Before Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker dropped out of the race for governor last week, I was secretly pulling for him to defy the odds and squeak out a victory to become the Republican nominee.
But not because I agreed with his issues, found him to be a passionate speaker or even a man capable of effectively leading the state. Rather, I was rooting for a Walker victory because he was slightly less evil than U.S. Rep. Mark Green, a man whose love for the cameras rivals that of Terrell Owens.
Mr. Green is probably best known to University of Wisconsin students as the individual who, while whining about the capital city's liberal tendencies, coined the term "Planet Madison," complaining that Madison is out of touch with the rest of the state. This strategy really should pay off in the end, as alienating residents of the state's second largest city is a foolproof way to gain votes.
Ironically enough, despite his apparent disdain for Madison, Mr. Green wants to become the leader of this so-called planet, the captain of this planet if you will. But please don't confuse Mr. Green with the real Captain Planet, the recycling superhero who passionately fought eco-villains. No, Mr. Green is nothing but an imposter. He voted to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The real Captain Planet was brought about by a combination of earth, fire, wind, water and heart. However, Mr. Green's Captain Planet could only be created by a combination of grandstanding, hypocrisy, oil and hopelessly out-of-date family values.
The "Planet Madison" comment came as Mr. Green bravely ventured into this allegedly demonic city to rally College Republicans against teachers, but not in the traditional "We hate all public schools" spiel one expects to hear from a conservative Republican.
Instead, Mr. Green was reacting to a Madison teacher who had assigned students to write letters to their elected officials criticizing the war in Iraq. A misguided assignment, yes. But Mr. Green attacked this isolated incident by wielding more righteous indignation than Jerry Falwell at a convention for homosexual atheist abortionists. You'd think this teacher was preaching the bloody overthrow of the capitalist government and a dictatorship of the proletariat, for all the fuss Mr. Green made. Unemployment, health care and equality be damned! There's a story to exploit here!
And yet Mr. Green's grandstanding seemingly knows no bounds. Last year he jumped on the anti-university bandwagon and criticized the UW-Eau Claire ban on allowing RAs to hold Bible study in their dorm rooms.
Though deeply flawed, this rule hardly constituted a Bible ban, as Green began to call it. The policy allowed resident assistants to hold Bible study anywhere outside the dorm and residents were free to lead their own Bible studies with whomever they wished. But Mr. Green sensed that he could generate publicity and portray himself as a free speech martyr, so again he went completely overboard and attacked the policy with guns blazing.
The funny thing in this situation is that Mr. Green is anything but an advocate of free speech. He hypocritically only wants to protect speech he agrees with; his defense of RAs to hold Bible study probably had more to do with his religious beliefs than a commitment to the First Amendment (he introduced legislation to create an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives).
He very publicly attempted to prevent University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill from speaking at UW-Whitewater last year. Professor Churchill — who raised quite a few eyebrows after referring to Sept. 11 victims as "little Eichmanns" — is undeniably an imbecile. But as any real free-speech proponent will tell you, his radical views should not prevent him from enjoying the same freedoms afforded to those with a moderate outlook.
Mr. Green also labeled himself unfriendly to the free-speech movement when he voted — in every legislative session he's served — in favor of amending the constitution to criminalize flag burning. Without getting into a lengthy debate over the legality of burning the America flag, it should be taken for granted that a man who attempts to sell himself as a die-hard supporter of the First Amendment should be against such a law.
Another tenet of the Green campaign has been the candidate's steadfast dedication to campaign finance reform, which certainly is the trendy thing to do in an era wrought by petty corruption and bribery. If the campaign continues to push the issue, however, Mr. Green will have to explain to voters why he voted against the 2002 campaign finance reform, why he allegedly received $387,098 in donations that lacked proper disclosure information and why a former Republican caucus member testified that he worked on Green campaign literature on the state dime.
Rob Hunger ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
