No statistics? Well, tell a scary story

Vintage McBride. Priceless.

She complains that those awful liberals complain about people like her, who inflame anti-immigrant sentiment by trying to find an illegal immigrant behind every crime.

It's not fair that liberals complain about that, she says.

Her "evidence" is an article describing the backlash against illegal immigration: The crux of her objection to the article is this sentence:

The [Newark triple murder] case revitalized an argument made during the congressional debate that the flow of illegal immigrants, though predominated by job-seekers lured by the prospect of higher wages and better conditions, includes a menacing criminal element.

It's not just an "argument," McBride says. It's a fact that illegals are committing lots of crimes and terrorizing American citizens.

Why, McBride asks, doesn't the writer offer some statistics:

Why not just look up the known numbers, Mr. Montgomery? (of course, in many states, like ours, no one really knows how many illegal immigrant criminals there are). Or why not just mention Newark again? Or the man who allegedly shot the cop in Kenosha?

Classic. The thrust of the whole article is the backlash since the Newark killings. There is hardly a need to mention it again.

No statistics for Wisconsin? Well, just throw out one horrible example where an illegal immigrant is charged with a murder, she says. That's exactly how she operates.

To some degree, that's what the article is all about. McBride is already on record calling for the deportation of all 12 million illegal aliens now in the country. McBride and hubby/demagogue Paul Bucher would like to frighten people into believing there is a crime wave caused by illegal immigrants.

All they are missing is the proof.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Did I forget to mention she teaches college journalism?

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Legal scholar Jessica McBride asks:

Should the states get to decide if a man can legally murder his wife or a woman her husband?

Illusory Tenant answers:

That is precisely what the States get to decide, always has been, and as a matter of fact, it wasn't all that long ago that adultery was a successful affirmative defense against a murder charge.

In which case there might not be the ex-Mrs. Bucher, but the widow Bucher.

More from Illusory Tenant here.

This just in: US citizen accused of crime!

The Nutosphere continues its crusade to report every crime that involves an illegal immigrant.

They've been at it for a long time, starting with a Memorial Day shooting in 2006 that was commited by someone who turned out to be here legally. It was truly an Emily Litella moment, Jessica McBride blamed the police for providing the wrong info, but she had been claiming, long before any police announcement, that the shooter must have been an illegal.

McBride challenges the news media every time an illegal is found to have committed a crime or even been accused.

Her mentor, Charlie Sykes, does the same.

It seems less about crime than about looking for one more way to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment, using fear. Mr. McBride, Paul Bucher, tried to demagog the issue to victory in his failed race for attorney general, but he couldn't even sell the idea to the conservatives voting in the GOP primary. We are not experiencing an illegal immigrant crime wave. Our guess is that illegals commit fewer violent crimes than US citizens, although we haven't seen any statistics.

Here's a modest proposal:

If the right wing thinks it is so important, and so relevant, for the media to report it every time an illegal immigrant is accused of a crime, let's be fair about it. Crime stories could all include information that identifies the suspect as (a) an illegal immigrant, (b) an alien living here legally, or (c) a US citizen.

The media doesn't single out and identify suspects by race only when they are black. Why should it single out illegal immigrants, unless it is to promote another agenda?

Refighting the last war

McBride is still steamed that JB Van Hollen kicked her hubby's butt in the Republican primary for AG last fall.

And now, even worse, Van Hollen's getting some positive stories from the "liberal media" -- of which she is a former active member. (It makes you wonder. Did she see how liberal the media were when she was a reporter? Did she ever complain about it? Or did her recent conversion to conservatism -- some say she's a conservative by marriage -- open her eyes?)

She's clearly unhappy about Van Hollen's good fortune, offering this backhanded compliment to JBVH's media honeymoon:

Attorney General Van Hollen has some good PR people working for him. The backlog in the crime lab (his signature issue) has actually increased since 2006 (through July 31st of this year), and his people turn it into a series of positive headlines around the state. Finally, the liberal media have found a Republican they won't spin everything negative on. Wonders never cease. The Democrats would be ill-advised to underestimate Van Hollen as a potential gubernatorial challenger in 2010. The linked story is a classic political PR example of how to take a potential negative and turn it into a positive.

UPDATE: McBride may be pleased to learn than JBVH is under fire for his association with Pro-Life Wisconsin, the extremists who recently celebrated with a re-enactment of the murder of an abortion provider.

UPDATE 2: Even her fellow wingers, like Little Miss Sunshine, see what she's up to:

I'm afraid Mrs. Bucher loses a little credibility when she blogs so bitterly about the Attorney General who defeated her husband in a primary race. I guess old grudges die hard.

UPDATE 3: Mr. Hold 'Em of Texas is confused about who said what to whom when. But if you want to see for yourself what NARAL did and didn't say, here is the press release.

Bucher: Have briefcase, will travel

We recognize that Jessica is not responsible for the actions of Paul Bucher, although she did marry him and does seem to espouse many of his political views. We know she shares his opinion of a Milwaukee alderman who's in the news.

Which brings us to Bucher's latest project, since joining the private sector: Impeaching Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee Jr. JS online reports:

Bucher asks council to impeach McGee
The lawyer for Ald. Michael McGee's unsuccessful recall election opponent has filed formal charges with the Milwaukee Common Council to open impeachment proceedings against the jailed alderman.

But Common Council President Willie Hines Jr. plans to reject the impeachment charges from former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher, because Bucher doesn't live in Milwaukee...

After news of the criminal charges came out, Jordan asked Bucher how to overturn the election, Bucher said today. Bucher said he outlined several options and she told him to pick the fastest one, which is for the council to remove McGee from office. He responded by filing impeachment charges against McGee with Hines.

Both city ordinances and state law provide for the council to remove an errant alderman upon a citizen's complaint. But City Attorney Grant Langley has said the state law supersedes the city ordinance where they conflict, and they conflict on who can file the charges to start the proceedings.

Bucher used the city ordinance, which doesn't specify who needs to file the charges, instead of the state law, which requires the charges to be leveled by "a resident taxpayer." He said he was aware of the state law, but was waiting for Langley or Hines to tell him whether he should use a different procedure...

Hines said through an aide that he will send Bucher a letter tomorrow that cites Langley's opinion about the state law overriding the city ordinance.

Another alternative: Bucher could establish residency in the City of Milwaukee. Maybe he could even do that in McGee's 6th Aldermanic District and run for alderman himself. Jessica, a self-styled expert on the central city, based on writing a few newspaper articles about gangs, could write his platform.

Or maybe this is just the first step for Bucher to expand his practice beyond his Waukesha County base. Any aldermen in Madison that need recalling? How about Minnesota? Canada?

M&Ms for dinner?

Jessica McBride can't say enough good things about the Sunday column by State GOP Chair Reince Priebus on why felons should not be allowed to vote in Wisconsin. She calls it a "great piece" and sends readers his way.

This Priebus argument (if you can call it that) was especially noteworthy, in McBride's eyes:

So why on Earth would we trust felons still serving a sentence to take part in our democratic process - to make important decisions that influence how law-abiding citizens live their lives? It's akin to allowing your 2-year-old to choose the dinner meal. If that happened, surely M&Ms and cookies would be on the menu every night.

And if felons could vote -- which they can in some states -- what would be on the menu? Get out of jail free cards?

Something far worse than that, McBride suggests: Felons would vote for Democrats! She links to a story saying Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election if felons had been allowed to vote. (He did win, actually, even without their votes, but a funny thing happened on the way to the Electoral College.)

The study posits that since racial minorities and the poor – groups that tend to vote for Democrats– make up a disproportionate number of felons, a hypothetical felon voting bloc would be so overwhelmingly Democratic it could swing national and statewide elections.

74 percent of felons would have voted Democratic in presidential and U.S. Senate elections dating back to 1972...

The other 26 per cent, presumably, are white collar criminals who simply embezzled or ripped off stockholders, or suburban Republicans who ran afoul of the law, like Scott Jensen, and who don't like M&Ms for dinner.

(But think of the possibilities if the GOP had to compete for the felon vote. Jensen could have headed Felons for Bucher, and perhaps advised Bucher against running a Willie Horton-style campaign for attorney general.)

But when you come right down to it, it's the same reason the Wisconsin Republican Party now headed by Priebus wants to make it more and more difficult for minorities and the poor to vote, even if they are law-abiding citizens. They are more likely to be Democratic voters. Even the so-called study got that right.

McBride also likes this argument:

The argument that we shouldn't disenfrancise felons on paper ignores the 14th Amendment, by the way, which specifically states that people can lose the right to vote for participation in rebellion, or other crime.

Priebus puts it this way:

The Supreme Court has long concluded that the 14th Amendment allows states to deny voting rights to these felons because their past acts have proved them unworthy of voting.

It's true that states have the ability to deny felons the right to vote. But the 50 states handle the issue in many different ways, Project Vote reports. In Maine and Vermont, felons don't lose their right to vote. In 13 more states (and DC), felons can vote once they have served their time. In 5 more stations, probationers can vote. In 19 states, including Wisconsin, rights are restored after completion of parole and probation. And in 11 states, some or all felons can lose their voting rights permanently.

It is quite a leap to say that because states can bar felons from voting that Wisconsin should be among the toughest. States also have the legal ability to impose the death penalty, but Wisconsin hasn't had it since 1853 -- not that Republicans haven't tried and failed to pass the death penalty in Wisconsin.

Perhaps it's time for Priebus's party to try a new argument -- that executing felons would get them off the voter rolls for good, and eliminate the possibility that they might vote illegally.

That argument is more cogent than the threat of M&Ms for dinner.

Bucher for supreme court? Puleeze!

Owen Robinson of Boots & Sabers floats Paul Bucher's name for Supreme Court, acknowledging that there are a few problems with a Bucher candidacy, like being an unappealing loser and not being a judge.

There's one sure sign it's not for real. Jessica, the loyal and ambitious spouse, is not talking it up.

Come to think of it, there's another problem with a Bucher candidacy -- her willingness to give him political advice.

Paul Bucher, lawyer for sale, Part 2

Talk about having it both ways.

WAUKESHA - Paul Bucher was the top prosecutor in the county when his office issued more than 100 felony charges against former insurance agent Nancy Paquette.

But when Paquette learns her fate at sentencing next month, Bucher will be sitting right beside her, having joined her defense team.

In a letter to Judge Kathryn Foster this week, Bucher said Paquette retained him last month to assist at her sentencing. Paquette, of the town of Delafield, was convicted after a trial of all the felony charges against her, which included two counts of theft, 52 counts of forgery and 52 counts of identity theft.

Do you think his days as a lock-em-up law and order politician are over? Seems like Jessica's plan to be the First Lady of Wisconsin have gone awry.

Paul Bucher, lawyer for sale

First, let's be clear that Jessica McBride is not responsible for the actions of her husband, Paul Bucher. After all, he's the grownup in the marriage. But she's a lot closer to him than Jim Doyle was to Georgia Thompson.

And, yes, everyone is entitled to a lawyer. But you can't help but wonder about the kinds of cases and clients he's taken on since leaving his job as Waukesha County DA.

First he's representing the people trying to recall Alderman Michael McGee, who won the election by even a bigger margin than J.B. Van Hollen whipped Bucher's butt.

Next he's playing trial lawyer, filing a wrongful death lawsuit against a Waukesha couple over the drowning of a 5-year-old boy in their pool in 2004. He probably wishes there weren't a cap on punitive damages as he tries to profit off someone else's misery.

And now he's the lawyer and mouthpiece for a Waukesha County police chief who's been suspended for using inappropriate language about women and minirities. Did he call them thugs, or what?