The Right Wing Milwaukee Journal

   By Donna Cole.

 A month or so ago, I was watching The Rachel Maddow Show on MSLSD and she referred to the Milwaukee Journal as a right leaning newspaper. That gave me a big laugh at the time. But after thinking about it, I realized she had a point, albeit a highly technical and nuanced point.


 Keeping that idea in mind, I crack open the Journal this morning. I nearly blew my morning coffee all over it. Un-freaking-believable. The Milwaukee Journal endorses Gov. Walker. After reading this endorsement, I feel the need to explain it and tell you why it is both meaningless and hollow.


 In the newspaper biz, the news and editorial sides are supposed to be separate, divided by a kind of imaginary firewall. This is so one does not influence the other. I think the key word here is "imaginary". But let's "imagine" this is real.


 It has been made clear, and without question, that the news side of the Journal is totally in the bag for Mayor Tom. Their bias is so lopsided against Walker that on the one hand, it is laughable, on the other hand, it leaves the paper with almost zero credibility. To sum it up, the news editors simply publish a daily edition of liberal media bias for idiots.


 Now, let's climb over the imaginary wall into the editorial side of the Journal. First, they endorsed Walker in 2010 and at that time, I thought the answer was a simple one. They knew Walker was going to win, and they wanted to be on the winning team. I think there is a lot of that in this endorsement, but there is more.


 In this not so ringing endorsement, the editorial board says Walker overreached with his Act 10 public union reforms and that this was as much an attack on the left as actual reform. They write;

"And while we think Act 10 - the law that clipped the wings of most public-employee unions in the state - was an overreach of political power, we understand and supported the need to rein in the state's labor costs. Municipalities and school districts as well as the state needed more control over their budgets, which Act 10 provided."

"But Walker's zeal to give governments more control over their destinies was, we believe, matched only by his zeal to deal a harsh blow to a key Democratic constituency. That has made him a national hero to Republicans."

 Now, think about this logically. This entire recall was based on Act 10. It is the reason for the recall. If you do not agree with Act 10, which the editors call "an overreach of political power", then one cannot turn around and still support Walker. In those two paragraphs, the Journal editors managed to twist themselves into something far more confusing than a pretzel.


 The editorial board goes on to mention the endless John Doe investigation. They say, "Walker has set up a legal-defense fund", like the fact Walker hired some lawyers to defend himself is in itself an implication of guilt. But, they end up saying no evidence "so far" has been leaked out (to the Journal's Dan Bice) , so this is no reason to vote against Gov. Walker. Then the editors make this hilarious joke;

"As for Barrett, we think he has been a good steward of Wisconsin's largest city. Taxes and fees are up, but that's hardly unreasonable given the depth of the budget restraints. Services remain solid. Barrett and his team have helped shepherd new development in the Menomonee Valley, downtown and in the neighborhoods. The mayor has helped heal the often raw relationship between Milwaukee and its suburbs."

"But as a leader, the mayor can be tentative and slow to act. While building consensus is admirable - the opposite of the approach Walker often takes - the mayor can be risk-averse to a fault. One example: He has been slow to articulate a vision for economic development in the city and to develop a strategic economic plan for Milwaukee that dovetails with regional efforts."

 Where do I begin ? Barrett has been a "good steward" of Milwaukee ? Is doing nothing the same as being a "good steward" ? Is being asleep behind the wheel of a car on cruise control the same as driving ? Taxes and fees are up but this is "hardly unreasonable" ? What new development in the Menomonee Valley ? That costume company that wanted to locate there and Mayor Tom and his cronies were so hostile that they built in New Berlin ? What development downtown ? The hotel that almost wasn't built because of some old dilapidated buildings ? That hotel was not built because of Mayor Tom, it was built in spite of him.


 "Slow to articulate a vision ?" Barrett has been the mayor of Milwaukee for 8 years. He had no vision to articulate on day one and he still doesn't have one now, nor will he ever. Once again, the Journal's editors are literally making fools of themselves. They continue with this;

"On the campaign trail, Walker has tried to blame rising taxes and poor job growth in Milwaukee on Barrett. In a campaign stop last week, Walker said that people do not want to see Wisconsin "become another Milwaukee."

"But Walker's attacks on the state's largest city are overblown and divisive. He forgets to mention the fallout from the worst recession in 80 years or his own responsibility in cutting state shared revenue. Or the fact that he was Milwaukee County executive during the downturn."

 "Overblown and divisive ?" Oh no, everything the liberals have done in this state for the last 18 months is perfectly fine, but Walker points out the truth, that Milwaukee is an economic wasteland (a job for the mayor of the city, not the county executive by the way), and it is "overblown and divisive". It gets better, or the poop gets deeper I should say;

"Strip away such purple rhetoric, and you find that Barrett, like Walker, is a capable and honorable public servant. But this election isn't about Tom Barrett. It's about Scott Walker."

"Even if you disagree with Walker's policies, does that justify cutting short his term as governor? And if so, where does such logic lead? To more recall elections? More turmoil?"

"It's time to end the bickering and get back to the business of the state. We've had our differences with the governor, but he deserves a chance to complete his term."

 Mayor Tom is a "capable and honorable public servant" ? OK, before this recall, I would have given the benefit of doubt to honorable, but now I am sure Mayor Tom is neither of those things. But this really brings us to the core of their endorsement, the Journal's editors do not like or agree with Walker. They do not support anything he has done, or at least the way he went about doing them. They think Mayor Tom is peaches and cream, but they still endorse Walker. Why ?


 They see that opening the recall box has released all sorts of demons. The editors understand that now these demons may come after their own soon, and they want to put them back in the box before they do. They want us on the political right to just wash this away, and let it all go. No hard feelings. But, there is another answer to this.


 Even the Journal's editors can see the obscenely liberal biased coverage of Gov. Walker over on the news side of the imaginary wall, and they know how ugly and obvious it has become. So, they spend this entire editorial giving you a bunch of reasons why you shouldn't vote for Walker, then tell you that you should.


 This is not an endorsement, it is a C.Y.A. (Cover Your Ass). This is an attempt to use the editorial page to balance the news, to restore some credibility to the paper, and considering they are trying to do something they really do not want to do, they do a rather poor job of it.


 I think it is now clear this endorsement is hollow, which also makes it meaningless. The one redeeming quality I find is that it is very tacky in a cheap rag, yellow journalism sense, which I love, but I doubt that is the message they want to convey.