Where exactly is the 'third party collaboration' you are alleging?

Do you have a link to that?
To be fair, I don't believe Millie Coby has suggested anyone vote for her because she is African American or because she "looks like them" to paraphrase Coggs. I continue to be disappointed in her for not coming out and reject that type of racist remark from Coggs, who supports her. I sure wouldn't want an endorser who says disgusting things like that.
I still want to know from Coggs which candidate my half-Puerto Rican half Italian husband is supposed to vote for to satisfy her "looks like him" standard...
Identity politics hold ALL people back.

Coby believes gay couples have a strong likelihood of being pedophiles

Do you have a link for that, Marvin?

"Coby strongly supports taking money away from public schools to give to "throw up a shingle" voucher schools."

Can't you at least attempt to present an unbiased comment about the voucher/school choice program?

there is no incumbent in that race. Pasch doesn't even want to move in our district until she is sure of a victory. My vote goes to Griffin

What a waste of time for Harriet Callier to be on the ballot. Both Callier and Coby are members of the NAACP , this could be an inside job.

CowDung, actually, that's pretty much how Harriet Collier described voucher schools since there is NO accountability--she painted a picture of a few of us in the audience starting a school for this September with NO proof that we had qualified teachers.
If there WERE accountability instead of a "hang up a shingle and spend the government money on an SUV and hiring your unemployed sister to call herself a teacher when she has no qualifications," I still would be VEHEMENTLY anti-voucher for many reasons, the most important of which is that voucher schools take money away from kids with disabilities which is appalling.

Stacy, did you see Griffin? She seems very sweet and completely unaware of what a state issue is, not to mention confused about what the job entails.

@Stacey, Sandy is the incumbent. Let's not split hairs semantically.

N:

Why does there need to be accountability from choice schools? People choose for themselves (or their children) if they want to attend or not. If the school is crap, then parents will spend their voucher someplace else. The school won't stay in 'business'. That is accountability. This isn't like the public schools where kids don't necessarily have an affordable alternative to the public school...

We demand accountability from our public schools because children are required to attend those schools unless they wish to pay for private schooling.

The vouchers really don't take money away from kids with disabilities any more than the normal decreases in enrollment...

She's not the incumbent in the 22nd district, and that's not splitting hairs. Her use of the term "incumbent" when referring to herself is clearly meant to imply a status within the district that she doesn't possess. She doesn't live in the area and she has no intention of doing so unless she's elected to the position. She recently attempted to bump herself up the ladder by taking advantage of the recall effort against Alberta Darling and failed. There's nothing saying she wouldn't do something similar, should something she views as another opportunity to advance her political career arise. She has a following in Shorewood and that's basically why she's running for this opening in the 22nd.

Incumbent means you currently have the seat. Pasch explains that she will gladly take any seat. WeAreMilwaukee/SEIU/Grigsby/Voucher-BarrettSchools Purchased Pasch to run in the10th --instead of in Kesler's seat because he wanted to retire after 50yrs. Shorewood was Pasch's responsibility from her old seat but our neighbors all know how unresponsive she was to us during the past two terms. You gotta ask what they have up their sleeves with demanding a she move to the district to represent Union/Dem issues.

Funny, Grigsby has yet to endorse in her own district--just the one where SEIU/WeAreMilwaukee is paying BIG BUCKS! for adds and sponsors. Grigsby was willing to sell our kids out with that Barrett Takeover; I am very glad to know that her health scare has improved to the point that she is willing to see our communities for mor pocket linings.

Funny (or not). That you make Sandy sound like the kind of politician you like. Alas, she is not,

Cowdung, here's the scoop, in short: Voucher schools are under NO obligation to take kids with IEPs. They cherry pick the easy and cheap to educate kids with motivated parents, and money is taken out of public schools and given to the voucher school. This reduces the pool of money for public schools, which ARE obliged to educate every child. So when you support vouchers, you are taking money away from the schools that are required to educate kids with learning disabilities, autism, ADHD, SPD, etc. and giving it to schools with basically no accountability who do not educate neurotypical kids any better than public schools do. Also, they can promise the moon then, after they cashed the check, say, oo, we just realized your child needs speech therapy services and we don't provide them. Go back to the public school. Which has to take them in though now they're out the money.
Can you see why someone who advocates for special ed kids is INFURIATED by the voucher system?

Vouchers are funded separately than public school state funding. The amount of funding actually lost by public schools is the subject of great debate. For example, Barca's claim that 'the Assembly voted to take funding away from public school districts and give it to private Milwaukee voucher schools' was rated as 'False'.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/13/peter-barca/wisconsin-state-rep-peter-barca-says-assembly-vote/

The idea that voucher schools are not going to be providing a better education than the public schools is flawed. It's pretty difficult to fall below the education levels provided by some of the MPS schools. If nothing else, voucher kids will likely be in a better environment than they would have been in MPS--less crowding in the classrooms, surrounded by kids who have parents that care about their education, etc. I'd like to think that the Milwaukee kids that attend the Shorewood public schools are getting a better education than they would have had at MPS.

As for your accountability complaint, MPS has a pretty dismal graduation rate--what kind of accountability do we really have with our public school system?

You are correct that voucher schools are under no obligation to accept anybody, but not all private schools ignore kids with special needs. For example, St. Robert has many special needs children enrolled at their school.

The Spanish Journal, not Millie Coby, is identifying her as a Puerto Rican in that link. That doesn't tell me what her self-identification is.
But again, it's not she who is saying "vote for someone who looks like you," it's her #1 supporter, and she has not expressed any dismay about Coggs' comment.

What I said was that the link did not support your claim that she refers to African Americans as "those people." I have to assume she never said that.
Honestly, I felt sorry for Ms. Griffin. She should get involved in serving the community at a level of PTO or school board to begin learning more--she seemed SP uninformed on every issue, and you have to know what you're doing if you're writing and passing laws. You can't start at the top--you have to build your knowledge and skill base.

Griffin is great, as long as she doesn't slip into her 'NOT the whiteman's bitch' mode...

I did see that quite a while back. I was always leery of Taylor--who ran for county supervisor despite having no record of handling budgets--but her recent behavior and comments have truly shocked me. I will never support her again. I truly hope the Democrats can come up with a better candidate, but they haven't found anyone to challenge Sensenbrenner in years, so alas, I'm not holding out hope. Thank goodness we have Sandy Pasch running.

What a joke Dung. Bet you were bitching and moaning when she was running as "Not the White Man's Bitch" but now that she endorses your issue, she is like, all wonderful.

You are sadly mistaken if you are under the impression that I think that She's wonderful.

Marvin, are you familiar with Sandy Pasch? I have attended village halls with her since she first took office. She's amazing. I love her ideas about creating jobs through synergy between technical schools and companies. Her mental health parity law is saving us money and offering us hope of more humane treatment of the mentally ill and better facilities. She fought damn hard for Senior Care, Badger Care, and Family Care and high speed rail, which would've created jobs. Remember, too, she has created across-the-aisle relationships which are crucial in a highly partisan environment, and she's on important committees. That gives all of us more power. We need a power house against lunatics in the GOP who want to demonize single mothers and think we need more voter ID laws.

What would have been the cost per job for those jobs you claim would have been created by high speed rail?

Where would the money have come from to pay for Wisconsin's share of the costs to build and run the train?

Fighting hard for the high speed rail is not a 'plus' in my book...

Well, what the hell do you know Dung? Right wing radio has bitched about this for years and so that's all you need to know.

Do you ever make a point Keith, or do you only come around here to take shots at people?

CowDung, you forgot the spoon fed soundbite: "Choo choo train."

Jumping on Keith's 'attack' train, N? I thought you were above that sort of thing...

Indeed. I think she's just very young and was trying to be cool and edgy with that ridiculous stunt.

According to the JS article at the time (July 2010), she "describes herself as a "30-ish" community activist".

Not sure how old that truly makes her today, but the 'she's just very young' doesn't seem to be a valid excuse...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98941309.html

30 is young to me, being a half century old (or almost), but I'd vote for someone who was 30 if she had a good grasp on the issues (she didn't understand what a state issue is and thought a typical Shorewood issue she needs to learn about is parking problems), experience of some sort that I felt qualified her for the office she was running, and was not emotionally immature, which alas, she clearly is given the "not the whiteman's bitch" stunt.

I've left my 30's behind as well, but I don't consider it to be 'very young' at all. A 30 year old isn't someone fresh out of high school trying to make a 'splash' in the world by showing how 'edgy' they can be.

When someone is 30 years old with the emotional maturity of a teenager, I don't think they are qualified to hold a state level elected office.

It's quite a stretch to think that her answer to #3 means that she believes that gay couples have a strong likelihood of being pedophiles.

What you provided as 'proof' sounds more like a lefty hit piece that a statement of facts.

How so? She stated that the only reason for not supporting adoption is if the adoptive parents were pedos or had a history of pedo activities. To me, that means that she's ok with everyone being able to adopt except for pedophiles. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

Are you in disagreement with Coby and support adoption rights for pedophiles?

Those that saw a 'negative inference' were those that were looking to find one. It's a pretty common tactic to use against candidates that are opposing one's favored candidate...

The question listed those who are currently allowed to adopt and asked about adding same sex couples to that. He answer was that she would support anyone as an adoptive parent as long as they weren't a pedophile...

Note that she didn't say 'I would support same sex or gay adoption as long as they weren't pedophiles', she stated "I would support adoption as long as the persons who want to adopt are not pedophiles..."

She answered the question to be more inclusive rather than restricting her answer to dealing with only gay adoption...

Griffin did not ''infer" that she was not the whiteman's bitch. She openly declared that she was "NOT the whiteman's bitch" by taking the GAB to court so that that exact declaration would be placed on the ballot under her name. Do you really not see the difference? You have to twist Coby's words to get the interpretation you favor. There is absolutely no doubt at all about the words that Griffin wanted to use to describe her candidacy.

On a blog, which says its paid for by “The Poor People’s Piece of the Pie Campaign”, a statement attributed to Griffin is posted saying ”There currently is…an in-depth corruption within our government… SLAVERY, yes SLAVERY has returned in almost every aspect except name.

Nice try, but bringing up pedophilia in an answer to a question about gay parents is appropriate how? You don't have to answer that...it was rhetorical. Of course it revealed her ignorance about gay parenting and gays. I don't know why she doesn't just run as a Republican since she's anti-abortion, pro voucher, and associates "gay" with "pedophilia."

She brings up pedophilia as the only disqualifier when it comes to adoption. That would apply to everyone, gay or not...

Well, I wouldn't use that word, but I certainly wouldn't vote for her for state office and not even for school board if she ran because she's pro-voucher. And thinks of herself as pro special ed! Mortifying to those of us who advocate for children with IEPs!

Whatever.

I'm talking about anti-Pasch folks who live in Shorewood, of course. I wouldn't expect someone outside of her old district to know who she is or what she's done! But you Shorewoodians who post anonymously know I was talking about you!

Pasch never answered my e-mails when she was running against Darling...

Is he on the ballot? He has my vote. Go Jimmy...

Um, in the interests of full disclosure, both hubby and I blog, and we tend to communicate with each other when passing through the kitchen, LOL.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY...called being an old married couple!

I figured it was probably something along those lines.

Just kind of bad form when one of you two is calling out trolls though, don't you think?

Hubby might want to forego the potty mouth. That doesn't do much for the credibility either.

Bob's specialty, in case you haven't noticed, is cheap cynicism, except when it comes to Republicans.

What's your specialty, Keith? Besides projecting, that is.

Care to point out any specific lies, slander or things that are ridiculous? If you see some stuff you think you can refute specifically, have at it.

You really stink as a cynic. Everyday we get oversized mailers from the De Vos group. That's a lot more than $11K.

Nice cynical race play on their part, from a group that has fought for the conditions that makes the economic situation in the 10th what it is.

Bob, like everything you comment on your apparently didn't read what Harriet said about Sandy, or maybe comprehend.

I was asking George to expand on his comment, Keith. If he's got something I'm sure he's capable of responding on his own.

I'm sure that is something you'd do if you had the chance.