Hey Paddy, Lance, whoever -- Boycott me!

Our old friend Paddy Mac at the Journal Sentinel doesn't do any heavy lifting on this blog post,entitled, "Hey" Let's Boycott the Ghosts of Greater Wisconsin," except to lift the content right from Lance Burri in FoxPolitics.

His topic: Why is everybody picking on Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) when there are those liberal groups out there:

The Greater Wisconsin Committee -- a shadowy interest group if there ever was one -- spent $1.4 million on the race. About a third of all third-party expenditures.

"Epic's outrage is, however, directed only at WMC. Not at WEAC, nor at GWC, whose money would easily have 'bought' the election, had WMC's not evened things out.

"Of course, expressing outrage at those groups would be a meaningless expression of outrage. How does one 'boycott' WEAC? Refuse to do business with anybody who pays school taxes? With anybody who sends their kids to Wisconsin public schools? With anybody who graduated from Wisconsin public schools?

"How does one 'boycott' GWC? We don't even know who they are.

"One doesn't boycott them. That's how. Because one can't. There's nothing to boycott. WMC, on the other hand...we know who they are. They're businesspeople. They're the creators -- the ones Winston Churchill described as the horse that pulls the wagon."

Gotta give Burri credit for some great Orwellian work. He says WMC "evened things out" to prevent those loony lefty groups from influencing the election. Right. Except that WMC had done the same thing last year for Annette Ziegler and announced right afterward that it intended to do the same thing again. It's the liberal side that has been trying to play catch-up and level the playing field.

I'm hardly a disinterested observor. I was GWC's general and media consultant the first two years it existed, 2004-06. Then I retired from consulting but became a member of the GWC board in the spring of 2007. That's no secret, and neither are the identities of others at GWC. The organization is incorporated as a Wisconsin non-profit, recognized by the federal government as a tax exempt advocacy group, and also operates a state political action committee and a federal 527. It files every required report and obeys every state and federal tax and campaign law.

The reason you can't boycott GWC is that its board members are people who share an interest in promoting progressive issues, not changing the laws so they can make more money. The board consists of a couple of community activists, a couple of lawyers, and me. I suppose you could not use the law firms of those two lawyers and call that a boycott.

But feel free, Paddy, Lance, or whoever else, to boycott me, if that will make you feel any better.

Not that any conservative has ever given me a nickel anyway.

Let the boycott begin.

Wagner's wishful thinking rewrites history

Republican radio talker Jeff Wagner, Charlie Sykes's little brother, tries to use Tuesday's election to bludgeon every liberal he doesn't like, starting with Jim Doyle, who once whupped Wagner's butt in a race for attorney general. Says Wagner:

Interestingly, it appears that in the wake of yesterday's electoral flameouts, Doyle is hitting the road to campaign for Obama in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton can only hope that Doyle will bring the same reverse Midas touch to the Obama campaign that he brought to so many campaigns in Wisconsin yesterday.

How soon they forget. It seems like just six weeks ago that Doyle was stumping Wisconsin for Obama, who trounced Clinton in the Feb. 19 primary. (What? Oh, it was just six weeks ago.)

Then there's this:

Another big loser last night was the liberal attack group, The Greater Wisconsin Committee ... This is now the third consecutive statewide race that candidates opposed by The Greater Wisconsin Committee (and the special interest groups that provide it's [sic] financing) have won.

They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and being surprised that the results aren't different. How many more elections will the backers of The Greater Wisconsin Committee have to lose before they realize that their slimeball tactics simply aren't working?

Let's get the disclaimer out of the way: I'm a former consultant to GWC, but retired a year ago and now serve as a member of its board.

Wagner must be referring to last year's Supreme Court race, when the ethically challenged Annette Ziegler won, and, I guess, to Kathleen Falk's loss in the AG's race in 2006 to J.B. Van Hollen.

GWC did a little other work in 2006, too, which Wagner seems to have forgotten. Except for some spending done by its political action committee, GWC does not advocate for or against candidates, but publicizes the records and positions of public officials on issues.

In 2006, GWC was involved in issue advertising involving Gov. Jim Doyle and Rep. Mark Green, and in four State Senate districts. My recollection is that Doyle was reelected handily and that Democrats won all four of those Senate seats, defeating Republican incumbents in three of them and taking control of the State Senate. Perhaps Wagner has a different recollection, but he could always check the Blue Book.

Don't let the facts get in the way, Jessica

I never cease to be amazed, although I guess I should get over it. McBride's so-called election blog:

Why in the heck should conservatives vote for Lisa Neubauer? Answer: There's not a single reason to do so. *and that's without counting the fact that Jim Doyle engineered her last-minute appointment after raking in the campaign cash from her over the years...

The Greater Wisconsin Committee, AKA the Bill Christofferson, liberal hatchet committee front group, is part of a new huge TV buy to benefit Neubauer. Chris Micklos, former PR guy for convicted Democrat Chuck Chvala, is part of it too.

Score another one for Gleisner. Now, there are three reasons to vote Gleisner. Abortion, guns, and GWC. Plus, I'm told he'd be tougher on crime than she is.

"I'm told"? Pillow talk from Paul the Bucher? There is certainly no evidence that Gleisner would be "tougher on crime." He's a plaintiff's trial lawyer, for Pete's sake.

Only trouble with her well-presented, carefully-reasoned argument is that the bogeyman, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, isn't doing anything for Lisa Neubauer.

So I guess that leaves two reasons. Why should conservatives support Neubauer? McBride should take it up with one of the state's top Republicans, Michael Grebe, who had more than two.

UPDATE: Another factual error in the same post.