There is a tendency in politics, once you have an enemy, to attack that enemy no matter what position they take. Conservatives of late have (rightly) attacked Liberals for being un-supportive of Iraqi democracy, just so they can embarrass their arch-enemy GW Bush. However, conservatives can be guilty of the same thing.
Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarters has been on Governor (of Wisconsin) Jim Doyle's case for historically opposing and promising to continue to oppose reforms in election controls, despite very suspicious voting numbers in Milwaukee. In this case, Captain Ed has done a great job bringing focus to election fraud and "over-vote" issues in Milwaukee, E. St. Louis, and Washington State, especially since the MSM has preferred to focus on potential "under-vote" issues in Ohio and Florida.
However, in piling on Mr. Doyle, I fear that Morrissey has put aside his political and/or philosophical beliefs in favor of giving his enemy another good bludgeon. His post points out that:
executives involved in a controversial health-care merger gave Doyle over $28,000 in donations shortly after he allowed the merger to go through. Critics at the time wondered why Doyle didn't ask for common-sense economic concessions
OK, lets take this in two parts. First, lets look at Doyle's decision on the merger. The article says that Doyle is being criticized basically for NOT holding two companies for ransom. Often anti-trust law is used as "merger tax" to extract some sort of pay-off from the parties, in the form of reduced prices or a spun-off properties or whatever. However, no matter what you call it, this is a bribe the government is demanding to let individuals carry forward with a private business transaction. Usually this bribe is waved around by some politician in order to score some populist political points toward their next reelection (the Europeans and Elliot Spitzer are both good at this).
Is this really what Morrissey thinks Doyle should have done? As a libertarian, I find that conservatives' support for truly free market capitalism sometimes runs hot and cold, but I would generally expect a conservative to oppose this kind of extortion and interference with the free market. So does Morrissey really think Doyle did the wrong thing?
The second part of the story, of course, are the campaign contributions. First, I would argue that if Doyle's merger decision was not wrong, then donations based on this decision are not wrong either. Many, many companies out there donate to politicians who promise to keep the government off their back. I certainly do - does that make my contributions graft? Finally, Morrissey admits that
These donations do not appear to have broken any laws, although the timing strongly suggests some sort of payoff
Look at it the other way around: If Doyle HAD extracted concessions to approve the merger, it would not have strongly suggested a soft of payoff, it would have been a definite payoff.
Captain Ed- I enjoy your site immensely, even when I disagree with it. It is OK for you to say that Doyle made the right decision on the merger without backing off of him over the election issue -- just as it is OK for those of us who had concerns about the war in Iraq to gleefully support that country's return to democracy.