Wisconsin Public Television
Transcript: Here and Now
Original Air Date: October 13, 2006

Frederica Freyberg:
Welcome to a special one-hour "Here and Now" election special. I'm Frederica Freyberg. I would like to welcome a colleague of ours from across the street, Colin.

Colin Benedict:
Thanks, I'm glad to be here. I'm Colin Benedict with WISC-TV. I'm glad to help out over this next month, as we do these election specials on "Here and Now." We start tonight with an in-depth conversation with Green Party gubernatorial candidate Nelson Eisman.

Freyberg:
Eisman is running hard on a platform of change, and has ideas on reinventing everything from how we provide health insurance to how we fund our schools.

Benedict:
And after that, we go deeper into one of those issues, education. We'll hear from a school funding expert, and all three candidates for governor about what's possible in the future for Wisconsin schools.

Freyberg:
Colin has a new Reality Check report that separates fact from fiction in campaign commercials on immigration.

Benedict:
And later, we'll roll up our sleeves and climb into the proposed marriage amendment you'll see on the ballot next month. Two attorneys are here, one to argue for your "yes" vote on November 7, the other for a "no" vote.

Freyberg:
At the end of all of these important and serious topics, our singing commentator, Peter Leidy, is here with a new song that makes a tongue-in-cheek prediction about the outcome of the governor's race.

Benedict:
But first, we begin what we hope will be a series of solo interview with the gubernatorial candidates. We've asked Mark Green, and Jim Doyle, and Nelson Eisman to join us for a final interview before Election Day. Green party candidate Nelson Eisman was the first to accept. Eisman is a former Dane County Supervisor. He has also served on the Dane County Regional Planning Commission. He was the Chief Union Steward for the Wisconsin Professional Employees Council. Eisman also has served as the Chair of the Madison Commission on the Environment.

Freyberg:
And, Nelson Eisman joins us now. Thanks very much for doing so.

Nelson Eisman:
Thank you, Frederica, thank you.

Freyberg:
Well, I guess, you know, right out of the chute, I want to ask, you've done all those things in your life. Why are you running for governor?

Eisman:
That's a great question. I'm running for governor because I really can't stand what's happened to our state government. When I came to Wisconsin in 1971, people were really excited about the participation in government and volunteering in the community. You almost had to queue up to volunteer. We had a volunteer action center at one of the churches on the square. And you'd fill out a card and they'd call you when they had a slot. You know, you had to compete to volunteer. And we've really lost citizen participation in our communities and in our government. You know, I think people are put off by the big money politics and all the negative ads, and have started to withdraw from the concept of community. We're building high-rise apartment condominiums and people are holing up instead of living in more like a holistic environment. I mean, there is that new urbanism, where people have neighborhoods, they can walk to work, and be together. But my sense is that people feel more isolated now than they used to.

Freyberg:
So, you construe yourself as kind of a candidate of the people.

Eisman:
Yes, absolutely. And I want to bring about a huge difference in the way we do a lot of things, and restore citizen participation in our government.

Benedict:
Well, let's get into some of those ideas that you have. Because I think the first one that a lot of people would notice is universal healthcare.

Eisman:
Absolutely.

Benedict:
Explain your plan.

Eisman:
Well, there's a lot of polls that show that people all across the nation, and in Wisconsin, feel that universal healthcare is a very important thing to them and their families. And if we had universal healthcare, it would take the burden off the business people, and also the school districts. I mean, healthcare costs keep going up, two to three, four, five times the rate of inflation. Why? There's a lot of profiteering in healthcare. Less than half of the people of Wisconsin are covered by healthcare insurance. If you don't have healthcare insurance, and you have a healthcare need, like your child has swollen glands or a skinned knee or a broken arm, you're going to go to the emergency room of the closest private hospital. And that's very expensive care, and it's inappropriate care. You don't see a pediatrician. You don't see a family doctor. And that care is paid for by the taxpayers. We also have some of the highest overhead in our healthcare system of anywhere in the world, over 30 percent, because 100 private insurance companies keep billing each other for every transaction. So, we're already spending the money it would cost to provide universal healthcare.

Freyberg:
I want to back up a minute. You said fewer than half the people in Wisconsin have health insurance?

Eisman:
That's my understanding.

Freyberg:
It's not an accurate number. It's fewer than 10 percent don't have health insurance, so coverage is pretty good in this state. However, there are spots, of course, of people who are small business owners, perhaps, self-employed farmers, that kind of thing.

Eisman:
It'd be a big difference for farmers and the self-employed. And when you say "insured," I mean completely insured. You know people that have Medicare have no dental care? They don't even get bifocals. Now, do you think as you age, that your eyesight gets better?

Freyberg:
So, what does your full insurance look like?

Eisman:
Okay, it looks like it's administered like Medicare, but about a two percent overhead. It takes the BadgerCare program and makes a full array of services available to everyone. Now, if you're already insured, like Medicare, we just fill in the gaps. If you don't have any insurance, like most farmers, you have all the healthcare your family needs.

Benedict:
But how do you pay for it?

Eisman:
How do you pay for it, you redirect the costs that we have now. Private insurance companies need to find something else to do.

Benedict:
So, you want a single-payer system?

Eisman:
Absolutely. You know, my Chrysler minivan was assembled in Canada for one simple reason, it cost 60 percent less to assemble that vehicle in Canada than it does here in Wisconsin. What does that mean for the long-term prospects of our GM plant in Janesville? They're not good. But if we had universal healthcare, the businesses would want to expand. The reason they don't take on new employees is the cost of the healthcare. The same thing with the school districts. It is so difficult to plan school budgets because of the cost of healthcare for the teachers. That's how we came up with revenue caps and the qualified economic offer. They don't get any increase in wages. It all goes to healthcare. And people today, teachers are telling their children, don't go into teaching, you cannot make a living.

Freyberg:
One thing, one expert, you know that you've been a part of the series of reports that we've been doing on various issues, and one of our experts on healthcare said, you know, Nelson Eisman wants to do this wonderful thing for all the people in the state, but if it were so easy, we would've already done it.

Eisman:
That was Linda Reivitz, I used to work for Linda. I respect Linda Reivitz, but she is a partisan democrat. And what she didn't say is why is healthcare so expensive? Because of the profiteering. If we took the profiteering out of healthcare, and we took the political corruption out of healthcare. You know, where did the politicians who were going to spend $35 million on this campaign get their money? They didn't get it from you guys. They got it from corporate sponsors. Corporations are telling their employees, cough it up, or we'll lose our control of this government. And it's supposed to be a government of whom? Of the people. For whom? For the people. By whom? By the people. That's what I want to restore in Wisconsin. That's what we had 30 years ago.

Benedict:
Let's move on to another issue, because obviously, you talked about K-12 education.

Eisman:
No, education from preschool to post-graduate. The whole continuum of education.

Benedict:
I looked on your Web site. You said, let's fully fund it.

Eisman:
Exactly.

Benedict:
What does that mean?

Eisman:
It means you start with prenatal care. It means you bring every child to school ready to learn, able to learn, community services. Tommy Thompson shut down community services. My first job in state government was in the division of community services. If we don't have communities that provide services for people, we're not going to have families that can bring children to school ready to learn. And that's where education begins. Then it begins with preschools that have teachers who are earning living wages. Daycare is a difficult job. I was a daycare teacher. And they make substandard wages. That's not fair and it's not right. And it's not healthy for children. I was also a volunteer in the Head Start program when it was first starting in the inner city of Washington, D.C. And it's not just a child, it's the whole family. It takes a whole village to raise a child.

Freyberg:
So, you go all the way from fully funding preschool to medical school.

Eisman:
That's correct.

Freyberg:
How do you do that?

Eisman:
Well, you do it on a progressive income tax. And this did not come out last night, my education program. Okay, you have to change the tax basis. It doesn't belong on the property tax. That creates a hostile funding environment for the school districts and for the university. College tuition in our state is up over 100 percent over the last ten years. Are you going to say I'm wrong about that?

Freyberg:
I'm not.

Eisman:
Thank you. All right, and do our college students have a right to an education without it becoming a banking scandal? You come out of a public land grant college, the second land grant college in this country, and you want to major in history. You're going to have $30,000 of loans before you make your first dollar as a college graduate. That is wrong.

Benedict:
Let's get to your tax plan, because I think that's important, an important distinction, because you have different ideas than the other two candidates. Let's go over it here. For the income tax, $50,000 and less, you pay nothing.

Eisman:
Well, an individual, $25,000 and less, but yeah, a family, $50,000 and less.

Benedict:
$50,000 to $500,000…

Eisman:
That's not far off the mark now. For about $20,000, you pay nothing now, I just lifted it up about, you know, 20 percent.

Benedict:
For a family making $50,000 to $500,000?

Eisman:
Up to $250,000, I've changed that.

Benedict:
You've changed that, because I got this off your Web site.

Eisman:
Right, to $250,000, you'll pay a normal tax rate, which would be right about where we set the ceiling now. I think the ceiling now is about 6.5 percent. I'd set it right around there, 6 percent or 6.5 percent. It depends on how we balance the numbers in the final analysis.

Benedict:
But if you make more than $250,000 a year, you get a surcharge.

Eisman:
You pay a premium tax rate, probably about twice the normal rate, somewhere between 10 percent and 12 percent. And many states have a 10 percent income tax now. Now, if you realize that you're not paying your property tax, you're paying your income tax, it's a much fairer and more progressive way to tax people. It's the way Fighting Bob La Follette proposed taxing Wisconsin citizens.

Freyberg:
What about the argument that that drives rich people out of the state, the job makers?

Eisman:
Let's take one example. Let's take John Menard. He just joined the billionaire club, way to go, John. You know, that's good entrepreneurship. His stores are all over the place. He's the sole proprietor of all those stores, employing thousands of Wisconsin workers. That's a good thing. Making windows and doors here in Wisconsin. That's a good thing, okay? But his factories have been polluting our waterways and we have to mitigate that. The people that work in his factories don't exactly make, you know, the highest wages or have the best benefits. Now, hear me out. John Menard can keep 90 percent, about 90 percent of all of his profits. He's entitled to them. The people in Wisconsin are entitled to the other 10 percent for universal healthcare and fully funded education.

Benedict:
But he already decided, just recently, to move one of his manufacturing plants out of state. Why wouldn't he do that under your tax plan?

Eisman:
Well, because Wisconsin offers a very high quality of life. And he moved that plant out because the DNR held fast and said, "No, you cannot fill in a wetland. It's against the law and the wrong thing to do." And I ask people to take a serious look at protecting our environment, because we're losing it very quickly.

Freyberg:
That's a good segue into my next question, which is, I understand you want to stop burning coal and petroleum right now. How do you do that?

Eisman:
Yeah, how do you do that? First, conservation and second, investments in renewable energy. You know, when I go around this campus, UW-Madison, I see hundreds of kids on two-cycle mopeds. I'm sorry, that's wrong. The two-cycle engine is a very inefficient combustion engine. You can see the blue smoke of unburned carbon coming out of the exhaust pipes. They're also very unsafe vehicles. And you're not wearing a helmet. But beyond all that, okay, when we went to school, we walked these same hills, didn't we? We biked the same geography. We shouldn't be burning the two-cycle engine. If the university wants, it has done a lot of interesting things. The university has free bus passes. If the students or faculty want to take the bus, it's there.
The bus isn't good enough? Let's have an electric monorail just like Disney World. Let's think outside the box a little bit. How about all the rooftops in Madison? Do you see solar panels? I don't. Do you have a solar panel on your own roof for your water heater?

Freyberg/Benedict:
Do you?

Eisman:
I have it planned. I do! I've made the call. I have it planned. I'm taking a step forward. Great, I'm busted. I don't yet, but I will. And that's what I will do as your leader, as your governor. I will lead us all to take that next step toward conservation, toward smart energy use.

Freyberg:
We need to leave it there, Nelson Eisman. Thanks very much.

Eisman:
That's a good place to leave it. Thank you very much.

Benedict:
Thank you. Recent polls tell us about 11 percent of Wisconsin voters are undecided about who they'll vote for for governor. We went out and asked the first ten people we saw if they knew who they'll vote for on November 7. Here's what they said.

Man: Yes.

Man: Yeah, definitely.

Woman: Yes, I have.

Woman: Yes, I have.

Freyberg:
As Colin said, we did ask the first ten people we saw if they had decided who they would vote for for governor. As you heard, four people said yes. The other six also said yes. Election day stakes are higher than usual for one Wisconsin community. In Markesan, voters will decide whether to give their schools more money. If the vote fails, the district could go belly up. We visited the Green Lake community as part of our sister program "In Wisconsin's" election coverage. "In Wisconsin" asked the candidates running for governor, "What's the Plan?" When it comes to funding Wisconsin schools.

Freyberg:
It's the noon hour at a local diner in Markesan, and opinion at the lunch counter is mixed on whether to vote to give the schools here more money.

How will you vote on the referendum?

Forest Sullivan:
Well, to be honest I plan on voting no.

Freyberg:
Forest Sullivan said his own kids went to Markesan schools. But he says he doesn't want to part with more of his tax dollars. At another table, Peter Grams said he's voting for the $3 million referendum. He owns the local hardware store on Main Street, and says that if he fears if the school goes away, the town goes with it.

Peter Grams:
Because if the school doesn't stay as an attraction for new families moving to town, then my business may die, so to speak, as the town does.

Freyberg:
The Markesan schools are in very real danger of going under.

Susan Alexander:
We have enough money to finish this school and to run one more school year, which is the 2007-2008 school year. After that, then the district will have to dissolve.

Freyberg:
Markesan finds itself strapped for cash, and unable to keep the books in the black under Wisconsin's school funding formula. One reason is because pricey waterfront homes on Green Lake are part of the Markesan district. That property wealth means the schools get less state money under the formula that gives high property value districts a smaller piece of the state funding pie. Under the same formula, Markesan schools also get less state money because enrollment is down. Fewer large families live on the farms that populate the rural district than they had in years past. The embattled superintendent of Markesan schools also says her district gets hammered, because when school spending caps were set into law in 1993, they were based on what individual school districts spent that year.

Alexander:
Those districts that were fiscally very conservative in 1993 are the ones that are going to be out of business first.

Freyberg:
The superintendent says Markesan schools have made $1.5 million in cuts including teachers, administrators, and counselors. The high school already cut Beginning German class, but may have to cut German altogether, offering only one foreign language.

How lean is your district?

Alexander:
We're bones.

Freyberg:
Alexander said her costs for everything from busing to electricity are going up, but her revenue isn't keeping pace. She said underspending caps, her budget can't even rise to the rate of inflation. That's created a budget hole that's grown every year and will reach minus $1.3 million by 2009. That is, unless voters this year come to the rescue.

Gary Hohenstern:
I hope it goes through.

Freyberg:
Why?

Hohenstern:
Because I'd like my kids to stay here and not be shipped who knows where.

Student:
We do want our school to survive. We want to have a school in Markesan.

Freyberg:
We asked the candidates running for governor, "What's the Plan?" for funding schools in Wisconsin. Republican candidate for governor Mark Green says his initial fix to what he calls a broken school funding formula would be something he calls the 70-cent plan.

Mark Green:
There was an interesting study done, and it showed that school performance and school scores, ACTs, SAT's, a great correlation was to the percentage of education funding that actually reaches the classroom. In Wisconsin, depending upon whose numbers you use, we're at about 66 cents on the dollar, a little bit more. If we would commit ourselves to going to 70, that would be over $300 million getting into the classroom more this year under the budget.

Freyberg:
Green says too much school funding that could be in the classroom is being eaten up by administrative costs. He would cut those. He would also establish a performance-based pay system for teachers, and expand the Milwaukee School Choice program.

Democratic incumbent candidate for governor Jim Doyle has several specifics to help fix problems with the school funding formula that hurt districts like Markesan.

Jim Doyle:
This may sound pretty technical, but it does make a big difference to these districts, which is to allow them to average their school population over five years instead of three years. What it means is that if there is a long-term decline, it's a much more gradual loss of state funding. And if it's sort of a short term, that some school districts find themselves, for some reason if you're a small enough school district, you know, and four or five or six big families move out of the district you have a drop, you don't have that sort of sharp drop that occurs.

Freyberg:
Doyle says he has already helped districts by increasing money for transportation, like school buses, and by having the state pick up more of the costs for special education. He also touts his move to restore two-thirds state funding to schools.

Green Party candidate for governor, Nelson Eisman, said his plan for universal healthcare would help districts out a lot.

Nelson Eisman:
If we have universal healthcare, that's taking the biggest burden off the school districts. The reason for the cap in school revenues is because healthcare was growing so fast that the school districts needed so much money to give the teachers any kind of raise, and so the qualified economic offer is a way to say to the teachers we'd like to give you a raise, but. Okay, we take that out of it. Everyone has universal healthcare, big sigh of relief.

Freyberg:
Eisman also promotes consolidating districts and establishing regional DPI administrators across the state to help local districts cut administrative costs and facilitate education planning. We asked school financing expert and UW-Whitewater professor Bambi Statz to examine the positions for candidates for governor.

Mark Green:
But I can promise you, that I understand the problem.

Freyberg:
Mark Green's idea to require 70 cents on the dollar to be used for classroom instruction.

Statz:
If we want the state to dictate how much should be spent on certain things in the budget, then perhaps we don't need local school boards and maybe even local school districts.

Freyberg:
Statz calls the Green plan for more classroom spending overly simplistic. And says if he wants that, there would have to be more flexibility in school district spending caps.

On Jim Doyle's proposal to change the school formula to allow averaging enrollment over five years.

Statz:
Right now, the revenue cap averages enrollment over three years, so it helps to mitigate. It doesn't mitigate declines, but it helps.

Freyberg:
Statz agrees with Eisman that healthcare costs have been a frustration for school districts, but she really disagrees with Eisman's idea for regional state school administrators.

Statz:
I think citizens in the state take it very seriously when they elect people at all levels, certainly local officials. So, when they elect school board members who have the responsibility to then hire administrators, for instance, I think they trust those people to hire people who will come in, be part of the community, have a vested interest in the community, and promote what's best for children and taxpayers within their communities. And so, to suggest that we could do that on a regional or state basis, I think might not work so well.

Freyberg:
While policy makers and experts debate what might work better when it comes to funding Wisconsin's schools, districts like Markesan hang in the balance banking on local taxpayers to bail them out.

Freyberg:
The vote to exceed school spending limits in Markesan comes on Election Day, November 7. In all, 27 school districts in Wisconsin have funding referenda on the ballot. That number includes districts looking to exceed revenue caps and looking for money for building projects. Next Friday night at 7 p.m., education will be one of the issues citizens will ask about in the "We the People" gubernatorial debate live from La Crosse. Colin Benedict and I will anchor that debate between republican Mark Green and democrat Jim Doyle. That's next Friday night.

In a moment, Colin is here with another one of his campaign commercial Reality Checks. Do you believe everything you hear in campaign commercials? Here's what you said.

Woman:
Well, I believe some of it. I don't believe everything people say. I think they kind of put their best foot forward. They want you to believe what they're promoting. So, I think you have to bring all your resources to bear. You have to give information from other sources, newspapers, from talking to people, from television, and then evaluate it.

Woman:
No, not really, because I know that a lot of it is fabricated to give an advantage to the candidate that the ad is for. Especially the attack ads, I know that those are fabricated.

Man:
Usually not. I like to look at the facts myself, so a little research myself, because usually one candidate or the other will embellish some things and kind of put their own spin on it. So, I usually like to try to research it myself to find out the true facts.

Benedict:
Now, here's Fred with another candidate in another race. Fred?

Freyberg:
And now we move into the race for U.S. Senate. Last week, we heard from republican candidate Robert Gerald Lorge and democratic incumbent Herb Kohl. We scheduled a joint appearance for tonight with independent candidate Ben Glatzel and green party candidate Rae Vogeler. This morning, Ms. Vogeler canceled her appearance. Her campaign had previously confirmed her participation. She will now appear on the October 27th edition of "Here and Now." Meanwhile, Ben Glatzel. Mr. Glatzel is a Milwaukeean, running as an independent in this race. He joins us now. Thanks very much for doing so.

Ben Glatzel:
Thank you for having me.

Freyberg:
You get this time to yourself, which is even better, I bet.

Glatzel:
Terrific.

Freyberg:
Well, you know, we haven't heard a lot about you, Ben Glatzel. Who are you, and why are you running for U.S. Senate?

Glatzel:
Let me say that Ben Glatzel is an independent candidate for United States Senate. I am running as a conservative. My issues, everything tends to lean toward the conservative side. I'm running under the statement that Wisconsin needs a conservative voice.

Freyberg:
In fact, I have seen you described as a conservative activist. What does that mean? What are you being an activist about in the conservative realm?

Glatzel:
That's a good question. I was surprised to see the activist listed behind my name as well. Do I go around touting different programs, and things of that nature? Not really. I guess they would say that I'm probably a conservative activist because of my stances on pro-life issues, my stances on immigration issues, just about everything. Everything from education, to social services, to health issues.

Freyberg:
Okay, on a scale of one to ten, ten being the most conservative, so we get some sense of where you are, running as a conservative, because things are conservative enough. On that scale of one to ten, ten being the most conservative, where are you?

Glatzel:
99.8 percent conservative.

Freyberg:
Okay, so you're all the way up there. So, you said that those issues range from abortion to immigration. On abortion, partial-birth abortion?

Glatzel:
Absolutely not. I think that's a heinous crime. I think it's a terrible thing. Our present senator has voted in the past to endorse partial-birth abortion. I think that, can I go out and change laws by myself regarding Roe v. Wade? If I could, I would. But the situation as it stands right now, I think the one thing I definitely need to do is prevent partial-birth abortion.

Freyberg:
What about to save the life of the mother?

Glatzel:
I would say in a case like that, that's a different issue. You have to be concerned about the life that is there, the present, the now. And when it comes to things like partial-birth abortion, it's pretty rare that you would have to get to that point that you would have to do that to save the life of a mother. You could take the baby, full term, through a caesarian section, for instance, and save the mother's life at the same time.

Freyberg:
Let's move on to immigration. I know that's a big topic we just left, but we don't have a lot of time. Immigration, what makes you so conservative there?

Glatzel:
Well, I believe we need to, for a couple of different matters, we need to keep jobs in the United States of America. I would like to see a border fence put up. Fences, of course, can be a problem between residents who live next to each other. Fences can be a problem between nations that live next to each other.

I believe, though, I've heard a conservative estimate of about $4 billion to erect like a concrete barrier along the Mexican border, this won't make the Mexican government happy. But, at the same time, we as a nation, we have to secure our borders, we know, because of terrorism. And at the same time, we have to secure our borders because of some of the illegal immigrants that are coming into our nation are creating a lot of problems. Not all of them, but quite a few of them.

Freyberg:
So, for you it's more about enforcement than something like amnesty?

Glatzel:
Correct. I am not very fond of amnesty. And I'm not very fond of the measure that's being pushed through that would grant status to illegal aliens, temporary work visas. I'm not too fond of that idea.

Freyberg:
Let's talk about the war in Iraq. What is your position on that?

Glatzel:
Well, war in itself is an unfortunate act. Unfortunately, war is a necessary act, at times. I believe that the situation in Iraq is something that we have to continue to support our troops over in Iraq. We have to continue having our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan until those governments are able to support themselves and be able to ask us, "Now it's time for you to leave."

Freyberg:
Would you describe this as a necessary war?

Glatzel:
I believe it is a necessary war. We are fighting a global war on terrorism. Wherever terrorists go, we have follow them there to take them out. Where we're having the problem that we're seeing in Iraq right now is why is there an insurgency? Why would brother Muslims be fighting against other brother Muslims? Why would they be putting up these roadside bombs that are killing innocent children, women, men, people that are not even involved in the war? They do this because terrorists are evil. We need to fight evil wherever it lies.

Freyberg:
One of our U.S. senators, Russ Feingold believes the war in Iraq fomented global terrorism not prevented it. What is your reaction to that?

Glatzel:
I disagree with that. If it was fomenting global terrorism, why did global terrorism find us at our shores first? Why did Osama bin-Laden decide not once, but twice, to make and attempt to take down the twin towers in New York?

Freyberg:
You say you're conservative on education. We just have about a minute left. I want to see if we can get to some of these topics. How does that manifest itself being conservative on education?

Glatzel:
I believe what we need to do is continue to allocate the necessary funding to run our schools. But what we need to do is we need to make sure those dollars are being spent wisely on the children that are in those schools. What I look at too, living in Milwaukee, I see how the School Choice Program is effective in the City of Milwaukee. My concern is that program is being utilized to serve certain people. I would like to expand it and see the voucher system take place. My children go to a School Choice school. Some of the children that go there, I know they have a difficult time in the public school system. And they are really able to thrive in a Christian day school situation.

Freyberg:
Almost a bullet point left in terms of time, healthcare, your conservative stance on that?

Glatzel:
Well, my conservative stance on healthcare is I don't believe federal government should fund healthcare, so to speak. However, I do believe that we can come up with the funds necessary to provide for catastrophic healthcare type insurance. What I'm saying is if you and I decide we want to buy a television for our house, we will save the necessary funds to pay for that television. If you and I want to have a certain type of healthcare package, we can come up with the necessary funds to provide for that. The thing is that I don't think the federal government should say, hey Ben, I want to buy a specific television, can the federal government give me the funds necessary to provide that? That would be insanity. Why would it be different when it comes to healthcare?

Freyberg:
We will leave it there, Ben Glatzel. Thank you very much.

Glatzel:
Thank you.

Benedict:
The latest ad war in the race for governor is over an issue usually not thought of as state business. But right now, immigration, and more specifically, illegal immigration is the frontline of this battle. Tonight, we'll analyze two ads from the major party candidates. Republican Congressman Mark Green fired first, so we'll start with his ad. The ad takes Governor Jim Doyle to task over illegal immigration. But first, there's a setup.

Political Ad:
Wisconsin's taxes are some of the highest in the country, driving good jobs away.

Benedict:
Let's stop it there. This needs clarification. As we've shown in our past Reality Checks, our tax ranking is high, seventh nationally, but it's actually down from when Doyle took office. We were fourth highest in the nation in the tax foundation rankings. As for jobs, Wisconsin has gained about 170,000, according to the U.S. Government. Let's move on.

Political Ad:
But Jim Doyle's priorities are all wrong. As illegal aliens stream in, he actually wants to give them welfare and subsidized home loans. And you pay the bill.

Benedict:
As for the welfare claim, that needs clarification. Despite what the ad says, Doyle never said he wants to give illegal immigrants welfare. But he did veto a bill which would've made it harder to get government programs, like welfare, by requiring proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. What about subsidizing home loans? That's misleading. WHEDA, the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority provides low-interest home loans for low-income families. And for a time, it was providing those loans even to illegal immigrants. However, in 2005, Governor Doyle signed a bill making that illegal. Here's our next claim.

Political Ad:
Doyle even wants to give illegal aliens in-state tuition breaks at UW, while Wisconsin kids are being turned away.

Benedict:
This is part true and part false. First, Green's right, Doyle proposed giving illegal immigrant students in-state tuition, if they graduated in Wisconsin, have been here for three years, and are working on a permanent resident visa. It was cut from his budget and is not law. But it's false that it's connected to Wisconsin students being turned away. In fact, since Doyle took office, resident enrollment is generally up. And later tonight, I'll Reality Check the Doyle campaign response to this ad.

Benedict:
Now for our next campaign commercial Reality Check. Republican candidate Mark Green made some questionable claims about democratic Governor Jim Doyle's record on immigration in one of his latest TV ads. Earlier in the show, we had part one of our Reality Check. Now part two. Doyle had his own TV ad on the air just days after the green attack. Is it accurate? Here's our analysis.

The latest hot button issue is illegal immigration. First, Mark Green ran this ad critical of Doyle. In response, just days later Doyle started running his own TV ad.

Political Ad:
Welfare for illegal aliens? No way, Congressman Green. Governor Doyle's always opposed welfare and social security for illegal immigrants.

Benedict:
This needs clarification. Doyle says he opposes welfare and social security for illegal immigrants. But, as we showed you last night, he vetoed a bill that would have made it harder for non-citizens to get benefits like welfare. He says the bill would have denied some U.S. citizens in the process if they can't find their birth certificate, for instance.

Political Ad:
He even sent a guard to patrol the border.

Benedict:
This is misleading. Doyle did send troops, eventually. But it was President Bush's idea. Plus, when Bush announced it in May, Doyle had serious reservations about the program.

At the time, Doyle said it was very questionable if Bush had the authority to send Wisconsin National Guard troops. Adding, it was too big a stretch to a National Guard already deployed overseas. Doyle then, in the ad, shifts the focus to Green and congress.

Political Ad:
It's you and Congress that failed to act. 2,100 people crossed illegally each day.

Benedict:
Congress failing to act is a subjective claim. For instance, Green, just nine days ago, voted to add 1,500 new border patrol agents and more money for fencing.

It is worth noting that the idea that 2,100 people crossed illegally each day is an estimate, since it is almost impossible to actually track illegal immigrants. Let's move on.

Political Ad:
Why you voted for $8 billion in tax breaks for big oil, your budget plan cuts 2000 police and firefighters.

Benedict:
It's true. Green voted for an energy bill which included tax breaks for big oil companies. Green says those breaks will spur supply, which will lower gas prices. But Doyle's claim about Green's budget cutting 2,000 police and firefighters is misleading. Green's plan is to cap spending at current levels. He has not proposed what should be cut. Police and fire staffing is a local decision. And even if the state puts stricter limits on local government spending, those positions would likely be the last to go.

Benedict:
The ballot won't be filled with candidate names to choose from. Wisconsin voters will consider an advisory referendum on whether our state should have the death penalty. And another referendum, voters will be asked to make a permanent change to our constitution that will define marriage as between one woman and one man. The two-part amendment reads like this:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

That will be a permanent part of the constitution if yes votes outnumber no votes. Wisconsin Public Television will air a special edition on "Here and Now" on Wednesday night, October 25. That is when we put the marriage amendment on trial. We hired an attorney to argue for a yes vote, call his own witnesses, and so forth. And we also hired an attorney to make the case for no votes. Here is a sneak peek at our mock trial. In this clip, you will hear our attorneys make their opening arguments.

Attorney Esenberg:
It may seem odd that I stand before you this evening and ask you to amend the constitution to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Until very, very recently, virtually no one would have suggested, at any time or in any place, that marriage could be anything else. Yet, tonight the question of same-sex marriage is before us.

You will learn the courts in Massachusetts and Vermont imposed same-sex marriage or it's equivalent, without regard to statutory law in those states. You will hear that the proposed amendment is an opportunity for the people of this state to say, as have the people of every state to have voted on the question to date, that marriage shall remain the union of one man and one woman.

Now, you may have heard, and probably will hear again tonight that this is discriminatory and would deny to same-sex couples benefits that are necessary for life, but you will learn that this is not true. And that more fundamentally, the purpose for the public recognition of marriage and it's design is to channel heterosexual relations, relations that can often unintentionally produce a child, into a structure that is designed to ensure that the people, a mother and a father, who created that child, will stick around and raise it.

To change the purpose of the institution, to change the relationships to which it extends, whether or not we call it by another name, is to change the institution itself. Now at the close of evidence tonight, I will stand before you again and I will ask you, based on what you have heard, whether you believe that so substantial a change, in so vital an institution, should be risked. I trust that your answer will be that it should not. Thank you.

Judge Frankel:
Thank you Mr. Esenberg. At this time, I'll invite Attorney La Vigne to address the jury on behalf of the "no" position.

Attorney La Vigne:
All people equally free and independent and possess certain inherent rights. These rights include, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But now, we are being asked to amend our constitution, our 158-year old constitution, that starts out with those beautiful words. We're being asked to amend our constitution to tell one group of people, "Sorry, you're not so equal."

Tonight, you will be told that single-sex marriage is a threat to marriage and to families. But we'll prove that it's not. We're going to prove that the opposite is true. You will hear that single-sex parents and their families are boringly ordinary, just like the rest of us. They worry about what's for dinner. They worry about, "Can I really serve macaroni and cheese twice in the same week?” They worry about who is going to drive the kids to soccer. And then, they're scared to death about what will happen if this amendment passes. You will hear that families are extraordinarily complicated creatures that have no business being in a constitutional amendment. You will hear that same-sex parents can be as loving, as nurturing, as caring as any.

And finally, we'll talk about what I guess we have to call the "elephant in the room." I'm talking about morality. I suppose some people will think it's ironic that this side is bringing up morality, but we will present a witness who will discuss morality, the morality of a constitutional amendment that singles out some people because of who they are. We will show you that this amendment just makes no sense, and more importantly that it's wrong. At the close of this case, I will be asking you to vote "no." Thank you.

Benedict:
That is an excerpt from "Here and Now," on October 25 at 8 p.m., Marriage Amendment on Trial. Joining us now to argue their cases a little bit further and talk about their own preparation for the program, our lead attorneys, Rick Esenberg, a Milwaukee-based corporate attorney and law professor at Marquette University. He argues the "yes" vote. And Michele La Vigne is a former Public Defender and current University of Madison law school professor. She argues the "no" vote. Thanks to both of you for joining us tonight.

Let's pick up what you said at the end of your opening statement, Michele, is this a question of morality?

Michele La Vigne:
Well, as I said in the opening statement, I don't think we can ignore it. It is the elephant in the room. We all know that biblical references are regularly brought out in discussions of homosexuality. I felt that it was important we show religion has another side. We actually had a United Methodist minister testify that in his religious belief and in his reading of the Bible this amendment is wrong and that discrimination is wrong.

Benedict:
Your thoughts on morality?

Rick Esenberg:
Our position is it is not based on any particular view of the morality or immorality of same sex relationships, but rather on a concern regarding what will happen to the social understanding of marriage, and the rules that surround it if you take it and move it from one time of relationship, that is, heterosexual relationships which are potentially procreative. And we think the rules that surround marriage and the understandings that surround marriage flow from that fact, even though not all married people have children. And you extend it to a different type of relationship, in which the needs of the parties may be different. And it is our belief that if you change the public definition of marriage, you change its meanings, you change social norms and the way people behave. You harm the institution of marriage itself. So, our view is more on the way in which the law underscores and reinforces marriage, and not so much on the morality or immorality of same-sex relation.

Benedict:
Rick, you said in your opening statement that people will hear this is discriminatory. Why isn't it?

Esenberg:
I'm not eligible for veteran’s benefits, because I did not serve in the armed forces. I don't think that means I'm being discriminated against, because the reason we offer veterans benefits would not be served by extending it to me. Marriage is an institution that is designed to channel heterosexual relationships into a setting that makes it most likely, although tragically it does not guarantee, that children will be raised by their own mother and father who sort of form a bond. It is important for heterosexual relationships to be channeled into that institution, because they uniquely can create children, often unexpectedly. Same-sex relations although they may involve the raising of children are different. And although I don't believe that they should be prohibited, I don't believe that the amendment would foreclose extending benefits or putting together legal rules that helps facilitate those relationships, it ought to be something which is separate and apart from marriage.

Benedict:
Michele, this goes to the second question.

La Vigne:
Right, the second question, let me put it this way. When the attorney general was asked to provide an official explanation of the second sentence meant, she said we actually don't know. It will be decided by courts and by the legislature, which means we are being asked to vote on amendment, or part of an amendment, that we will find out what it means later. Rick says now he does not believe the second part of the amendment would affect domestic partner benefits, which could include guardianship to health insurance. But the truth is, around this country when these amendments have passed, lawsuits are brought by people who oppose same-sex relationships and they attempt to stop these kinds of benefits. The truth is, we don't know what this second part is.

Benedict:
Let's move on to the format of the trial.

Esenberg:
I'd like to just say something real quickly about the second sentence. You know, it's not written in Sanskrit. It is written in English. What it says, that you can't have marriage, but just call it by another name is what it says. You cannot create a legal status similar or identical to marriage. It has to have pretty much all of the legal incidents of marriage. Things like carrying health insurance simply isn't the equivalent of marriage. Groups around the country have also withdrawn those lawsuits when the party suit has made clear all they are doing is extending benefits and not creating a status like marriage.

Benedict:
Let's move on to the format of this trial. Rick, who did you call? These are real people?

Esenberg:
Yes, they were real people. I called a professor from the University of St. Thomas Law School, named Teresa Collett, who testified regarding the purposes of marriage. I called a public policy analyst from the Family Research Institute to testify regarding how those purposes are served by the institution of marriage. I called pastor Walter Harvey, who is the pastor of an inner city church in the City of Milwaukee to testify about the importance of strengthening marriage and the severe impact that it's weakening has had on his community.

Benedict:
Rick, we are running short on time. Michele who did you call?

La Vigne:
Our list of witnesses reflect our belief that this amendment is about people not policy. We called Michele Perreault, who's a lawyer and mom with a lesbian partner. They have a child. We called a social worker who talked about what children need from their parents of whatever stripe. And we called Reverend Findley, a United Methodist Minister, who talked about his reading of the Bible and how it supports his position this amendment is wrong.

Benedict:
It is an interesting show, Marriage Amendment on Trial, October 25, Wednesday, 8 p.m. on Wisconsin Public Television. Michele, Rick, thank you for being here.

Both:
Thank you.

Freyberg:
Our singing commentator likes to fly in the eye of controversy. Tonight, Peter Leidy presents a tongue-in-cheek song on the race for governor. In the character of Governor Jim Doyle, Peter croons to the tune of "I Will Survive."

Peter Leidy:
At first I was afraid about the campaign race
All kinds of people from the left and right been in my face
Accusing me of things we all know I didn't do
But it's not true
So now I take my case to you
I'm going to fight
I'm going to win
My dream doesn't have a chance against me with the shape I'm in
He can try to knock me down
Telling lies on your TV
In his wimpy and pathetic quest to take this job from me
But it won't work
He's been a jerk
He says I love illegal immigrants with his bug-eyed little smirk
Twisting and distorting was his only chance to win
Did he think I'd crumble?
Did he think I'd throw the towel in?
No, not I
I will survive
The GOP is in big trouble now
And I know I'll stay alive
He has no place left to hide
I've got WEAC on my side
I will survive
Hey, hey

I think the state employees kind of like me now
Even though I said I'd cut the numbers by 10,000
If I'm the lesser of two evils
That is how it's got to be okay by me
I smell victory
I'll wake up November 8 as the winner
And hear no more about travelgate
He never stood a chance to get my well-oiled machine
Just like Kermit said, it's not easy being Green
He broke the law, and that's a fact
The state election board said he had to give the money back
For those who hold their noses when they vote for me again
Think of our nutty legislature and my veto pen
I will survive
I will survive

My view on stem cells alone will help me stay alive
He's been lockstep with Bush
Now watch me kick some tush
Yes, I'll survive
I will survive
So, here we go
Come on, vote for Jim
I'm opposed to North Korea having nukes, what about him?
I saw a picture of Mark Foley with Mark Green
I'll leave it up to you to figure out just what that means
I will survive
I will survive
I will survive
I will survive

Freyberg:
That is vintage Peter Leidy. Remember, Peter's opinions and predictions are his and not those of "Here and Now." That is why we call his segments commentaries. I'm Frederica Freyberg and I thank Colin for helping us out tonight. Colin and I will be with you each Friday night until Election Day. Including a special program next Friday night.

Benedict:
That's when we will be live in La Crosse for the final gubernatorial debate in this fall campaign. The "We the People" debate between Mark Green and Jim Doyle starts 7 o'clock next Friday night. Citizens from around the state will question the candidates, covering issues including healthcare and education. We will see you then. I'm Colin Benedict. Have a great week.

 

News & Documentaries: -------------------- LOCAL -------------------- 2008 Flood Reports The :30 Second Candidate Challenge Academy Great Lakes Connection Looking Back: Two Days in October Meth in Wisconsin Water Rich Water Poor What Welfare Reform Did For Me WeekEnd Up North Wisconsin Public Radio -------------------- 2007 GOV. DOYLE STREAMING VIDEO -------------------- Inauguration State of the State Budget Address -------------------- NATIONAL SHOWS -------------------- BBC World News Frontline NewsHour with Jim Lehrer NewsHour Extra Now NPRPOV Religion and Ethics News Weekly Wall $treet Week Washington Week In Review Livelyhood The :30 Second Candidate

Transcripts

Here and Now April 17, 2009 April 09, 2009 April 03, 2009 March 27, 2009 March 13, 2009 March 06, 2009 February 27, 2009 February 20, 2009 February 13, 2009 February 06, 2009 January 30, 2009 January 23, 2009 January 16, 2009 January 09, 2009 January 02, 2009 December 26, 2008 December 19, 2008 December 12, 2008 December 05, 2008 November 28, 2008 November 21, 2008 November 14, 2008 November 07, 2008 October 31, 2008 October 24, 2008 October 17, 2008 October 10, 2008 October 03, 2008 September 26, 2008 September 19, 2008 September 12, 2008 September 05, 2008 August 29, 2008 August 22, 2008 August 15, 2008 August 08, 2008 August 01, 2008 July 25, 2008 July 18, 2008 July 11, 2008 July 04, 2008 June 27, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 13, 2008 June 06, 2008 May 23, 2008 May 16, 2008 May 09, 2008 May 02, 2008 April 25, 2008 April 18, 2008 April 11, 2008 April 04, 2008 March 28, 2008 March 21, 2008 March 14, 2008 March 07, 2008 February 29, 2008 February 22, 2008 February 15, 2008 February 08, 2008 February 01, 2008 January 25, 2008 January 18, 2008 January 11, 2008 January 04, 2008 December 28, 2007 December 21, 2007 December 14, 2007 December 07, 2007 November 30, 2007 November 23, 2007 November 16, 2007 November 09, 2007 November 02, 2007 October 26, 2007 October 19, 2007 October 12, 2007 October 05, 2007 September 28, 2007 September 21, 2007 September 14, 2007 September 07, 2007 August 31, 2007 August 24, 2007 August 17, 2007 August 10, 2007 August 03, 2007 July 27, 2007 July 20, 2007 July 13, 2007 July 06, 2007 June 29, 2007 June 22, 2007 June 15, 2007 June 13, 2007 June 08, 2007 June 06, 2007 June 06, 2007 May 25, 2007 May 18, 2007 May 11, 2007 May 04, 2007 April 27, 2007 April 20, 2007 April 13, 2007 April 06, 2007 March 30, 2007 March 23, 2007 March 16, 2007 March 09, 2007 March 02, 2007 February 23, 2007 February 22, 2007 February 16, 2007 February 09, 2007 February 02, 2007 January 26, 2007 January 19, 2007 January 12, 2007 January 05, 2007 December 29, 2006 December 22, 2006 December 15, 2006 December 08, 2006 December 01, 2006 November 24, 2006 November 17, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 03, 2006 October 27, 2006 October 25, 2006 October 20, 2006 October 13, 2006 October 06, 2006 September 29, 2006 September 22, 2006 September 15, 2006 September 08, 2006 September 01, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 04, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 July 07, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 09, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 19, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 05, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 07, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 10, 2006 March 03, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 03, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 06, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 09, 2005 December 02, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 03, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 07, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 09, 2005 September 02, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 05, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 08, 2005 July 01, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 03, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 06, 2005 April 29, 2005 April 22, 2005 April 15, 2005 April 08, 2005 April 01, 2005 March 25, 2005 March 19, 2005 March 11, 2005 March 04, 2005 February 25, 2005 February 18, 2005 February 11, 2005 February 04, 2005 January 28, 2005 January 21, 2005 January 14, 2005 January 07, 2005 December 31, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 10, 2004 December 03, 2004 November 26, 2004 November 19, 2004 November 12, 2004 November 05, 2004 October 29, 2004 October 22, 2004 October 15, 2004 October 08, 2004 October 01, 2004 September 24, 2004 September 17, 2004 September 10, 2004 September 03, 2004 August 27, 2004 August 20, 2004 August 13, 2004 August 06, 2004 July 30, 2004 July 23, 2004 July 16, 2004 July 08, 2004 July 02, 2004 June 25, 2004 June 18, 2004 June 11, 2004 May 28, 2004 May 21, 2004 May 14, 2004 May 07, 2004 April 30, 2004 April 23, 2004 April 16, 2004 April 09, 2004 April 02, 2004 March 26, 2004 March 18, 2004 March 12, 2004 March 05, 2004 February 27, 2004 February 20, 2004 February 13, 2004 February 06, 2004 January 30, 2004 January 23, 2004 January 16, 2004 January 09, 2004 January 02, 2004 December 19, 2003 December 12, 2003 December 05, 2003 November 28, 2003 November 21, 2003 November 14, 2003 November 07, 2003 October 31, 2003 October 24, 2003 October 17, 2003 October 10, 2003 October 03, 2003 September 26, 2003 September 19, 2003 September 12, 2003 September 05, 2003 August 29, 2003 August 22, 2003 August 15, 2003 August 08, 2003 August 01, 2003 July 25, 2003 July 18, 2003 July 11, 2003 July 03, 2003 June 27, 2003 June 20, 2003 June 13, 2003 June 06, 2003 May 23, 2003 May 16, 2003 March 05, 2003 May 9, 2003 May 2, 2003 Apr 25, 2003 Apr 18, 2003 Apr 11, 2003 Apr 4, 2003 Mar 28, 2003 Debate: Mar 21, 2003 War Special: Mar 20, 2003 Mar 14, 2003 Mar 7, 2003 Feb 28, 2003 Feb 21, 2003 Feb 14, 2003 Feb 7, 2003 Jan 31, 2003 Jan 24, 2003 Jan 17, 2003 Jan 10, 2003

In Wisconsin April 16, 2009 April 09, 2009 April 02, 2009 March 26, 2009 March 19, 2009 March 02, 2009 February 26, 2009 February 19, 2009 February 12, 2009 February 05, 2009 January 29, 2009 January 22, 2009 January 15, 2009 January 08, 2009 December 25, 2008 December 18, 2008 December 04, 2008 November 27, 2008 November 20, 2008 November 13, 2008 November 06, 2008 October 30, 2008 October 23, 2008 October 16, 2008 October 09, 2008 October 02, 2008 September 25, 2008 September 18, 2008 September 11, 2008 August 07, 2008 July 31, 2008 July 24, 2008 July 17, 2008 July 10, 2008 July 03, 2008 June 26, 2008 June 19, 2008 June 12, 2008 June 05, 2008 May 29, 2008 May 22, 2008 May 15, 2008 May 08, 2008 May 01, 2008 April 24, 2008 April 17, 2008 April 10, 2008 April 03, 2008 March 27, 2008 March 20, 2008 February 28, 2008 February 21, 2008 February 14, 2008 February 07, 2008 January 31, 2008 January 24, 2008 January 17, 2008 January 10, 2008 January 03, 2008 December 27, 2007 December 20, 2007 December 13, 2007 November 29, 2007 November 22, 2007 November 15, 2007 November 08, 2007 November 01, 2007 October 25, 2007 October 18, 2007 October 11, 2007 October 04, 2007 September 27, 2007 September 20, 2007 September 13, 2007 September 06, 2007 August 30, 2007 August 23, 2007 August 16, 2007 August 09, 2007 August 02, 2007 July 26, 2007 July 19, 2007 July 12, 2007 July 05, 2007 June 28, 2007 June 21, 2007 June 14, 2007 June 07, 2007 May 24, 2007 May 17, 2007 May 10, 2007 May 03, 2007 April 26, 2007 April 19, 2007 April 12, 2007 April 05, 2007 April 03, 2007 March 29, 2007 March 22, 2007 March 01, 2007 February 22, 2007 February 15, 2007 February 08, 2007 February 01, 2007 January 25, 2007 January 18, 2007 January 11, 2007 January 04, 2007 December 28, 2006 December 21, 2006 December 14, 2006 December 04, 2006 November 30, 2006 November 23, 2006 November 16, 2006 November 09, 2006 November 02, 2006 October 26, 2006 October 19, 2006 October 12, 2006 October 05, 2006 September 28, 2006 September 21, 2006 September 14, 2006 September 07, 2006 August 31, 2006 August 24, 2006 August 17, 2006 August 10, 2006 August 03, 2006 July 27, 2006 July 20, 2006 July 13, 2006 July 06, 2006 June 29, 2006 June 22, 2006 June 15, 2006 June 08, 2006 May 28, 2006 May 25, 2006 May 18, 2006 May 11, 2006 May 04, 2006 April 27, 2006 April 20, 2006 April 13, 2006 April 06, 2006 March 30, 2006 March 23, 2006 March 16, 2006 March 02, 2006 February 23, 2006 February 16, 2006 February 09, 2006 February 02, 2006 January 26, 2006 January 19, 2006 January 12, 2006 January 05, 2006 December 29, 2005 December 22, 2005 December 15, 2005 December 01, 2005 November 24, 2005 November 17, 2005 November 10, 2005 November 03, 2005 October 27, 2005 October 20, 2005 October 13, 2005 October 06, 2005 September 29, 2005 September 22, 2005 September 15, 2005 September 09, 2005 August 25, 2005 August 18, 2005 August 04, 2005 July 28, 2005 July 21, 2005 July 14, 2005 July 07, 2005 June 30, 2005 June 23, 2005 June 16, 2005 June 09, 2005 May 26, 2005 May 19, 2005 May 12, 2005 May 05, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 07, 2005 March 31, 2005 March 24, 2005 March 10, 2005 March 03, 2005 February 24, 2005 February 17, 2005 February 10, 2005 February 03, 2005 January 27, 2005 January 20, 2005 January 13, 2005 January 06, 2005 December 30, 2004 December 23, 2004 December 16, 2004 December 09, 2004 December 02, 2004 November 25, 2004 November 18, 2004 November 11, 2004 November 04, 2004 October 28, 2004 October 21, 2004 October 14, 2004 October 07, 2004 September 30, 2004 September 23, 2004 September 16, 2004 September 09, 2004 July 29, 2004 July 22, 2004 July 15, 2004 July 08, 2004 July 01, 2004 June 24, 2004 June 17, 2004 June 10, 2004 May 27, 2004 May 20, 2004 May 13, 2004 May 06, 2004 April 22, 2004 April 15, 2004 April 08, 2004 April 01, 2004 March 25, 2004 March 04, 2004 February 26, 2004 February 19, 2004 February 12, 2004 February 05, 2004 January 29, 2004 January 22, 2004 January 15, 2004 January 08, 2004 December 26, 2003 December 18, 2003 December 11, 2003 November 27, 2003 November 20, 2003 November 13, 2003 November 06, 2003 October 30, 2003 October 23, 2003 October 16, 2003 October 09, 2003 October 02, 2003 September 25, 2003 September 18, 2003 September 11, 2003 July 31, 2003 July 24, 2003 July 17, 2003 July 10, 2003 June 05, 2003 May 22, 2003 May 15, 2003 May 08, 2003 May 01, 2003