The first bullseye comes in his discussion about the state's job and jobless condition:
Some conservatives, I suspect, would reject the idea that you should measure all employment. But if slashing taxes and government jobs only results in enough private sector employment to offset the cuts in public jobs, it’s a completely ineffective way of lowering unemployment. It’s of no value to a voter to have lower taxes but no job. Nor are businesses likely to locate in a state where taxes are low but schools and universities are in decline. Surveys have long shown that well-trained workers, powerhouse universities, good transportation (from highways to rail) and other kinds of government-created infrastructure are more important to businesses than the relative tax level.His second bullseye comes when he discusses Scott Walker's ill-advised attempt to curtail the First Amendment:
Beyond the policy question is one of politics, and I question the timing of Walker. Here is a governor who both parties predict will be subject to a recall election. This will be a duel over whose vision is more out of touch with average voters, and Walker decides to become the Grinch who stole the right to protest? This is just handing his opponents more ammunition and frankly may leave some moderates wondering whether Walker has gone off the deep end. Weren’t there any advisors to suggest the governor at least wait until after the election to pull this stunt?When the man's on target, he's on target.