The Miz

Tonight, the Milwaukee Brewers, owners of the best regular season record in Major League Baseball (MLB) this year, host the San Diego Padres in the first game of the National League Division Series (NLDS).  The winner of the best of five set will move on to the seven-game National League Championship Series (NLCS), to face the winner of the other NLDS now beginning between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Atlanta Braves.  The winner of the NLCS moves on to the World Series.

The Brewers are respected throughout the baseball world for their sustained success over the last decade – they have made the MLB playoffs in seven of those ten years – which all recognize is a testament to their front office and managerial excellence that has enabled the team to consistently excel during the regular season against other, much richer National League teams.  Yet, they have fallen short of the World Series upon reaching the National League playoffs, since their postseason opponents, featuring highly-paid current or past All Stars at seemingly every position, have been able to “load up” against them in a manner not possible during the regular season.

That said:  perhaps this is the Brewers’ year.  I base that tentatively optimistic notion on nothing I’ve seen – I’ve yet to see the Brewers play on television, my only exposure being one thoroughly enjoyable evening a few weeks ago at the team’s American Family Field which for me was more about renewing the experience of a Major League park than the team itself – but upon a comment by a friend who is a clear-eyed observer of Milwaukee’s strengths and gaps.  His comment, in effect:  “Milwaukee has very good pitching.  It can carry them past the Dodgers; and if they get to the Series, no American League team they’ll face is as good as the top teams in the National League.”

Obviously, one excellent pitcher does not make a pitching staff, but having an ace that is, in the old parlance, a true “stopper” can make a huge difference to a team’s success in the playoffs.  Right now, the Brewers have such an ace – 24-year-old Jacob Misiorowski, known locally as, “The Miz.”  (Although I normally stay fairly formal in my personal references even in sports posts, I will use “The Miz” here … because it’s fun. 😊)  The Miz has a fastball over 100 miles an hour – which overmatches even major league hitters accustomed to fastballs in the 90s – has won 16 games this year against 5 losses with a 1.80 earned run average, and is reputed to be the frontrunner for the National League’s 2026 Cy Young Award.

Although I have never seen The Miz pitch, no one living in Wisconsin (not even TLOML, who is completely uninterested in sports) could fail to be aware of The Miz.  He has become the object of immediate Wisconsin fan adulation.  The night we visited American Family Field, I noted with interest that jerseys bearing The Miz’ number 32 (see:  I know his number although I’ve never seen him pitch) significantly outnumbered any other jersey number in the park with the possible exception of Hall of Famer Robin Yount’s No. 19 (Mr. Yount retired in 1993).  We know someone who has paid an impressive sum for a framed autographed Miz jersey.  The Miz has only been in the Major Leagues since June of last year.

This was a long windup (as we say in the game 😉), for the benefit of those who don’t follow Wisconsin sports, to the follow-through:  it will come as no surprise that The Miz will be starting tonight’s first playoff game for the Brewers.  Although Milwaukee is favored to move past the Padres, in a short series anything can happen (another cliché that is a cliché because it is true).  While no multi-game series is necessarily determined by the outcome of the first game, history shows that first game winners have a much better chance of moving on to the next round.  It strikes me that such might be particularly true in this case, with so much objectively and subjectively riding for the Milwaukee faithful on the shoulders of a 24-year-old.  The Miz is human; he lost 5 games this season.  No matter how well he pitches, he will only win if his hitters hit.  The Padres are good, or they wouldn’t be here.

I am hoping for the best.  Milwaukee deserves a World Championship.  The 1982 team featuring Mr. Yount, fellow Hall of Famer Paul Molitor, and a host of other colorful competitors (“Harvey’s Wallbangers” 😉) came that close – losing in Game 7 of the World Series — primarily on tremendous hitting and clutch situational pitching; today’s team can’t match the ’82 team’s offense but has widespread superior pitching.

Sandy Koufax (in baseball history, the game’s most renowned No. 32 😊) is remembered for his regular season brilliance but considered an icon for his domination of the 1963 and 1965 World Series – in the latter series, pitching a 3-hit complete game shutout on 2 days’ rest to win Game 7, an unheard-of effort today.  Greg Maddox, a four-time National League Cy Young Award winner with an 11-14 playoff record, is remembered, fairly or unfairly, as a great regular season pitcher who was … a great regular season pitcher.

Legends are made during the playoffs.  Tonight will begin to indicate whether the framed autographed Miz jersey our acquaintance purchased was a bargain – or whether it will be ruefully regarded in a few years as an unfortunate acquisition gathering dust in a basement or antique store.

I know I said yesterday I wouldn’t be entering much before Election Day, but realized afterward that if one was going to expound on The Miz, today was the day.  😊

We’ll see what happens.      

Truly Random Election Impressions

Fall is a busy time for us.  I may not enter much here before the election – a notion that I am confident will brighten your weekend 😉– and I particularly don’t expect to comment much after today about the parties’ respective chances in the November elections.  (I know; I will no more than say this than some pundit will make some observation that drives me to expound here. 😊)   I’ve already noted in these pages that polls cannot be trusted and that the election pits culture and visceral loyalty against the economy (although “culture” may cut both ways, including the galvanizing effect that the Trump Regime’s ICE activities may have on Latino voters).  I will add only this:  it seems a fool’s errand to predict the electoral sentiments of a citizenry that in 2024 was collectively capable of electing to our highest office a man blatantly guilty of sedition.

One hears pundits yammering about the effect that Republicans’ campaign funds might have on electoral outcomes.  I think the effect will be minimal.  First, the Republicans’ ads will all be about malignant nonsense, and anybody who might be persuaded by these ads is already going to vote Republican.  Second, Vice President Kamala Harris outspent Mr. Trump in 2024, and it obviously did her no good.  Third, no ad the Republicans run will have as great a persuasive power as the gas, diesel, and food prices Americans see daily. 

I indicated in a post not long ago that I considered Democrats’ chances of winning a majority of the Senate seats this November akin to drawing to an inside straight.  I still think so, but wish that I had included a reference to one additional race in that note:  Democratic Kansas Senate Nominee Rev. Adam Hamilton’s challenge to U.S. KS Sen. Roger Marshall.  Kansas is obviously a Bible Belt farm state hurt by tariffs and diesel prices.  Rev. Hamilton, who has previously registered as a Republican and is obviously not a wild-eyed progressive, is a pastor of the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States.  The New York Times has reported that Mr. Marshall, a medical doctor, has sued over 700 patients for overdue medical bills with approximately 80 of these being arrested for missing court.  (While other elections may be culture v. the economy, this one feels like the Lord against the Money Changers.  😉)  Although I rate Rev. Hamilton’s victory prospects in the “Well … well … maybe” category, this is still a delicious race.  😊 

Let’s consider the prospects for an October surprise.  I don’t see much that the President can substantively do at this point to help Republicans’ prospects.  Not even MAGAs believe his promised $5,000 bribe if Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress, and even if he reduced tariffs and/or settled the Iran War tomorrow, it’s now too close to the election for these maneuvers to materially positively affect the American economy.  While one can never underestimate Mr. Trump’s willingness to subvert our democracy – and thus, there is a high likelihood that he will attempt to depress voter turnout through machinations such as stationing ICE agents at Latino polling places, and he will certainly use alt-right media propaganda to attempt to sow doubt about an overall adverse outcome – he may well face the same difficulty that Viktor Orbán did earlier this year in Hungary:  given the widespread expectations that Mr. Trump and his ilk are going to suffer a shellacking at the polls, if such an electoral rout does occur, it will be difficult for him to persuade most Americans – who, by definition, will have voted against him and his cabal — of election fraud.  If there is an objective October surprise, I will venture that it could be a very negative one for the President.  If anything is currently propping up Republicans’ electoral prospects, it’s the U.S. stock market.  About 60% of American adults own stocks (including 60% of retirees, traditionally a core Republican segment).  For some time, the domestic equities market has been generally propelled by investment in entities related to artificial intelligence (“AI”).  (AI is obviously a subject well worth a future post.)  October is the witching month for stocks.  Obviously no one should take investment advice from me, but given our current environment of rising inflation, rising interest rates, a depressed housing market, and widespread suspicion of artificial intelligence, if equity investors turn squeamish on AI stocks during the next month, such would not bode well for the U.S. stock market as a whole.  If there is a significant correction before the election, it is not unreasonable to suggest that such would materially harm Republicans’ electoral prospects.

Finally:  I try to refrain from making predictions in these pages whose accuracy can never be determined, but here I will:  today, the election results we are going to get in early November are already fixed.  For all the hoorah and money that will be expended between now and election day, I will venture that except for a stock market collapse – which would arguably only worsen Republicans’ apparently dire electoral prospects — we would get virtually the same result if the election was held next Tuesday as we will a little over four weeks from now.

Of course, we’ll never know whether this pontification was accurate or, as is so frequently the case, was only so much Noise.  😉

We’ll see what happens.   

Pondering the Packers’ Future: a Postscript

[For those not attuned to the Green Bay Packers’ fortunes:  the team is 1 – 2, and was lucky to have escaped with its victory in Week 2 against the traditionally hapless New York Jets.  Last night the Atlanta Falcons – who had lost the preceding week at home 34 – 3 — beat the Packers in Lambeau Field 35 – 14.  I didn’t even bother to watch the second half; at the break the outcome was clear.]

In this original post, way back on January 11, 2026, reflecting upon the Packers’ playoff collapse against the Chicago Bears the previous night, I indicated doubts about Packers’ General Manager Brian Gutekunst, Packers’ Head Coach Matt LaFleur, and Packers’ Quarterback Jordan Love:

“Mr. Gutekunst hired [Mr.] LaFleur a number of years ago, and clearly Mr. LaFleur is technically an excellent coach, but one must question whether he has sufficiently instilled in his players that pride, the will to win, that is required to win a Super Bowl. 

It doesn’t look to me like he has.

Likewise, although the color commentator lauded [Mr.] Love at one point last night … I wasn’t so sure.  … There seems to me to be a question whether Mr. Love … has what it takes to win a Super Bowl.  …

I would suggest that Mr. Gutekunst — who has essentially staked his legacy on Messrs. LaFleur and Love – should be asking himself this morning:  Do these guys have … what it takes? 

If he isn’t, the Packer Board of Directors should be asking themselves: Does Mr. Gutekunst have what it takes?” [Emphasis in Original]

After posting that note, I literally mentally turned the Packers off until the opening game of this season.  [Nothing unusual here – since the early 2000s, I’ve paid no attention to Green Bay from the last game of one season until the first real game of the next (the sole exceptions being the years in which the franchise was contemplating its transitions from Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers and then from Mr. Rodgers to Mr. Love 😉).]  (It wasn’t difficult to shift one’s focus:  Renee Goode had just been shot, Alex Pretti was soon to be shot, the Trump Regime was then discussing invading Greenland … and that was only January.)  I discovered in doing a brief internet research for this post that Team president Ed Policy and the Packers’ Board of Directors provided multiyear extensions for Messrs. Gutekunst and LaFleur in January, 2026.  Had I been aware at the time, I would then have entered a postscript, probably pretty neutrally observing that the Board had clearly decided that Messrs. Gutekunst, LaFleur, and Love did have “what it takes” to win a championship, almost certainly concluding with, “We’ll see what happens.”

Well, we’ve seen what’s happened. 

Given our current domestic and global state of affairs, the Packers’ fortunes or those of any other sporting organization obviously aren’t worth a whit.  But I’ll miss the weekly temporary distraction the team provided.

On we march.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

No, this is not about Larry David’s HBO comedy series. (I am confident that it comes as a surprise to those who know me that I was even aware that Mr. David had an HBO comedy series … although it will come as no surprise that I never saw it. 😉)

It’s about the upcoming U.S. Senate elections.  If you watch outlets such as those we do, or have seen any of the recent polls purporting to assess Democrats’ political fortunes in the upcoming elections, you are very likely coming to the conclusion that there will be a “Blue Wave” this November.  I would suggest that these rosy impressions be maintained with a grain of salt.  At this point, no reasonable observer can have confidence in the accuracy of polls; but what prompted this particular note is a segment I saw on MSNOW this past Sunday, featuring interviews with voters in Omaha, NE, expressing concerns with the cost of living and the policies of the Trump Administration. 

We know Omaha.  Our daughter went to college there.  It is a liberal bastion in a generally conservative state.  Judging how Nebraskans as a whole are feeling about our current political situation based upon Omahans’ sentiments is about as useful as determining how Illinoisans as a whole are feeling by interviewing citizens of Vandalia, IL.

An account I’ve previously recorded here, which still resonates with me:  during a trip to central Wisconsin in the years before the political rise of President Donald Trump, while former Republican WI Gov. Scott Walker – “Trump before Trump in Wisconsin” — was in office, I was surprised by the proliferation of Walker signs.  This particular county was then and remains today fairly economically deprived.  One day, we happened to encounter a local retired social studies teacher.  Somehow, it became clear that he was liberal, which enabled me to ask why the area residents were so ardently for Mr. Walker when it was so clear that the Walker Administration had done nothing to help them economically.  He replied:  “It was God and guns that did it.”

Make no mistake:  despite Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, this election still pits culture and visceral loyalty against the economy.

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to assist at the Democratic booth at the county fair of a rural county in a swing Wisconsin Congressional District.  I had a great time – but it became apparent that the sentiments of most passers-by were fixed.  For every voter who expressed lively opposition to the Trump Regime, another pointedly refrained from looking at the booth as s/he passed.  I was particularly struck by two gentlemen, probably farmers, who ambled by the booth about two hours apart, and respectively said to me, pleasantly but firmly:  “I always vote Republican,” and “I could never vote for a Democrat.”

I’ve mentioned here recently that my favorite treadmill at my gym is right in front of a TV airing Fox News.  While mainstream outlets are covering the Iran War quagmire, the cost of living, Mr. Trump’s peccadillos with his vanity projects, etc., etc., Fox spends an inordinate amount of time on crime, transsexuals, and Michigan Democratic Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed.  Its jackpot is finding an illegal alien who committed a serious crime.

This is alt-right media viewers’ reality.  While all but the most strident MAGAs recognize that Mr. Trump’s Iran War and tariffs have increased our cost of living, Republicans are counter-punching where they can:  they have a lot of money to spend, they have no scruples, Mr. Trump will continue to use the power of his office to attempt to subvert the electoral process, it’s all about socialists, illegals, and trans, and they have a willingly gullible following.  I would submit that these factors, and the muscle memory that will take over if these Republican-leaning voters care enough to cast ballots, cannot be discounted.

So despite the happy talk one might hear on mainstream outlets, I remain more than a little hesitant regarding Democrats’ chances of taking control of the Senate this November.  Democrats have to win four seats currently held by Republicans to take control — more if Democrats fail to hold all of the seats retiring Democrats currently hold, including Mr. El-Sayed in Michigan, Democratic U.S. Senate Nominee U.S. NH Rep. Chris Pappas in New Hampshire, and Democratic U.S. Senate Nominee Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota.  In some polls, Mr. Pappas is trailing former U.S. NH Sen. John Sununu, who has been out of politics since 2008 (thus, no Trump taint) and carries a storied family name in New Hampshire politics.  Minnesota is less liberal statewide than is generally understood.  Ms. Flanagan is a progressive who bested a more centrist Democrat to win her nomination.  Her polling margin over Republican Senate Nominee former TV Sports Commentator Michele Tafoya has consistently narrowed; the race is currently being described as “tight” (despite the Trump Regime’s ICE’s killings of two American citizens in Minneapolis in the last year).

(Progressive exuberance has put Michigan and Minnesota seats at risk that would have been easy wins for the centrist Democrats who lost to the progressive nominees.  I know; I’m obsessing.  😉)

Even if Messrs. El-Sayed and Pappas and Ms. Flanagan all prevail, all these victories will do is hold serve. 

(Another aside:  U.S. GA Sen. Jon Ossoff, the most effective stump critic of the Trump Regime I’ve heard, is running for reelection.  He seemingly has a comfortable lead over his Republican challenger in one of our most purple states.  If he doesn’t hold serve, forget it.  Assuming he does, I think Noise readers can assume that Mr. Ossoff’s name will soon thereafter reappear here in another context.   😊) 

In the Noise order of most likely to least likely states for the Democrat to claim a Republican seat:

Democratic Former NC Gov. Roy Cooper holds a commanding polling lead in his state, and has won statewide in the Trump Era.  That’s one. 

According to a recent poll, Democratic Former U.S. AK Rep. Mary Peltola is leading Republican U.S. AK Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska.  Since Alaska has only one representative, Ms. Peltola has previously won a statewide race in Alaska.  She’s apparently effectively discussing local issues of concern to Alaskans.  At the same time, Mr. Trump has won the state three times.  In this decidedly anti-Trump climate, do you trust Ms. Peltola’s current lead in the polls?  Maybe.

Democratic Former U.S. OH Sen. Sherrod Brown lost his seat in the Trump wave in 2024 by about 3 and a half points.  As this is typed, the New York Times reports that the Republicans are attacking him for his stand on – wait for it – transgender issues.  Ohio has gotten redder and redder over my lifetime, but in this decidedly anti-Trump climate, might Ohioans turn back to a guy they know and have elected a couple of times before?  Maybe.

Democratic Former Maine State Senator Troy Jackson is challenging U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins.  Although Maine Democrats avoided an electoral debacle by shedding their original Senate nominee Graham Platner, and Maine hasn’t voted statewide for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, Ms. Collins has won five previous elections to the Senate, including in two election years in which Maine was respectively won by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Former Democrat U.S. WV Sen. Joe Manchin recently endorsed Ms. Collins.  She has a political identity apart from Mr. Trump.  That said, in this decidedly anti-Trump climate, might Mainers turn her out?  Well … maybe.             

If you’re alive, you’re aware of the contest between Democrat Texas State Representative James Talarico and Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  All acknowledge that Mr. Talarico is a particularly able political athlete, and that Mr. Paxton – hand-picked by Mr. Trump – is particularly disreputable.  That said, Mr. Talarico had to win a divisive primary to get his nomination, which might cost him some support, and Mr. Paxton will benefit from generally very Republican Texans’ voting muscle memory.  Even so, in this decidedly anti-Trump climate – where Hispanics are deserting Republicans in droves due to the Trump Regime’s ICE activities — might Mr. Talarico eke it out?  Well … possibly.

Democratic Senate Nominee Josh Turek, a wheelchair-bound former Paralympian and Iowa legislator, is facing U.S IA Rep. Ashley Hinson for a seat currently held by a retiring Republican.  Mr. Turek is apparently an attractive candidate for whom Mr. Obama cut an ad.  Democrats are supposedly encouraged that the race is “increasingly competitive,” although Ms. Hinson leads Mr. Turek in the polls. Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in Iowa by more than 180,000.  Well …

Thus, I’m trying not to get too caught up in the happy talk in mainstream media about Democrats’ taking control of the Senate.  Assuming Messrs. El-Sayed and Pappas and Ms. Flanagan hold serve, and assuming that Mr. Cooper wins comfortably, three of these five Democrats still have to win in order for them to control the Senate:  Mr. Brown, Ms. Peltola, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Talarico, and Mr. Turek.

It feels to me tantamount to drawing to an inside straight.

And Republicans have one more card to play, of which they’re undoubtedly acutely aware:  they entice Democrat U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman, who has clearly become a faux Democrat, to switch parties.

Perhaps you’re still confident of a Democratic takeover of the Senate.  I obviously hope you’re right.

I’m curbing my enthusiasm. We’ll see what happens.

On 9/11

[Not surprisingly, I had originally intended that this post would publish on September 11, 2026, but life’s obligations intruded and the importance of this milestone demanded that any note not be rushed.]

It is the tritest to observe that September 11, 2001, was one of the darkest days in American history.  It strikes a visceral chord within all who remember the attack that day on New York City’s World Trade Center (“WTC”) and other sites (collectively, “9/11”).  We have relatives in the New York area who knew victims lost in the attack.  It is now known that 9/11 has exacted an even greater toll in American lives than the approximately 2,500 who perished that day; recently issued reports indicate that the poor air quality arising from the rubble is almost certainly responsible for tens of thousands developing cancer in the quarter-century since.  One can never forget the heroism of the police, firefighters, other first responders and regular citizens who charged into the World Trade Center to save others that day – many themselves falling victim to the buildings’ collapse — and the ordinary Americans who sacrificed themselves to take back control of Flight 93.  That said, I would suggest that 9/11 is one of the darkest days in our history not only due to the wanton destruction of life wrought, but in a perhaps less apparent sense that I suspect few if any commemorative speakers across the nation mentioned last week.

9/11 is often conceptually paired with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as the two deadliest foreign attacks on American territory in our history.  Each marked a turning point in our existence.  I would submit that such is where the comparison ends.  Our nation’s respective responses to the attacks placed us on very different paths.

Looking back at Pearl Harbor, we can still feel the deepest sympathy for those, all or virtually all now at rest, who experienced the agonizing pain of losing a loved one in the Japanese assault.  In addition to the tragic human loss, the American Pacific Fleet was virtually destroyed.  After the attack, President Franklin Roosevelt refrained from publicly describing the true extent of the naval devastation in order to confuse Japanese intelligence and maintain American morale; in fact, the United States then had virtually no remaining defense between Imperial Japan’s formidable navy and our west coast.

And yet, that attack also marked the day that America began its transition from being but an occasional international dabbler to the world’s leading force for democratic order and human rights.  Prior to the attack, Mr. Roosevelt recognized the threat the Nazi Wehrmacht would pose to the United States if left unchecked, and understood that the United States’ best hope of maintaining its freedom lay in formally aligning itself with the United Kingdom before it fell to the Nazis.  A majority of Americans, believing the oceans lapping our shores insulated us from the outside world’s challenges, remained opposed to our participation.  The Pearl Harbor attack – coupled with Germany’s almost immediately subsequent declaration of war on the United States – shattered those illusions.  We were in.

William Shirer wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:  “[The Pearl Harbor attack] transformed the European war … into a world war, which … would seal [Adolf Hitler’s] fate and that of the Third Reich.”  British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote in The Second World War:  “[Upon hearing of the Pearl Harbor attack] I knew the United States was in the war …. So we had won after all!”

By contrast, 9/11 found us led by an inexperienced and arguably under-qualified President.  When we elected President George W. Bush the preceding year (in this context, put aside all the electoral controversy), it didn’t seem to matter that much whether we selected him or then-Vice President Al Gore (by today’s standards, both were moderates); America’s economy was booming (the cracks we now see between the well-to-do and the impoverished not yet generally apparent), we had a balanced budget, and America’s place as the world’s preeminent superpower was unquestioned.

But it did matter.  While 9/11 was indeed an attack on our nation, and it was natural for our leaders to guard against the worst in the first days following 9/11 and to pledge retaliation against those who had attacked us, Al Qaeda was not an imperial nation with a formidable military.  Once the earliest shock passed, it was obvious that our democracy was not at risk.  We did not need to go on a wartime footing.

But we did.  Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked.  We launched an invasion of Afghanistan.  Although the invasion was not unreasonable since the Taliban did not deny that it was shielding al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden – the invasion generally enjoyed wide American and domestic international support — we ultimately sustained approximately 2,500 deaths and another over 20,000 wounded in battle.  (I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as individuals who have succumbed or will succumb to causes such as toxic fume inhalation from open-air burn pits.)  The reported cost of the incursion is $2.26 trillion.

Today, the Taliban control Afghanistan.

In March, 2003, America invaded Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein.  To quote Google’s “AI Overview” reference to the Council on Foreign Relations:  “The administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a threat in the wake of 9/11, though no active WMD programs were ultimately found.” [Emphasis Added]  Our allies were markedly less supportive of our Iraq invasion than they had been of our Afghanistan incursion – as it turns out, with good reason.  Our international relationships began to fray; trust in American judgement was placed in question.  Those of us old enough to remember the buildup that preceded the Iraq invasion well recall the Bush Administration’s juxtaposition of 9/11 with the threat it perceived to be presented by Iraq, certainly creating the impression in some Americans that Saddam had played some part in 9/11.  He had not.  When no WMDs were found, the object of the mission suddenly transformed from ridding us of a WMD threat to saving the Iraqi people from Saddam, because he was a really bad guy.  Well, he was a really bad guy … but there are a lot of other really bad guys in the world. 

We finally withdrew from Iraq in December, 2011.  It is reported that we sustained approximately 4,500 deaths and another over 32,000 wounded in battle.  (Again, I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as toxic fume victims.)  It has been estimated that we spent $3 trillion on the incursion.

In 2023, Stephen A. Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations wrote, “Iraq is not yet what political scientists might refer to as a ‘consolidated democracy.’”  I’ll let you decide, given what has been going on in the Middle East, whether Iraq’s democracy is more “consolidated” today than it was in 2023.

According to the Human Rights Watch:  “[During the Middle East conflicts] the Bush administration authorized coercive interrogation practices by the CIA and the military that amounted to torture … Indeed, many were, including Canadian national Maher Arar who described repeated beatings with cables and electrical cords during the 10 months he was held in Syria, where the US sent him in 2002.”  Mr. Bush has admitted that he himself authorized waterboarding prisoners of war.  While only naïve American would believe that Americans had refrained from such practices in earlier wars, those conflicts seemed long ago and far away.  The Bush Administration’s practices made clear that the world’s supposedly foremost advocate of human rights was no better than anybody else.

Although there were undoubtedly earlier indications, for me these military debacles hastened our descent from truth to tribalism.  It is now common for pundits to excuse Mr. Bush and his team for the blunder of the Iraq invasion on the ground that they made decisions based upon faulty intelligence.  To me, that is and was no excuse.  Chief Executive Officers of multi-billion dollar corporations make “bet the company” decisions regularly.  These CEOs don’t dream these decisions up – they have an inclination, but finally give approval to major new initiatives based upon the marketing, financial and other projections of their subordinates.  When these major decisions turn out to be that wrong, they lose their jobs.  That is what I expected to happen when Mr. Bush stood for reelection in 2004, as it had with President Herbert Hoover in 1932, with President Jimmy Carter in 1976, and would have happened with President Lyndon Johnson had he stood for reelection in 1968.  Instead, winning became everything; the Bush Campaign employed a war mentality to our political discourse as well as to our foreign policy.  Republicans smeared the military service of Democratic Presidential Nominee and decorated Vietnam War veteran U.S. MA Sen. John Kerry while trying to make Mr. Bush (whose flight status was suspended during his military service for failure to appear for a mandatory physical exam) into the next coming of William Tecumseh Sherman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.            

Would we have reacted in the same way had al Qaida attacked earlier, during President Bill Clinton’s second term?  One can only guess, but I genuinely don’t think we would have.  Although Messrs. Clinton and Bush were both born in 1946 – and at this point, are personally as close as brothers – they would have been very different men when confronted with the crisis.  Mr. Clinton would not only have had markedly more experience a president than Mr. Bush did; he’s a more nuanced thinker and – perhaps most crucially — the two men unquestionably came away from our Vietnam experience with very different impressions of the utility of American military power.  Mr. Clinton would have taken aggressive action of some sort – the American people would have demanded it, and Mr. Clinton was extremely sensitive to his people’s views – but he was also a master at managing American opinion and expectations.  Afghanistan?  Maybe.  Torture?  Unlikely.  Iraq?  No.  This is, of course, but the sheerest speculation, and which of the parties’ 2000 presidential nominees would have succeeded Mr. Clinton – and what course we would thereafter have taken — would have depended almost entirely upon Americans’ assessment of the Clinton Administration’s response following the attack.

But for me the notion lingers:  that in the same way that certain martial arts stress the use of leverage – manners in which smaller, weaker opponents can catch larger, stronger opponents off balance, tip them over, and win a struggle – bin Laden and al Qaida, probably without realizing it, caught us at a time when we were overconfident as a nation, and led by leaders who meant well but ultimately proved to be ill-equipped to deal with the challenge the terrorists placed before them.  9/11 caused us to go in directions, both internationally and domestically, that it is hard to fathom that we would have taken had al Qaida not struck us at just the time it did.

On this past September 11, I heard MSNOW’s Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough scoff at the suggestion that “bin Laden won.”  I would offer — notwithstanding and in NO WAY taking away from the heroism and sacrifice of those on 9/11, the heroism and sacrifice of our military and related personnel in two Middle East wars that spanned so many years, ended or marred so many lives, and cost us so much financially, and the Bush Administration’s successful thwarting of many undisclosed terrorist attacks in the years following 9/11 – that bin Laden could not have dreamed when he launched the 9/11 attack that it could have had such a deleterious effect on us, thrown us as far off course, as I believe that it did.  Sure, we ultimately killed him.  Who can doubt that he would have gladly given his life for the havoc he wreaked?

Be angry with me if you wish.  Call me an idiot (you undoubtedly already have and will, with ample justification).  I express this with the deepest regret, but cannot escape the belief:

bin Laden won.

Observations from Mount Rushmore

Life has been busy for us lately, and thus you’ve been spared many Noise entries.  What is linked below was recently called to my attention, and I cannot resist recording it here, although – viewer discretion advised 😉 – some of the lyrics are significantly cruder than the tone generally intended for these pages.  If you’ve already seen it, I suspect that you’ll be happy to spend a minute revisiting it.  😊   

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&sca_esv=0599634f104d6e26&sxsrf=APpeQnsC_vL_4zTL8SL9ZdY1GY6CxkwKWA%3A1789226034828&source=hp&ei=Mmylap3iMLLHp84PzqSPEA&iflsig=ABILxe8AAAAAaqV6Qg2gV99KXCkmziVFCc5PxjiBUuKz&ved=0ahUKEwidw-ixqumWAxWy48kDHU7SAwIQ4dUDCBs&uact=5&oq=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:fb68e34c,vid:arlEWzeZMxg,st:0

The Importance of Labor

“The liberal reward of labour [sic], therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.  The scanty maintenance of the labouring [sic] poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards. …  No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.  It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath [sic] and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed [sic] and lodged.”

  • Adam Smith; An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; 1776

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.  Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.  Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits.  The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him.  This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.  No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned.  Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

  • Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

I don’t think it can be denied:  starting with his first run for president, President Donald Trump made many who had not theretofore particularly focused on it – including me — aware that as a segment of our society had handsomely prospered over the preceding decades – realized the American Dream – at least as great part of our people had been left further and further behind – and had justifiably concluded that those in power were no longer interested in attending to their wellbeing.  One of the saddest ironies of the Trump Era is that although Mr. Trump correctly identified the corrosive despair that many of our people were feeling, his prescriptions have been toxically divisive, anti-democratic, exploitative, racist, wrong-headed, backward-looking, and self-serving. He’s let down millions who believed in him — whether or not he or they can admit it.

Although the first and most important task to obtaining greater equity among our people is wresting, through legal and peaceful means, the political power from those who are so transparently seeking to overturn our democracy, may the United States Congress starting in 2027, and whoever becomes president in 2029, enact laws and deploy policies which will visibly and effectively start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience.  Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election

As all are aware, on August 11, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley eked out – truly, eked out – a primary election victory over WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong for the Democratic Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination and will now face Republican WI Gubernatorial Nominee U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Trump disciple and 2020 election denier, this November.  A few impressions emerge.

The most important first:  by a margin of less than 4,000 out of over 625,000 votes cast, there remains at least a realistic chance that Wisconsinites could elect a Governor this November who will preserve a free and fair 2028 presidential election (as well as protect Wisconsinites from the regressive excesses which MAGA state legislators will otherwise seek to foist upon them).  Ms. Hong may well be a wonderful, well-meaning person, but she would have been a terrible general election candidate. That said, Mr. Crowley is still an African American from the city in a state that has never had a Black Governor and contains a lot of upstate voters who rarely see African Americans, distrust city folk generally, and resent what they see as Milwaukee and Madison’s usurpation of the state’s services and attention.  Mr. Crowley’s campaign is an uphill battle.  Even so, given President Donald Trump’s deep unpopularity and MAGA adversaries’ rabid enthusiasm, there seems a real possibility.   You take the chance you get.

Polling data is of little value, at least in Wisconsin.  2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton obviously lost the state to President Donald Trump after leading Mr. Trump in all state polls right up to the 2016 election day. Former President Joe Biden was reportedly so far ahead of Mr. Trump in Wisconsin in the final days of the 2020 campaign that the Trump Campaign suspended efforts in the state.  Mr. Biden won by such a narrow margin that I assume that the Trump forces deeply, deeply rued abandoning the state when they did.  For the last month, polling indicated that Ms. Hong was the sure-fire winner of the Democrats’ Gubernatorial nomination.  Perhaps, lulled by the polls, some of her supporters stayed home on election day, feeling their votes weren’t needed – as contrasted with the attitudes of those who voted for Mr. Crowley, who were well aware that if he had any chance, every vote was going to be needed.

I have seen an early poll indicating that Mr. Crowley holds a 2-point lead over Mr. Tiffany.  If you believe that, I can give you the number of two guys in Brooklyn ready to sell you a bridge.  I am hoping that all candidates opposing Mr. Trump and MAGAism will discount all polls from now to election day, at least insofar as they presume to project candidates’ relative support.  All MAGA opponents need to run scared.  Every vote needs to be turned out in every race.  Taking a Blue Wave for granted invites further Red Terror.

It’s clear that the MAGAs are as shocked as everybody else that Ms. Hong didn’t win the primary.  Over the next few weeks, the Tiffany Team – poised to run, eager to run, against Ms. Hong – will be flailing a bit for a strategy against Mr. Crowley.  However, I will venture – just a feeling – that the national MAGA establishment is feeling the need to reset a bit as well.  My favorite treadmill at my gym is right in front of a screen that displays Fox News.  Usually, I ignore it – at my age, I can’t let my blood pressure get too high 😉—but on the day after the election, I watched as Fox covered the Wisconsin results.  At first, inexplicably to me, the outlet spent several minutes on Ms. Hong – who had lost, and was not going to be Wisconsin Democrats’ Gubernatorial nominee – and perhaps 20 seconds on Mr. Crowley, the winner.  It’s like they couldn’t yet get over the fact that they weren’t going to have Ms. Hong to demonize.  It struck me then that although Ms. Hong was only running for statewide rather than national office, she made such an easy mark – such a softer target than U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, or even Democratic MI U.S. Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed, all superb political athletes – that national MAGAs were planning to make her the poster child of their national Communist, anti-Woke Scare Campaign.  Poof.

That said, even if national MAGAs are indeed now pausing for just a bit as they reassess, they will – as they did after Vice President Kamala Harris succeeded President Joe Biden as the Democrats’ 2024 presidential nominee – figure it out, and reset.  In a recent note, I observed that Mr. Trump’s political power has always relied on stoking hate; even without Ms. Hong as a foil, it takes little prescience to venture that the MAGA national message from now to election day will primarily seek to sow hate’s companion, fear – of Socialists, of Communists, of Muslims, of them, of the other — within the gullible quarters of the electorate.  They have no choice; they have no objective achievements to run on.

If advising Mr. Crowley, I would strongly recommend that he spend the vast majority of his time between now and Labor Day in Wisconsin’s Republican strongholds, before the Tiffany Team has time to figure out a strategy and begin smearing him.  He did much better among Democrats than Ms. Hong in Wisconsin’s rural districts – no surprise – but the main purpose of forays would be to soften before they set in potentially adverse emotions of those voters disappointed with Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican.  Mr. Crowley is reasonable in manner; I suspect that MAGAs are painfully aware that due to the way they have demonized Ms. Hong in ads over the last couple of months as being “too extreme for Wisconsin,” they themselves have created a conceptual contrast for Mr. Crowley.  I’ve seen a clip in which even U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson observed after the election that Democrats had chosen “the more moderate candidate.”  In that same clip, Mr. Johnson — who, in the rare moments he is candid, can interpret vote totals pretty accurately – noted the significant discrepancy between the Democratic and Republican primary turnouts, and observed that if Republicans were going to fare well this November, Mr. Trump was going to have to inspire his Wisconsin supporters to get to the polls.  My guess:  with no U.S. Senate seat at issue in Wisconsin this November, Mr. Trump will pay little attention to the state unless he feels he can salvage a purple House District or two; the irony is that his presence could be as much a detriment as assistance to these Republicans’ campaigns.

I’ve seen reports of national progressives who are yapping at progressive icon U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders for not endorsing Ms. Hong, feeling that Mr. Sanders’ endorsement would have brought her the few thousand additional votes needed for victory.  Mr. Sanders has responded that he has limited resources, and can’t endorse everyone.  I would have to agree with the irate progressives that such was a makeweight response; I think the true answer is that that Mr. Sanders is a practical politician, understands that Wisconsin is one of the electoral battlegrounds where American democracy is going to be saved or lost, and recognizes that what will actually help the American people is winning elections.  What I don’t understand about these national progressives’ outrage is this:  if Mr. Crowley wins, he will be the first African American Governor of Wisconsin, and I have seen it reported that he will be the first African American Governor of a Midwest state.  What could objectively be more progressive than that?

The stakes in Wisconsin this November couldn’t be higher.  I have watched Mr. Tiffany’s ads, and they’re good.  They make him look like everybody’s honest, well-meaning Wisconsin Grandpa (he will turn 69 late this year).  He’s not.  In 2020, as a member of Congress Mr. Tiffany was one of only two Wisconsin Republicans who voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victories in Pennsylvania (which Mr. Biden won by 80,000 votes) and Arizona (whose The Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives declared that Mr. Biden had won).  He signed on to a Republican Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate Mr. Biden’s victory.  I have seen it reported that he has stated that he would have voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victory in Wisconsin if he had had the opportunity to do so (notwithstanding the fact that even former MAGA WI Gov. Scott Walker intimated in a tweet after the election that no recount would unseat Mr. Biden’s victory).  Mr. Tiffany is either just dumb or undemocratic – and sadly, I consider it more likely that he is the latter than the former.  He owes his nomination to Mr. Trump’s endorsement, which in turn was almost certainly provided due to his seditious willingness to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  One can only assume that if he is narrowly defeated by Mr. Crowley this November, he’ll seek to challenge the results with no regard for the competence and the integrity of the election officials and workers of all political stripes who will work hard – and with a tad more trepidation, due to the scurrilous lies about our electoral processes spread by Mr. Trump over the last decade – to accurately administer Wisconsin elections; that he will unscrupulously seek to baselessly smear some of the most civic-minded citizens he wishes to lead as Wisconsin Governor.  While one can take some comfort that Mr. Crowley’s candidacy will have a fair chance through election day since Mr. Evers will still be Governor and, if he wins, will have a fair hearing to any challenges Mr. Tiffany thereafter mounts due to the liberal bent of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the further damage that Mr. Tiffany and the MAGAs seem likely to seek to sow amongst their gullible followers cannot be overstated.

We’ll end where we started:  that Mr. Crowley’s victory on August 11 seemingly gives Democrats at least a fighting chance to retain the Wisconsin governorship this November.  While he can be confident of my vote, since I see his candidacy as a bulwark against MAGA anti-democratic excesses (subject to the caveat that he not hereafter be shown to have character flaws of a kind and degree akin to those that have caused former Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner to withdraw his candidacy), I would also offer from what little I’ve seen so far, I like him.  I think that if elected, he’ll make a good Governor, be able to finesse the challenges of leading a state as closely and toxically divided as Wisconsin.  That said:  he’s still a black guy from the city, and a lot of voters still cast their ballots based upon stereotypes and biases.  It’s up to those who believe in democracy – obviously not only in Wisconsin, but nationally – to do whatever we can, legally and peacefully, to ensure and safeguard what we were given 250 years ago.

We’ll see what happens.

Fifty Years Ago Today

Today marks TLOML’s and my 50th wedding anniversary.  It’s been easy for me; she has served her time in Purgatory while still on earth. 😉

Our extended families are well aware that of all of the thousands of eloquent descriptions of love and marriage one can find, I consider the best characterization of a successful relationship that which Sylvester Stallone had Rocky offer, when describing Rocky’s relationship with Talia Shire’s Adrian, in the film, Rocky: 

“I don’t know … it fills gaps, I guess; she’s got gaps, I got gaps – together, we fill gaps ….”

We have been blessed with a wonderful family of whom we are inordinately proud and with the opportunity to make the most of the talents that the Almighty gave us.  Although we were committed to each other a number of years before we finally married, we are obviously not the kids who left the church in a blizzard of rice so many years ago; we’ve been blessed that we’ve grown together, have been able to work together through the challenges we’ve faced.  I think that it’s fair to say that over these many years, we have celebrated each other’s strengths, and compensated for each other’s weaknesses (the gaps have been mine).  (TLOML is fond of saying, “It takes two sets of eyes.”)  Our differences have enriched us rather than constrained us; in difficult times we’ve cherished each other.  I vividly recall that within the first couple of years after we were married, when the house we lived in was being deluged by a gushing thunder storm, we realized that the window wells on different sides of the house were overflowing and that water was spilling into the basement; with the stupidity of youth, we decided – with the thunder and lightning continuing LOUD, repeated, and RIGHT overhead — that the most important thing was to stop the basement from flooding.  We each ran out with a bucket to a different window well to bail it out.  The lightning strikes continued, some seemingly hitting RIGHT in our backyard.  Did we go in?  Nah.  But after every close strike, we would each race to the edge of the house and look to see that the other was okay – and then we’d go back to bailing 😊.  We always knew where the other was.  Although throughout the decades we have sometimes been engaged in very different aspects of our life endeavor, we have always been working toward the same goal.  We’ve not always been in the same place, but we’ve never been apart.  Our priorities – what we most valued – have always been aligned.  By pure miracle, we turned out to be hand in glove.  No one who’s ever been in a successful relationship will forget the thrill of the initial sparks, but it is the enduring flame they ignite that sustains for a lifetime.  We are acutely aware how fortunate we are; we well know that many people – good, well-meaning people – have not been as favored as we have been.

It has been my honor to officiate at a number of weddings over the years.  Given the importance I place on marriage, I consider these honors to have been among the most important of my life.  When officiating, you try, based upon your understanding of the couple, to put together sentiments that will most resonate with them.  A passage that I have come across in my reading, that I have rarely quoted during these ceremonies because it doesn’t fit exactly when celebrating the start of a couple’s life adventure, seems most appropriate for us today:

“The man or woman you really love will never grow old to you.  Through the wrinkles of time, through the bowed frame of years, you will always see the face, and feel the heart, of your eternal love.”

Even in this politically fraught time in our nation, one’s personal relationships are what matter most.  For all of you in love now or in the future, we wish for you what we have – in length if possible, but more importantly, in depth. 

Have a wonderful day.

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination: PPS

I know, I know; for a guy who rarely discusses Wisconsin policy or politics and admits that he doesn’t know much about it, I admit that I’m kinda like a dog – an old dog 😊 — with a bone on this one.  My defense:  when ya see a train wreck comin’, ya just can’t help it. 😉

As this is typed, polls indicate that WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong, Asian American, a self-described member of the Democratic Socialists of America (the “DSA”), is the clear leader for the Democrats’ Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination, to face off against the putative Republican Gubernatorial nominee, MAGA U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has embraced and been endorsed by President Donald Trump.  Early voting to secure the parties’ respective nominations has already commenced.  Election Day is August 11, a week from today.  I urge all Wisconsin citizens who read these notes to vote whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed below.

As all who care are aware, on a Fox News show on July 26, Megan Romer, the Co-Chair of the DSA, indicated that her party held the positions set forth below.  I watched the tape; there was no trap or trickery.  The Fox News host simply put the various positions before Ms. Romer; she jumped into the pool with both feet, all on her own.

According to Ms. Romer, the DSA supports:

  • Eliminating the United States Senate (which, because of the filibuster, is the only part of the Article I branch that is currently putting any limitation upon Mr. Trump’s excesses);
  • Replacing the presidency and the U.S. Supreme Court as we now know them (we need a strong executive — just not a monarchial, maniacal and moronic one; and while the Court needs to be looked at, “replacing” it is both terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing ICE (reforming ICE is necessary; abolishing ICE is both terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing U.S. borders and providing amnesty to anybody here illegally (abolishing borders is egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; providing amnesty to those here illegally is a nuanced issue but in the current environment, a political loser);
  • Defunding the Pentagon (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing prisons, at least in large part (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser); and
  • Government or public ownership of most large corporations (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; why don’t they just scream, “Call us Communists!”).

Normally, when approaching such outrageous assertions such as these, at least sometimes I try to be a little more tactful, and will make a comment such as, “It’s enough to make one blink,” or “This seems misguided,” or some such.  Here, I’ll state it straight out:  the positions that Ms. Romer has indicated that the DSA supports are not only politically suicidal; they are the dumbest substantive policy positions (as contrasted with the even-worse anti-democratic policy positions espoused by MAGAs explicitly or impliedly) I have ever heard advocated for by a party which aspires to be a major influence on America.

In the recent debate among candidates for the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nomination, Ms. Hong indicated that she does “not support the full platform of the national DSA,” but was not more specific.  I viewed her failure to affirmatively be more specific – she had to know the question was coming – a “tell,” as they say in the poker world.  Given her membership in the DSA, her general disavowal of “the full platform of the national DSA” wasn’t good enough to reassure moderates who think that the DSA is crazy – although to be fair, I’m not sure what she could have said that would have been good enough. 

Mr. Tiffany is going to plaster her with it.

After my last post on Wisconsin Democrats’ current seemingly woefully misbegotten Gubernatorial nomination quest, in which I indicated that I was supporting Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley because I assumed that WI Gov. Tony Evers had endorsed Mr. Crowley, an African American, as the most likely Democratic candidate to defeat Mr. Tiffany, a good friend and Wisconsin resident commented:

“This moderate [referring to himself], a Republican voter for 30 years, only began voting for the Democratic candidates in opposition to anything Trump, is NOT a Democratic voter. I will not vote for whoever the Democrats put up for governor because that person is a Democrat. Hong? Nope. [Former WI Lt. Gov. Mandela] Barnes [who has since dropped out]? Nope.  Crowley? Convince me. Tiffany? Nope.

That means I may not vote for governor. I’m not picking the “lesser of two evils”. They are, after all, evil. Give me more Evers or [former four-time WI Gov.] Tommy Thompson.”

In that same past post, I also noted, “Republicans are already running ads against Ms. Hong as “too liberal for Wisconsin” – which some Democrats claim is their attempt to boost her profile and support.  [Some Emphasis Added].”  The true significance of that observation only resonated with me later.  If what I had heard some Democrats suspected was accurate — that some Republicans are actually seeking to boost Ms. Hong’s campaign — that means that the Republicans think that their odds of victory – in Wisconsin – are better against a Democratic Socialist than they are against a black man from the city. 

Think about that.  

An aside:  I watched virtually all of the recent Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate debate, focusing primarily on the responses of Ms. Hong and Mr. Crowley.  I was surprised by the performance of both.  Usually, progressive populists are firebrands; I found Ms. Hong’s screen presence to “lack pizazz,” in the words of a close friend who is more sympathetic to Ms. Hong than I am.  On the other hand, I thought Mr. Crowley presented pretty well.  It nonetheless seems at this point that his candidacy may be a matter of too little, too late.  I’ve seen that a Wisconsin news outlet recently quoted a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Professor, “Finally, the party is coordinating around a single alternative to Hong [Mr. Crowley], but it’s happening, in my view, far too late for it to seriously threaten her frontrunner position.”

No one who has read any of these notes can doubt my opposition to Mr. Trump or anybody endorsed by Mr. Trump.  If Ms. Hong does win the Democratic nomination, I will, unlike our friend, vote for her against Mr. Tiffany because it’ll make one more vote that Mr. Tiffany will have to get to win the Governorship, and I am even more concerned about what an entirely-Republican-controlled Wisconsin state government will do to rig the state’s results in the 2028 presidential election than I am about the substantive damage such a MAGA state government will do to Wisconsin.  That said, and as I’ve indicated here previously, as avid progressives stray further left from the political center, they are either oblivious to or don’t care that they risk losing the moderate support that is the difference between victory and defeat in closely divided political districts.  I would suggest that the only theme that unites all of those who oppose Mr. Trump and MAGA anti-democratic efforts is “NO KINGS.” 

I fear that if Ms. Hong wins the Democratic nomination, Mr. Tiffany is going to give her a whuppin’ that even The Greatest, Muhammad Ali, would admire.  At a time in which very few voters spilt their tickets, Ms. Hong’s presence atop the Democratic ballot might not only be enough to enable Republicans to maintain their control of the Wisconsin legislature; it may be enough to enable Wisconsin Republican U.S. House candidates such as U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who’s won his last three races in Wisconsin’s Third Congressional District by an average of about 3 points and whose campaign should otherwise be on life support in this decidedly anti-Trump environment, to squeak through.  I have similar fears about Michigan Democrats’ U.S. House candidates’ fates in any “purple” Michigan districts if Abdul El-Sayed (leading in the polls) defeats U.S. MI Rep. Haley Stevens in their race for Democrats’ U.S. Senate nomination, to be decided today.  Current polls show the Republican candidate beating Mr. El-Sayed – who, as contrasted with Ms. Hong, is at least dynamic — in November, but losing to Ms. Stevens. 

Democrats’ taking control of the United States House of Representatives, long considered a “sure thing” by political pundits, isn’t looking like such a sure thing to me any longer, given some of the seemingly-counterproductive results the more zealous members of the party are driving.

Since a large segment of Wisconsin Democrats reportedly still remain undecided, I still hope – although I’m not exactly bullish – that Mr. Crowley can eke out a victory over Ms. Hong to give those of us who oppose the institution of an American Apartheid at least some hope of victory in November.  If my dour assessment of Ms. Hong’s prospects of winning the Wisconsin Governorship this November proves wrong – i.e., if she does secure the Democratic nomination and does defeat Mr. Tiffany in November — I hereby pledge that I will joyfully point out my glaring error in these pages.

One bright spot:  no matter how the current primary contest turns out next week, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the Noise will – finally – drop this bone and move on.  😉 

We’ll see what happens.