The right wing continues to complain that their new attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, isn't enough of an activist. (They wanted a new attorney general, they claimed, because the last one, a liberal Dem, was too much of an activist.) Just because he's the attorney general doesn't mean he should be hamstrung by little things like the law or the Constitution, they say.

The latest flap is over a ceremony to honor and commemorate murder victims, held at the State Capitol and sponsored by the State Dept. of Justice, which Van Hollen heads. After some militant atheists, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, complained about some religious content in the event, a hymn and a prayer were eliminated.

It's just coincidence, probably, that the two wingnuts complaining the loudest about JBVH are people who wanted the AG job -- Jeff Wagner, a failed candidate in 1994, and Jessica McBride, who wanted it for her husband, Paul Bucher, an even bigger failure in 2006, losing to JBVH in the primary. (One conservative blogging lawyer, Rick Esenberg, demurs.)

McBride has now taken second swing at it, wondering why JBVH can't be more like Scott Walker and include "God Bless America" and "Thank You to Krispy Kreme Doughnuts" on the program, and apparently even Charlie Sykes, who has not run for AG (and isn't a lawyer) has joined the list of whiners.

From Whallah!

The Nutosphere continues its crusade to report every crime that involves an illegal immigrant.

They've been at it for a long time, starting with a Memorial Day shooting in 2006 that was commited by someone who turned out to be here legally.  It was truly an Emily Litella moment.  Jessica McBride blamed the police for providing the wrong info, but she had been claiming, long before any police announcement, that the shooter must have been an illegal.

McBride challenges the news media every time an illegal is found to have committed a crime or even been accused.

Her mentor, Charlie Sykes,does the same.

Fresh from their fierce defense of US Attorney Steven Biskupic against claims that politics affected his prosecutions, Wisconsin wingnuts are complaining that their new Republican attorney general isn't putting politics ahead of the law.

J.B. Van Hollen, who took office in January, has come under fire for failing to prosecute -- or at least dirty up --the Democratic governor, Jim Doyle. The wingnuts are also unhappy about opinions he's issued on abortion and affirmative action issues.

Van Hollen was praised by the conservative Madison newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal, for his even-handedness. In an editorial, it said:

He also has shown he's not the far-right ideologue or partisan opportunist that some had feared.

And that's his problem with the right. Jessica McBride, an Ann Coulter wannabe whose husband lost the GOP primary for AG to Van Hollen, wrote:

Wisconsin State Journal praises Van Hollen for not being a "right-wing ideologue"

With all due respect, the only problem with that analysis is that he PROMISED to be a right-wing ideologue.

I think it's a gubernatorial strategy.

Van Hollen was grilled Wednesday on Charlie Sykes' conservative talk show on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. Sykes likes hunting RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), and seems to have Van Hollen in his sights.

(Also posted on the Whallah! blog.)

State Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) suggested she might outfit State Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) with a cone hat and a sheet for his opposition to affrirmative action.

Which brings Jessica McBride -- who's always big on apologies as long as she's not the one making them -- to say Grigsby owes an apology to Grothman. Says McBride:

This is a common tactic on the left, and it needs to be called out whenever it's spotted.

When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, they often accuse them of being "racist" to shut down debate because they can't win on the merits of their argument.

Oppose illegal immigration? You're a racist. Oppose Michael McGee Jr.? You're a racist. Oppose gangsta rap? You're a racist. Oppose affirmative action? You're a racist. Want to lock up criminals? You're a racist. Criticize Eugene Kane? You're a racist.

Glenn Grothman has every right to express his opinion against affirmative action without being compared to a KKK member.

Spare us the righteous indignation, please.

Clueless McBride speeded up departure

Radio is a tough business. It can be cruel. No two-week notice. You'll find out at the end of your shift that it's time to clean out your desk.

The decision to replace Jessica McBride had been in the works for some time, WTMJ management says. There is no reason to doubt that. She apparently had a small audience, and deservedly so.

But the station's general manager also acknowledged to columnist Tim Cuprisin that McBride's failed attempt this week to incorporate the drive-by killing of a 4-year-old into a comic routine(!) hastened her demise.

She may have been on the way out, in other words, but not this week.

McBride herself clearly didn't have a clue she was going anywhere. She introduced her disastrously unfunny "Left Side of the Moon" feature on Tuesday night, saying on the air and on her blog that it would run on Tuesdays and Fridays in the future.

 Actually, it only ran once, and that was the segment with a chicken sound effect substituing for Eugene Kane. Kane, who was on vacation, won the "debate" by a knockout without even being there.

Here's a recap of the McBride developments this week on Daily Kos, written by yours truly.

Jessica McBride asks:

WHERE ARE THE APOLOGIES TO MARK GREEN?

Joe Wineke, Bill Christofferson, and Jim Doyle, you should be first in line.

Wispolitics:

 Mark Green did not violate federal law when he transferred money from his congressional account to his gubernatorial fund for his 2006 bid, according to an FEC ruling. The decision was in response to a complaint the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed during the campaign, arguing Green's transfer of some $468,000 violated federal law because the transfer was not permissible under state statutes.

 But the FEC rejected that argument in its ruling, handed down April 30. It found the transfer was allowable under federal law and stated that a violation of state law did not equate a federal violation as well...

Should I be first, second or third in line? How about nowhere near the line?