Sunday, in a move designed to please no one but the editors of the Wisconsin State Journal, that newspaper chose to make no endorsement in the most important race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in over fifty years. For Supreme Court: merit reform
Instead of endorsing a candidate, the State Journal endorses a better method of choosing state Supreme Court justices -- a method called merit selection.
Writing as though both candidates were equally qualified and equally obnoxious, the newspaper notes:
...The mud-slinging mess of this spring 's Supreme Court race is rooted in a fundamental problem with the election of Supreme Court justices...
...In both races, well-financed groups poured money into ads to back their favorite candidates...
Nothing could be further from the truth. The mud-slinging and the financing are not equal on both sides. If the State Journal believes that the Butler campaign is well financed by out-of state interests who are buying this election, they are either misinformed or they are not doing their job in the newsroom.
As for the so-called 'mud-slinging' there is nothing that the supporters of Louis Butler did to compare to the the racist, ill-informed poison, aired by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), The Club for Growth, and The Coalition for America's Families. Together these organizations produced ads reminiscent of "Willie Horton" and violated the very concept that a defendant is allowed a fair trial.
I am sympathetic to the point the Wisconsin State Journal made. We should give serious consideration to appointing Supreme Court justices rather than electing them. I am not quite there, but I may be there depending upon how this election turns out.
But the newspaper begs the question. To amend the Wisconsin Constitution will take years, and there is not enough time to do that before April 1, 2008.
The only beneficiaries of the Wisconsin State Journal editorial are Michael Gableman and the bag-men raising the money for his election.
I honestly don't get how this benefits Michael Gableman one bit. Is not this really an "un endorsement" of sorts. Its certainly not like they'd endorse Butler.
I like Butler and think his campaign is hitting the right cords. I am not sure all the Doylepublicans feel the same way. I think the "un-endorsement" is a win for Butler.
Posted by: Henry Dubb | March 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Butler's campaign claims that Gableman is out-spending them twenty to one? How can they justify this "poured money" phrase?
Posted by: John Foust | March 24, 2008 at 01:03 PM
This is why mud-slinging works. If news outlets are going to cop out and simply decry a lowered political tone without risking an accusation of "bias" by pointing out who lowered it, what chance does the average citizen have? They see negative ads. They see the State Journal bemoaning the mudslinging as if it were coming from both sides and all they come away with are the lies in Gableman's ads. There's no penalty for using this kind of dirty politics because the media's going to hold the target to equal blame. When you throw mud it gets on everyone.
Posted by: Peter Gruett | March 24, 2008 at 02:11 PM
I'm impressed by the integrity that the WSJournal has shown in last years election and now again in this. I do not think it was a knee jerk reaction but one that was well thought out by them. Give them the credit they deserve for recognizing the problems with our courts.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Judging from the way WMC is pouring money into Gablemans campaign and the money they spent on Ziegler's - there still must be something worth stealing in Madison.
Posted by: nonheroicvet | March 24, 2008 at 04:23 PM
You are still breathing Madison BOZONE.
Posted by: germantown_kid | March 24, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Please feel free to put in a link or a trackback to an article, but not the entire article.
Posted by: Jim | March 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM
So if the candidate that you oppose wins you would support appointing justices, but if the candidate you support wins you wouldn't. I'm glad to see you have such well thought out and reasoned positions.
Posted by: Ron | March 25, 2008 at 09:55 AM
germantown_kid,
You sure love making up acronyms that mean absolutely nothing, I see.
Posted by: Hacksbadt | March 26, 2008 at 02:36 PM
I NEVER want to have attorney's telling me who my best choices are.
We will NEVER need a loon like LOOPHOLE Louie on the Supreme Court but he would have been a shoein if the Wisconsin Bar had their way.
After all, Louie couldn't win and election; he needed Governor Doodus to reach the Supreme Court.
Let's stick with voting for Supreme Court Judges; the current system works so well the Libs want to change it cause they lose using it.
There is NO BETTER REASON to keep the current system than that!
Posted by: steve | October 14, 2008 at 03:45 PM