Overlooking the Obvious

In another swing and miss at a government-operated health care system, McBride tries to point to the uncaring quality of the English medical system. In her post, she quotes the story:

A woman aged 108 has been told she must wait 18 months before the HealthService will give her the hearing aid she needs. (DailyMail).

A commenter correctly points out that neither Medicare nor private insurers in this county even cover hearing aids. But what McBride somehow failed to notice in her desperate attack was the first four words of her quote.

The woman is 108 years old!!! How bad can their health system be if they're living to 108? Perhaps McBride should check with her own health care system to see if they cover her selective myopia.

Still carrying water for Walker

The latest pension abuse disclosures have prompted several observers to wonder how Milwaukee County Exec Scott Walker could have allowed abuses to continue after he was elected on a pledge to clean up the pension mess.

During his last campaign for exec, we learned that Walker had broken his pledge to have all of his appointees sign waivers foregoing lucrative pension bonuses, and covered up the lack of waivers when questioned about it. Dave Umhoefer, the reporter who broke the last scandal, found that one, too.

Now we find that Walker has continued to allowed questionable if not illegal pension buybacks, fattening some employees' benefits, since he's been in office.

Others call for him to come clean and explain what he knew and when, and why he did what he did. But not McBride.

Still marching to Scott Walker's drummer, McBride is the exception. She notes the new information and asks:

Now will liberals and the MSM stop blaming Scott Walker for Milwaukee County's budget problems?

As she would say: Um, no.

Walker's been in office for 5 years, busily pointing fingers in every direction but his own and refusing to take responsibility for anything that's happened on his watch. The county's disastrous series of budget crises, about to explode again, forced him out of the race for governor. Even Walker didn't try to blame Tom Ament for that.

Simple answers for tough questions

In McBride World, life is simple and easy answers abound.

What to do about sex offenders when they are released back into society?

The solution? Mostly, lock them up longer. Supervise them better. Continue to make sure they don't work around kids or associate with kids in a setting where they would have frequent, close contact with them...

Still, if sex offenders have trouble finding somewhere to live, there is an easy fix for it. Don't molest kids, and you won't have the trouble.

Gee, why didn't any criminologists think of that?

It's sort of like her solution to poverty and unemployment: Everyone should get a job; the want ads are full of them.

If this is failure, we could use a dose

How easy it is, if you're Jessica McBride, to throw away a one-liner like this:

Looks like that handgun ban in England did a lot of good

over a story about some recent gang killings in England. In McBride World, that qualifies as an in-depth investigation.

A few things she didn't mention:

There were a total of 50 homicides involving firearms in England and Wales in their reporting year 2005-06.

There were 8,478 homicides involving handguns and 2868 involving other firearms in the US in 2005, according to DOJ reports.

Milwaukee had 122 homicides in 2005 and 103 in 2006. More than 75% of the homicides in 2005-06 were committed with a firearm. Source: Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission.

Milwaukee has more gun homicides than all of England and Wales. If that's a failed gun policy in Britain, maybe we could stand a little of that kind of failure.

What's the point, indeed

From the conservative blog with the misnomer Real Debate Wisconsin:

What's the point?

What's the point of the Journal Sentinel allowing comments on their blogs if valid comments that get made have to get approval of the author before they are posted?

I made a point on Eugene's post against deer hunting. In that post I pointed out how much deer meat makes it way to area food pantries that feed the poor.

It was a valid point, one worthy of discussion.

Except in Kane's world apparently.

Just what we were asking about their friend Jessica McBride, who now screens comments and chooses the ones she likes.

We know you are, but what are we?

This rant from the person who just decided to delete comments on her blog from a number of liberals, and who's now screening comments to prevent the public from reading all but the ones she approves:

Conservatives aren't afraid that the public might be exposed to the liberal point of view. The public's exposed to the liberal point of view in the MSM and from Hollywood every day. Conservatives believe that if more people hear about what conservatives really stand for, then conservatives will gain supporters. Conservatives want more people exposed to what liberals really stand for.Liberals want to silence conservatives even as the liberals drop or cloud their basic liberal principles when they're running election campaigns. They are trying to silence conservatives in many ways: Campaign finance laws, pressuring candidates to avoid debates on Fox, advertising boycott campaigns, drumming up support for a return of the unfairness doctrine (as I said before, affirmative action for liberals), flinging so much name-calling and other abuse at conservatives (especially minorities and women) that they hope conservatives will just hang up their hats, and accusing conservatives of "hate speech" by distorting their comments and hoping skittish non-ideological corporations cave in. Bullying liberals can't retain power without rigging the game.

You'd think that someone who wants to expose the public to more crazy liberal ideas would be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, which doesn't try to silence conservatives but would merely allow an occasional liberal idea on the radio waves.

Meanwhile, we continue to link to McBride's blog daily, to help expose her ideas to a broader audience. We practice what she preaches.

Bucher 's bad idea laid to rest

It's hard to know who likes immigrants less, Paul Bucher or wife Jessica McBride.

Bucher, trying to cash in on anti-immigrant sentiment during his failed campaign for attorney general last year, decided the Waukesha County DA was the logical person to crack down on illegal immigration.

Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed in Waukesha, now that Bucher's out of office. Jim Rowen has more.

Thin-Skinned?

Fearless Jessica McBride has reposted her post titled, "The left's racism," because, she says: "I have reposted this without the comments because I will not allow anonymous trash comment postings on my blog. If people don't have the guts to say who they are, they are not welcome to comment on my blog."

Other than one comment from Mssr. Whallah, which was pretty tame and invited people to "Whallah" for some good commenting, the only anonymous posters who were trashy were her conservative friends.

She just can't face the truth.

Testing Update: McBride reacts as predicted

Jessica McBride has decided the left is totally racist, based on one three-week old comment on Whallah! about James Harris that she dug up, and which rubbed her wrong.

In typical fashion, she offered no link to the offending item, fearful of sending any readers our way.

We put the following comment on her blog post:

In case people wonder what a "typical liberal abuse/hate blog" looks like, here's the link Jessica failed to provide.

You, James Harris, and anyone else are always welcome to comments.

Let's see how long it stays up.

UPDATE: We have our answer: Not long at all. It turns out she detests anonymity on the Internet, even though she was a major fan of "Dennis York" and defended his right to hide behind a pseudonym -- as one of the comments she deleted pointed out.

Ironically, her attack came about 15 minutes after one she wrote about spending some quality time in northern Wisconsin:

The abusive, petty political fights in the blogosphere, for example, are so silly and far away.

Apparently, that wore off pretty quickly once she got back to Waukesha County.

Evidence be damned; we want convictions

Will the state and federal government come down hard on the young protestors who vandalized a military recruiting station, or will they let a little thing like lack of evidence get in the way?

That's the burning question for McBride & Co. this week.

The Journal Sentinel reports:

The city attorney's office moved to dismiss the charges citing a lack of sufficient evidence against those ticketed, said municipal court Judge Derek Mosley.

Police arrested 21 people March 19 on suspicion of disorderly conduct after windows were smashed at the recruiting station, in the 3100 block of N. Oakland Ave.

Mosley granted the dismissal without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be filed again if police collect more evidence.

Says McBride:

DA Chisholm and US Attorney Biskupic, the ball is in your court.

She and other wingnut bloggers are poised to criticize DA John Chisholm, a Democrat, if he doesn't charge anyone. In fact, many of them jumped the gun and attacked him last week for dropping the municipal charges, which he had nothing to do with. It's not clear whether they are as ready or willing to go after US Atty. Steven Biskupic, the Republican appointee they all love for his willingness to prosecute Democrats.

Indymedia first reported the story on the dropped charges, although it was a Junior McBride, Rebecca Hontowicz, whose subsequent post got all of the right wing's undies in a bundle.

So much for diplomacy; Let's kill 'em!

McBride on the warpath, as usual:

You know how the big Democratic criticism of President Bush has been that his administration won't talk to Iran?

Guess we're already trying that. It's not going too well. Since that was the big Democratic plan for what we should do about Iran - talk to them - what's their big plan going to be now?

The story she links says there have been two meetings since May, and describes the two countries as "arch enemies." It might be just a little early to give up.

But McBride's true sentiments come out in the comments section, as she responds to a critic:

If Iran is responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, I want to do more than talk to them.

It's a big IF she offers. There have been a lot of claims and little evidence that the Iranian government has been involved in Iraq warfare.

What does she want to do besides talking to them? Scream at them? Bomb them?

If the Iranians are responsible for some American deaths, as she believes, when the Iranian delegation shows up for the meeting, does she think the US should slaughter them? Capture them? Torture them?

Or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

'The poor deserve all the health care they can afford'

We told you recently of Jessica McBride's compassionate conservatism on the subject of health care: The poor don't deserve it.

Now comes support for her position, in much the same terms. It comes, not surprisingly, from the owner of eight hospitals who's making a fortune and likes things just the way they are. He puts it thusly:

“Patients, he said, may simply deserve only the amount of care they can afford.”

Hang 'em first, ask questions later

The blogosphere merry-go-round spins today:

McBride's protege screws up in a confusing post about dropped charges against protestors at an Army recruiting center.

Charlie Sykes, Steve Egg, Owen Robinson, and probably other assorted wingnuts jump on the report -- checking no facts, of course -- and denounce Dist. Atty. John Chisholm, who had nothing to do with the municipal charges being discussed.

Illusory Tenant sets it straight.

And McBride walks gingerly, pointing out that the charges are municipal,not dissing the original post by her friend Rebecca Kontowitz Kontowicz, and reserving the right to criticize Chisholm later. What she fails to do is look at whether any charges were warranted and whether they could be made to stick. But the wingnut lynch mobs never let the facts get in the way.

UPDATE: Sykes offers a correction. So does Egg , after a little prodding.

Oh, THAT Constitution!

McBride writes:

Assaulting the Constitution

Russ Feingold wants to censure the president:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

Maybe he should just censure Congress for its "assault" against the Constitution by meddling in the commander in chief's executive powers to manage the Iraq war. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned this many generals controlling the battlefield.

Actually, the Founding Fathers envisoned Congress making the decisions about taking this country to war.

Adam Cohen explains in today's New York Times:

...The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side...

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress...

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly...

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

Bucher for Supreme Court? Slogan: 'Not one day as a judge'

Dan Bice in the Journal Sentinel:

Justice Louis Butler is the most vulnerable member of the state Supreme Court.

But Republicans and business interests have yet to come up with anyone to take him on in the spring election. Butler, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, was trounced in his only statewide race.

Here's the latest name to surface as a possible Butler foe: former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher.

Bucher didn't return calls Friday, but he has told others that he is weighing a bid for the high court.

The Republican prosecutor's strength is that he has some name ID around Wisconsin, having run for attorney general last year. But he is gruff, lacks personal wealth and, like Butler, was beaten badly in his only statewide race.

"Of course, we'd love to have him run," said a Butler supporter.

Perhaps Bucher has forgotten the Supreme Court race of last April, less than four months ago, when the mantra of the conservative candidate, Annette Ziegler, and her supporters was that her opponent, Linda Clifford, had "not one day as a judge," as one Ziegler TV spot said. "Linda Clifford. Not a Judge, never taken a criminal off the streets," said another.

Bucher's experience? A former DA, he can talk tough on crime. But he has "not one day as a judge."

No wonder Butler's campaign is licking its chops at the prospect of a Bucher candidacy.

UPDATE: Legal Newsline takes note.

Hey, here's an idea!

More of what passes for commentary -- or is it supposed to be humor? -- from McBride's blog:

Since the Democrats sound so upset by fee increases...

... how about if they agree to a budget that strips out the tax increases AND fee hikes? How about that?

Hey, here's a better idea: Since Republicans have long said that fees and taxes are the same thing, and Republicans hate them both, how about if the GOP comes up with a budget that contains no taxes or fees at all?

Then we could all move to Mississippi, which would seem like paradise by comparison.

Making it up: What Obama didn't say

Obama says he would turn his back on genocide

That's McBride's headline on a blog item, which she supports by using only one paragraph of a wire story:

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

She doesn't link to the article so anyone can read it, but commenter "John Foust" does. We'll let him handle it:

Here's a link to the original article. If we read the very next two sentences in the article, they say: ' "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.'

He continues later: "When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."

McBride must rue the day she finally decided to allow comments. In another post on Iraq, Foust and Jay Bullock deconstruct her claim that those hated liberals have flip-flopped on Al Qaeda.

UPDATE: Bullock explains McBride Math on his folkbum blog.

Where is everybody?

McBride's taken some time off from posting, so we have, too.

No, we are not vacationing together.

Whallah! Causes of crime identified

At last, we know what causes Milwaukee's crime problem, thanks to Jessica McBride and her Waukesha Freeman column.

Everyone's talking about all of the wrong things, like jobs, poverty and guns, she says.

The McBride theory:

What should we discuss? Teenage motherhood, absentee fathers, mentorship, poor choices, moral breakdown and high school drop out rates, for starters.

So there you have it. The root causes of crime are teenage sex, deadbeat dads, and kids quitting school.

Maybe in her next column she'll discuss what to do about it. Bet not.

Incompetence, not gender, makes McBride a target

Is criticism of Jessica McBride fueled by sexism?

Her defenders frequently make that claim, but the blogger Illusory Tenant disagrees:

... it doesn't make any difference whether she's a female or not - the relentless stream of drivel at her blog mitigates strongly against her competence as a university teacher of journalism.

Whether she's demonstrating her abject ignorance of Islam, shamelessly repeating the lies of Ann Coulter, cheerleading the ridiculous credulity of her "Little Malkin," or perpetrating any number of the unintentionally risible altercations with reality consistently documented here, the effect would be identical were she male.

Wake us when it's over

The McBride-Kane feud, now longer than the Hatfields and McCoys, continues.

Today's question: Is she a female robot or not?

Yawn.

Charlie Sykes, as usual, rises to her defense.

As usual, Sykes and McBride claim rampant sexism.

Speaking of sexism, Dad29 is moved to comment:

Kane's blind, too. Rarely does one see a really cute and lissome "robot."

"Really cute and lissoms?" Dad apparently is old school and believes flattery will get you everywhere. Could he lay it on any thicker?

"No sexists here but us conservatives."

Try to remember why it's September

Continuing to out-Bush Bush on the war in Iraq, hard-liner Jessica McBride wants to know, "What's all this talk about September as a date to assess progress in Iraq?"

The media, Democrats, and, yes, even the Bush administration keep talking about "September" and, sometimes, Sept. 15, as the end date for success...

And the conventional wisdom has become "September's it." Even Bush seems to have conceded this point. He doesn't say we're withdrawing in September, but his rhetoric seems to concede that September is this big make-or-break point. "Just give it to September," the Republicans seem to be saying more and more.

Why September?

Jessica apparently was missing in action when:

The Army's top general and US ambassaqdor announced that they would do a full assessment in September.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said September would be the time to determine how long US forces should stay.

Congress passed a provision by Republican Sen. John Warner requiring reports to Congress on progress in Iraq on July 15 and Sept. 15

It's an Emily Littela moment for Jessica.

Never mind.

Punishing those who voted for McGee

McBride is horrified that Ald. Michael McGee not only might be freed on bond but actually be able to do his job and cast votes on the City Council while his trial is pending.

Her theory, apparently, is that the citizens of his district, who recently reelected him in a landslide after a recall election (in which McBride's husband worked against McGee), should be punished by not having a voice on the Council.

She tries to cover herself by including this disclaimer:

I know McGee is innocent until proven guilty. But when cops get charged with felonies, especially when the crimes relate to their jobs, they don't go back on the street and resume their law enforcement duties once they're released on bail.

I'd draw an analogy here because McGee, like a police officer, holds a position of power that involves the public trust and the public's business, on the public's payroll. Until he's convicted or acquitted, I don't think he should be casting votes about the people's business and the city's future. The allegations were too serious.

And, yes, I assume other indicted aldermen and legislators cast votes before they were convicted. That was wrong too, for the same reason, although there are differing degrees of seriousness depending on the case.

But it makes you wonder why she didn't think of this when her hero, Scott Jensen, continued to serve in the Assembly, along with other indicted Republican lawmakers, after being indicted on felony charges.

Jensen, charged almost five years ago and convicted 16 months ago, still hasn't spent a day in an orange jumpsuit. His appeal is still pending, and he's still walking the streets. He not only continued to vote while the case dragged on, but was reelected by the forgiving voters in his conservative district. Imagine that.

Seeing Al Qaida behind every bush

Jessica McBride, obsessed with Al Qaida being in Iraq, and that being the justification for US troops to remain there, will be disappointed to hear that the NY Times ombudsman or "public editor" had this to say:

... Bush mentioned [Al Qaida] 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda...

And in using the language of the administration, [The Times] has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of the challenges facing the United States military and that overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there. While a president running out of time and policy options may want to talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of uniting the country behind him, journalists have the obligation to ask tough questions about the accuracy of his statements...

Recent Times stories from Iraq have referred, with little or no attribution — and no supporting evidence — to “militants linked with Al Qaeda,” “Sunni extremists with links to Al Qaeda” and “insurgents from Al Qaeda.” The Times has stated flatly, again without attribution or supporting evidence, that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year, an event that the president has said started the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

For the president, an emphasis on Al Qaeda has political advantages at a time when powerful former allies, like Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are starting to back away from his war policy. Al Qaeda is an enemy Americans understand, in contrast to the messy reality of an Iraq where U.S. troops must also deal with Sunni nationalists, Shiite militias and even criminal gangs.

“Remember, when I mention Al Qaeda, they’re the ones who attacked the United States of America and killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001,” Bush said in the Naval War College speech.

Actually, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which came into being in 2003, pledged its loyalty to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda the next year but is not believed to be under his operational control.

What the editor is saying is that the White House focus on Al Qaida has fooled the media in reporting it incorrectly. But while he says journalists have a responsibility to "ask tough questions about the accuracy" of Bush's statements, McBride is all to happy just to repeat them, day after day after day.

McBride, of course, would dismiss the NY Times editor's views out of hand as being another example of media bias.

Which, when you think about it, is a pretty outrageous position from someone who teaches college journalism courses and is willing to trash one of the country's best newspapers because its editorial page doesn't follow the Bush script.

Because she's there

Tim Rock at Other Side of My Mouth tackles the question: Why is everybody picking on Jessica?

Rock, Mike Mathias Plaisted, and Bill Christofferson all offer slightly different takes.

We think the answer is: Because she's there.

Cutting her loose

Charlie Sykes, creator of McBridenstein, appears to have gotten some distance from his failed experiment, Brew City Brawler notes.

McBride's 'replacement' gets a blog

James Harris, being groomed by Charlie Sykes & Co. as the next black conservative, has been advanced on the up escalator. He's getting the McBride treatment, only at a slower pace. Like all deliberate speed.

Although he's only on the air two hours a week, Harris says he will begin blogging on WTMJ Radio's site next week.

His readers, commenting on it, are skeptical, and warn him repeatedly to keep backups so he doesn't lose all of his material when WTMJ pulls the plug on him.

They're referring, of course, to what happened to Jessica McBride. What they don't seem to recall is that WTMJ intended to keep her blog on its website, but McBride was in a snit (after being fired)and asked them to take it down:

WTMJ 620 AM has asked to continue my blog (that's why it's still up), but I have no interest in doing so. I will be asking them to remove my name and blog from it.

'Poor don't deserve health care'

Jef Hall nails it:

Jessica McBride: "Poor people do not deserve healthcare."

Here is the money quote from her opinion piece on the Senate health plan:

(Healthy WI) ...would give everyone in the state health care like that enjoyed by the legislators and the governor. Why should a $7-an-hour worker get benefits the same as the governor?

Tell me if there is a different way to interpret that statement?

Thank you, Jessica, for the clear window into the Republican soul (or lack thereof...).

Sexist is as sexist does

So, when she's not accusing her critics of being sexist, which she does with some regularity, how does Jessica McBride Bucher spend her time?

Um, writing sexist items like this:

Have you seen Fred Thompson's wife?

Seriously, check out his wife Do you think they'll bring her on the campaign trail or hide her? Does Fred Thompson's incredibly hot wife help him, hurt him, or neither? Despite the other pictures in the background of the link above, it definitely is a picture of his wife. I had to doublecheck.

How would she -- as a political wife herself -- have reacted if someone had asked a question like that during the attorney general's race last fall? Is there any doubt?

(Well, if someone had said Jessica was hot, rather than J.B. Hollen's wife, she may have felt compelled to post an "Omigod!" and link to it. Fortunately, no one did.)

Learn something every day

Things we wouldn't know if we didn't read Jessica McBride:

It's infected the American left (Joe Lieberman and a few clear thinking others like him aside).

Joe Lieberman is part of the American left?

Yeah, the conservative part. Or, as Howard Dean might say, Lieberman is from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Wondering what's infected the American left? Tolerance.

Scooter Libby v. Georgia Thompson

McBride on the Libby "get out of jail free" card:

Remember that Libby was convicted of lying in a politically-motivated investigation into something that wasn't a crime. In other words, he covered up something that wasn't criminal.

Right. He was convicted of four felonies for lying to FBI agents and the grand jury. No big deal.

Here in Wisconsin, we know a woman, Georgia Thompson, who spent four months in federal prison and didn't even commit a crime. McBride thought that was perfectly OK.

Remember that the next time Ms. Law 'n Order mouths off about double standards.

UPDATE: McBride can't stop talking about Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, as a defense for what Bush has done for Libby. Jay Bullock reminds us, however, that Libby was Rich's lawyer.

Don't like my advice? Wait 5 minutes

Jessica McBride is never short of advice on how politicians should handle -- or "frame," as she would prefer -- issues.

No matter that she has no relevant experience in that arena which would give her any credibility.

And no evidence that Republicans are foolish enough to ever take her advice.

But it certainly doesn't slow her down.

McBride outdid herself this week with two pieces of advice on the same issue, dated the same day -- and which contradicted each other.

Writing about the State Senate Democrats' universal health care plan -- which Assembly Republicans have vowed to kill -- in her Waukesha Freeman column , she said:

Republicans need to frame the issue right. When the Assembly "blocks" the universal health care program, what it's really blocking is another $15 billion in tax increases in addition to the increases already proposed.

So her advice to the GOP is to highlight the cost of the plan and posture themselves as those who are blocking a big tax hike.

But on her blog, the same day, she says:

Republicans shouldn't be a one-trick pony. Being strong on taxes is very important. But what are the Republicans' ideas for other important issues like this one, other than holding the line on taxes?...

I am suggesting that the Republicans come up with a conservative plan to deal with spiraling health care costs in this state, which are breaking governmental and other budgets.

We do need to do something about health care costs. I'd love to see the Republicans come up with a viable plan so the Democrats stop dominating the stage on this issue. Otherwise, they're just the guys (and gals) blocking tax increases. That's all well and good, but rising health care costs are a problem. So what are Republicans going to do to help fix it?

So now just blocking a tax increase isn't good enough. The GOP need to propose some solutions of their own to the health care crisis.

Jessica, of course, offers nary a one.

For someone who writes regularly about others' inconsistencies , real or imagined, that upset her, we'll say this for McBride: She is consistently inconsistent.

And don't quote Ralph Waldo Emerson in her defense. It is safe to say he would consider her not a great thinker, but a little mind.

It's quiet out there

We are not ready to abandon ship, but there is a dearth of material these days on our friend Jessica McBride.

And that's a good thing.

She seems less relevant every additional day she's off the airwaves and out of the media spotlight, which must be making her crazy. Maybe she'll have to sue somebody one of these days just to get some attention. (We suspect the lawyer in her house has told her that's a bad idea.)

Her blog has deteriorated into a takeoff of Boots and Sabers, which is notable for its lack of commentary. A recent McBride item:

Good

-- The Assembly Republican budget won't include a gas tax increase, Speaker Mike Huebsch told WisPolitics today. (Wispolitics)

Yes, that's the whole thing.

But eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, they say. So Whallah! will continue to monitor her so that you don't have to.

It's a bad job, but somebody's gotta do it.