My blogging friend Elliot has asked to be convinced that Jim Burkee "isn't full of crap" and why he should vote for him over Sensenbrenner tomorrow:

I’ve got to admit, I always thought Burkee was a stealth liberal ever since he pulled the truly stupid stunt of "co-running" with a Democrat for Sensenbrenner's seat last year.

Plus, both the Shepherd Express and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have endorsed him. (And my rule is normally to vote against anyone either of those papers endorse, let alone BOTH of them.)

To be honest, I'm very surprised that Elliot calls "co-running" with a Democrat as being a stupid stunt that makes him a stealth liberal (or was Walz a stealth conservative?).  I always got the sense that Elliot disliked the hyper partisan nature that politics has taken most recently.  It seems that that Republicans will reflexively say that anything a Democrat says is bad/wrong/evil and vice versa.  You need to look no further than the recent political commentary on Sarah Palin for evidence.

But let's look at the reality of the district Burkee is running in.  James Sensenbrenner is the Herb Kohl, or the Ted Kennedy, of the 5th District.  What I mean by that is that he usually doesn't have to do anything to get re-elected.  He probably pays for some fresh yard signs every two years, but he doesn't have to run ads or do anything else.  Despite that, Sensenbrenner gets a lot of campaign money from some major corporate interests that he has helped while he was the powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I've gone back and forth in my own mind on campaign financing, and corporate and PAC money in politics.  Part of me says that people ought to have the freedom and ability to donate as much money as they choose to a politician.  Part of me also says that corporations aren't people, and when they donate to campaigns, all that results is larger government, corporate welfare and rent seeking, all the things that as a free market Libertarian I can't stand.  Burkee and Walz shared that philosophy, and so while they disagreed on the exact methods that needed to be enacted by government, they both agreed that private funding was crucial, and so they agreed to run that part of their campaign together.  In the end, Walz dropped out, which works out best for Republicans.  Republicans now have the choice to keep their party's representation in the House, but can do so with someone who actually holds true to small government, federalist principles that they claim to love.

Sensenbrenner believes in none of those things.  He voted for Medicare Part D, one of the largest government entitlements to be passed in memory.  He's still proud of that bill.  While claiming to hate unfunded federal mandates on states (like NCLB), he authored, and bullied through Real ID, which enforces an unfunded mandate on states to change their driver's licenses, share their databases (which will cost billions), and threaten our privacy and makes us less secure from identity theft.  And he did it all by attaching Real ID as a rider to a must pass Iraq War spending bill.  Attaching riders to those types of bills is another thing that he is supposedly against.  Jim Sensenbrenner also voted in favor of ethanol mandates.  He has since come out against them, but frankly, why should he be believed at this point?  I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Sensenbrenner has been in the House for 30 years.  He's played the game.  He votes one way, then promises not to do it again.  Are we really like battered wives who will take back their husband after being hit, just because he promises never to do it again?  The design of the House was meant to have high turnover.  That's why the entire House of Representatives runs for re-election every two years.  Why do we refuse to take advantage of this?

Let's travel back 2 years to when the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives.  There was an awful lot of soul searching that occurred about Republicans, trying to determine what happened.  The overall conclusion was that the Republican Party had "lost it's way".  They were no longer the party of small government and fiscal conservatism.  They didn't push the ideals of Federalism any more.  Supposedly, this was going to cause a re-examination by the party to it's core values, and that during the primaries, new candidates would be vetted that believed in these things.  Well, look at the result in this case.  The GOP organizations in the 5th District have all but given Burkee the finger, while Sensenbrenner would only debate him once, and during that debate, talked about how challenging Republicans made Burkee a bad Republican.  So much for going back to core beliefs and soul searching.  Two years later and that makes you a bad Republican.  You'd think they would want to encourage that now more than ever, since there is no Democratic challenger.  Whoever wins the primary will win the election.  Now is the best time for soul searching.

Yes, the Journal and the Shepherd Express both sided with Burkee, but I think that is more about getting rid of Sensenbrenner, than identifying Burkee as a liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.  Fellow blogger Josh Schroeder dispels that idea very well as well.  And truth be told, I'm probably voting for Burkee more as a vote against Sensenbrenner myself.  I'd personally like to give a chance to someone new who is espousing real conservative ideals, than a Johnny come lately who is promising something now, that he's hasn't been able to deliver on for 30 years.  One has no real track record, while the other has failed the test.  I'd like to give a chance to pass the test to someone who hasn't had it yet.

Next Tuesday, September 9th, is a primary race in Wisconsin.  Please remember that in Wisconsin, all primaries are open primaries.  That means that a Democrat is allowed to vote in a Republican primary as long as he votes completely Republican for the entire ballot.  This does not affect your ability to vote as a Democrat in November.  You can see a sample ballot for Wauwatosa (which is included in the 5th Congressional District) here.  The only contested primaries are for the 5th Congressional Republican ticket, and the County Clerk Democratic ticket.  All others are uncontested, though if you don't live in Wauwatosa, you may have other races that you should consider ahead of time.

For the 5th Congressional district in Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner is running against Jim Burkee in the Republican primary.  I have written several times about the race, including the forum they recently had, and my rebuttal to false claims that Sensenbrenner made during that forum.  If you are interested in seeing a change in Wisconsin Representation this election cycle, I encourage you to vote next Tuesday.  There is no Democrat running in November for this district.  That means that whoever wins this primary will be our next Congressman.

That's right... it's election time again, and I find it ironic, and also fitting that we're voting on April Fool's Day.  Government makes everyone look like fools, and the people who run tend to fit this description very aptly as well.  It's nice to finally see a bit of synergy.  There are really only two issues specifically facing Wauwatosa voters tomorrow:  the mayoral race, and the fire station referendum.  As usual, neither of these questions are cut and dry, but I'll throw my analysis in your direction, and also how I'm planning on voting... though I reserve the right to change my mind once I step into the booth.

Mayoral Race:  I wrote about some issues concerning me several weeks ago.  I also emailed both candidates asking for clarification on the issues I brought up.  I was extremely disappointed to find that neither candidate responded to my questions.  Not a good start for either person who claims that they want to represent the residents of Wauwatosa when they can't respond to a concerned voter.

My concerns about eminent domain are still at the front of my mind, and are the major issue I'm taking into the voting booth with me.  I'm now even more concerned given the news that one of Stepaniak's major contributors is under federal investigation, and is also a major developer who was part of the new Crowne Plaza Hotel.  Given my grave concerns about Kelo style eminent domain takings, I find it even more troubling that Stepaniak has major developers contributing money to his campaign.

I also have concerns about other things he'd like to spend tax payer money on, such as surveillance cameras:

I will continue to push technology as a means to strengthen our monitoring and investigative capacity. I will also pursue the possibilities for camera surveillance at key locations within the city as a pre-emptive tool to combat crime.

There is simply no need for the expense of surveillance cameras, and in a city such as Wauwatosa, they'd provide very little value.  There is no need for this small suburb to turn into a 1984 style surveillance city.

In the end, all of Stepaniak's campaign postings leave me with the impression that he wants to plan city development from the Mayor's office in a way that is not compatible with a free society where private property ownership is the cornerstone of our nation.  So then I look at Jill Didier's website and her experience to see how much better she'd be.  I looked, and read all her campaign information and found.... *chirp*... very little... surprisingly little.... shamefully little.

Where Stepaniak provided enough information about his vision for me to discount him as a candidate a libertarian could be comfortable with... Jill Didier provides so little information that I have hard time thinking anyone could be comfortable with her.  From what I can tell, the only real accomplishment she touts is for sex offender restrictions in our city which I don't even agree with!  Other than that, there is just a lot of superficial ideas of being more open and more responsible with taxpayer dollars.  So now I feel I'm stuck between the devil I know, and the devil I don't.

In the end, I think I'll be voting for Didier, but I won't feel good about it.  Stepaniak's advertised zeal for urban design and renewal (at the cost of private property rights) is just too dangerous for us to live with.  I'd rather take a chance on Didier for four years.

Fire Station Referendum:  Another issue which is far from cut and dry.  I see the old fire station all the time in Wauwatosa, and understand that it needs to be replaced.  However, I look at the scope of the plans for what they want to replace it with, and I'm left to wonder whether we need everything they're asking for.  Most of the supporters of the plan keep shining the light on the current fire station, and seem to be using that to smoke screen the vast scale of the redevelopment plans.  I think they're irresponsible.  Any time... any time... you take people's homes from them, that should automatically create a very high bar that you must over come to justify the need.  The City of Wauwatosa has failed miserably in justifying the need for as large of a station as they want at the expense of people's hard earned private property.

This is not to suggest that a new fire station is not needed.  However, just because you need to replace something, doesn't give you the right to go overboard in what you replace it with.  I believe the city needs to re-evaluate their current plans and come back to the voters with a more responsible plan that does more to honor the rights of the citizens to keep as much of their private property as possible.

In order to force the city to re-evaluate, that means I'll be voting No on this referendum.

If you'd like to see a complete sample ballot for your district, you can visit the State Voter Public Access Site.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to begin to examine the pillars of each of the Mayoral candidates platforms on this blog.  Ironically enough, our mayoral election is April Fools Day, but we need to make sure that we don't vote like fools.  The two candidates are Jill Didier, and Jerry Stepaniak, and I will be examining their platforms in these posts.  As I looked at each of the websites, I was struck by the same typical vague political language that could mean any one of a dozen things.  However, one thing immediately struck me as being potentially disastrous for our community, and that was this statement by Jerry Stephaniak:

Expand the tax base by actively pursuing quality redevelopment of major, high visibility properties.
...
Target, acquire and remediate blighted properties to strengthen the community and uphold the property values of the surrounding neighborhoods.

For those unfamiliar with the reference in the title of the post, Kelo v. City of New London was a case before the United Supreme Court where they upheld the right of the City of New London to transfer property from one private owner to another using eminent domain, and not for a public purpose.  My personal opinion is that these takings are unconstitutional according to the 5th Amendment, though for reasons that I will never understand, the court majority found the opposite.

Nationwide, there were two general reactions to this ruling.  In some areas there was such an uproar of disapproval, that many states and communities enacted laws which restricted the ability of governments to take property through eminent domain.  Though in reality, many of those laws are merely window dressing around already liberal eminent domain laws, since they still depend on using the standard of "blighted" to take property.  The issue comes in because most communities define "blight" so broadly as to be nearly meaningless.  In other parts of the nation, communities saw this ruling as a green light to begin broader eminent domain takings for purposes of raising tax bases, and in my corrupt dealings, giving cheap property to developers who had connections in city hall.

And with all this in mind, when I read Mr. Stephaniak's plank in which he promises to acquire blighted properties and "uphold property values", it takes on a very dangerous twist.  It sounds to me like Mr. Stephaniak doesn't respect our basic constitutional property rights.  Even Jill Didier has the following on her website:

Jill Didier supports design standards for North Avenue, State Street, and other major corridors; encouraging thoughtful development that expands the city’s tax base while preserving its character.

Wauwatosa needs an updated vision—a vision that captures our vibrancy and furthers our potential. Proactive leadership in the mayor’s office will ensure that redevelopment occurs in a well thought out manner with neighborhood involvement. As mayor, Jill Didier will use the comprehensive plan and input received from the neighborhoods to develop a vision for each area of focus. Working together,we can grow the tax base while preserving our community’s character.

This is even more vague, and doesn't use the same dangerous trigger words that Stephaniak's website uses.  To be clear, I am not charging either candidate with any type of corruption, or shady dealings of any kind.  However, a policy of liberal eminent domain would be disastrous to this community, and would lead to corruption in our fair community.

I would love to see clarification from both candidates regarding their stances on eminent domain, with as much specific language as possible.  I would also ask that both candidates sign a pledge stating that, if elected, they will not allow eminent domain takings for the purposes of transferring property from one private entity to another.

To find out more about eminent domain abuse nationwide, visit the Castle Coalition.