History Made And Other Election Night Thoughts

First of all, congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama and Vice-President Elect Joe Biden. And congratulations to all of the volunteers, community organizers, and voters for a job well done. Whether you supported Obama or not, history was made tonight with the election of our first African American president. It is a sign of how far our world has come.

It is a sad commentary on our world though that PE Obama had to give his victory speech behind a box of bullet proof glass.

Congratulations also are in order to Senator John McCain. It was nice to see he regained his personal dignity and integrity. He gave a very classy concession speech. Too bad the same couldn't be said for many of his supporters, both at his party and in the blogosphere.

Many of the other races that hold interest have not been officially declared yet, but the signs are hopeful.

Congratulations to Sandy Pasch, who just one the State Assembly District 22. I hope that she continues the fine work her predecessor has done.

Also, it looks like Sheldon Wasserman is on his way to a fairly decisive victory of Alberta Darling to become the State Senator for Dictrict 8. It shows that the negativity of that has become too common among the Republicans is no longer being favored by the public.

AMENDED: It appears that negativity might win the day in this race after all. When I wrote this post originally, 60 percent of the votes were in, and Wasserman had a 60-40 lead. Now at 98% of the votes in, Darling appears to have eked out the election, although nothing has been formally called.

If Darling should manage to escape, I would like to offer her my congratulations. I would also offer my cond0lences to the people in the eighth senate district, as well as all the citizens of Wisconsin.

Congratulations to the citizens of the City of Milwaukee who voted for fairness in the sick leave referendum.

Congratulations also to the citizens of the County of Milwaukee, who were finally given a chance to voice their opinion, and used that voice to state that they want to save the parks and the transit system. Hopefully, the people in Madison will hear us now.

Finally, I would say to my fellow liberals and lefties: Celebrate now and enjoy the moment, for a moment. However don't get too happy or celebrate too long.

The real work starts now. We, of course, need to start taking measures to put this nation back on track to greatness. To secure the economy, to get our troops the hell out of Iraq and back to work on getting bin Ladin, and to restore our place of greatness in the world.

Yes, that is a list of hard jobs right there, but they aren't the only things we need to do. We need to be responsible and hold the people we just worked so hard to get elected to the promises they gave us. It does not matter whether they are in the state legislature, the US Congress, or the president elect himself. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fires, and ensure they do the jobs we elected them to do.

We also have to be vigilant ourselves and remember what we have been through, what inspired us to work so hard this election season. We do not want to become our leaders to become the liberal version of the Bush administration, nor do we want to become like some of the worst of the right wing supporters. We must reach across the aisle to those on the right.

Oh, I know the temptation is great to go to some of them and say something like: "Obama won. Get over it." Lord, do I know the temptation is great. But we must keep our values in mind, and not lose sight of who we are. I remember the pain I felt in 2000 and 2004. I remember the anger I felt as some, no way all, but some from the right rubbed our noses in it those years. Even though it would bring some satisfaction to turn around and do the same to them, I do not want to become like that which I hated.

I ask you, my liberal friends, to do the same.

Is Darling's Campaign In Trouble?

I wrote last week that Alberta Darling has been doing nothing but negative campaigning through this whole election cycle. I also remarked how her campaign seemed to be echoing McPalin's strategy, and how it wasn't working out for them.

Well, after conversing with some friends on the whole matter of negative campaigning, I thought I'd do some research on it. I was curious on the whys and whens of negative campaigns. For the most part, everything I've read appeared to be conflicting and not very definitive.

The most succinct explanation for these questions, comes from Wikipedia, which gives a few reasons on when a politician usually goes negative:

• when taking on an incumbent;
• when being significantly outspent;
• when there is irrefutable information that the opponent has done something wrong;
• when the candidate has little name recognition.

Well, Darling is the incumbent, she doesn't have proof that Wasserman has done something wrong, and she surely has name recognition after all these years serving her district.

Now, I am not privy to their campaign war chests, nor do I have knowledge of any current polls that have been taken regarding this race, but it seems to me that Darling is feeling the heat of a close race, or a race that she is actually losing. This would be hard for her to deal with emotionally, especially after all the times she was re-elected without any serious competition.

I then looked at what happens when a politician goes negative. Studies indicate that it is effective, which seems counterintuitive to me. But further reading shows that one of the results of excessive negative campaigning is that is reduces voter turn out, which is usually good for the incumbent, especially if the incumbent is a Republican.

But there can be backlashes, and that seems especially true this year. John McCain blew all sorts of money on negative ads, yet keeps falling farther and farther behind in the polls.

From The Moderate Voice:

An Ipsos public affairs poll released a few days after the final debate reveals that 57 percent of voters said the negative ads aren’t effective. Unless a candidate has a strong positive message outlining what he or she believes and is willing to push if elected, negative ads may also have a backlash effect as voters see only the dirt being thrown.

Sens. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among leading
Republicans who have attacked the McCain attack ads. “They don’t serve John McCain well,” said Collins, co-chair of McCain’s Maine campaign. She said the ads, especially an automated telephone “robocall” that ties Obama to radicals, “does not reflect the kind of leader that he [McCain] is.” McCain’s negative ad campaign was also one of the reasons why Colin Powell—chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under George H.W. Bush, secretary of state under George W. Bush—crossed party lines three weeks before the election to endorse Obama.

Another negative arises with the use of negative ads. With voters being bombarded with radio, TV, Internet, and direct mail ads, the effect isn’t so much an additive effect—the more ads, the better the possibility of retention—but a subtractive effect—voters aren’t even paying attention. If they do, it’s solely to names, with name recognition often overriding political issues. Thus, if a negative TV ad mentions an opponent twice as many times, the voter comprehends the name, not the message; the brain may be subconsciously processing names, as it does when confronted by thousands of lawn signs and billboards, with the most mentions leading to a vote.

And from The Nation:

So when should a candidate use negative information about an opponent? The rule of thumb for professional campaign consultants is: "Never, never use negative campaign tactics unless your have to." Clearly, a candidate that can run an impeccably positive campaign and win by a comfortable margin is much better off running a "clean" campaign than a negative one. However, there are many instances in which a candidate cannot (at least in his or her own estimation) win simply by presenting positive information about him or herself. In every electoral contest, candidates try to secure the support of enough voters to win on election day. This process is a zero-sum game. A vote for one's opponent is one few vote a candidate will get on election day. A vote taken away from one's opponent is generally transferred to one's self. Winning voter support, then, can be accomplished by building strong support for one's self or by undercutting public support for one's opponent. When candidates struggle in their efforts to build positive images of themselves, many choose to close the gap by tarnishing the images of their opponents.

Given the realities of modern political campaigning, it should come as no surprise that the candidates most likely to use negative ads are challengers. Incumbents have generally spent years building positive images of themselves among voters. The longer an image of a candidate is maintained in the minds of voters, the more difficult it becomes to change that image. A challenger hoping to unseat and incumbent must provide evidence that the positive images voters have of their opponents are inaccurate. It is generally not enough for a challenger to simply present a positive image of him or herself. In fact, if voters have equally positive feelings about both candidates, the incumbent is bound to win on election day because the incumbent is a more familiar and proven commodity.

Sheldon Wasserman is technically the challenger in this race. However, due to his long record of serving ably in the State Assembly, he already has the name recognition and the good reputation enjoyed by incumbents. That is why he was able to come out with a positive commercial whereas Darling's commercial have been negative.

It can't be a good sign when the incumbent is feeling like the challenger, and feels the need to go negative against her opponent, in a vain effort just to make herself look better in the eyes of the voters. I've said it before, but I still wish Darling all the same results that her negativity brings, as it has been working out for McCain. As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't know what the finances of either campaign are, nor do I know any polling results. But, judging from her desperation and extreme negativity, the numbers can't be good for Darling

I'm not the only one that thinks Darling must be in trouble. Watchdog Milwaukee has seen similar signs, using lawn signs. The only point I disagree with is that I'm thinking Wasserman is not catching up, but is actually ahead.

ADDENDUM: JSOnline is reporting today that Darling is still at it, but that she's just as bad at running a campaign as she is representing her district.

Darling's Bad Day At The Forum

On October 16th, 2008, the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations hosted a forum for the candidates running for the 8th Senate District and 22nd Assembly District. The Assembly candidates were Republican Yash Wadhwa and Democrat Sandy Pasch. The candidates for the Senate were Democrat Sheldon Wasserman and Alberta Darling.

Wisconsin Eye has a video of the entire forum archived at their site, and it can be found here.

I won't go into the Assembly race here, except to say that Pasch is obviously the much stronger candidate.

Regarding the Senate race, Alberta Darling probably was wishing she was at the driving range, or anywhere else for that matter. She did not have a good day.

Some highlights, with the approximate time on the Wisconsin Eye video:

For someone who had picked up the Right To Life endorsement, I'm sure she didn't make many friends among her neocon base by apologizing for her vote in favor of the "Conscious Clause," and basically through all her pro-life backers under the bus. (Approx. 1 hr 6 min)

Darling further alienates her conservative backers by stating that she backs a state wide smoking ban. (Approx. 1 hr 18 min)

One voter confronted Darling on her abusive and offensive robocall, which features Mark Belling literally screaming on his radio show. The voter really let her have it, severely admonishing her for her lack of class and decorum. The voter said that it shows what she really thinks of her constituents. Darling ended up apologizing for that as well. (Approx. 1 hr 23 min)

To hear the offending call, WisPolitics.com has it up as a podcast.

Immediately, after the apology, Darling tried to again offer up her unsubstantiated allegations of Wasserman breaking his no tax pledge. Wasserman quickly pointed out that Darling is lying. He pointed out that if it was true, she would be pointing out to the specific vote(s) in which Wasserman voted to specifically raise taxes. She has nothing.

A little time later, a business owner stood up to ask Darling a question about what the State of Wisconsin is going to do to help him and people like him survive, especially in today's foundering economy. As Darling gave a typical "we need to do this" and "we need to do that" type of answer, the businessman confronted her on her record.

He asked her how long she's been in government (he actually had to ask twice to get the answer). When she told him since 1990, he said that she's been saying the "we need to" spiel for 18 years and wanted to know when she was going to finally start actually doing something.

The business owner then started to walk away in disgust. It was Wasserman who got him to stop and become engaged again. He did it simply by asking the man what help he was looking for, instead of doing like Darling and talking about all the non-actions she had taken.

In summary, Darling managed, in the course of less than two hours, twice dissed her base, got blasted on her lies on her record and Wasserman's record on taxes, was scolded for disrespecting her constituency, and was further scolded for not doing her job for 18 years. Not a good day for her at all.

In related news, Darling seems to subscribe to the political theory of "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth." JSOnline's All Politics blog points out that she is still trying to misrepresent the facts regarding their tax records.

Wasserman himself put it's best in a quote from the post:

"I signed a pledge in 2002 not to vote for any tax increases. Since signing the pledge I have not voted for a single tax increase. Senator Darling voted for 2005 Assembly Bill 58. She can call it whatever she wants, but attaching a catchy name won't hide the fact that the bill authorized increases in property tax levies across the state. ... The truth is that Senator Darling has a long record of supporting tax increases. If she had her way, drivers in Wisconsin would have paid an additional billion dollars in gas taxes over the last 13 years. Look it up. She voted for Senate Amendment 117 to 1995 Assembly Bill 150. She wanted to add a 3.2% oil franchise fee which would have increased the gas tax by 3.52 cents per gallon. I helped defeat that the amendment. It is a shame that the groups like Americans for Tax Reform have stopped fighting for taxpayers and become spokesmen for the Republican Party. Why else would they be attacking the only true fiscal conservative in the race? "

See how easy it is? All one has to do is offer proof to be credible. Darling still hasn't done that simple thing.

Watch the video for yourself, and you will see that Wasserman is the much more powerful, responsible and invested candidate. He is much more deserving to serve in the State Senate than Darling.

But being the helpful type of fellow that I am, I would offer her this link so that she can remain gainfully employed after she loses this election.

Sheldon Wasserman For WI State Senate

His first commercial:




via All Politics

Darling's Desperation

Most political junkies have to have a certain level of skepticism. I've mentioned before that most politicians are more than willing to stretch the truth, carefully craft their words, embellish their own accomplishments, and exaggerate the flaws of their opponent. If one takes every politician literally, one would quickly either become insane from all the congruity, or become so sickened by it that they would just walk away from politics altogether.

I prefer to hold a level of cynicism, whether I like the politician or not. I feel that this is the only cognitive way to maintain whatever small influence I have on the world around me, without getting caught up in all the muck that goes with politics (for the most part anyway).

Sometimes, when a politician is feeling desperate, or if they're just slimy, they will go over the line in their exaggerations and embellishments. A fine example would be Palin's thinly veiled attempts to play on people's latent racism and fear in her attacks on Obama. Even though this strategy is used much too often, it does have inherent risks of creating a backlash against the person doing the smearing, and destroys any chance they might have once had.

All of the above is just to explain why I had to chuckle with the latest verbal scuffle between State Representative Sheldon Wasserman and Senator Alberta "Duffer" Darling. Darling has been having a tough time in this race as evidenced when she told us that her staff won't be outworked by Wasserman, going through fits of faux outrage and using fear and smear tactics.

Now we have another round of Darling having a snit fit. It started out when Wasserman sent out a campaign mailing claiming that he has held true to the "no new tax pledge." Darling hastily responded, claiming that Wasserman was lying. She didn't offer any incidents of when Wasserman was supposed to have voted for a tax, but only complained that he would consider a tax on cigarettes and wouldn't support such ill-conceived bills like TABOR.

The problem with Darling's argument is two-fold. One is that she offers no specific examples of a violation. The other is that she uses Charlie Sykes as her source of information. Using Sykes as a source of honest facts is like going to a vegan restaurant for a steak. You're only going to be disappointed. In fact, Charlie is so full of it, that I understand that there is even a blog dedicated to pointing out all of his lies and hypocrisies.

Wasserman responded with a press release of his own:

Alberta Darling can twist and stretch the truth all she wants, but the fact is that I have not voted for a single tax increase since I signed the pledge. What’s most disturbing about her latest attack is that she can’t get her facts straight. I signed the pledge in 2002, five years earlier than she gives me credit for.

And the first example she gives of how I supposedly broke the pledge is an example of her breaking the pledge. Although she calls it a tax “freeze,” 2007 AB 507 allowed taxes to go up. By voting for that bill, Alberta Darling broke the pledge.

She should know better. Voters are not going to be hoodwinked by her distortions and negative campaigning.

Not being one to quit while she's behind, Darling comes back with yet another press release. She also apparently doesn't understand the issue of using credible sources. This time she extensively cites Americans for Tax Reform. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? That is until you actually look at who runs that group. ATF was founded by Grover Norquist, who has ties to the NRA, Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America, Jack Abramoff, and who had a hand in drafting Bush's tax and economic policies. We all know how well those things, especially the economy, has worked out for us.

If Darling is going to go after Wasserman, she would be wise to use better and more respectable sources of information. But then again, perhaps she doesn't have any credible resources to build her self up or to tear Wasserman down.

Perhaps, Duffer Darling doesn't really want to win, and she is just going through the motions so that she can go to Florida on November 5th. I hear they have some pretty fine golfing venues down there that are open year round. Judging by her job performance, that may not be such a bad idea after all.

Alberta Darling's New Campaign Strategy

Greg Borowski has a post on All Politics at JSOnline in which he covers a recent forum between Alberta Darling and Sheldon Wasserman. His story remarks on how each candidate stands on various issues:

• Darling agrees with Wasserman in supporting SeniorCare
• She also agrees with Wasserman in support expanding FamilyCare (for the record, I disagree with both of them on this subject)
• They both think that more money should be devoted to hiring counselors to help seniors navigate the bureaucratic red tape regarding benefits
• Darling echoes Wasserman's support for the ombudsman program to provide advocacy for seniors and their families.

When asked a question on another subject, Darling is quoted as saying, "You're not going to find much disagreement here either."

Darling went so far as to parrot Wassserman when he pointed out that he even voted to override vetoes by Governor Jim Doyle. Of course, Darling had to go back all the way to an override vote of a veto of Tommy Thompson, who has been out of the governor's chair for eight years.

When Wasserman noted that he is maintaining a full-time practice as a medical physician, Darling countered hat she used to be a "citizen leader." When I Googled "citizen leader" the best I could come up with is that it is another term for "community organizer."

And we all know how Republicans feel about community organizers.

Apparently, what Mr. Borowski missed is that Darling revealed her new campaign strategy. She is hoping to retain her Republican seat by running as a Democrat.

Best Wishes For Wendy Wasserman

All Politics is reporting on a press release issued from Sheldon Wasserman yesterday:

"In recent days, my office has received inquiries about my wife's health. I am grateful for the concern and am saddened to report that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer. With the love and support of family and friends, I am confident that she will join the ranks of the other brave women who have beaten this terrible disease.

"On behalf of my wife and our family, I want to thank all those who have offered to keep us in their thoughts and prayers. They will be a source of strength and comfort for us as we face this challenge together."

I wish the best to Wendy, and hope for a speedy and complete recovery from that horrible disease.

Fear & Smear: The Alberta Darling Edition

It's been a long standing tradition in politics for a candidate to try to cast his or her opponent in a bad light. Usually these attacks consists of the usual, worn out dog and pony shows of "So and so is going to raise your taxes so you'll lose your home" or "Such and such wants to give all our money to Big Whatever, and old people will be eating cat food."

In the past several elections cycles, this habit has become increasingly vulgar. I thought it had reached its crescendo when Bush and Rove went after John Kerry with the one-two punch of swiftboating and the 9/11 mantra.

This year is shaping to make that look like romantic cooing. Racist and sexist comments have been flying back and forth for almost two years now, and will only escalate as we get closer to November.

This kind of crap is continuing on the local level as well.

Recently, Alberta Darling and Sheldon Wasserman appeared on Up Front with Mike Gousha. JSOnline's All Politics blog was kind enough to provide links for the show.

In the first segment, Wasserman drives home that Darling has been failing to support her own district's education system. He pointed out that she only gets 11 cents back from every dollar taxpayers put into the state's education fund.

In the second segment, Darling brings up the false allegation about Wasserman spreading inappropriate things about her health, and whether it would be a factor in the campaign. She even went as far as accusing Wasserman himself of being the author of that statement. When he confronted her, she had no proof, except that it was her "belief" that he was behind it all. You knew she was lying through her teeth when she started using Charlie Sykes as a reference.

Wasserman, rightfully upset, confronted her, asked for proof, and reminded her that he had actually publicly condemned the rumor and anyone who would spread it.

For the record, I don't believe that Darling is too sick to do her own canvassing. I think she would rather save her energy for the golf course.

The All Politics blog also reported that she issued a press release that she would "protect" the citizenry from voter fraud by requiring Voter ID:

"Voter fraud could have sweeping implications for state and national elections, where in some states voter drives have added hundreds of thousands of 'new' voters to the voter rolls," Darling said in a statement. "People want to know that their vote means something, and not be cancelled out by groups of people here to commit voter fraud."

I can't quite understand how new voters are a bad thing, but then again, I'm not the one trying to maintain the status quo. I am waiting for her to offer proof of voter fraud. I won't hold my breath though. After all, the system is working the way it is supposed to. And I really would be surprised if she would actually try to correct the area where most voter fraud does occur, absentee balloting.

She is just cranky because now that she has a real race going on, she can't play as much golf.

The UnderLying Issue

Alberta Darling must be really feeling the pressure from Sheldon Wasserman's campaign. She is starting to flail around in her attacks on him, but is only making herself look even sillier.

All Politics, the political blog at JSOnline, has a recap of the dueling press releases that have been most recent in the battle of who would work harder for the district.

Wasserman's campaign issued a press release included this paragraph about his progress in getting out and talking to people:

Wasserman, who knocked on 735 doors last week, has visited over 18,500 homes. “My opponent likes to tell people she is ‘out knocking on doors.’ But the voters know the difference between riding in a car watching staff drop off taxpayer-funded road maps that people did not even ask for and actually knocking on doors and talking to people,” added Wasserman. “I run my campaign like I run my Assembly office, with a strong focus on personal service and fiscal responsibility.”

This got Alberta all in a tizzy, and she fired back with her own press release, which includes these paragraphs:

“I take great offense to Sheldon Wasserman’s false accusation that I am not actually knocking on voters’ doors, and his continued insinuation that I am too sick to run for office and restricted to campaigning from a car.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m physically fit and in very good health despite what Sheldon Wasserman would lead people to believe. I knock on hundreds of doors every week. My campaign helpers can all attest to this fact, the thousands of voters’ whose doors I’ve knocked on can attest to this fact, and even numerous Assembly candidates whom I’ve run into while doing doors can attest to this fact.

There are a couple items that should concern voters in those few lines.

One is he never said anything, at any time, about her illness. In fact, Darling has said so herself. She is quoted in this article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pointing out that she has no proof that he had anything to do with this:

Darling said she has no proof that Wasserman or Decker spread rumors about her health. And both Democrats on Thursday denied making any statements on the subject.

So, in one instance, she says that she has no proof that he made these statements, then she accuses him of making them, when there is in fact not one word about her health in his press release. That, folks, is called lying. I personally have no doubt that she is healthy enough to do the door to door canvassing, if she wanted. The problem is she would rather not.

Furthermore, Wasserman never said that she wasn't knocking on doors. I've already shown the gentle reader that Darling herself, said that she and her staff have been knocking on doors. This means obviously, she's not doing them all by herself. Heck, even a right wing blogger sells her out and talks about how he's been doing doors for her. And please note, Darling doesn't release the numbers that she's done by herself, probably because they would look so very pathetic next to Wasserman's.

But all that is is another example of Darling's lying to the voters, trying to make herself look like she is working for them, instead of working on her golf swing. But if she keeps having rounds like these, she'll be able to have plenty of rounds on the golf course next year, since she won't have anything else to do.

Slicing Through The Clutter

So while I was having "computer problems", all of the right wing squawkers were blabbering about how, at some golfing event, state Senator Alberta Darling drove a ball further than state Representative Sheldon Wasserman. Sykes was jeering Wasserman on how he "got beat by a girl." The right wing blog brigade also chimed in with one local blogger showing the tact of describing Wasserman as "wussy."

Apparently, they felt this was some sort of vindication of when someone said that Darling was still too sick from breast cancer. The right has tried to pin the allegation of being the rumor monger on Wasserman, even though Darling herself, casting wildly about, admitted that she has no proof of who said what.

But the question about the golfing event remains: So what?

Basing one's vote on who can drive a golf ball farther makes as little sense as basing one's vote on who you would most like to have a beer with. And we all know how well that turned out.

That Darling beat Wasserman only shows me that while her staff was doing her work for her, she was out playing golf, either at one of her fundraisers, named the Senator Darling Annual Golf Classic, or as Recess Supervisor put it in this comment thread:

Darling’s certainly well enough to bail on her Senate duties consistently to play golf in Florida, so surely she’s well enough to do doors.

Personally, I would rather have someone who is spending time doing their job and listening to the voters, than hoping their staff is on the ball while she is hitting one.

Alberta Darling: My Staff Will Not Be Outworked

Last week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story about the political races that are forming up for this fall's elections.

Without a doubt, one of the biggest races on the local scene is the match up between state Senator Alberta Darling and state Representative Sheldon Wasserman. This is what Greg J. Borowski wrote about the race (emphasis mine):

In the Milwaukee area, the marquee battle pits Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) against Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee). In what could become an expensive battle, Democrats hope a win will add to their edge in the Senate.

“There is a huge mood in this country for change,” said Wasserman, who added, “This race will not be bought. It will be earned by someone knocking on doors.”

Wasserman said he has knocked on more than 17,000 doors (17,274 to be exact). Darling said she and her staff have visited 25,000 homes, including 10,000 since spring.

“I will not be outworked,” Darling said, adding: “People are looking for somebody who listens to them, hears them and works for them.”

It would be interesting to know just how many of those 25,000 homes Darling did herself, and if she spent any time with the people that live in those homes. It is also rather tacky to take credit for the work of others, even if they're volunteers for her campaign.

My personal impressions of Darling are not favorable, and she has spoken out of both sides of her mouth on more than one occasion. I remember that in the mid 1990's, she, along with Mia Farrow and a few other Republican Senators, spearheaded getting Milwaukee County's child welfare system privatized. On the morning that she came to speak to the county workers, in which she was going to thank and praise us for our years of devotion, the MSJ ran an article in which she completely smeared the workers, and not the fact that three different auditors found that the state had been shorting the system for years. Since then, the privatization efforts have only made things worse.

Now, more than ten years later, she even admits that she did a lousy job of it.

Crossposted at folkbum's.