The editor of the WSJ accidently reminds us of the tragedy of losing the Cap Times if the new approach fails. We must help keep the Cap Times going on the Internet.
WSJ is a daily paper that took no position on the outrageous Supreme Court race but editor Ellen Foley runs the risk of rotator cuff damage patting herself on the back bragging that the so-called "Frankenstein veto" was opposed by the voters. Forget the fact that the constitutional change may well make the veto worse, Ellen Foley "is extremely proud of our editorial staff, which campaigned for more than a year to get the issue in front of the voters."
Then, in an outburst of candor she admits "that the power of the governor still has more leeway than needed." In other words, the fix was not good. Try again Ellen? But, what the hell. Grab a victory when you can.
Forget the veto. Think about racism in the Supreme Court race and the silence of WSJ, 40 years after the death of Martin Luther King. Could Foley explain her paper's silence to Dr. King? I don't think so. No endorsement for Justice Butler but, and I'm not making this up, "We (WSJ) are also studying and opining about the process by which we choose state Supreme Court justices." Whoa Nelly! And, here is her promise. Editorial page editor Scott Milford and Co. are "on the prowl." That reassures me! As for WSJ: WSJ has a commitment "to shine the big spotlight on problems tht readers care about." Yikes!
WISPOLITICS disappoints again: Every week theWSJ carries the conservative WisPolitics.com's view of the week in politics. While giving a big thumbs up to Michael Gableman's victory without condemning his racist commercials, they tell us to chill because Wisconsin has only once elected a black statewide. Catch this, "While some grumble about what they say were racial overtones in the race..." They? How`about you WISPOL? Falling fast: WisPolitics.
