There are 5 prevalent myths we need to overcome, and 3 basic principles on which we can agree, in order to stand solidly on the high ground while defending our health care rights. It’s now up to you and me. No one else will do it for us. We owe it to our family, our country, and ourselves. (My other articles present more information concerning myths, the principles, and the prescription for health care. The devastating effect that the legalized bribery known as campaign “contributions” is having right now on the discovery and adoption of an effective solution to the health care crisis by “our” elected legislators is examined in this series of articles, and especially in this entertaining and easily read one.)
______________________________________________________

The FIVE HEALTH CARE MYTHS blocking your families right to health care:

Myth 1: “The United States has the best health care system in the world.”
Truth: We could have the best health care system in the world … if only it weren’t for the way it is administered. If you have unlimited wealth, or are among the very small percentage who have an ironclad lifetime guarantee of no-strings-attached top-drawer insurance, as our politicians have, you can get the finest health care here in the U.S. But for the rest of us, the United States has steadily fallen from the best in the world to the back of the pack of industrialized nations. The World Health Organization once ranked the USA at the top. But we are now ranked behind more than three dozen other countries around the world in objectively measured health care outcomes. That means that your family, any American family, is more likely to experience unfortunate outcomes.

Myth 2: “Guaranteed comprehensive health care for all sounds like a nice idea, but where are we going to get the money to pay for it?”
Truth: We are already spending more money on health care in America than comprehensive health care for all would cost. The truth is that the United States now spends twice as much per capita on health care related costs as all other modern nations in the world spend – countries that all provide guaranteed comprehensive health care for all, with better health care outcomes. We don’t have to spend more, we have to waste less.

Myth 3: “Universal health care is socialized medicine, which eliminates patient choice of physician and care options, and would prevent us from getting health care when we need it. We don’t have to scrap the whole health care system to fix a few problems.”
Truth: First, not a single bill in the House or the Senate proposes socialized medicine. HR 676 and SB 703 propose socialized insurance with medical care provided by the current national network of privately employed doctors, clinics, and hospitals. It’s like the insurance provided by Medicare and by the Social Security system.

Item, the United States does already provide some socialized medicine. Military hospitals and clinics, and the V.A. Medical Centers are owned and operated by the government, supported by taxes, and staffed by government employees. Bethesda Medical Center is an example of long existing “socialized medicine” in the United States, and it provides perhaps the best health care and medical research available in the world.

Item, HR 676 and SB 703 do not propose socialized medicine. But even existing socialized medicine systems, and comprehensive national health programs around the world, as well as HR 676 and SB 703, provide full patient choice of physician and care options. By contrast, in the current U.S. employer-based system, supervised by private insurance corporations, it’s not the patient and her doctor; it’s the employer and the insurance company who have the real choices. The arbitrary rationing that is imposed by insurance corporations, and which is based on increasing profits, harms way more patients than are harmed by necessary triage that is based on purely medical assessment of treatment urgency by doctors.

Item, HR 676 and SB 703 would change only the administration of the system, while leaving the health care itself, including the doctors and nurses, the clinics, the hospitals, the medical schools, the labs, all unchanged. Nobody is proposing scrapping the whole health care system and starting over. The HR 676 and SB 703 proposals are to keep your health care system intact, while replacing the insurance corporation administration, which has utterly failed in its responsibility to the people, with a single-payer administration that is responsible and accountable to the people.

Myth 4: “Everyone needs to have access to affordable health insurance.”
Truth: The truth is that “everyone needs health care”. But health insurance is not health care.
Only private insurance corporations, their top executives, and major stockholders need health insurance.

Myth 5: “Government isn’t the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.”
Truth: This is more than just a myth. This is a despicable and discouraging lie that slanders the principles that justified our American Revolution and form the bedrock of our democratic republic and our carefully fashioned and honed constitutional government, which is still a work in progress. This infamous cynical philosophy disparages the sacrifices and lives lost by every generation of Americans who worked and fought and bled to establish and defend and strengthen the United States of America.

For what do soldiers, sailors, marines, and men and women of the air force and coast guard fight and die, if not for their government? What is the United States of America if not the government, and what is the government if not the people? Government is not “the problem”. Government in America is the people. When government is not working right and serving the people, then we need to work together to fix it (like we need to fix ourselves, at times).

Fixing government does not mean “shrinking it down to a size where we can drown it in the bathtub”, as a nutcase political consultant once proclaimed more than a generation ago. When you or your family makes a mistake or needs fixing, do you fix it by forever berating it and weakening it as much as possible, or by healing and strengthening it? Government in America is designed to fairly represent the people, and to protect all our rights. Each person possesses one vote, and each person has the Constitution, as well. That means we can fix our government. Government will never be perfect, but what else comes close? Corporations? Not hardly.

Corporations are mandated to serve their shareholder interests only, and those interests are determined not on the basis of “one person – one vote”, but on the basis of so many dollars per vote. Corporations didn’t give the people our “bill of rights”. Corporations cannot and never will represent the people, nor concern themselves with the health and well-being of our families. Fixing government means continuing struggle to ensure that we have a government that is of, by, and for the people, all the people, and nothing but the people.

A U.S. government like that would be, by far, the best, most accountable, most responsible and responsive administrator of America’s health care system. Even with the current state of corruption, our government would be far superior to the myriad insurance corporations which are merely targeting ever higher profits, without a care for the health of American families, without a care about the overall cost of the system, the impact of their failed management on the rest of the economy, or the personal tragedies left in their wake.
_______________________________________________

THREE PRINCIPLES to uphold in protecting and strengthening your health care:

(1) The quality and security of your family’s health care is threatened and compromised because health insurance corporations administer the U.S.A. health care system. The people and technology providing America’s health care are among the very best in the world. Your family may need that quality and proficiency at any time. In order for you to have the health care you need, when you need it, the health care system needs to be efficiently and properly managed and administered. But the health insurance industry has had that responsibility for generations, and has been badly and increasingly failing in their responsibility.

They have failed by driving total health care costs per capita to twice what three-dozen countries are paying which have health care outcomes that are now better than in the United States. They have failed by arbitrarily denying patient choice and critically needed health care, causing needless suffering, personal bankruptcy, and death. They have failed while reaping exorbitant profits. We cannot allow health insurance corporations to continue to administer health care to the increasing detriment of families and our country.

We must have a rational health care administration, answerable only to the people and to the doctors and nurses, which will allow every family to choose and retain their own health care provider, and will allow the provider to freely recommend and provide the health care that is medically indicated and appropriate for you and your family. That is not what we have today.

Currently, employers get to select what policy (if any) they will make available, and to provide information about you and your family to the insurance corporation and their “affiliates”. The insurance company gets to impose loopholes and conditions on your policy, with profit-taking fine-print restrictions like “preferred or in-plan provider” and “excluded treatment options” and “pre-existing condition” and “annual, lifetime, or incident limits” and “pre-approval required” and “co-pays and deductibles”. And, of course, your employer or the insurance company can change their relationship with you or each other pretty much at will. These conditions limit and block what should be your family’s health care choice. These employer and insurance industry prerogatives must be eliminated for your family to be assured of getting the health care it needs, and of not being driven to the poorhouse by them. Responsible, ethical health care providers must no longer be forced to consult the fine print of a particular insurance policy, or a corporate gatekeeper without medical training, responsibility, or accountability, before deciding, with you, what health care to provide your family.

(2) You (and all families) need comprehensive health care throughout life, but you don’t need health insurance to provide it. We shouldn’t have to (and frankly, we can’t) choose one of one or two thousand different insurance policies offered now, with all the fine print and complicated clauses. We just need to be able to choose our professional health care providers, and (with the help of these providers) our treatment plan, (without any interference from health care system administrators). We need “comprehensive health care guaranteed for all”, administered for the people, and for the doctors and other professionals who provide it with integrity.

(3) Your family has a basic right to comprehensive quality health care. That right can no longer be subject to the business decisions of your employer, the fine print in a complicated insurance contract, or the efforts of corporations to improve their bottom line that jeopardizes your family’s health. Recognizing your basic right “promotes the general welfare”, as our nation’s founding fathers defined the sacred responsibility of the government they fashioned.

Not only is it morally and ethically “the right thing to do”, it is the practical and wise “right thing to do”. At least one of every three or four health care dollars is wasted in the United States because of the unnecessary cost of running a multitude of bureaucracies administering a health care system that needs to distinguish between what health care you and your family actually needs, versus what health care you and your family “deserves”, as determined by your employer, insurance policy fine print, and the fickle finger of fate.
______________________________________

We can and should gladly and gratefully stick with the fine doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals that currently provide health care in America. We can easily stay with the current hospitals and clinics and other private providers of health care. But we can’t both honestly and clearly discuss the intractable problems causing our health care crisis, while endorsing a reform that retains insurance industry corporations as administrators and managers of our health care. It is irrational, costly, and tragic to have private, for-profit insurance corporations, and private employers, administering our health care.

We need HR 676 – the single-payer solution to the health care crisis. We need to end the cruel game of Russian roulette, with worsening and tragic outcomes, that has emerged with the mismanagement and consistently poor administration of the health care our families need by health insurance corporations. And to do that, we need to also end the stranglehold that corporations and the lobbyists have right now on our elected government officials and on our families health care. Where, when, and how do we start? We start by talking about health care security with our friends, extended family, neighbors, co-workers, and about how to get our families health care security and our government in our own hands, for a change.

Here are ten uncompromised, solid sources of useful, accurate information. Please contact them.
See how you can help. Do what you can – now – for your family and for your country.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/ “Health Care – Now!”
http://www.pnhp.org/ “Physicians for a National Health Program”
http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/ “Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care”
http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net “Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics“
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/ “Single Payer Action“
http://pdamerica.org/policy/priorities.php “Health Care not Warfare”
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/april/america-s-rn-union-targets-congressional-healthcare-leaders-in-new-ad-drive.html “National Nurses Organizing Committee”
http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/ “Unions for Single-Payer Healthcare”
http://www.businesscoalition.net/ “Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare”
http://www.wisdc.org/blog/2009/06/113-million-reasons-why-not.html Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
http://moneyedpoliticians.net/ Ending legalized bribery

Gung Ho (means: work together) America

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
- Mark Twain

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) issued its 2008 Congressional Report Card, and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) issued percentage ratings, on how U.S. Senators and Representatives voted regarding issues of direct importance to disabled veterans and recent combat veterans (and their families). Perhaps, like me, you are interested in how the legislators who represent you in Washington, D.C. and the two Senators who ran last year for President, were rated by the IAVA and the DAV.

______________________________

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) issued report cards last year to every U.S. Senator and Representative.

Over half of all U.S. Senators got an “A” report card from IAVA. Senator Herb Kohl (WI) received an “A”.
Senators Russ Feingold (WI) and Barack Obama (IL) received “B” report cards.
Out of 100 U.S. Senators, IAVA issued only four “D” or “F” report cards.
Senator John McCain (AZ), son of an admiral, was one of those four.

Not one Republican Representative from Wisconsin received an “A” from IAVA.
Every Democratic Representative from Wisconsin received an “A” from IAVA.
F.J. Sensenbrenner got the lowest report card issued last year to any Representative from Wisconsin.

See the full IAVA report card on their web site.
http://www.veteranreportcard.org/

______________________________

Disabled American Veterans (DAV) gave only five U.S. Senators a 100 percent rating on their “key votes” for the 2nd session of the 109th Congress. All five 100 percent ratings were earned by Democratic Senators. All ratings 50 percent and lower were earned by Republican Senators.

Senators Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, and Herb Kohl each got 80 percent ratings.
John McCain was one of only three Senators to earn a 20% rating. No one got lower than 20%.

214 (out of 435 total) members of the U.S. House of Representatives during the 109th Congress received 100% ratings from the Disabled American Veterans. Only 13 Republican Representatives in the entire country were among those 214 legislators who were rated 100 percent by Disabled American Veterans.

All Democratic Representatives from Wisconsin in both the 109th and 110th Congress received 100% ratings from the DAV and were re-elected in both 2006 and 2008.
No Republican Representatives from Wisconsin in the 109th Congress received a 100% rating.
Three Wisconsin Republicans (Sensenbrenner, Ryan, and Petri) received a 75% rating from DAV and were re-elected in 2006.
One Wisconsin Republican (Green) received a 66% rating and was not re-elected in 2006.
All Wisconsin Representatives (both Democratic and Republican) in the 110th Congress received a 100% rating from DAV.
All Wisconsin Representatives (five Democrats and 3 Republicans) were re-elected in 2008. Learn and survive, I guess.

Here is the DAV StandUp4Vets rating of all US Senators and Members of Congress.
Find how your Representative and Senators rated by selecting at the bottom of the “Key Votes” page.
http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/
______________________________

Disclaimer: I do not represent or speak for IAVA or DAV. I have never been a member of either of the two current major political parties. I suggest that you visit the web sites of DAV (www.dav.org) and IAVA (www.iava.org) to learn more about these fine organizations, and the issues they assess as being of importance to veterans and their families. My summary above extracted simple facts that focused on Wisconsin’s Congressional delegation and the two major party ‘08 Presidential candidates, from the studies and legislative tracking undertaken by those veterans organizations.

Here’s a clue – the IAVA and DAV studies of legislative action were objective, and did not include counting lapel pins, photo ops, the opinions of popular talk show hosts, a popularity poll, or the quantity of cheap PR platitudes issued by the politicians. Across the entire country, some Democrats scored high and some scored low. Similarly, some Republicans scored high and some scored low. But you’d best not assume who scored high and who scored low based on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. See the issues the DAV and the IAVA tracked, and how your Representative and Senators rated by going to the web sites above.

You may be surprised – even startled and disbelieving. One Marine vet (a factory worker all his working life) who I spoke with at a local American Legion Hall in Wisconsin read the above summary with a gathering frown, pronounced it “a pack of lies”, and actually set fire to the paper itself with his cigarette lighter. Another time and place, a Navy vet, obviously unfamiliar with both the Disabled American Veterans and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, declared that they must be anti-war organizations. On the other hand, another vet I gave an earlier version of the paper to, later removed the sign he had posted in his front yard that declared, “Veterans for McCain”. (I had suggested that he place the letter “A” before the letter “V”, and remove the letter “s” from the word “veterans”.) And two American combat infantry veterans helped me hand out copies of this leaflet. The most disappointing and disturbing reaction I encountered was from persons who said they weren’t veterans and said they weren’t interested in issues important to veterans.

Some people will hear the truth and consider good evidence.
Some won’t. Some don’t care.
Myths can only be dispelled, and propaganda disarmed, if we are willing and able to recognize truth.
Only truth (not lies) can help us attain and maintain freedom and government that is of, by, and for the people.
And freedom (as well as government of, by, and for the people) isn’t free. We have to work and fight for it.

CLYDE WINTER
INDEPENDENT – A CHOICE for A CHA

In the United States, one in every six citizens has no health insurance, and at least as many more have inadequate insurance, and don’t know it. The lack of adequate insurance closes doors to proper health care here. Many of those that have insurance only discover how inadequate it is, when they really need health care. That’s when they find out (from clerks with little or no medical training) about exclusionary clauses, unavailable treatment, pre-existing conditions, bankrupting deductibles and co-payments, and lifetime, annual, or incident limits. There is finally something we can do about this crippling and too-costly system.

If you’re one of 100 million Americans without adequate or any insurance, whether by choice or not, you are playing a cruel game of Russian roulette with stakes the likes of which you better hope and pray you never learn about the hard way. Most of us play that game during our lives, like it or not. Half the personal bankruptcies in the United States result from medical costs and emergencies. And many, many people suffer and die from not getting needed preventive health care and treatment in time, from inability or reluctance to pay deductibles and co-pays.

Regardless of how good you think your “coverage” is now, you confront the crisis when:
• An employer changes or eliminates benefits to cut costs and improve profitability or just by mistake, or because insurance is no longer offered; or an insurance company changes its policy or its list of acceptable doctors, clinics, or treatment options; or it decides not to provide insurance any longer; or cost of self-insurance becomes prohibitive.
• Marital status, age, health, or employment of you or a family member changes, and insurance coverage ends or changes as a result.
We all encounter the crisis, every day, as American business and industry down-sizes, out-sources, relocates, or ceases operations due to inability to compete with companies that do not have to shoulder the exorbitant costs of private health insurance that unfairly burden American business. This health care crisis is costing us jobs and commerce, as well as lives and health.

The four most outrageous health care myths we must overcome are:

Myth 1: “The United States has the best health care system in the world.”
Truth: We could have the best health care system in the world … if it weren’t for the way it is administered. If you (like any deposed, exiled dictator on good terms with the State Department) have unlimited wealth, or (like any member of Congress) are among the very small percentage who have an ironclad lifetime guarantee of no-strings-attached top-drawer insurance, you can get the finest health care here in the U.S. But for most all the rest of us, measured by all basic health care outcomes, from infant mortality rates to life expectancy, the United States has steadily fallen from number one in the world to the back of the pack of industrialized nations. The World Health Organization now ranks the U.S. health care system in 42nd place compared to all other countries.

Myth 2: “Universal comprehensive health care sounds like a nice idea, but where are we going to get the money to pay for it?”
Truth: We are already spending more money on health care in America than comprehensive health care for all would cost – but we are not getting it. The truth is that the United States now spends twice as much per capita on health care related costs as all other modern nations in the world spend, and these other nations provide comprehensive health care for all, with no gate-keepers and better outcomes, at much less cost.

Myth 3: “Universal single payer health care is socialized medicine, which would eliminate patient choice of physician and care options, and we wouldn’t get health care when we need it.”
Truth: First, there is not a single bill in the House or the Senate proposing socialized medicine. HR 676 and SB 703 propose socialized insurance with medical care provided by the current national network of privately employed doctors, clinics, and hospitals. It’s like the insurance provided by Medicare and by the Social Security system. Second, the United States does actually provide some socialized medicine already, and has done so for a very long time. It is the network of hospitals and clinics owned and operated by the government for the military and the Veterans Administration. Bethesda and Walter Reed Medical Centers are examples of actual “socialized medicine” in the United States. Our active duty and veterans of military service, of all ranks, and their families, use socialized medicine. Our President and Members of Congress, and their families, enjoy the excellent socialized health care provided by these government owned and operated facilities. Third, other modern nations provide comprehensive universal health care where people have full choice of physicians, and where treatment is determined by the medical condition. HR 676 and SB 703 do not propose socialized medicine. But even existing socialized medicine systems around the world provide patient choice of physician and care options. By contrast, in the current U.S. employer-based system, supervised by private insurance corporations, it’s not the patient and her doctor, it’s the employer and the insurance company who have the real choices.

Myth 4: “Everyone should have affordable health insurance.”
Truth: The truth is that everyone needs health care. Private health insurance is not health care. Only private insurance companies, their executives and major stockholders need health insurance.

A third of the dollars spent in the U.S. on “health care” do not actually provide health care. It is spent on “administration” – by, for, and because of the private insurance industry. This includes the costs of overlapping corporate bureaucracies, marketing, administration, many different policies, complex billing for each individual item for each patient, profit-taking, extravagant executive “compensation”, lobbying, and campaign “contributions”. Eliminating these unnecessary costs will reduce overall annual health care costs by 350 billion dollars. We can solve the health care crisis in America, provide comprehensive health care to everyone, produce better health care outcomes, and simultaneously reduce the overall cost of health care. Other nations have done it. We can’t afford to ignore the truth about Canada and the rest of the world, as well as the truth about how our own health care system is being administered.

According to free-market theory, the for-profit providers and the 1500 private health insurance plans in the U.S. were supposed to control costs. They clearly have not done so. Instead of restraining costs they are restricting care and increasing profits. And they are crippling U.S. business in a global marketplace, while running good work and jobs right out of the country. The Health Care Crisis in America continues to worsen, and the legislators that should represent us stand, instead, for the corporations, and against the health care America needs.

Single-payer comprehensive universal health care is the only way we can solve the health care crisis. And solving the health care crisis is essential to extricating us from the current drastic economic crisis caused by unbridled greed managed and facilitated by huge corporations and by government officials enthralled and beholden to them.

The trump card is in the hands of the American people, and we need to play it now.
Talk about it with your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family. Take action.
Tell everyone that we need our elected legislators to sponsor H.R. 676 and S.B. 703 now.

Here are ten uncompromised, solid sources of useful, accurate information. Please contact them.
See how you can help. Do what you can – now – for your family and for your country.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/ “Health Care – Now!”
http://www.pnhp.org/ “Physicians for a National Health Program”
http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/ “Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care”
http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net “Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics“
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/ “Single Payer Action“
http://pdamerica.org/policy/priorities.php “Health Care not Warfare”
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/april/america-s-rn-union-targets-congressional-healthcare-leaders-in-new-ad-drive.html “National Nurses Organizing Committee”
http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/ “Unions for Single-Payer Healthcare”
http://www.businesscoalition.net/ “Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare”
http://clydewinter.wordpress.com/category/health-care-crisis/ examining the health care crisis

“This ongoing experience of startling significant inequities in our society, particularly brought to my attention in the field of health care, but also evident in education, employment, criminal justice, finance, and other areas, has revealed to me a society and its leaders pathologically unable to face their responsibilities and take effective action, and who instead persistently seek to deny responsibility, hide problems, and blame the victim.” – Glenn Winter, M.D. “Caring for the Uninsured and Underinsured – A Communication from the Front Lines”

In Ozaukee County, Darcy McManus got 44 percent of the votes from the 23 percent of those registered who voted. Therefore, long-time District Attorney Sandy Williams will be the new Branch 3 Circuit Court Judge here. Ozaukee residents might be interested to learn about an earlier but unsuccessful candidate for election to be the Ozaukee/Washington County District Attorney, one Leland Stanford. Name sound familiar? After losing the election for D.A., Mr. Stanford lost his library in a fire, was reported by the news media as “failed in winning most of his cases” in Washington/Ozaukee county, became disgusted with “this neck of the woods”, and hightailed it for California. Mr. Stanford soon returned to the Midwest to nominate Abraham Lincoln for President in 1860 in Chicago, was elected Governor of California in 1861, drove the last spike in the railroad at Promontory Point, and in 1885, was elected to the U.S. Senate from California. Stanford University was built and named after him.

Coincidentally, only 44 percent of those who voted in Ozaukee County selected Shirley Abrahamson over Randy Koschnick for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. In contrast, a comfortable majority of 59 percent of those who voted throughout the entire state decided to re-elect the first woman to ever sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so Chief Justice Abrahamson will continue to serve.

In Ozaukee County, a minority of 40 percent of those who voted selected current Deputy Superintendent Tony Evers over Rose Fernandez for Superintendent of Public Instruction. In contrast, 57 percent of those who voted throughout Wisconsin decided to elect Tony Evers.

This election dissonance is only the latest echo of how Ozaukee and Washington counties have often voted entirely out of synch with the state as a whole. The first example to consider is from the Civil War years. From 1855 through 1871, Republican candidates won every election for Governor in Wisconsin. From 1856 through 1888, Republican candidates for President (including Abe Lincoln) won the popular vote in Wisconsin, usually by very wide margins. However, none of those Republican victors in Wisconsin during those years ever won in Ozaukee and Washington counties, which was a hard-core, persistent base of the “Copperhead” Democrats, and the only Wisconsin county in which an armed violent insurrection against the U.S. government ever occurred during war time. (The Republican Party was founded principally to arrest the spread of, and then abolish, slavery in the USA.) After the Civil War was won (at a cost of over twelve thousand Wisconsin lives lost in combat) Wisconsin ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Those historic, landmark amendments abolished slavery in America, extended due process and equal protection of the law to all persons in every state, and guaranteed the right to vote everywhere in America regardless of race or color. Those were three very important milestones in the development of American democracy and the evolution of the U.S. Constitution towards freedom, justice, and human rights for all. It’s shocking to realize that not a single legislator representing Ozaukee or Washington counties voted in favor of the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. That’s a stark and startling example, for starters, of exactly where Ozaukee and Washington counties have stood in the past, in relation to the arc of history, freedom, and human rights.

It was during the Great War (WWI) when Ozaukee and Washington counties finally shook off the stubborn long and lonely adherence to the pro-slavery/anti-civil-rights Copperhead faction of the Democratic party. This was likely because of strong opposition to Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and U.S. participation against Germany in the Great (World) War. Ozaukee and Washington county legislators then switched and became “stalwart” Republicans. Subsequently, in 1919, Wisconsin became the first state to ratify the 19th Amendment which, at long last, guaranteed the right to vote to women throughout the United States. However, if it had been left to the now Republican legislators who represented Ozaukee and Washington counties, the amendment would not have been ratified, and women would not have gotten that right. Even the one legislator who did vote “Aye” at the final reading of the bill, after Wisconsin ratification became inevitable, voted (prior to the final vote) for all delaying procedures and killing amendments, along with the tiny minority who actually voted “No” for the record at the end. All other senators or assemblymen representing Ozaukee and Washington counties either voted “No” or were not present to vote. On April 7, 2009, a woman was elected for the first time ever to serve as a Judge in Ozaukee County, in the first contested election for circuit court in thirty years. (There was no chance for a man to win, since both candidates in the April 7, 2009 election were women.) So, on a couple of historical notes, Ozaukee County made noteworthy progress this spring.

As you may have surmised, neither Abrahamson, Evers, nor McManus were the choice of the current Ozaukee ruling party. But in recent decades, up until last fall, a candidate who is not the choice of the Ozaukee ruling party could hope for no more than a third of the vote in a general election. However, last November, Barack Obama got just shy of 40 percent of the vote in Ozaukee County, while winning quickly and decisively in Wisconsin and in the United States. So the bar was raised significantly in Ozaukee County last year. And this spring, the bar was raised further yet in the general election, when Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Circuit Court Judge candidate Darcy McManus each got 44 percent of the vote, running against the status quo prevailing wind that has blown in Ozaukee County, regardless of the name of the ruling party here, since statehood.

On Tuesday April 7, 2009 for the first time in thirty years, voters will have a choice in a contested election for judge for our Ozaukee County Circuit Court, which is the first stop in the judicial system for civil and criminal legal matters under state law. I urge that you help get out the vote for Darcy McManus. I have several reasons.

While both candidates have law degrees, and have practiced as attorneys, I believe Darcy (as a National Merit Scholar and graduate, with honors, from a state University law school) is the most intelligent candidate. She is also the only candidate with any actual judicial experience. Darcy has served 15 years on the bench as the Ozaukee County Court Commissioner. She has served as President of the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioner’s Association, and member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Planning and Policy Advisory Committee. She also comes across, in person, as the least arrogant judicial candidate, and the one most sensitive to the essential fact that the law is meant, first and foremost, to serve and protect people. Darcy has a heart, and our Ozaukee County Circuit Court and Justice Center needs that.
See www.darcymcmanusforjudge.com for Darcy McManus’ profile of professional and community service and experience, and to offer your needed help and support.

In recent years, the Ozaukee County District Attorney has prosecuted several cases of teenagers or pre-teens for alleged “sexual assault” in Circuit Court, where the supposed “victims” have been close to the same age as the individual charged, and it is a stretch to describe the alleged conduct as either “sexual” or as an “assault”. The prosecution itself can be fairly characterized as over-zealous, and the consequences have been contrary to the interests of justice, and harmful to the people directly involved and the community. I believe Darcy McManus would take steps to ensure that criminal matters brought to a courtroom for which she is responsible would be carefully considered to protect the community and the people, and not just the sometimes imperfect letter of the law. I believe Judge McManus would help to make the Justice Center a more helpful and humane place than it is now. See the footnote at the end of this for more on prosecutions of this nature in Ozaukee County.

In the past thirty years, new judges taking office in the Ozaukee Circuit Court have been appointed after service in a District Attorney’s office. An appointment occurs (instead of an election) when a vacancy occurs mid-term, and that “just happens” to be how each vacancy has occurred and been filled for thirty years. When election time comes around, we voters have then been presented with a “fait accompli”, and an unopposed “incumbent” who easily wins “re-election”. This has been especially “convenient” in Ozaukee when vacancies occur while the sitting governor is a member of the local Party in power. In the past, the Governor has appointed a successor, pleasing to the local Party, right out of the partisan political office of District Attorney.

Darcy McManus’ opponent has long experience as a prosecutor, but that is Sandy Williams only professional legal experience. Darcy herself has 15 years judicial experience as Court Commissioner, besides previous professional experience as a prosecutor for the City of Port Washington, as a defense attorney, and in private practice.

Darcy’s opponent has been a campaigner and a very active member of a partisan political party. Darcy, in contrast, is not and has not been a member of any political party. A Judge can be expected to have personal opinions, including political points of view, but a Judge should certainly not be a partisan politician.

If Judge McCormack had resigned mid-term (like all predecessors did), and if the sitting Governor had been a Republican, you can safely bet that Sandy Williams would have been appointed to fill the vacancy, as in the past, and the people would again have had no choice in who would be the next judge, as has been the case for the last thirty years.

So I’m voting for Darcy McManus because I think she has the:
• most qualification (15 years on the bench as a Court Commissioner),
• most intelligence, combined with the most genuine humility,
• best melding of judicial firmness, discipline, temperament, compassion,
• least partisan political bias,
• will to bring proper judicial perspective to punitive, harsh criminal prosecution and punishment of Ozaukee County children who have perhaps been foolish, but are not (yet) dangerous or incorrigible, and who still have a future worth preserving.

Disclaimer: This letter was written at no expense, entirely and only by Clyde Winter of Cedarburg, unaffiliated with any candidate or political party or interest group, to express my concerns and opinions about the current and unique contested Ozaukee County Circuit Court non-partisan election.

FOOTNOTE:

While the teen-age sexual assault cases referred to above are not at all identical, there are a couple of things that leap to mind when learning about each and every one of them. First, there is the unavoidable question, “Where is the “assault”, here?” The alleged behavior may be, or border on, unwise, ill considered, and/or foolish. In some eyes, it may even be excessively so. The alleged behavior may require parental or societal guidance or correction, with the possible help of teachers, counselors, or spiritual advisers. But whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, strict or permissive, the circumstances of these several cases do not call out for criminal prosecution for “sexual assault”, and all the life-long consequences.

Behavior identical or similar to that alleged in these cases has been very common in youthful behavior – and misbehavior – for many, many generations. Even if not fully accepted as ideal or even acceptable, it is extremely rare that such behavior is prosecuted under criminal law – at least in my lifetime and in America. But in Ozaukee County, we have been seeing a consistent pattern of such atypical prosecution and persecutions of working class youth by our Circuit Court.

Our current Circuit Court Judges, and the District Attorney’s office, have done nothing to arrest this trend and pattern. Instead there are expressions of denial, asserting that such prosecutions are merely following “the letter of the law”, and there is no room for discretion. But that is untrue. Prosecutions have been pressed on these strange cases despite the unanimous opposition of the supposed “victims” as well as parents of the “victim”. Excessive bail has been charged, out of proportion with much more serious, dangerous cases. Young people who have fully cooperated with investigators, and who have never been in trouble with the law before, have even been jailed, even without bail, and prosecuted as an adult, despite being a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

These are cases involving children of the same age, or nearly the same age, engaging in romance, games, or horse-play. But if the person named by the court as the “victim” is a minor under the law, the person named as the perpetrator (even if also a minor) can be charged with “sexual assault on a minor” (subject to the court and prosecutor’s discretion), which can carry a sentence on conviction, of 40 years in prison, and reporting requirements with public notice as a sex offender for the rest of ones life.

How is the Circuit Court learning of these “cases”. Are local doctors or clinics and hospitals reporting pregnancies they suspect to be out of wedlock to courts or the police? Are local teachers or school administrators or religious zealots directly informing the police, the D.A., or the courts when they suspect children are playing inappropriately?

These cases should never be prosecuted, unless there are accompanying seriously aggravating circumstances. But harsh injustice and unfairness results when teen-age romance and hi-jinks are prosecuted, like they are now in Ozaukee County, partly because the cases that surface are highly unlikely to ever involve prosecution (much less conviction) of children of very wealthy or well-connected families. And those kids can be just as unwise, and fool around just like all children can.

Inappropriate behavior of teenagers should be corrected, and punished, if appropriate, but that does not have to mean initiating a felony prosecution, affixing a “sex offender” label, and issuing draconian court orders.

Two of these cases are further discussed in the first two articles below:
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.wiscjury.htm
http://wissup.blogspot.com/2008/12/14-year-old-arrested-mequon-sex.html
http://clydewinter.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/examining-an-inquest/

According to a story from long ago, a big man named Solomon was empowered to decide which woman was the mother of a child they each insistently claimed. In apparent frustration, he announced he would cleave the infant in two with a sword and give half to each woman. One woman immediately relinquished her claim to the baby, saying, “Give her the living child and in no wise slay it.” Solomon awarded her the baby, declaring that only the real mother would love her child so much as to give it up in order to save its life. The story is still told (Bible: 1 Kings 3), and it is asserted that this judicial decision demonstrated Solomon’s surpassing wisdom and cemented his reputation.

Actually, the convincing testimony came from the other woman, not from the tearful plea of the first to speak, don’t you agree? Solomon’s horrifying proposal was not likely a bluff, considering the numerous bloody stories and retributions replete in the extant stories of that time and place, and considering the child of contention was not “of high birth”. It provoked a sudden outburst from one woman to let the other woman have the baby. But it is at least conceivable that the true mother might have been momentarily paralyzed by abject fear and terror, while the conflicted, guilty, frightened deceiver might have jumped instantly at the opportunity to escape the dilemma (and a consequent lifetime of guilt) that her anguish at the death of her own infant, and her jealousy of the mother whose child still lived, had fashioned for her. The deceiver may have imagined, while hatching and executing her hurried plot, that it might work and that her deception wouldn’t be uncovered. She likely never imagined, in the minute or two it took to conceive and commit herself to the crime, that it would come to this. And she now desperately needed and sought an escape from her folly. When Solomon provided her the courtroom opportunity, that escape would appear instantly attainable, by quickly renouncing her claim in order to prevent the baby-splitting.

After Solomon announced his intention and called for the sword, the first woman to speak said what any woman in such a startling circumstance (true mother or not) would likely have said. She was the first to speak aloud, but what she said was certainly not proof of maternity. It was proof of compassion and of a will to prevent a brutal infanticide. Either the true mother of the live child, or the agonized mother of the dead child, could have been the first to plead, “in no wise slay it”. That sudden plea was not enough evidence for Solomon (or any judge) to decide with any certainty of justice.

However, as the story is told, Solomon’s award of the child appears to us undoubtedly correct, as the other woman, speaking after the first, said, “Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.” Hack away, said she. It is unlikely that a sane true mother of the living child would say those words (though it is not impossible that a mother suffering from post-partum depression, or other drug or disease induced psychosis, might say such a thing. But even if that were the case, such a severely afflicted biological mother would be an inadequate, even dangerous, caretaker of a newborn infant, and Solomon’s decision, it could be argued, would have ensured the child’s welfare and even survival, and thus have been the wiser choice between the two.)

But look once again. It is also unlikely, almost unbelievable, that a deceiver would have said to Solomon (before he ruled, but after the other woman had just relinquished her claim to the baby) to (in effect) ‘go ahead, just slice the baby in half, neither mother should have the living child’. She would thus be unnecessarily relinquishing her claim and simultaneously admitting her guilt of attempted kidnapping and perjury, and in that courtroom, in those days of stoning a woman to death for the “crime” of unapproved sex, or for eating the wrong food, or wearing the wrong clothing, such a statement would have been suicidal. It is not strictly impossible, but it is highly implausible that the testimony as given, which alone made possible Solomon’s “wise” decision, could have been expected, or counted on.

While the statements of the principals in the story as it is now told make Solomon’s decision not only defensible, but almost unassailable, it is unlikely that those statements in reply to the threatened splitting of the living infant, or other statements similarly conclusive, could have been expected by a sensible person. For example, it would have been a more likely expectation prior to the hearing, that both mothers would make a similar, even simultaneous plea to Solomon to sheath the sword and spare the child. It is also not inconceivable that the kidnapper would have her wits about her when Solomon proposed the division, and would speak cleverly before the shocked real mother could reply. It is very possible that the grief-stricken mother of the infant who died had devised and executed her scheme in great haste and agonized sorrow, in the darkness of early morning, with little time or mind for reflection, and when confronted with Solomon’s drawn sword, she would desperately need, and find, a way to undo her folly. Solomon’s ruling inevitably favored the first to utter a reply, because both mothers would have most likely replied in the same way, given a moment to recover from shock and horror. A clear-thinking person could not have expected, with any certainty, or even any significant degree of probability, the courtroom testimony as reported by the story.

The way that Solomon conducted his court on that day was, therefore, inhumane, impatient, and unwise, and might well have resulted in an unjust and incorrect, or arbitrary decision, had he been presented with testimony other than the surprising, self-implicating statement of the second woman to speak after the sword was drawn. Solomon was very lucky that day to get the testimony that allowed him to make the decision that succeeding generations have supported. Being lucky isn’t being wise.

While Solomon may have been the wisest man who ever lived, he certainly lapsed on that day, when he painted his judgment and his reputation into a corner with either a bluff, or a lethal threat to kill an innocent child, that he and everyone were very fortunate to escape. Solomon’s courtroom tactic was akin to the medieval “trial by fire”, waterboarding, or the tortures of the Inquisition. It was more a way to demonstrate power than a sound way to get at the truth. Solomon wasn’t necessarily even the wisest person in the courtroom that day. The wisest person in the courtroom – indeed the wisest person who ever lived – may have been a woman. Most mothers know that a quick, glib, and emotional response is not the best indicator of veracity. A wise and knowledgeable woman, in Solomon’s place, would have adjudicated with more certainty, deftness, and sensitivity, and without employing undue haste and a threat to murder a little baby.

Possessing neither infallible judgment, convincing evidence, eye-witness testimony, nor DNA testing, Solomon got the evidence he felt was sufficient with a terrorizing threat. But why did he not seek expert testimony from an experienced mid-wife to determine whether the living child was born that day or three days earlier, as testimony in the story indicated? If that was not feasible, did these two women not have friends and relations in the city who had seen and spent time with either of the children, and could pick the child out of a “baby line-up”?
____________________________________________________________________

How well do you know this old story? I have a question (or two) for you, kind reader, if you can spare a moment:

(1) Which woman was the real mother of the live baby? Was it the woman (call her Alice) who woke up in the morning with the dead infant in her bed, and who accused the other woman (call her Beth) of having stolen her baby in the night, and who brought the case to Solomon’s judgment? Or was it Beth, who merely denied Alice’s allegations in her testimony?
(2) If you have the time or inclination to reflect, and to share your answer, what means might a wise woman Judge have used to adjudicate this contested case?

Please send your answers in a comment at the end of this essay.
____________________________________________________________________

Voters in Ozaukee County and in Wisconsin have our own decisions to make regarding our 21st century judicial system on Tuesday, April 7, in the Spring General Election for non-partisan elected offices.

We won’t be deciding which is the wisest man to be the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we’ll be deciding which is the wisest person to hold this position. The incumbent, seeking re-election, is the first woman ever in history to be a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Read and download the Voter Guide questionnaire and candidate responses for the Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice election between Shirley Abrahamson and Randy Koschnick. http://www.lwvwi.org . The Voter Guide, linked to on the home page of this League of Women Voters of Wisconsin website, also conveniently contains the questionnaire and responses from the two candidates for the office of Wisconsin state Superintendent of Public Instruction. You can intelligently decide who you are going to vote for in the two statewide elections, in just a couple minutes, based on these candidate responses.

And we definitely will not be just rubber-stamping (as usual) the latest man appointed to be our next Ozaukee Circuit Court Judge. For the first time since the Circuit Court system was established, the first time in thirty years, voters in Ozaukee County will actually have the opportunity to select a Judge of the Ozaukee County Circuit Court in a contested election. Compare the actual qualifications of candidates Darcy McManus and Sandy Williams, each running to be the first woman Judge ever on the Ozaukee Circuit Court. See and hear both McManus and Williams at the Candidates Forum in the Mequon Weyenberg Library on April 1 at 7 PM. Read the reasons I endorse Darcy McManus for Judge.

http://www.darcymcmanus.com/
http://votewilliamsforjudge.com/
http://clydewinter.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/ozaukee-county-circuit-court-election/

The STATEWIDE, COUNTY, REGIONAL, and MUNICIPAL offices to be elected in contested elections in Ozaukee County in the April 7, 2009 Spring Election are shown in very condensed, convenient, voter-friendly format here:


Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (10 year term)

• Shirley S. Abrahamson – incumbent Chief Justice
• Randy R. Koschnick – Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge

State Superintendent of Public Instruction (4 year term)

• Tony Evers
• Rose Fernandez

District 2 Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge (6 year term)
(Calumet, Fond Du Lac, Green Lake, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha, Winnebago counties)

• ???

Ozaukee County Circuit Court Judge, Branch 3 (6 year term)

• Darcy E. McManus – Ozaukee County Court Commissioner
• Sandy A. Williams – Ozaukee County District Attorney

Mid-Moraine Municipal Court Judge (2 year term, part-time position)
(This election occurs in cities and villages, only, excepting Mequon-Thiensville.)

• Steve Cain
• John Grundahl

CONTESTED LOCAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

CITIES

CEDARBURG – Common Council (1-year term)
• District 3: William M. Bujanovich, Art Filter
• District 7: Scott Hill, Robert Loomis

PORT WASHINGTON – Common Council (2-year term)
• District 1: Bryan Deal, Michael Erlich

VILLAGES

BELGIUM – (2-year terms)
• President: Kevin Kowalski, Donald Schommer
• Village Board: (3 seats): Robert Andruzejewski, Ed Buechler, Ellen Lukas, Dale Pfeifer, Jeffery Ritter, John Thiele,

GRAFTON
• Village President: Brunquell, Lombness
• Village Board: (3 seats, 2-year terms):
James Grant, Ronald LaPean, Cory Peters, Richard Rieck, Carl Stier

SAUKVILLE – Village Board Trustee (3 seats)
• Joseph Caban, Michael Krocka, David Maglio, Brian Peschel

THIENSVILLE – (2-year terms)
• Village Board: (2 seats): Gail Buenger, Toni Ihler, Don Molyneaux

TOWNS

FREDONIA
• Town Board (2 seats, 2-year terms):
David Brown, Christopher Janik, James Stemper

SAUKVILLE
• Chairman (2-year term): Barbara Jobs, Richard Tesker

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS

CEDAR GROVE-BELGIUM (3 seats, 3-year terms)
Vickie Boehnlein, Chad Hoopman, James D. Lautenschlager, Dan Zuelsdorf

PORT WASHINGTON-SAUKVILLE (2 seats)
• Douglas Cvetkovich, Myron Praeger, Patty Ruth

FOX POINT-BAYSIDE and NICOLET school districts also have contested elections.

The first page article in the Ozaukee News-Graphic on November 6 began by asserting that “… voters in Ozaukee County stayed true to their Republican roots.” Talk about beginning a news report with fallacies – this takes the cake. First, Ozaukee County’s roots, for the first fifty-plus years of our statehood, were deeply and entirely embedded in the Democratic Party. Despite the Republican Party having been founded in Wisconsin, and overwhelmingly the choice of Wisconsinites, before, during, and for many years after the Civil War, Ozaukee County always voted for Democrats to represent it, until WWI. And second, while, some Republican voters did vote the Party-line, certainly not all did, and not nearly as many as did in the recent past. Our local newspaper report of the election could not have been more factually incorrect (while being, of course, quite “politically correct”, as far as the current local ruling party establishment is concerned).

If that opening headline and first sentence wasn’t sufficiently misleading for “news” readers, the sentence following that opening is obviously and wildly false. It is just not possible that “… 75.4 percent of registered voters cast straight-party Republican ballots”, as the newspaper report asserted, when it was 75 percent of registered voters who voted, period. The truth is that only 23 percent of registered voters “cast straight-party Republican ballots”. The third sentence in the article then iced their own preposterous cake by falsely asserting, “That was 3 percent higher than in the 2004 presidential election, despite an unprecedented push from Democratic canvassers.” The uncomfortable truth is that the Democratic candidate for President got 16 percent more votes in Ozaukee County in 2008 than in 2004, and the Republican candidate got 8 percent fewer votes than in 2004. Think twice before you believe what you read in our local newspaper.

The simple unspun truth is that in Ozaukee County, the Democratic candidate for President collected 39 percent of the vote in 2008, in contrast to less than 34 percent in 2004, and the Republican candidate for President did correspondingly poorer in 2008 compared to 2004. The editor, if not the reporter, should have reconsidered saying “despite … Democratic canvassers” in their “news report”. And they should have pointed out that the canvassers were local volunteers.

If the News-Graphic wants to use the word “despite” in their “news report”, it should try using it in this sentence:

“Despite the significant increase in population since the 2004 Presidential election, and the greater number of actual voters, the Republican candidate for President this November received 8 percent fewer actual votes in Ozaukee County than did the Republican candidate for President in 2004. Barack Obama, on the other hand, received 16 percent more votes in 2008 than did the Democratic candidate in 2004.”

Would the News-Graphic ascribe that simple truth to “Democratic canvassers”, or to growing public awareness, or to both? Does that simple fact not throw a bit of light on the newspaper’s factually false and biased “news report” spin that “voters in Ozaukee County stayed true to their Republican roots”?

Journalists and newspapers can’t claim to be competent or responsible if they just quote statistics and loaded words and spin provided by politically partisan government officials without doing a little bit of independent thinking or checking before printing them. But the Cedarburg-published News-Graphic, if nothing else, is notoriously following a well-worn path. In September of 1896, for example, the publisher of the Cedarburg News declared arrogantly in print that, “… a gentleman of Mr. McGinley’s political faith (Republican) cannot be elected (to the state senate) from this district.” Looking only in the rear view mirror, it is easy to see why he made such a confident prediction. There had never been a Republican elected to the state senate to represent Ozaukee County. It is a satisfying, fitting footnote to history that the eight senate elections immediately following that bold assertion that a Republican “cannot be elected” were all won by Republican candidates.

In recent Presidential elections prior to 2008, two out of every SIX Ozaukee County votes were cast for the Democratic Party candidate. But in 2008, two out of every FIVE Ozaukee County votes were cast for Barack Obama. That certainly indicates a change – but not the phony “3 percent” change in the other direction implied by the newspaper article, and it doesn’t imply “staying true” to the status quo, either. Then again, it does imply an electorate here that is a tad out of synch with the rest of Wisconsin and the rest of the United States. In that respect, Ozaukee County does remain true to its 19th Century roots, when not a single legislator representing Ozaukee and Washington counties voted to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. (The 13th abolished slavery in the United States after the Civil War.)

There was another significant change in Ozaukee and Washington counties this year. Seven legislative offices representing parts of Ozaukee and Washington counties were actually contested in the general election this year. There were clear choices on the ballot for Wisconsin state Senate district 20, for Wisconsin state Assembly district 58, and for U.S. Congress district 5. But there was no Democrat running in those three races. Those who wished to vote for President and also to vote for one or more challengers to incumbent Republican legislators Sensenbrenner, Grothman, and/or Strachota, could not vote a straight-party ticket. (This insurgent choice for a change would explain a relative increase this year in the ratio of straight Republican tickets cast, compared to straight Democratic tickets. As has been the case in the past, in part of Ozaukee County, most of Washington County, southern Sheboygan County, southeastern Fond du Lac County, and Theresa in Dodge County, the only Democrat running for office was the one running for U.S. President.)

Most residents of Ozaukee and Washington counties had more than one name on the ballot for the offices of U.S. Congress, state Senate, and state Assembly. That is not merely newsworthy. That is a truly historic development here. There were four Democrats (Dr. Sheldon Wasserman, Dr. Rene’ Settle-Robinson, Perry Duman, and Charlene Brady) and three Independents (Robert Raymond, Clyde Winter, and Greg Dombro) giving us a choice for a change in Ozaukee and Washington counties.

(Ironically, the only grassroots candidates challenging the status quo here, who actually worked together and cooperated with each other in challenging the Republican incumbents, were the two Independent candidates running for the state legislature.)

Unfortunately, none of the challengers won their election, although all of them provided an important, substantive, progressive alternative. Interestingly, none of the four non-establishment, local candidates representing change in Ozaukee County received anything close to the percentage of votes that Barack Obama received there. Why that occurred is an important subject for those not well-served or well-represented by the status quo to explore and hopefully to understand.

Robert Raymond (conservative Independent) won 20 percent of the vote in the 5th Congressional District, with 21 percent in Ozaukee County and 17 percent in Washington County.

Clyde Winter (progressive Independent) won 20 percent of the vote in the 20th state Senate district, with 23 percent in Ozaukee County (not including Mequon-Thiensville) and 19 percent in Washington County (not including Hartford, Germantown, etc).

Greg Dombro (progressive Independent) won 17 percent of the vote in the 58th Assembly district of Washington County (West Bend, Jackson, Slinger, Addison, etc).

Perry Duman (progressive Democrat) won 30 percent of the vote in the 60th Assembly district (Port Washington, Cedarburg, Grafton, Saukville, and Town of Trenton).

Dr. Rene’ Settle-Robinson (D) won 42 percent of the vote in the 23rd Assembly district, with 27 percent in Mequon-Thiensville of Ozaukee County.

Dr. Sheldon Wasserman (D) won 49 percent of the vote in the 8th state Senate district, with 38 percent in Mequon-Thiensville of Ozaukee County and 31 percent in Germantown and Richfield of Washington County.

Charlene Brady (D) won 38 percent of the vote in the 24th Assembly district, with 35 percent in Germantown and Richfield of Washington County.

Despite none of the challengers in Ozaukee and Washington counties winning an office this time, it was an exhilarating, gratifying, and useful experience, and it is a source of pride and honor, to have shared a place on this 2008 general election ballot with President-elect Barack Obama.

The day before the election, combat infantry veteran and progressive Independent Greg Dombro, when confronted with expressions of fear and intolerance about Barack Obama, and with questions of who he supported for President, said, “I’m voting for Barack Obama, but I’ll tell you how I feel about this election. No matter who wins, he’s going to have my complete support. America is facing such huge neglected and growing problems, that we cannot afford to be divided by partisan bickering – hating and fearing one another and our own President. America needs to work together for a change.”

Thank you and your family, Greg.
Thanks to all of you who made this election year interesting and hopeful, inciting and insightful, despite the ominous portents and misleading, degrading distractions.
Gung Ho! Wisconsin and America!

For the first time in a very long time – several generations, at least – we will have more than one name on the general election ballot in Ozaukee and Washington counties (for state Senate district 20 as well as Assembly districts 58 and 60, and for state Senate district 8 as well as Assembly districts 23 and 24). When there is only one name on the ballot, and no viable challenge, decade after decade, the legislators doesn’t have to worry about how you and I are going to vote. And if they don’t have to worry about how we’re going to vote, the only thing left for them to worry about is how the corporate donors, lobbyists, and anonymous ad sponsors with a grasp on their party, expect them to act in office. That does not give us government of, by, and for the people. That imposes on us a government by and for corporations and lobbyists.

That sort of government, both in Madison and Washington, has burdened us with the greatest transfer of wealth in history, from the middle class and the working poor, to the super-rich and the mega-corporations. We have just witnessed the astounding specter of many of “our” elected representatives, and “our” President, telling us there is no time to lose looking at the details of their bailout plan. Many of these “public servants” said the people must immediately post bail for the inordinately wealthy criminals and selfish incompetents who have just robbed us (and future generations) blind, and rudely shoved the world economy up to and maybe over the edge to oblivion.

This is corporate welfare, a protection racket, and socialism for the super-rich, while the long ago discredited principles of sink-or-swim laissez-faire capitalism are applied to the rest of us. This is because “our” elected officials, and the two major parties that control almost all of them, are owned (or unduly influenced, if you prefer) by big money “benefactors” and the lobbyists who promote their interests. The rich and powerful expect their profits to be privatized and sheltered from taxes, while they expect their losses to be socialized – paid for by the people.

A government that is truly of, by, and for the people would have immediately focused on recovering the loot, protecting the people on Elm Street from the consequences of this massive larceny, and issuing indictments and subpoenas. More to the point, such a government of, by, and for the people would not have thrown open the door to such larceny in the first place. It is now crystal-clear that more de-regulation is not the answer. Neither is heaping on ill-conceived regulations. We need better regulation, with strong enforcement, to protect the economy, the people, and the future.

The people, local municipalities, states, and the federal government are engulfed in a growing trickle-down flood of the consequences of bad decisions and irresponsible management. The current financial meltdown is only the latest and worst consequence of a series of larcenous scams followed by taxpayer bailouts, beginning in the 1980s, which make sensible planning all but impossible at all levels of government, including our households.

I am running against the wind as an Independent to represent state senate district 20. As an Independent, no political parties, no corporate donors, and no lobbyists, have undue influence.

There are issues before our Wisconsin legislature (in the form of introduced bills) that are extremely important to working people and families. Issues like ending the health care crisis, protecting and strengthening and passing on the legacy of our universal public education system, reversing the burden of higher taxes accompanying diminished essential and beneficial services, and handing a planet whose land, water, air, diversity, and beauty are protected for generations yet to come. There is a great deal of misinformation, heavily financed propaganda, red-herring distraction, and myth surrounding these issues, all of which are impeding our way to sound solutions. These are issues about which I, and the entrenched incumbent, have clearly distinct and differing assessments and stands.

See more about these issues, and how I assess them by clicking on the hyperlink in this sentence.

Vote for Clyde Winter, Independent, for State Senate District 20 on November 4, 2008.

Two recent lead articles by the Shepherd Express about contested elections for the state legislature in Wisconsin have both omitted any mention of the unique historic (not merely newsworthy) facts about five grassroots progressive challengers to the Ruling Party’s unquestioned (until now) omnipotence and incumbents in Ozaukee and Washington counties. To be fair, the Shepherd Express is merely following the lead of, and acting no differently than the rest of the mainstream print and broadcast media, including public TV and radio. (Establishment Democrat Dr. Sheldon Wasserman, running for Senate district 8, makes six challenged seats in Ozaukee and Washington counties this year, and Sheldon, alone, has been mentioned by the mainstream media including public radio and the S-Express.)

“News and Views” by publisher Louis Fortis on October 9, page 7, stated in the opening paragraph of an article headlined, “State Senate Update: Who Is Going to Win? Eight districts are in play” that “Sixteen of the 33 state Senate seats are up for election this year, eight currently held by each party. Of the eight seats held by each party, four seats from each party are held by unopposed incumbents. That leaves eight seats – four held by Democrats and four held by Republicans – that will decide the majority for next session.”

Not true, Mr. Fortis.

Four seats from each party are NOT held by unopposed incumbents, Mr. Fortis. Only three Republican seats are held by unopposed incumbents. There are NOT eight contested senate seats, Mr. Fortis. There are nine contested senate seats, and this fact has been clearly and unambiguously known and documented by the G.A.B. since early July. Perhaps your Democratic Party informants didn’t tell you about the ninth contested senate seat. Gosh, Mr. Fortis, only “eight districts are in play”? Thanks for telling me. Maybe those of us who are actively challenging your hidebound conventional wisdom (or might consider doing so in the future) ought to get practical and realistic and not waste our time and efforts. The way things are now, are how they shall always be, ain’a? How do you think change comes about, Mr. Fortis? By magic? By proclamation? By your proclamation?

Senate Republican Caucus Chair Glenn Grothman (S-20) is opposed by an Independent who qualified for listing on the November general election ballot at the same time as (or before) all of the two major party candidates. (Senate District 20 includes all of Ozaukee County except Mequon-Thiensville, all of Washington County including West Bend except Germantown and Hartford and southern portions, southern Sheboygan County from Waldo down, including Random Lake, Oostburg, and Cedar Grove, southeast Fond du Lac County including Campbellsport, and the town of Theresa in Dodge County. It’s part of the halo of hubris surrounding the city of Milwaukee.)

The Independent who is on the ballot for state senate district 20 and running hard against the wind, and against the media blackout, and against conventional wisdom, and the only opposition to the ruling party incumbent, is Clyde Winter, the author of this blog. The lack of any mention in the Shepherd Express of the issues and of this historic 20th senate district challenge by a progressive Independent exposes the S-Express top management as a major party partisan. It’s hard to explain these incorrect statements, and this omission, as simply an innocent mistake by a professional journalist. And it’s a mistake that has not even been corrected.

Besides this Senate District 20 election, a media blackout has been imposed on other progressive grassroots challenges to ruling party hegemony in Ozaukee and Washington counties. Louis Fortis writing in “News and Views” the following week in the Shepherd Express (about the elections and control of the state Assembly) omitted, in his lead article on the state Assembly election, any mention of three grassroots Democrats, and one progressive Independent combat infantry veteran who have initiated and are conducting historic simultaneous electoral campaigns focusing on the people and the issues. (To be fair, Louis’ article stated it was a summary of eleven Assembly races he claims to be “definitely in play this year”.)

Veteran Greg Dombro is running for Assembly district 58 (West Bend, Jackson, Slinger and near towns).
Dr. Rene’ Settle Robinson is running for Assembly District 23 (including Mequon-Thiensville).
Perry Duman is running for Assembly District 60 (southern Ozaukee County except Mequon).
Charlene Brady is running for Assembly District 24 (including Germantown and nearby towns).

Whether Fortis deems election contests to be “in play” appears to determine whether they get any coverage, regardless of the context of the races, and their implications for this election or their portent for the future. Fortis’ brand of political prognostication should not compromise journalistic integrity. On Sunday morning when I began my usual door-to-door campaigning, the dismal expectations some people had for the outcome of the Packers-Colts game, and Peyton Manning’s offense, might have canceled media coverage or the game itself, had Mr. Fortis been in charge of either. By Sunday night we saw again why they go ahead and play the game despite experts’ expectations. (Well, I didn’t see it, but I got exciting updates while going door-to door.)

There can be no legitimate reason for the print and broadcast media dissing and not even mentioning the historic grassroots insurgency that has risen in Ozaukee and Washington counties. You can bet the ruling party is not ignoring this eruption. I have not yet met anyone, including octogenarians who have lived here all their lives, and librarians proficient in esoteric research, who can recall or tell me when was the last time that more than one name has been on a general election ballot for both state senate and state assembly in Ozaukee and Washington counties. There are SIX such contested elections this year here. That’s what I mean by “historic”, “unique”, and (with ironic understatement) “newsworthy”.

Do you think that people who run for election when pundits and publishers like you don’t think they have a chance are just plain stupid, Mr. Fortis? How do you think real change comes about and first appears? You’re more likely to find issues well expressed that sorely need addressing, and candidates who are motivated by principles and a cause (rather than crass opportunism and career ambition) if you cover those races. And you are more likely to detect seismic shifts and building movements early. That would perform a service for the citizens, wouldn’t it? And wouldn’t a truly alternative newspaper of, by, and for the people want to encourage, not bury such developments?