This is precisely the definition of cognitive dissonance -- knowing one thing to be factually true while maintaining a contrary belief. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Politifact column today -- as it does too often -- moves into an alternate universe where language as we know it break downs, where it is able to explain away a devastating anti-Walker argument made by the AFL-CIO:
"Scott Walker gave $10,000 private school tax break to millionaires, AFL-CIO says"Politifact rules the labor union's assertion as "mostly false." Now, Scott Walker signed into law a measure that DID give to millionaires tax breaks of up to $10,000 for private school tuition -- which fact Politifact lays out in detail, before then ruling to the contrary. Believing six impossible things before breakfast used to be the domain of Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts. But read Politifact yourself (link below) and see if -- even before coffee -- you can find any logic in this latest political frakking.
Meanwhile, I'll read through the Sunday edition of the Journal Sentinel again and see if, this time, I can spot any editorial comment on the astonishing John Doe document revelation back on August 22. You may recall the revelation, namely, that Scott Walker apparently was directly involved in coordinating his campaign's own activity with supposedly independent and untouchable third-party advocacy groups -- on the face of it, a gross violation of state election laws. Nope, upon second reading of the paper, I find no mention. Guess I'll just have to vote my gut, minus JS guidance.
The newspaper ran a news story on the August 22 revelation and several followup news stories in which interviewees including Walker himself defended Walker, himself. But where are the JS editors on that issue, opinion-wise? Will they ever bring it up? And if so, will they, as they are often predisposed, say it's either no big deal or that everyone does it? Or didn't it even happen in the alternate universe that Journal Sentinel editors seem to flick into when certain inconvenient truths arise?
[Jim Rowen over at the Political Environment blog has some sharp thoughts about this same silence, and the newspaper's inconsistency on the matter. See link below.]
The main thing the JS editors have gotten worked up about with respect to the Walker campaign wasn't evidence of possible money laundering or election law violations, but Walker's decision a few weeks ago to attack the Wisconsin firm that opposing candidate Mary Burke's family owns. Apparently, attacking Wisconsin businesses (the parent firm of the Journal Sentinel is, for the moment, still one of those) is where the JS editorial board draws the line. Do not speak ill of capitalism or the profit motive.
Regarding two of the biggest issues of the race for governor -- the latest evidence of Walker campaign malfeasance and Walker's key platform plank on job creation: The JS has in the case of the first said nothing so far; in the case of the second it has dismissed Walker's dismal performance by declaring that governors don't really have any influence over job creation. Ah, well, never mind, then! If you're Walker, the JS stance amounts to a campaign get-out-of-jail-free card, because Burke has been hammering him on his job-creation and economic-development failures. But, no matter, really, because the JS editorial board has said it won't endorse candidates for public office anymore -- well, maybe except in "special" cases, that is.
In so many words: Walker and his staffers aren't the Droids you are looking for. Thanks, Milwaukee Jedi Sentinel!
Situational ethics, anyone?
