at or near historic lows” not because America has failed but because politics and politicians and partisanship have failed. Once we fully understand, accept, and act on this and create a government that is smaller, more effective, and less intrusive, who knows? We might actually start realizing that the present beats the past but pales in comparison to our future.

    For starters, the chart shows that logic escapes many people who vote. Sanders wants to blow up capitalism and take from those who actually earn money and give it to those who will never contribute anything to society. How can a plurality of Sanders voters actually believe that things are better now? The illogic of that attitude compared with what Sanders represents should make your head spin.

    It is almost as illogical for a majority of Hillary! voters to believe things are better today when Republicans control both houses of Congress and 31 governorships, and three times as many states have Republican control of executive and legislative branches of state government than have Democratic control.

    As for the assertions of our lives being better today (other than technologically, which is hard to argue against; whether we are medically better off depends on your opinions of the trade-off of longer life span vs. addiction to medication and/or spending many of your last years physically or mentally disabled), consider the comments:

    • Or maybe they think that government has grown exponentially along with regulation and interference in people’s lives and the economy, and we are in many ways less free.
    • The interference of the press into our lives, the fact that they chose socialism and the systematic omission of its ills.
      The fact that it is perceived as shameful to be patriotic – love your country, or even be a republican in Hollywood. Most of the actors of 1966 would kick the snot out of the present day crew.
      But they are after all cowards just like our politicians. If you don’t follow the narrative (BLM, OWS, LGBT, kneel before Islam), you just can’t make it – and not just in Hollywood. Just think of all the things you can’t talk about in mixed company these days. It is a type of oppression of freedom.
      RAAACIST!!!

    • Criteria please? Technology makes all of our lives better than fifty years ago. Big and really stupid gov makes all of us much less free than fifty years ago. Maybe Anand should compare apples to apples.
    • I miss when Democrats fought against mass spying, rights violations and the Patriot Act. We need another Republican president so Democrats once again become fans of individual rights. (Don’t laugh! I swear Democrats were more rights-friendly and suspicious of government when the GOP was in charge.
    • Except they weren’t. They were suspicious that the wrong Top Men had the levers of power. The comments and protests were all about BOOOOSHITLER, not Madisonian meditations on the importance of segregation of powers.
    • Nick, I think this sentence captures why many of us think we are worse off now:
      You leave the hothouse sphere of politics—harder and harder to do, for all sorts of reasons
      Technology is wonderful and liberating but the fact that government mandates intrude into more and more areas of our lives mean we are less free despite having all the technological toys to choose from, and the looming economic disaster you reference
      bankrupting future generations via old-age entitlements and dampened economic growth
      terrifies any of us who care about children. We are eating the seed corn here.
    • True, Pollyanna, I now have wifi and access to the sum of human knowledge at my fingertips. I can drive for a mere day to buy a plant. My glasses do not strangely magnify my eyes to the size of baseballs and I may even select contacts (*gasp* sorcery!). In return, here are samples of the things which were legal on the day of my birth.
      – not wearing a seatbelt
      – not having health insurance
      – children missing a dental cleaning every six months
      – drawing a picture of a gun
      – telling a cop “no”
      – walking to school
      My grandparents and father were not watched by their family doctor or the school district. The number of vaccinations they were required to get by law were surprisingly few. Their monthly budget held fewer items helpfully added by people at the legislature.
      Subjective opinions, how do they work? It appears to me, and the chart seems to agree, that freedom hasn’t expanded. It’s just been shifted around a bit. People think things are great now or great then based on whether the freedoms exchanged for oppression and vice versa worked out in their favor.
      We should aim for something better.

    Keep these in mind as you vote today:

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on A thought for those voting today
  • Talk radio vs. Trump

    April 5, 2016
    media, US politics, Wisconsin politics

    As a former panelist on “Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes,” now that the New York Times has written about Sykes I guess I can say I knew him when, or more accurately before:

    Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”

    So Mr. Sykes was surprised when the Trump campaign reached out on Easter Sunday to ask if the billionaire-reality-star-turned-presidential front-runner could come on his show.

    The 17-minute interview last week was contentious and combative, with Mr. Sykes pressing Mr. Trump to apologize for comments he has made denigrating women, calling him a 12-year-old playground tormentor, and lamenting that he had failed to introduce the bombastic New Yorker to Wisconsin’s “tradition of civility and decency.”

    Later in the week, as Mr. Trump crossed the state, he seemed to acknowledge the power of Wisconsin’s talk radio culture, which has been an anti-Trump force in the state, by railing aloud against it for deceiving voters.

    “In certain areas — the city areas — I’m not doing well,” Mr. Trump told voters in Racine, Wis., bemoaning his lack of support on talk radio. “I’m not doing well because nobody knows my message. They were given misinformation.”

    Mr. Sykes, along with a handful of other local talk radio hosts, has spent his mornings criticizing and castigating Mr. Trump over the airwaves. And if Mr. Trump loses the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, he will have Mr. Sykes and his merry band of talkers partly to blame.

    In a nominating contest that has exposed fissures in the Republican Party, Wisconsin’s conservative talk radio apparatus remains remarkably united in at least one belief — their deep and utter dislike for Mr. Trump, who for months has been the focus of their fiery attacks.

    “Can someone win without talk radio?” asked Mr. Sykes, during a commercial break from his show. “Yes, theoretically. Except no one has.”

    Wisconsin’s conservative talk radio has long played an outsize role in a state whose position in the Republican primary calendar has now given it heightened status in the nominating process.

    When Mr. Walker, who ended his own presidential bid earlier this year by offering a pointed rebuke of Mr. Trump, endorsed Senator Ted Cruz on Tuesday, he did so by calling into Mr. Sykes’s show. And the week before, Mr. Cruz kicked off his Wisconsin primary bid in a friendly interview with Mr. Sykes.

    Mr. Trump, by contrast, has found himself under near constant fire from the conservative talk radio hosts that dominate the southern part of the state, including the three counties that include parts of Milwaukee — Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington — that are among the most conservative in Wisconsin, and where Mr. Trump is struggling the most.

    The most popular conservative talk show hosts here — Mr. Sykes, Jeff Wagner of WTMJ, and Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna and Jay Weber of WISN — are united in their disdain for Mr. Trump, with Jerry Bader, a radio personality at WTAQ in Green Bay, rounding out the group.

    “The thing that’s been unique in this presidential race is, for some reason, the three who work here — Jay, Vicki and myself — and our competitors, Charlie and Jeff Wagner, all seem to despise Trump,” Mr. Belling said in an interview. “We all just kind of came to this conclusion independently. I think it’s just that we’re not as stupid as some of the people that are falling for Trump’s crap.”

    In Mr. Belling, Mr. Trump has found an antagonist who is just as bellicose as the real estate billionaire himself. In his broadcast on Monday, Mr. Belling called Mr. Trump “the biggest wussy of all time,” “a big crybaby,” and a “sissy,” before turning his attention to the campaign team and declaring: “His staff are probably just a bunch of butt kissers.”

    And that was just in the first hour.

    “It seems to me that if you are an intelligent, thinking conservative who cares about issues, you’d be mortified that this moderate loudmouth boor would be hijacking a movement that you cared about,” Mr. Belling said, later, in an interview.

    Nonetheless, on Monday, Mr. Trump made a round of calls to the state’s local radio hosts. The series of interviews, contentious and combative, did not go particularly well.

    Ms. McKenna challenged his promise to build at wall at the nation’s southern border — “What does it look like? Where does it go?” she pressed him — and urged him to declare “wives and kids off-limits,” after Mr. Trump’s public spatinvolving pictures of his wife, Melania, and of Heidi Cruz, Ted Cruz’s wife.

    Yet despite Ms. McKenna’s pleas that Mr. Trump “unify” the party, the interview ended on a rough note, with Mr. Trump hanging up on her.

    Mr. Bader, the host in Green Bay, began his interview with Mr. Trump bluntly as well. “I have some concerns about both your behavior and what I consider to be vague policy positions,” he said.

    In an interview, Mr. Bader described his conversation with Mr. Trump as “feeling like a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit.” “Like this isn’t real,” he said. “And to me that’s what his entire campaign feels like.”

    That Mr. Trump, who has singled out reporters he does not like and banned certain media outlets he deems critical from attending his events, has pandered to the talk radio crowd here not only highlights the group’s clout, but also may reveal a general election calculation.

    “The last thing you want to do as a Republican is irritate your base as you go into a general election in a swing state like Wisconsin,” said Mark Graul, a Republican strategist who ran George W. Bush’s campaign in Wisconsin in 2004 and has run other statewide races since. “And in many ways, talk radio is the voice of base Republicans in Wisconsin.”

    The Wisconsin electorate, which gave rise to Speaker Paul D. Ryan — a hometown congressman whose attraction is predicated on civil discourse and serious policy proposals — is particularly well primed for the talk radio pitch here, which appeals to both their sense of conservative principles, as well as their Wisconsin-nice demeanor.

    “For whatever reason, there is a pragmatism to Wisconsin hosts that you don’t see en masse in a lot of other hosts,” Mr. Bader said. “I believe I have a moral responsibility to do whatever small part I can in stopping Donald Trump. It’s beyond politics for me. I think he’s dangerous.”

    And from Mr. Sykes: “I think talk radio has been more substantive, more intellectually serious here and therefore less prone to embrace an entertainer.”

    “I feel very strongly that Donald Trump poses a fundamental challenge to the conservative movement, an existential challenge, so yes, I have made it my mission to stop him,” Mr. Sykes added.

    Sykes’ next to last quote is a bit ironic given that the godfather of conservative talk, Rush Limbaugh, makes no bones about being an entertainer. People tend to forget that radio is a business, and if your ratings aren’t good enough, you are a poor advertiser draw, and then out the door you will go. But given how long these six have been on the air, clearly their shows work. (As opposed to liberal talk radio, which keeps getting tried and keeps failing, with few exceptions like Sly and 92.1 in Madison.)

    I don’t listen to any of the six regularly anymore since their signals don’t get as far southwest as I am, and I don’t listen to them online because I work when they’re on the air. My past impression is that at least some of them, including Sykes, are avid boosters of Gov. Scott Walker specifically (in Sykes’ case going back to Walker’s Assembly days), and when I was a more regular listener I didn’t hear a lot of criticism of Walker. That could be part of their motivation for their Trump distaste, although all six were here during the heyday (if you want to call it that) of Act 10 and Recallorama, and Trump wasn’t.

    Sykes, on the other hand, is the inspiration of what has been called the “Sykes effect,” over positions favored by Sykes that might be at odds with GOP leadership. (The “Sykes effect” isn’t found where I live, where neither Sykes nor any other Wisconsin-based conservative talk radio exists.)

    The thing about what Sykes, Wagner, Belling, McKenna, Weber and Bader do, however, is that listeners are free to listen, or not.

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Talk radio vs. Trump
  • Presty the DJ for April 5

    April 5, 2016
    Music

    The number one album today in 1980 was Genesis’ “Duke”:

    Today in 1985, more than 5,000 radio stations played this at 3:50 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, which is 9:50 a.m. Central time (but Standard or Daylight?):

    (more…)

    Share this on …

    • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
    • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
    • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
    • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
    • Print (Opens in new window) Print
    Like Loading…
    No comments on Presty the DJ for April 5
Previous Page
1 … 631 632 633 634 635 … 1,035
Next Page

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog

The thoughts of a journalist/libertarian–conservative/Christian husband, father, Eagle Scout and aficionado of obscure rock music. Thoughts herein are only the author’s and not necessarily the opinions of his family, friends, neighbors, church members or past, present or future employers.

  • Steve
    • About, or, Who is this man?
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Adventures in ruralu0026nbsp;inkBack in June 2009, I was driving somewhere through a rural area. And for some reason, I had a flashback to two experiences in my career about that time of year many years ago. In 1988, eight days after graduating from the University of Wisconsin, I started work at the Grant County Herald Independent in Lancaster as a — well, the — reporter. Four years after that, on my 27th birthday, I purchased, with a business partner, the Tri-County Press in Cuba City, my first business venture. Both were experiences about which Wisconsin author Michael Perry might write. I thought about all this after reading a novel, The Deadline, written by a former newspaper editor and publisher. (Now who would write a novel about a weekly newspaper?) As a former newspaper owner, I picked at some of it — why finance a newspaper purchase through the bank if the seller is willing to finance it? Because the mean bank lender is a plot point! — and it is much more interesting than reality, but it is very well written, with a nicely twisting plot, and quite entertaining, again more so than reality. There is something about that first job out of college that makes you remember it perhaps more…
    • Adventures in radioI’ve been in the full-time work world half my life. For that same amount of time I’ve been broadcasting sports as a side interest, something I had wanted to since I started listening to games on radio and watching on TV, and then actually attending games. If you ask someone who’s worked in radio for some time about the late ’70s TV series “WKRP in Cincinnati,” most of them will tell you that, if anything, the series understated how wacky working in radio can be. Perhaps the funniest episode in the history of TV is the “WKRP” episode, based on a true story, about the fictional radio station’s Thanksgiving promotion — throwing live turkeys out of a helicopter under the mistaken belief that, in the words of WKRP owner Arthur Carlson, “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST01bZJPuE0] I’ve never been involved in anything like that. I have announced games from the roofs of press boxes (once on a nice day, and once in 50-mph winds), from a Mississippi River bluff (more on that later), and from the front row of the second balcony of the University of Wisconsin Fieldhouse (great view, but not a place to go if…
    • “Good morning/afternoon/evening, ________ fans …”
    • My biggest storyEarlier this week, while looking for something else, I came upon some of my own work. (I’m going to write a blog someday called “Things I Found While Looking for Something Else.” This is not that blog.) The Grant County Sheriff’s Department, in the county where I used to live, has a tribute page to the two officers in county history who died in the line of duty. One is William Loud, a deputy marshal in Cassville, shot to death by two bank robbers in 1912. The other is Tom Reuter, a Grant County deputy sheriff who was shot to death at the end of his 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift March 18, 1990. Gregory Coulthard, then a 19-year-old farmhand, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and is serving a life sentence, with his first eligibility for parole on March 18, 2015, just 3½ years from now. I’ve written a lot over the years. I think this, from my first two years in the full-time journalism world, will go down as the story I remember the most. For journalists, big stories contain a paradox, which was pointed out in CBS-TV’s interview of Andy Rooney on his last “60 Minutes” Sunday. Morley Safer said something along the line…
  • Food and drink
    • The Roesch/Prestegard familyu0026nbsp;cookbookFrom the family cookbook(s) All the families I’m associated with love to eat, so it’s a good thing we enjoy cooking. The first out-of-my-house food memory I have is of my grandmother’s cooking for Christmas or other family occasions. According to my mother, my grandmother had a baked beans recipe that she would make for my mother. Unfortunately, the recipe seems to have  disappeared. Also unfortunately, my early days as a picky, though voluminous, eater meant I missed a lot of those recipes made from such wholesome ingredients as lard and meat fat. I particularly remember a couple of meals that involve my family. The day of Super Bowl XXXI, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and a group of their friends got together to share lots of food and cheer on the Packers to their first NFL title in 29 years. (After which Jannan and I drove to Lambeau Field in the snow,  but that’s another story.) Then, on Dec. 31, 1999, my parents, my brother, my aunt and uncle and Jannan and I (along with Michael in utero) had a one-course-per-hour meal to appropriately end years beginning with the number 1. Unfortunately I can’t remember what we…
    • SkålI was the editor of Marketplace Magazine for 10 years. If I had to point to one thing that demonstrates improved quality of life since I came to Northeast Wisconsin in 1994, it would be … … the growth of breweries and  wineries in Northeast Wisconsin. The former of those two facts makes sense, given our heritage as a brewing state. The latter is less self-evident, since no one thinks of Wisconsin as having a good grape-growing climate. Some snobs claim that apple or cherry wines aren’t really wines at all. But one of the great facets of free enterprise is the opportunity to make your own choice of what food and drink to drink. (At least for now, though some wish to restrict our food and drink choices.) Wisconsin’s historically predominant ethnic group (and our family’s) is German. Our German ancestors did unfortunately bring large government and high taxes with them, but they also brought beer. Europeans brought wine with them, since they came from countries with poor-quality drinking water. Within 50 years of a wave of mid-19th-century German immigration, brewing had become the fifth largest industry in the U.S., according to Maureen Ogle, author of Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer. Beer and wine have…
  • Wheels
    • America’s sports carMy birthday in June dawned without a Chevrolet Corvette in front of my house. (The Corvette at the top of the page was featured at the 2007 Greater Milwaukee Auto Show. The copilot is my oldest son, Michael.) Which isn’t surprising. I have three young children, and I have a house with a one-car garage. (Then again, this would be more practical, though a blatant pluck-your-eyes-out violation of the Corvette ethos. Of course, so was this.) The reality is that I’m likely to be able to own a Corvette only if I get a visit from the Corvette Fairy, whose office is next door to the Easter Bunny. (I hope this isn’t foreshadowing: When I interviewed Dave Richter of Valley Corvette for a car enthusiast story in the late great Marketplace Magazine, he said that the most popular Corvette in most fans’ minds was a Corvette built during their days in high school. This would be a problem for me in that I graduated from high school in 1983, when no Corvette was built.) The Corvette is one of those cars whose existence may be difficult to understand within General Motors Corp. The Corvette is what is known as a “halo car,” a car that drives people into showrooms, even if…
    • Barges on fouru0026nbsp;wheelsI originally wrote this in September 2008.  At the Fox Cities Business Expo Tuesday, a Smart car was displayed at the United Way Fox Cities booth. I reported that I once owned a car into which trunk, I believe, the Smart could be placed, with the trunk lid shut. This is said car — a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice coupe (ours was dark red), whose doors are, I believe, longer than the entire Smart. The Caprice, built down Interstate 90 from us Madisonians in Janesville (a neighbor of ours who worked at the plant probably helped put it together) was the flagship of Chevy’s full-size fleet (which included the stripper Bel Air and middle-of-the-road Impala), featuring popular-for-the-time vinyl roofs, better sound insulation, an upgraded cloth interior, rear fender skirts and fancy Caprice badges. The Caprice was 18 feet 1 inch long and weighed 4,300 pounds. For comparison: The midsize Chevrolet of the ear was the Malibu, which was the same approximate size as the Caprice after its 1977 downsizing. The compact Chevrolet of the era was the Nova, which was 200 inches long — four inches longer than a current Cadillac STS. Wikipedia’s entry on the Caprice has this amusing sentence: “As fuel economy became a bigger priority among Americans…
    • Behind the wheel
    • Collecting only dust or rust
    • Coooooooooooupe!
    • Corvettes on the screen
    • The garage of misfit cars
    • 100 years (and one day) of our Chevrolets
    • They built Excitement, sort of, once in a while
    • A wagon by any otheru0026nbsp;nameFirst written in 2008. You will see more don’t-call-them-station-wagons as you drive today. Readers around my age have probably had some experience with a vehicle increasingly rare on the road — the station wagon. If you were a Boy Scout or Girl Scout, or were a member of some kind of youth athletic team, or had a large dog, or had relatives approximately your age, or had friends who needed to be transported somewhere, or had parents who occasionally had to haul (either in the back or in a trailer) more than what could be fit inside a car trunk, you (or, actually, your parents) were the target demographic for the station wagon. “Station wagons came to be like covered wagons — so much family activity happened in those cars,” said Tim Cleary, president of the American Station Wagon Owners Association, in Country Living magazine. Wagons “were used for everything from daily runs to the grocery store to long summer driving trips, and while many men and women might have wanted a fancier or sportier car, a station wagon was something they knew they needed for the family.” The “station wagon” originally was a vehicle with a covered seating area to take people between train stations…
    • Wheels on theu0026nbsp;screenBetween my former and current blogs, I wrote a lot about automobiles and TV and movies. Think of this post as killing two birds (Thunderbirds? Firebirds? Skylarks?) with one stone. Most movies and TV series view cars the same way most people view cars — as A-to-B transportation. (That’s not counting the movies or series where the car is the plot, like the haunted “Christine” or “Knight Rider” or the “Back to the Future” movies.) The philosophy here, of course, is that cars are not merely A-to-B transportation. Which disqualifies most police shows from what you’re about to read, even though I’ve watched more police video than anything else, because police cars are plain Jane vehicles. The highlight in a sense is in the beginning: The car chase in my favorite movie, “Bullitt,” featuring Steve McQueen’s 1968 Ford Mustang against the bad guys’ 1968 Dodge Charger: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxIu0026amp;fmt=18] One year before that (but I didn’t see this until we got Telemundo on cable a couple of years ago) was a movie called “Operación 67,” featuring (I kid you not) a masked professional wrestler, his unmasked sidekick, and some sort of secret agent plot. (Since I don’t know Spanish and it’s not…
    • While riding in my Cadillac …
  • Entertainments
    • Brass rocksThose who read my former blog last year at this time, or have read this blog over the past months, know that I am a big fan of the rock group Chicago. (Back when they were a rock group and not a singer of sappy ballads, that is.) Since rock music began from elements of country music, jazz and the blues, brass rock would seem a natural subgenre of rock music. A lot of ’50s musical acts had saxophone players, and some played with full orchestras … [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPS-WuUKUE] … but it wasn’t until the more-or-less simultaneous appearances of Chicago and Blood Sweat u0026amp; Tears on the musical scene (both groups formed in 1967, both had their first charting singles in 1969, and they had the same producer) that the usual guitar/bass/keyboard/drum grouping was augmented by one or more trumpets, a sax player and a trombone player. While Chicago is my favorite group (but you knew that already), the first brass rock song I remember hearing was BSu0026amp;T’s “Spinning Wheel” — not in its original form, but on “Sesame Street,” accompanied by, yes, a giant spinning wheel. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9sLkyhhlE] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWSOuNsN20] [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9U34uPjz-g] I remember liking Chicago’s “Just You ‘n Me” when it was released as a single, and…
    • Drive and Eat au0026nbsp;RockThe first UW home football game of each season also is the opener for the University of Wisconsin Marching Band, the world’s finest college marching band. (How the UW Band has not gotten the Sudler Trophy, which is to honor the country’s premier college marching bands, is beyond my comprehension.) I know this because I am an alumnus of the UW Band. I played five years (in the last rank of the band, Rank 25, motto: “Where Men Are Tall and Run-On Is Short”), marching in 39 football games at Camp Randall Stadium, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Memorial Stadium at the University of Illinois (worst artificial turf I had ever seen), the University of Nevada–Las Vegas’ Sam Boyd Silver Bowl, the former Dyche Stadium at Northwestern University, five high school fields and, in my one bowl game, Legion Field in Birmingham, Ala., site of the 1984 Hall of Fame Bowl. The UW Band was, without question, the most memorable experience of my college days, and one of the most meaningful experiences of my lifetime. It was the most physical experience of my lifetime, to be sure. Fifteen minutes into my first Registration…
    • Keep on rockin’ in the freeu0026nbsp;worldOne of my first ambitions in communications was to be a radio disc jockey, and to possibly reach the level of the greats I used to listen to from WLS radio in Chicago, which used to be one of the great 50,000-watt AM rock stations of the country, back when they still existed. (Those who are aficionados of that time in music and radio history enjoyed a trip to that wayback machine when WLS a Memorial Day Big 89 Rewind, excerpts of which can be found on their Web site.) My vision was to be WLS’ afternoon DJ, playing the best in rock music between 2 and 6, which meant I wouldn’t have to get up before the crack of dawn to do the morning show, yet have my nights free to do whatever glamorous things big-city DJs did. Then I learned about the realities of radio — low pay, long hours, zero job security — and though I have dabbled in radio sports, I’ve pretty much cured myself of the idea of working in radio, even if, to quote WAPL’s Len Nelson, “You come to work every day just like everybody else does, but we’re playing rock ’n’ roll songs, we’re cuttin’ up.…
    • Monday on the flight line, not Saturday in the park
    • Music to drive by
    • The rock ofu0026nbsp;WisconsinWikipedia begins its item “Music of Wisconsin” thusly: Wisconsin was settled largely by European immigrants in the late 19th century. This immigration led to the popularization of galops, schottisches, waltzes, and, especially, polkas. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl7wCczgNUc] So when I first sought to write a blog piece about rock musicians from Wisconsin, that seemed like a forlorn venture. Turned out it wasn’t, because when I first wrote about rock musicians from Wisconsin, so many of them that I hadn’t mentioned came up in the first few days that I had to write a second blog entry fixing the omissions of the first. This list is about rock music, so it will not include, for instance, Milwaukee native and Ripon College graduate Al Jarreau, who in addition to having recorded a boatload of music for the jazz and adult contemporary/easy listening fan, also recorded the theme music for the ’80s TV series “Moonlighting.” Nor will it include Milwaukee native Eric Benet, who was for a while known more for his former wife, Halle Berry, than for his music, which includes four number one singles on the Ru0026amp;B charts, “Spend My Life with You” with Tamia, “Hurricane,” “Pretty Baby” and “You’re the Only One.” Nor will it include Wisconsin’s sizable contributions to big…
    • Steve TV: All Steve, All the Time
    • “Super Steve, Man of Action!”
    • Too much TV
    • The worst music of allu0026nbsp;timeThe rock group Jefferson Airplane titled its first greatest-hits compilation “The Worst of Jefferson Airplane.” Rolling Stone magazine was not being ironic when it polled its readers to decide the 10 worst songs of the 1990s. I’m not sure I agree with all of Rolling Stone’s list, but that shouldn’t be surprising; such lists are meant for debate, after all. To determine the “worst,” songs appropriate for the “Vinyl from Hell” segment that used to be on a Madison FM rock station, requires some criteria, which does not include mere overexposure (for instance, “Macarena,” the video of which I find amusing since it looks like two bankers are singing it). Before we go on: Blog posts like this one require multimedia, so if you find a song you hate on this blog, I apologize. These are also songs that I almost never listen to because my sound system has a zero-tolerance policy — if I’m listening to the radio or a CD and I hear a song I don’t like, it’s, to quote Bad Company, gone gone gone. My blonde wife won’t be happy to read that one of her favorite ’90s songs, 4 Non Blondes’ “What’s Up,” starts the list. (However,…
    • “You have the right to remain silent …”
  • Madison
    • Blasts from the Madison media past
    • Blasts from my Madison past
    • Blasts from our Madison past
    • What’s the matter with Madison?
    • Wisconsin – Madison = ?
  • Sports
    • Athletic aesthetics, or “cardinal” vs. “Big Red”
    • Choose your own announcer
    • La Follette state 1982 (u0022It was 30 years ago todayu0022)
    • The North Dakota–Wisconsin Hockey Fight of 1982
    • Packers vs. Brewers
  • Hall of Fame
    • The case(s) against teacher unions
    • The Class of 1983
    • A hairy subject, or face the face
    • It’s worse than you think
    • It’s worse than you think, 2010–11 edition
    • My favorite interview subject of all time
    • Oh look! Rural people!
    • Prestegard for president!
    • Unions vs. the facts, or Hiding in plain sight
    • When rhetoric goes too far
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Join 198 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d