Do you guys really want to beat Obama?

The Republican Party was riding high in late 2010. They were just one month removed from sweeping changes in the midterm elections, including a gain of 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the largest change in any midterm since 1938. In December, President Barack Obama’s disapproval rating was at 54-percent, 12 points higher than his approval rating.

Obama’s numbers had rebounded some in January, when the new legislative class was sworn in, but the mission for the GOP was already clear: Make him a one-term president. Jimmy Carter v2.0.

And that mission is hardly a long shot. Real Clear Politics sets Obama’s job approval rating today at 52-percent. Hardly ironclad. This should be a slam dunk, right? Not if you’re playing ball like the Washington Generals.

The early rollout for the 2012 GOP field has been less than stellar. There is a large group of potential candidates that has not only lacked a clear frontrunner, but has also already seen a couple of popular candidates bail.

Huckabee

First to exit was Mike Huckabee, a well-known Republican who challenged for the GOP nom in ’08. The former governor of Arkansas had been polling well early, grabbing 20-percent of the votes in a Pew Research poll in early March (1 point back of Mitt Romney). Huckabee, on his TV show, called the decision a spiritual one. “All the factors say go, but my heart says no.”

He was followed out the door by Donald Trump, who – ironically – made a taped appearance on that very Huckabee show, saying:

“This might be considered by some people, not necessarily me, bad news because he is a terrific guy — and frankly I think he would be a terrific president. But a lot of people are very happy that he will not be running, especially other candidates.”

Trump

Trump is not one of those other candidates. He dropped out of the race just two days later, still convinced that he could win it all, but unwilling to give up the fantastic money he’s making in the business world.

Those actually in the race aren’t faring much better. Perennial field-filler Rick Santorum has already stepped in it, following up an average performance at the South Carolina GOP Debate with this epically ignorant statement about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and torture:

“And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden.”

Santorum

Santorum was responding to McCain’s speech from the Senate floor, where he made the factually-based, but GOP-unpopular, argument that torture did not lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden. So you can make the argument that Santorum is wrong on his biggest point. But that’s not the most asinine thing he said. “He doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works.” Not only does McCain understand how it works, he was an active participant in the process, on the receiving end, while he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for 5 years. As his daughter, Meghan, tweeted: “Rick Santorum telling my father doesn’t know about torture is like Carrot Top telling Lebron James he doesn’t know about basketball.”

McCain may have been broken by the Viet Cong, but he never gave up valuable information about his fellow U.S. soldiers. He made one anti-American propaganda “confession,” but suffered even more torture – two to three beatings weekly – because he wouldn’t sign additional statements.

John McCain doesn’t understand the nature of enhanced interrogation? Good luck walking this one back, Rick.

But I don’t think anybody’s had a more disastrous week than Newt Gingrich. Walking proof that everything old is new again, Gingrich announced his candidacy just over a week ago, then immediately began destroying it. His first mistake was seeming to compare the Medicare reform plan set forth by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to “right-wing social engineering,” a comment that drew immediate backlash from seemingly every corner of the Republican party.

Gingrich

Gingrich, acting nothing like the veteran politician he is, tried to smooth it over, but succeeded only in making himself look worse. He claimed he wasn’t referring to Ryan’s plan, then proceeded to call the Representative and apologize anyway. He also warned any future opponents against using that quote in a commercial, saying “…any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood. Because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate and I’m prepared to stand up…”

GOP voters don’t appear to be buying it, as evidenced by this exchange with a citizen in Iowa:

Oh, it gets better. Gingrich was later accosted by a gay-rights activist at a book signing in Minnesota, who encouraged him to “feel the rainbow.”

And then there’s this: The man who wants to be the nominee of the party of fiscal responsibility once owed, or may still owe, between $200 and $500K to luxury jeweler Tiffany’s. Gingrich has said he won’t address the issue, calling it “Trivial Pursuit.” Wouldn’t it be nice if all of our candidates could get away with that? And money is certainly on Gingrich’s mind now, as it seems there’s concern his donors are now backing off.

So to recap: Huckabee and Trump are out, Santorum and Gingrich are Keystone Kopping it all over the place. That leaves Romney the GOP frontrunner, with 16.6-percent of the vote according to RCP. Huckabee and Trump are still running second and third, despite the fact they’re not running at all, with Palin – who hasn’t even announced if she’s running or not – sitting fourth, at 10.6-percent, nearly three points ahead of Gingrich.

RCP has even worse news for the Republican party: Obama leads the “Generic GOP Candidate” 42.8-37.8 on average (the Republican candidate is up 2 points according to Rasmussen, but behind 15 points according to NBC and 10 points according to Pew).

All of that said, Obama still isn’t a lock for a second term. We’re sitting just under 18 months away from Election Day 2012, an eternity in the world of politics. I get the sense that there’s a good chance that the eventual GOP nominee isn’t even a blip on the radar right now. As The Daily Show with Jon Stewart pointed out, it was looking like Rudy Guliani v. Hillary Clinton at this point in 2007, while Joe Lieberman was the Democrat frontrunner in the early stages of the 2004 race, leading eventual nom Jon Kerry 23-17.

President Cuomo?

Even more incredible? In May of 1991, Bill Clinton was polling at 0 and 1-percent in California and Florida respectively, trailing both Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson. Nearly nine years later the former Arkansas governor walked out of the White House with a 60-percent approval rating after two terms in office.

And he got into that White House by unseating a president who had squandered a bump in popularity after a successful military operation in the Middle East because of a weak economy.

Sound familiar? The Republicans can find themselves on the other side of history, but there’s still a lot of work for them to do.

–qcfm

Common Sense, Day 2: “…As my equal is how I must treat you…”

Editor’s note: After yesterday’s post about Common went so well, I decided to do a series of posts from now until either the conservative right drops its opposition to the Chicago MC/Poet/Actor making an appearance at a White House event, or the event itself takes place. Trust me, there are plenty of songs in Common’s catalog to dispel this fallacious claim that he’s a “controversial” rapper known for “misogynistic, cop-killing lyrics.”

I will never forget the first time Common caught my ear. It was August 2000, and I was on US 75 North in the Dallas Metroplex – Plano to be specific – on my way home from my honeymoon to begin a new life with my wife. I had found a real R&B/Hip-hop station and was going to hang onto it until it became too fuzzy to hear. It was then that I heard “The Light,” off of Common’s album “Like Water for Chocolate.” That song is the subject of today’s Common Sense.

Here’s the link. Go listen to it, let it resonate in your dome, then come back and read the rest.

The timing of my first listen to this song was perfect. It’s a love song, an ode to special woman. It manages to be sweet without becoming saccharin. He is elevating his woman for the special being she is, without putting her on a pedestal and setting her up for a fall. The chorus samples Bobby Caldwell’s “Open Your Eyes.”

A notable line comes at about the 2:45 mark, when Common says, “Truthfully it’s hard trying to practice abstinence.” Yes. That’s right. A pro-abstinence message in a hip-hop song. Tell me again why the conservative right is going apoplectic?

So here are the lyrics. Go back and listen again, soak in the lyrics. This good man – and talented MC – is being slandered by the conservative right as a misogynist, and I won’t stand by and let it happen.

I never knew a luh, luh-luh, a love like this
Gotta be somethin’ for me to write this
Queen, I ain’t seen you in a minute
Wrote this letter, and finally decide to send it
Signed, sealed, delivered for us to grow together
Love has no limit, let’s spend it slow forever
I know your heart is weathered by what studs did to you
I ain’t gon’ assault ’em cause I probably did it too
Because of you, feelings I handle with care
Some niggas recognize the light but they can’t handle the glare
You know I ain’t the type to walk around with matchin’ shirts
A relationship is effort, I will match your work
I wanna be the one to make you happiest, it hurts you the most
They say the end is near, it’s important that we close..
.. to the Most High
Regardless of what happen on Him let’s rely

There are times.. when you’ll need someone..
I will be by your side..
There is a light, that shines,
special for you, and me..

It’s important, we communicate
and tune the fate of this union, to the right pitch
I never call you my bitch or even my boo
There’s so much in a name and so much more in you
Few understand the union of woman and man
Sex and a tingle is where they assumin’ it land
But that’s fly by night, for you and the sky I write
For in these cold Chi night’s moon, you my light
If heaven had a height, you would be that tall
Ghetto to coffee shop, through you I see that all
Let’s stick to understandin’ and we won’t fall
For better or worse times, I hope to me you call
So I pray everyday more than anything
friends we’ll stay as we begin to lay
this foundation for a family – love ain’t simple
Why can’t it be? Anything worth having you work at annually
Granted we’ve known each other for some time
It don’t take a whole day to recognize sunshine

There are times.. when you’ll need someone..
I will be by your side, oh darling
There is a light, that shines,
special for you, and me..

It’s kinda fresh you listen to more than hip-hop
and I can catch you in the mix from beauty to thrift shop
Plus you ship hop when it’s time to, thinkin’ you fresh
Suggestin’ beats I should rhyme to
At times when I’m lost I try to find you
You know to give me space when it’s time to
My heart’s dictionary defines you, it’s love and happiness
Truthfully it’s hard tryin’ to practice abstinence
The time we committed love it was real good
Had to be for me to arrive and it still feel good
I know the sex ain’t gon’ keep you, but as my equal
is how I must treat you
As my reflection in light I’ma lead you
And whatever’s right, I’ma feed you
Digga-da, digga-da, digga-da, digga-digga-da-da
Yo I tell you the rest when I see you, peace

There are times.. when you’ll need someone..
I will be by your side..
There is a light, that shines,
special for you, and me.

–QCFM

“…The present is a gift, and I just wanna be…”

Common, courtesy of (Mis)Speak MusicFirst things first. Click on this link to go watch the video for “Be” by Common.

It’s important to call out ignorance, so Emily Esfahani Smith doesn’t get a free pass for calling Common a “controversial rapper known for misogynistic, cop-killing lyrics.” Common probably isn’t that controversial to most people familiar with his music, and he isn’t known for misogyny or violent lyrics. Pick a Common album…any of them…and you’ll realize that tracks like this one are a far more important part of Common’s body of work.

Smith tries to play the Jeremiah Wright card, which is certainly code that readers of The Blaze – Glenn Beck’s knock-off Huffington Post, which Smith contributes to – understand. Smith doesn’t cite any examples of those “misogynistic, cop-killing lyrics” in her story, which I won’t dignify with a link, but instead posts a YouTube video of an appearance Common made on Def Poetry Jam.

So since Smith didn’t post any lyrics, here’s what this song says.

I want to be as free as the spirits of those who left
I’m talking Malcom, Coltrane, my man Yusef
Through death grew conception
New breath and resurrection
For moms, new steps in her direction
In the right way
Told inside is where the fight lay
And everything a nigga do may not be what he might say
Chicago nights stay, stay on the mind
But I write many lives, they lay on these lines
Wave the signs of the times
Many say the grind’s on the mind
Shorties blunted-out and everyone wanna rhyme
Bush pushing lies, killers immortalized
We got arms but won’t reach for the skies
Waiting for the Lord to rise
I look into my daughter’s eyes
And realize I’ma learn through her
The Messiah, might even return through her
If I’ma do it, I gotta change the world through her
Furs and a Benz, gramps wanting ’em
Demons and old friends, pops they hauntin’ him
The chosen one from the land of the frozen sun
When drunk nights get remembered more than sober ones
Walk like warriors, we were never told to run
Explored the world to return to where my soul begun
Never looking back or too far in front of me
The present is a gift
and I just wanna be…

But please don’t take my word for it. Look up Common, listen to his music and make your mind up for yourself.

–QCFM

2012 race starts with a “Meh”

Image courtesy Today's News NJ

The South Carolina GOP Debate, where "Who's who" meets "Who's that?"

As far as JV games go, it was pretty typical. The first debate in the 2012 race for the White House, hosted by the South Carolina Republican Party, featured a couple of guys who looked like they were ready to elevate themselves to varsity status, one who seemed comfortable where he is, and one dude who might enjoy finding another extracurricular activity…art or music, maybe?

The debate, hosted live by Fox News, was watched by a Frank Luntz focus group. That group scored former radio talk show host/pizza chain CEO Herman Cain the runaway winner. I didn’t see it quite like that. Here’s my scorecard from the less-than-thrilling evening.

1. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN) – T-Paw needed a good night, and he got one. This was his chance to prove he was ready to play on the same court with the big boys, to shed the “nice, but boring” image. He’s still not the most exciting guy on the dais, but he did have a little more fire than normal. He painted himself as well-traveled and in touch with the problems and, most importantly, didn’t dodge the questions. The most telling exchange came when he was asked about changing his position on “cap-and-trade.” He had this to say:

What i concluded subsequently is it is really a bad idea. Not in the last six months. I sent a letter congress I think about two years ago. And other times have said, I was wrong, I was a mistake and I’m sorry. It is ham fisted, it is going to be harmful to the economy.

Pawlenty admitted the mistake and showed how, with new information, he changed course. That’s a respectable stand that most politicians won’t make, because admitting you made a mistake is a fantastic way to not get re-elected. The audience seemed cool with it, though. T-Paw was also willing to give props to Pres. Obama on getting bin Laden, something that has been difficult for Republicans to do.

Let’s be frank…T-Paw didn’t create a lot of buzz for himself with this performance, but I think it’s the kind of consistent performance that could help him in the long run.

2. Herman Cain (GA) – This man captured the buzz in a way Pawlenty can only dream of. Cain is a big presence in any room, with a stern glare and booming voice. He is well polished, too, thanks in part to the fact he hosted his own talk radio show in Atlanta (it ended in February of this year). The buzz came with plenty of buzzwords to surround his performance. The Luntz Bunch said things like “a breath of fresh air,” “common sense,” and “clear and concise.”

But while I put Cain second in performance, I’m still not sold on his staying power. Most of his bullet-point answers came with three points – and as S.E. Cupp pointed out hilariously, he only got to three points of a four-point answer – and while he’s good with a quip, it’s not clear yet (because he’s so new on the scene) if there’s any depth behind them. As one member of the Luntz Bunch described him, “Talking points, no real solutions.”

This is not to say Cain can’t win. I’m only pointing out that for a man who has never run a successful political campaign, the 18-month run-up to November 2012 is going to present a lot of challenges. His ability to solve those challenges will prove if he’s capable of winning the nomination.

3. Rep. Ron Paul (TX) – It was a very Ron Paul-ian performance by the Texas Libertarian. He brought the house down with his discussion of the legalization of heroin and prostitution, a stance that seemed to irk the South Carolina GOP (unfortunately I’ve lost the link to that story). Paul drew several rounds of applause, including for advocating for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Paul is an interesting voice in the GOP race. He helps drive the discussion in ways that are important if uncomfortable for the Republicans. This current batch of GOPers advocate for getting government out of the way and out of our personal lives, but they only seem to mean it when it comes to the financials. Paul is willing to take it much farther, advocating for not only heroin and hookers, but also for allowing gays and lesbians to marry. If the Republicans hope to snare independents and moderates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, Paul is the man who can help them do it. Paul’s views are seen by many as eccentric and “out there,” leaving him unlikely to win. But maybe he doesn’t have to. Maybe it’s enough to drive the debate in different directions.

4. Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) – Santorum is, as The Root contributor David Swerdlick says, what a GOP candidate would look like if you had to “concoct the stereotypical Republican candidate in a science lab.” T-Paw gets the knock for being boring only because of the distaste Santorum’s conservative social views have stirred up (if you have a really, really strong stomach, Google the word “Santorum” to see the sexual neologism created after he went on record comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia). Santorum was as plastic as can be expected in the SC GOP debate, landing no wild haymakers but drawing nice rounds of applause for being, well, Rick Santorum. The JV game suits Santorum well. He’s not ready for the varsity game, though.

5. Gov. Gary Johnson (NM) – Poor Gary. He seems like a nice enough guy, but he was clearly out of his comfort zone in this debate. His elbows were pinned to his ribs and his hands spent most of the night nervously rubbing against things. Those tics made it hard for me to hear his message, which I understand is the “far out” right (he’s made no secrets of marijuana use). The only other thing I’ll remember about Johnson is line, delivered early on in the proceedings:

“Hey, there’s been like nine questions for these guys and none for me.”

Sorry, Gary. You weren’t doing much with the opportunities anyway.

The next chance for the Republican field to create some Cain-esque buzz – and for Cain to keep it rolling – is just about a month away. CNN and WMUR are co-sponsoring a debate June 13. It will air at 7 p.m. (Central) on CNN.

–QCFM

Great victories don’t always equal great electoral success

Screen cap from Real Clear PoliticsWords, I’ve found, are completely inadequate to describe some things. That includes my feelings when I found out, May 1, that Osama bin Laden is dead. It wasn’t really joy – I’ve yet to feel that over the death of anyone – but it wasn’t sadness, either. It was somewhere in between melancholy, peace and pride. I was sad for all of those who have suffered because of bin Laden’s evil, at peace knowing he could hurt no one else, and proud of my country and my military for making sure that was the case.

The past few days have been maddening, watching those on the left and right spin this for their own benefit, using it to validate their point of view and invalidate the other. Those angles have all been covered, I’m sure, by people who are much more interested in that kind of thing than I am. But there is one thing I don’t believe I’ve seen addressed.

The question was posed – in several places – Does this ensure Obama’s re-election in 2012. I think the answer is “Not necessarily.” Recent history bears that out.

In early 1991, after the liberation of Kuwait, George H.W. Bush’s job approval ratings skyrocketed up to nearly 90%. It didn’t last long. Soon thereafter, as they economy soured, so did the public’s opinion of him. By ’92 unemployment hit 7.8% and his approval was down to 40%. In 1993 he was out of a job, replaced by Bill Clinton.

It was the same for his son, George W. Bush. The United States invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 and Bush’s approval ratings skyrocketed to about 85%.  But a slow, steady declined followed and by the time the U.S. entered Iraq it was down to 60% and Bush just eked out re-election against John Kerry. By the time hurricanes Katrina and Rita had ravaged the country, his job approval was in the 40s.

All of that hardly makes Barack Obama’s current 51.3% approval rating seem unbeatable. His undoing as president could be the same as it was for H.W. Bush. In the words of James Carville – during the Clinton campaign – “The economy, stupid.”

–QCFM

Was this in the pledge?

Editor’s note: Yes, I realize this is way behind the news cycle…but I wrote it, then had to set it aside for a while. I spent a lot of time on it and I don’t want it to go to waste. Humor me, please.

With crystal clear focus and laser precision, the Republican party made sure we knew it was gonna be different this time.

It’s hard to believe it was just six months ago when the Grand Old Party unveiled its “Pledge To America,” a 21-page document that outlined the its governing agenda. Just 11 grafs in, it’s spelled out in simple language: “The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.”

That, apparently, includes taking away funding for public broadcasting. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure recently that would prevent stations from buying programming from National Public Radio – or any other source – with the $22 million they receive from the federal government.

So…is that repairing our economy? Or does that reclaim the government?

It’s interesting to see a party that blamed, in part, a “polarizing political environment” for “fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose” spend so much time passing bills that they know will never pass the Senate, let alone get signed by President Obama. This measure, just like “repealing” the Affordable Health Care Act, is nothing more than red meat for the conservative base, designed to stir them up as we approach the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

One could try to declare this a great victory for fiscal conservatives, but look at that figure a few grafs up: $22 million. Barely a dent in the federal budget. No less than Rep. Ron Paul took to the house floor to criticize the move, saying:

“The very most they might save is $10 million, and that’s their claim to fame for slashing the budget. At the same time they won’t consider for a minute cutting a real, significant amount of money. All empires end for fiscal reasons, because they spread themselves too far around the world – and that’s what we’re facing.”

“That’s their claim to face for slashing the budget.” This is the root of what the Republicans are doing. They are returning to this focus on divisive wedge issues that helped drive me from the party in the first place. The attempt to cut funding from Planned Parenthood was just the beginning.

Public broadcasting, specifically NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, have long been conservative targets, considered to be far too liberal. The 228 Republicans who passed this measure will indeed brag to their constituents about cutting the budget while sticking it to the liberal elite at the same time. They may have accomplished neither.

Mike Durbin, the author of Principled Thoughts, asked me “If NPR is so great, how come it can’t be privately funded”? That, I told him, was the wrong question…and not just because NPR gets only about $5.4 million per year from the federal government. The majority of its $65 million budget comes from local stations, which pay for the programming (you’ve heard the pledge drives…I know you have). So it’s entirely possible that, minus this money, NPR will survive. But again, this is the wrong question.

Here’s the right question: Why does the United States need public, non-commercial, news broadcasting and reporting? It was answered in a far more eloquent manner than I could achieve in the pages of The Washington Post by Leonard Downie, Jr., a professor of journalism at Arizona State University, and Robert G. Kaiser, an associate editor at The Post. It’s well worth a read. Here’s a key snippet:

“…equally important to us is local news coverage, which has been even more severely weakened by shrunken reporting staffs and ambitions at newspapers and commercial stations in too many cities and towns. We have long believed that Americans benefit when powerful institutions and important issues in their lives are scrutinized by good reporters on their behalf. Yet this kind of ambitious local news coverage by commercial media has diminished in community after community in recent years.”

I have a clear bias here. Every paycheck I ever collected as a sports editor came from a community publication. While national and regional news organizations do wonderful things, there is no replacing what local, feet-on-the-ground, immersed-in-the-community reporting can offer a town of any size. And no group is better prepared to than a group that doesn’t have to rely on advertising revenue to survive. Those are the journalists who are able to take risks, to go after stories that might make advertisers or members of the local government uncomfortable.

James Fallows wrote a piece on “Why NPR Matters” back during the Juan Williams debacle, well before this bill was introduced. It’s timely now, though, as he points out:

“In their current anti-NPR initiative, Fox and the Republicans would like to suggest that the main way NPR differs from Fox is that most NPR employees vote Democratic. That is a difference, but the real difference is what they are trying to do. NPR shows are built around gathering and analyzing the news, rather than using it as a springboard for opinions. And while of course the selection of stories and analysts is subjective and can show a bias, in a serious news organization the bias is something to be worked against rather than embraced. NPR, like the New York Times, has an ombudsman. Does Fox? [I think the answer is No.]”

But perhaps my whole rant here is overthinking things a bit. This is not a serious bill introduced by the Republicans. They have to know – like repealing health care reform – it will never make it through the Senate or get signed by the president. They don’t necessarily want it to, though. This is a chance to stir up partisan feelings in preparation for the 2012 elections. Plain and simple. And it’s exactly the kind of thing they pledged to us they wouldn’t do. They are just continuing to fray the bonds among our people and blur our sense of national purpose.

And yes, Michael, I know you favor cutting all federal funding to private organizations. I know this won’t sway you. But this is my honest answer.

–QCFM

Of cheeseheads and mortar boards

I’ve yet to weigh in on Wisconsin, but something has really caught my attention, so here we go…

The new GOP talking point seems to be the salaries that teachers in the Badger State take in. Rush Limbaugh was on it today, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it from other people too, though The Daily Caller’s Matthew Boyle wrote about it more than a week ago. Are you ready to be outraged by Wisconsin’s teachers? Here we go:

“Wisconsin’s 2010 Teacher of the Year, Leah Lechleiter-Luke of Mauston High School… makes $54,928 in base salary and $32,213 in “fringe benefits,” which includes health insurance, life insurance and retirement pay. …Per the Department of Commerce, in 2009, the average personal income for all Wisconsin workers was $37,398.”

Are you OUTRAGED?!?!?!? Because I’m not. So what?

Boyle’s piece doesn’t specify, so allow me a bit of conjecture here: When he says “all Wisconsin workers,” we’re going to guess he means all human beings in the state of Wisconsin who hold a job. That’s a big group of people, ranging from doctors, lawyers, etc. on the high end, to – I’m guessing – janitors, food service employees, etc. on the other. And what one thing that usually separates those on the high end from the low? An education.

A quick Google search reveals that Lechleiter-Luke holds degrees from both the University of Wisconsin-Osh Kosh, and Viterbo University in La Crosse. That information comes from this document, a list of the 2009-10 Wisconsin teachers of the year. Perusing that list reveals that all of them have at least one degree, and one of them is currently working on a Masters.

What does this have to do with salary? A lot. CNN noted in 2006 that a “survey found that adults 18 and older with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $51,554 in 2004, compared to $28,645 for those with only a high school diploma.”

Go back to this Wisconsin numbers again for a second:$54,928 in base pay for one of Wisconsin’s teachers of the year (who holds two college degrees) compared to $37,398 for all workers. Not that far off, are they?

Here’s another document for you, this one from Wisconsin’s Technical Colleges. It lists 10 occupations typically requiring a bachelors degree. The average salary of that group is $48,472.

So, yes, Wisconsin’s teachers don’t do too shabby when it comes to salary, but it’s not way out of line when compared to other workers with bachelor’s degrees.

Listen, Conservatives…if you want me to get on your side here – and I’m open to that idea – don’t attack teachers for making salaries commensurate with their education. No offense, but I’m not dumb enough to fall for that.