March 25, 2011

"Mother Of All Negative Ads Dropped On WI Judicial Race."

"Progressives in Wisconsin are up with a TV ad that puts the negative in negative campaigning: sitting state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser defends child molesters instead of their victims, the groups say."

So is this the kind of negative ad that people say they're sick of but insinuates itself deep into the brain cells?

125 comments:

Fen said...

Well, Barack used up the race card.

And the Union Brat's Walker=Hitler signs didn't play so well.

This is all they have left. Ritmo, JayRetrea, Shiloh et al. This is who they are.

Scott M said...

Maybe it's time for a new meme. Maybe it's time we latch on to negative political campaigning and wring every last scrap of negativity possible out of each and every story, innuendo, lingering cop, infidelity, and cavalcades of both tax payer money and substance abuse.

Then, at the end, instead of a vote, two pols enter, one pol leaves.

Fred4Pres said...

Playing to win, by any means necessary.

At least they did not call Prosser a Pittsburgh or Vikings fan. Because that would be beyond the pale.

shoutingthomas said...

It's all out war!

Don't know the specifics of this case.

However, I'm pretty skeptical in general of the great sex abuse hysteria, particularly in relationship to the Catholic Church. Hard to separate cases that have some validly from those piled on because the money was there for the taking.

Who knows?

But, we're apparently in for nuclear war in Wisconsin. Bring it on! No shortage of entertainment.

chickelit said...

If the good people of Wisconsin fall for this shit next week then they will get what they deserve: the Californication of politics.

joeyconnell said...

Wisconsin's judicial election is giving the Ringling Brothers a tough act to follow.

DADvocate said...

...a victim of the priest Prosser is accused of protecting in the spot, who says that the ad is "offensive, inaccurate and out of context."

Some how this makes the email thing with Cronon not look quite as bad.

shoutingthomas said...

The full force of the sex abuse hysteria is well documented in the movie Capturing the Friedmans.

Heartily recommended.

chickelit said...

And the ad was paid for by whom? Any Wisconsin State Employees Union money?

That money's connected to dues bone; the dues bone's connected to payroll deduction bone; the payroll deduction bone's connected to state coffer bone; the state coffer bone's connected to the tax bone; the tax bone's connected to your bone!

Your Wisconsin readers paid for that ad!

Ut said...

"So is this the kind of negative ad that people say they're sick of ..."

Bullshit.

The only "people" who are against negative ads are Democrats and only when those ads are used AGAINST them.

Everybody else - especially voters - LOVE negative ads.

Show me, Ann, any reliable, non-partisan source that says "people" don't like negative ads (and no you may not include ANY polls paid for by ANY political outfits).

I defy you to be able to do it.

shoutingthomas said...

That money's connected to dues bone; the dues bone's connected to payroll deduction bone; the payroll deduction bone's connected to state coffer bone; the state coffer bone's connected to the tax bone; the tax bone's connected to your bone!

Funny and true.

The Democratic dogs ain't letting you drag that bone out of their jaws without a fight. Look out, they're sicking the pit bulls on you!

Jon said...

Where's the polling on this race?

traditionalguy said...

Wait until the ad that exposes that Judge Prosser doesn't put the toilet lid back down, and that he tore off the label from his new mattress.

Drew said...

Ah, you know the drill. If the Democrats and their allies do it, it's fine. If Republicans or conservatives do it, then "Oh, the Civility!"

Browndog said...

Troy J. Merryfield, who now lives in Suffolk, Va., released a statement Friday that says the ad by the Greater Wisconsin Committee is “offensive, inaccurate and out of context” and that he would actually vote for Prosser if he was a Wisconsin resident. He wrote that he wanted the group to remove the ad from the airwaves.

via Gateway

Ut said...

" out with a TV ad that puts the negative in negative campaigning ..."

Ann,

Please explain how the ad is "negative."

It quotes the public record. Prosser refused to prosecute pervert priests. That's not negative or positive ... it's just a fact that I would note is not in dispute.

It's only negative if you think maybe he SHOULD have prosecuted the kiddie-sex priests. And if he SHOULD have done that, then why is he sitting as a judge in any court?

Pointing out the public undisputed record is not "negative."

It's "informative."

A "negative" ad would be saying he's ugly, or an asshole.

Judges and prosecutors who teamed up with the Catholic perverts to protect the money coming in to the diocese shouldn't be eligible for public office and that includes BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

roesch-voltaire said...

Here is a link to the story from 2008, where the lead claims: In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29510659.html

Emil Blatz said...

Prosser, or rather those running independent ads on his behalf, do not have much time to take the gloves off, but I would recommend now would be a good time.

DADvocate said...

Pointing out the public undisputed record is not "negative."

It's "informative."


Not when it's "offensive, inaccurate and out of context."

You're an ugly asshole.

Ut said...

"The priest, John Patrick Feeney, who is now 81, went on to abuse other children before he was sent to jail in 2004."

That's right. The pedophile that Prosser let walk went on to abuse OTHER CHILDREN before he was finally prosecuted by someone who isn't corrupt.

Judge Prosser should be allowed nowhere near a court unless he is in fucking handcuffs.

Ut said...

"Not when it's "offensive, inaccurate and out of context."

And exactly how is the ad "inaccurate" or "out of context?"

I realize that one of the pedophile's victims (just ONE of them) is claiming NOW that the the judge's actions are being taken "out of context." And so I'd like for you to explain how this is so.

Keeping in mind that only ONE of the judge's victims is claiming the ad is somehow misleading and ALL OF THE OTHER VICTIMS have remained silent on the ad.

But you go ahead. You tell us how Judge Prosser's actions protecting this pedophile priest are now being taken "out of context."

shoutingthomas said...

Here is a link to the story from 2008, where the lead claims: In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate.

Just read the article. You've deliberately missated. The alleged victim said that Prosser said that. There is no direct quote from Prosser in the article.

Don't know what really happened. DAs decide to prosecute or not to prosecute every day.

But, you've deliberately presented the statement of the alleged victim as Prosser's statement.

shoutingthomas said...

But you go ahead. You tell us how Judge Prosser's actions protecting this pedophile priest are now being taken "out of context."

I just did it. See my comment above.

The quote in question was made by the alleged victim, not by Prosser.

The existence of the quote in itself is an allegation, not a fact.

roesch-voltaire said...

Shouting I copied the lead paragraph and stated that clearly not making any other claim, but I provided the link for others to read up on the case.

Ut said...

"The full force of the sex abuse hysteria ..."

Are you suggesting that this Catholic priest didn't molest these kids and wasn't prosecuted by Prosser when the kids' mother tried to press charges?

The Jesuits today, by the way, settled 500 child rape and sex abuse claims for $160 million. Out of court. Because they don't want to get INTO a courtroom.

Hysteria?

Original Mike said...

I'm sure Bill Lueders will be along any minute to condemn it.

CachorroQuente said...

The facts appear to be that Prosser did not want to prosecute a child molesting priest (as noted above by r-v). This priest went on to molest other children and eventually wound up in jail 25 years later. Had Prosser elected to prosecute in 1979, the priest's career as a child molester might have been shortened by 20 years or more.

There doesn't appear to be any dispute about the facts or Prosser's actions. This is not an example of anti-Catholic bigotry or hysteria about child abuse. This is the case of a real live child molester who was not prosecuted because of the DA's discretion who went on to molest other children.

Yes, the ad is inflammatory (oh, get out the ice-pack) and it's unfair to cast Prosser as siding with perverts. But, the facts are what they are. Prosser was insufficiently diligent in protecting Wisconsin children from molesting priests and his lassitude resulted in more children being molested. If you don't want to be portrayed as being soft on child sex abuse, don't be soft on child sex abuse.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with who should be elected to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Gahrie said...

This is yet one more argument for bringing back dueling......

shoutingthomas said...

For me, the jury is out on this one.

Some priests committed abuse. I've read a wide variety of articles about alleged victims who piled on with abuse claims purely for financial reasons.

The actions of the archdiocese in this case look pretty damnable.

But, I don't see any clear evidence that Prosser was in cahoots with the archdiocese in shielding this particular priest.

LawGirl said...

This is just idiotic. DAs have many reasons not to prosecute, including lack of enough concrete evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard in criminal cases. They don't put the victims through a trial that is likely to end in acquittal. Anyone who thinks about it for about three seconds should see through this.

Ut said...

Milwakee Journal Sentinal: "In 1979, then Outagamie County District Attorney David Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute a Green Bay priest who had abused her sons because "it would be too hard on the boys," newly released documents indicate. The priest, John Patrick Feeney, who is now 81, went on to abuse other children before he was sent to jail in 2004."

Are they taking something out of context? If so, what (specifically) is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal taking out of context?

This judge refused to prosecute a pedophile. That pedophile - thus - went on to abuse even more children.

Had Judge Prosser prosecuted that pedopile priest - then those OTHER CHILDREN wouldn't have been raped by that pedophile priest.

That is the gist of what the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article says.

But hey, read if to for yourself here:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29510659.html

I have yet to see anyone write anything to suggest that this is taken out of context or is somehow out of bounds or "negative."

They're just facts.

Fact: A mother begged Judge Prosser to prosecute the rapist of her children.

Fact: He declined to.

Fact: The rapist went on to molest even more kids.

Fact: But was eventually prosecuted by others.

These are not "negative" facts or "positive" facts. They're just facts.

They're only "negative" if you like Judge Prosser.

shoutingthomas said...

Fact: A mother begged Judge Prosser to prosecute the rapist of her children.

Fact: He declined to.

Fact: The rapist went on to molest even more kids.

At the time, the rape was an allegation.

Fact: But was eventually prosecuted by others.

Perhaps conclusive evidence became available later.

These are not "negative" facts or "positive" facts. They're just facts.

You haven't presented a single fact.

They're only "negative" if you like Judge Prosser.

I have no idea in hell who Judge Prosser is. Nor do I care whether he is elected.

The one "fact" presented is a statement attributed to Prosser by the alleged victim.

Robert said...

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

Letter from the victim in question.

Ut said...

"DAs have many reasons not to prosecute ... "

That's right. For example if they're bribed. Or they're devoted Catholics and don't want to hurt the church. Or their major campaign donors are church hierarchy. Or maybe Judge Prosser is secretly part of a cabal of child rapists himself. Maybe he's President of NAMBLA. It's unknowable.

Not all the reasons not to prosecute are noble ones. Anyone who thinks about this for 3 seconds could see this.

His reason to let a pedophile walk can be debated as long as you want - but the RECORD of him doing so is FAIR GAME for any advertisements when this judge is standing for ELECTION.

Pointing out his undisputed record is not "out of bounds."

It's INFORMING VOTERS so that they may cast informed votes.

shoutingthomas said...

His reason to let a pedophile walk can be debated as long as you want - but the RECORD of him doing so is FAIR GAME for any advertisements when this judge is standing for ELECTION.

You keep stating as fact what are actually allegations.

The priest was an alleged pedophile at the time of this incident.

The sole piece of evidence you've related is a bit of hearsay.

People can say whatever the fuck they want in a political campaign. At least, you're right about that.

Ut said...

"Letter from the victim in question."

There is not "a victim" in question. The pedophile priests molested DOZENS of children.

Having noted that, nothing in that letter indicates with any specificity how the ad is "inaccurate" or how Judge Prossor's failure to prosecute a child rapist is being taken "out of context."

I'm sure Judge Prosser's only concern was the welfare of the two raped kids and had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the Catholic Church. I take him at his word.

Guess he didn't think about all the future children who would be victims of his decision not to do his fucking job.

Judge Prosser made a choice. Kids were raped BECAUSE he chose poorly. Voters have a right to know that and it's not "negative" to inform voters of Judge Prosser's decision and its horrible, horrible ramifications for the many, many children subsequently raped because Judge Prosser made such a bad, bad decision.

BJK said...

@ut

You might want to read what one of the actual victims on whose behalf Prosser acted about the ad:

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118650379.html


The decision not to prosecute during Prosser's tenure allowed for Feeney to be convicted (of the same offenses) in 2004. The victim says that he would vote for Prosser, if he lived in the state, and calls for the ad to be taken off the air.

edutcher said...

Uncle Saul has always told them the end justifies the means and no lie is too great in service to the cause.

So, we are surprised, why?

LawGirl said...

Not all the reasons not to prosecute are noble ones. Anyone who thinks about this for 3 seconds could see this.

Which is precisely why this is completely irrelevant. The conclusion they are clearly seeking to have us draw is that there is some nefarious reason for it. If it's unknowable, the fact is irrelevant. Not to mention nearly 40 years old.

I'm amazed at how the left can justify this type of attack while touting civility in public discourse out the other side of their mouths.

wv: barse - abbreviation of big farce, which is what this attack ad is.

LawGirl said...

AND the only "fact" is that he did not prosecute at that time, not that he "failed" to do so. That implies that he had some sort of obligation to do so regardless of the evidence available to him at the time.

Ut said...

"The priest was an alleged pedophile at the time of this incident."

Everybody's only "alleged" to have committed crimes when they're being protected by a prosecutor who refuses to do his job.

They stop being "alleged" rapists once they're found guilty. But they'll only be found guilty if there is a trial. And there will only be a trial if the rapist isn't being protected by the prosecutor.

Nevertheless ... it is undisputed that this priest raped these kids and many others and that Prosser had an opportunity to prosecute that priest but refused to do so.

Those facts are NOT. IN. DISPUTE.

Those facts are in the public domain and even Prosser does not dispute them. He says now that he did it to protect the victims. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve that.

But the fact of the matter is:

1) Judge Prosser made a bad decision.

2) That led to kids being raped

Now he wants to continue to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I'd submit to you that based on his public record - that once again is not in any dispute - that Judge Prosser is too fucking stupid to be allowed anywhere near a court.

LawGirl said...

Judge Prosser made a choice. Kids were raped BECAUSE he chose poorly.

That's quite a leap of logic you make here. We do not know that he chose poorly at all. It may have been the wisest choice with the information available at the time. That the priest was later convicted proves nothing about the DA's ability to convict him at an earlier time.

shiloh said...

Fen said...

Well, Barack used up the race card.
~~~~~


Again, it's almost always conservatives who are fixated on race/racism.

This is all they have left. Ritmo, JayRetrea, Shiloh et al. This is who they are.

Fen's inane generalizations notwithstanding.

And no worries Fen as you're still my fav AA groupie and my fav one-trick-pony! :-P

paminwi said...

"When the abuse happened in the late 1970s, the Merryfield family went to police. They dropped the charges when the diocese assured them the problem would be solved."

From
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Diocese_of_Green_Bay

There is so much more to this story than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is telling as well as any of the liberal claptrap websites. These media entities only tell the part of the story the supports their side and if any of you here have any time other than to make nasty comments take 15 minutes of your precious time and read more than liberal websites for information.

Ut said...

"The conclusion they are clearly seeking to have us draw is that there is some nefarious reason for it."

Not at all.

Doesn't have to be nefarious at all.

Judge Prosser decided not to prosecute this priest after being "assured" by the church that the priest would be "dealt with."

That was his call - he used his prosecutorial discretion.

Now we get to judge Judge Prosser on his prosecutorial discretion.

And I'd submit to you that he's a fucking MORON. I'd submit to you that anyone who lets a child rapist escape prosecution for ANY FUCKING REASON deserves public ridicule. Tar and feathers.

That priest went on to abuse many, many more children ONLY because Judge Prosser showed such instanely stupid proseutorial discretion.

Now he wants to continue to be a judge?

The people of Wisconsin should fire his ass and bring those children he helped that priest rape some justice.

Ut said...

"That the priest was later convicted proves nothing about the DA's ability to convict him at an earlier time."

Wait, what? It proves NOTHING? Nothing at all?

I'd say it's evidence of SOMETHING. The priest was later prosecuted by a different prosecutor of raping the very same children Judge Prosser refused to protect.

That's not NOTHING.

That's SOMETHING.

LawGirl said...

Have you actually read his opinions? He's no moron. While he has ruled in my favor on cases, he has also ruled against me a couple of times. While I did not like the outcome of the cases I lost, I thought his reasoning was still very sound. And, quite independent of the "politics" of the case ("my" side happens to be one favored more by conservatives than liberals).

He applied the law - he didn't try to re-draft it. I appreciated that.

shoutingthomas said...

Ut, you're a partisan hysteric.

The judicial system cannot operate the way you want it to operate in a society of laws.

And, I have no opinion on whether Prosser should be elected.

LawGirl said...

Nope. Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one. I stand by my statement that it proves NOTHING. Nothing.




wv: misper - a lie that is told very very quietly

Ut said...

"Uncle Saul has always told them the end justifies the means and no lie is too great in service to the cause."

What is the lie?

1) Judge Prosser declined to prosecute the priest (for whatever reason)

2) The priest went on to rape other victims

3) The priest was eventually prosecuted AFTER Prosser left the office by a subsequent prosecutor who actually - you know - decided to press charges against the child rapist.

Where is the lie?

Prosser made an EPICALLY STUPID decision. Maybe he made it for some well-meaning reason.

EPIC STUPIDITY.

Voters have a right to know about this decision that he made and they have a right to be outraged by it and to not vote for him because he's too fucking stupid to be judging others.

Ut said...

Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one.

Lawgirl ... please take a moment and THINK before writing.

1) Judge Prosser declined to prosecute the priest for raping 2 kids (for whatever reason). So, there was no evidence presented in any case because there was no prosecution sought.

2) The priest went on to commit even more rapes of different children.

3) Eventually, his new victims convinced a DIFFERENT, SUBSEQUENT prosecutor to actually, you know, prosecute the sicko priest.

4) The pedophile that Prosser refused to prosecute was then prosecuted. Now, at this very final stage, some EVIDENCE was submitted to a court of law. The priest was easily convicted of raping the original 2 kids, plus all the other ones.

Only one person decided to prosecute the priest and it wasn't Judge Prosser.

Judge Prosser decided to let the pedophile priest STAY FREE to rape again.

shoutingthomas said...

1) Judge Prosser declined to prosecute the priest (for whatever reason)

You don't even know this as a fact.

The two sources I read differed even on this.

One source said that the family of the victim declined to participate in prosecution.

So, you don't even know that this is a fact.

You have no facts. You've got partisan hysteria. And one hearsay statement.

Cool down. If you're really that interested in this case, go study the actual case documents from beginning to end with a cool head and then report back.

Otherwise, please shut up.

Jim said...

It's nice to know that the AstroTurfers are being deployed in full force this early in the campaign cycle.

We have at least 20 MORE months of Ut and his paid cohorts smearing dirt and repeating unsubstantiated statements.

For all the "facts" at the AstroTurfer's disposal, there remains one salient FACT: the article uses an UNCORROBORATED statement based on 30+ year old memories which may or may not even represent the whole of that person's statement on the matter.

Go ahead and try that case and see how fast you get laughed out of the courtroom, Axelrod.

It's just more business as usual from the same dirty Chicago Democrats rearing it's ugly head.

God help us but it's not going to stop until it's made clear that AstroTurfers aren't welcome ANYWHERE.

Goodbye, Ut.

CachorroQuente said...

Lawirl:"Nope. Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one. I stand by my statement that it proves NOTHING. Nothing."

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004.

Again, this has nothing to do with who is the better candidate in the current election.

shiloh said...

AA loves AstroTurfers.

Hey, she married one. :)

jimspice said...

If the ad is correct, Prosser did not ask police to investigate further. That would seem to be more telling than his choice not to prosecute.

Carol_Herman said...

Running this negative ad only means the unions are turning on the money spigot. And, Prosser is still ahead.

Even though the "Daisy Ad," run only once by LBJ, got a lot of mileage ... to the point it can be mentioned, today, and people know it. Doesn't mean that's why Goldwater lost! Goldwater was his own worst enemy. That's why he lost.

I'd imagine, too, that this is a statewide election. Not just the locals of Dane County.

April 5th's results will be interesting to see. As long as there's a paper trail. And, not computers that produce the results that not only really defraud, on their results. But have no paper trail.

shoutingthomas said...

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004.

According to one source I read, it could be a misstatement that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Even that apparent fact seems to be in dispute.

One source I read states that the family itself decided not to cooperate in the prosecution.

Ut said...

"You don't even know this as a fact."

Yes, I do, and I linked to it.

Go read it here:

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

"In 1979, Prosser decided not to file charges against Sweeney ..."

Judge Prosser declined to prosecute a child rapist (for whatever well-meaning reason you wish to cite).

That child rapist thus, was free to rape others. And he did so. Eventually, someone else with better decision-making skills stepped in and prosecuted the pedo priest.

Now Judge Prosser wants to continue to use his EPICALLY STUPID FUCKING JUDGMENT on others.

I think that would be unwise.

YMMV.

No Democrat, nor any Republican, who lets a child rapist stay free to rape other children has any business in public office.

Tar. And feather. His ass.

Ut said...

"According to one source I read, it could be a misstatement ..."

Stop trying to muddy the water. The victim said it. Judge Prosser has never, ever claimed this was a "misstatement."

Here is the victim's statement in FULL:

http://wispolitics.com/1006/110324_Troy_Merryfield_Statement__1_.pdf

Nothing about this case is new or in dispute.

Judge Prosser let a pedophile rapist walk (for whatever well-meaning reason you care to cite).

That's just fucking epic stupidity - since that leaves the child rapist free to rape other children.

Judge Prosser should not be sitting on any court. He's too fucking DUMB to sit on a court.

Tar.

Feather.

Vote smarter next time.

shoutingthomas said...

Ut, you're a partisan hothead and an overall dingbat.

Thankfully, it appears you have no role in the judicial system.

jimspice said...

Ut, the idea that people hate negative ads but they are used anyway because they work is the accepted mantra of almost all political operatives, i.e. consultants. The academic literature is a bit more nuanced, but you can find plenty of support for that very claim in the literature review here: http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm

Ut said...

" ... this has nothing to do with who is the better candidate in the current election."

That's right. My beef is with Althouse claiming this is a "negative" ad.

It is not "negative."

It is merely "informative."

It presents undisputed facts and allows the public to decide whether or not Judge Prosser is a good judge - or whether he's a fucking MORON.

I've decided he's a fucking MORON since he thought it was advisable to let a child rapist go free (for whatever well-meaning reason you care to cite).

To me ... that's just fucking dumb and shows that he can't be a good judge because he's too fucking stupid.

The ad never called him a dumb fucking moron. The ad merely presented some facts upon which you can draw your own judgments.

Republicans WILL be judged based on their RECORD. If you vote to fund NPR ... then that's on your RECORD. If you vote to raise the debt ... that's on your RECORD. If you vote to pay for studies of fleas fucking, then that's on your record. If you vote to fund Democrats, then that's on your record.

If you let pedophiles remain free (for whatever well-meaning reason you cite), that's on your RECORD too.

and you will be voted OUT of office if you do these stupid fucking things.

So wise up.

Jim said...

"Vote smarter next time."

That's what we've been telling Obama voters since 2008.

Nice to know that even the slowest among us (yes, this means you), has finally realized what a colossal mistake they made when they voted for a guy who lets the 3 AM call go to voice mail so that he make tee time at 9 AM.

Any other sound advice you can give us about avoiding voting for Obama and his accomplices in 2012?

Jim said...

"It presents undisputed facts and allows the public to decide whether or not Judge Prosser is a good judge - or whether he's a fucking MORON."

And yet...you have a single uncorroborated statement and are stupid enough to call that a "FACT."

You should be careful about repeating Axelrod's accusations of being of a moron, since you so easily fit the definition yourself.

shoutingthomas said...

You certainly have a judicious and even tempered approach, UT.

And, I'm sure the readers of this blog have noted that.

So, who do you think you're convincing with these hysterical diatribes?

You are doing precisely the opposite.

You're convincing me that this is a political hatchet job being carried out by Prosser's opposition. And the evidence of that is your hysteria.

You are your own worst enemy.

Ut said...

"Ut, the idea that people hate negative ads but they are used anyway because they work is the accepted mantra"

I realize it's accepted mantra that people hate negative ads.

But that's bullshit.

"People" don't hate negative ads. "Politicians" who let rapists walk free hate negative ads. Willie Horton didn't gave two shits about his ad but Dukakis sure hated that fucking thing.

Any ad 'agin ya is negative.

Any ad afore ya is positive.

I expect Althouse to be a little more circumspect and not fall for the "accepted mantra." She's supposed to be smarter than your average bear.

THIMK!

Jim said...

"THIMK!"

LEARN TO SPELL!

Ut said...

"So, who do you think you're convincing with these hysterical diatribes?"

I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

That's why I linked to the source material.

People should judge for themselves.

I read the articles linked and the statements of one of the victims and I came to a conclusion.

Judge Prosser is a fucking moron who should have taken a child rapist off the streets but didn't.

I don't care if he's a Republican or a Democrat (and don't even know and frankly don't even care).

He's a fucking idiot.

Fire him.

So that everybody else put in that position in the future knows what the costs are of making such an epically dumb fucking decision.

paminwi said...

Are all you people not doing any research on this story!!!! The "mother" said she believed the diocese and decided not to move forward with the case! If there was not going to be any testimony by her sons what kind of case would Prosser have had????

Ut said...

"LEARN TO SPELL!"

Learn about humor.

chickelit said...

OMG Ut, your side is so lucky that no one has to file a real party in interest disclosure to go with those ads.

What a transparent smear.
____________________

wv = "ecetyra"
Foster Brooks code for "et cetera"

Ut said...

"Are all you people not doing any research on this story!!!! The "mother" said she believed the diocese and decided not to move forward with the case!"

Paminwi ... why don't you provide a LINK to your source material that you've researched. That way, people can judge for themselves and they don't have to take your word for it.

But even if what you say is so, I would respond by reminding you that society doesn't allow mothers to decide whether child rapists should be allowed to remain free to rape again.

It's too emotional a decision.

That's why we have prosecutors and police. These professionals are supposed to make unemotional decisions based on the law and what is good not just for the mother, or even just the raped kids ... but ALL of society.

The prosecutor doesn't represent the mother or even the raped kids.

The prosecutor's client is JUSTICE.

chickelit said...

@Ut: I mean, you're the disingenuous asshole here. You don't give a flying fuck about anyone involved in that case. All you care about is Kloppenberg will torpedo the Walker legislation.

Just speak honestly for two seconds you fucking partisan hack. You're worse than Josh Marshall.

Browndog said...

It looks like Ut is blowing a gasket.

Quick, somebody get him a priest!

Just for grins, I listened to that Frank guy on 620 today, and he pretty much destroyed Ut's rants, and callers of his ilk (some changed their mind), and the good folks behind the ad.

I don't know if it's archived, but it would be worth the listen--

unless you're a ranting lunatic with your mind already made up.

Ut said...

" ... your side is so lucky that no one has to file a real party in interest disclosure to go with those ads."

I don't really have a side (I'm probably closest politically to Charles Krauthammer).

Nevertheless, I believe that people, including groups of people, have free speech rights in this country and that the more speech the better.

Judge Prosser has a pulpit from which he may explain himself. I encourage him to do so. I personally think he owes us an explanation.

Sometimes, free speech will not inure to the benefit of Republicans.

But then again sometimes, as in this instance, Republicans SHOULD suffer.

Some folks who shouldn't be in our party are in it and it's time to take out the garbage.

I hope people are paying attention.

Bob From Ohio said...

"It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004."

Compare and contrast public attitudes towards priests in 1979 and 1994.

In 1979, a priest molesting kids would be hard to believe for most people. In 1994, much easier for most to believe because it was well known to happen:

"1985: In first abuse case to draw national attention, Father Gilbert Gauthe pleaded guilty to 11 cases of sexually abusing children in Lafayette, La., including altar boys and Boy Scouts. Served 10 years in prison.

1992: U.S. bishops meeting in South Bend, Ind., admit that some bishops tried to hide abuse.

1993: Rev. James Porter of Fall River, Mass., pleaded guilty to 41 counts of sexually abusing children in five states in 1960s and 1970s. Porter, who gave up his priesthood in 1974, was sentenced to 18 to 20 years in prison. He died in 2005 at age 70."



Assent strong physical evidence, abuse cases turn on credibility.

In 1994, even though it was 15 years later, it was easier to get a conviction. Jurors were more prepared to believe the allegations. That would be even more true now.

chickelit said...

Ut said:
But even if what you say is so, I would respond by reminding you that society doesn't allow mothers to decide whether child rapists should be allowed to remain free to rape again.

Your transparent concern trolling is sickening.

Ut said...

"All you care about is Kloppenberg will torpedo the Walker legislation."

I'm not really too focused on the short-term. In fact, I believe that Walker wins if his legislation is hijacked by Democrat judges.

People need to see these Democrat judges hijack their country. Need to see it in broad daylight so they understand what we're up against.

But Prosser will get no pass from me, bub.

Guy let a pedophile child rapist rape again.

There has to be a price paid for that in my book.

I hope he is fired by the people of Wisconsin for this reason. And I hope all the other prosecutors in the country are watching it so they can see what fate will befall them if they make such an epically stupid decision in their future.

Ut said...

"Your transparent concern trolling is sickening."

And your name-calling is a weak approach.

Why not spend some time telling us why Judge Prosser should remain a judge besides your naked assertion that he is a guaranteed vote to uphold Walker legislation (which would be unethical if it was true).

chickelit said...

Ut wrote:
I don't really have a side (I'm probably closest politically to Charles Krauthammer).

Even a cursory glance at what you're written here in the past under the guise of "Ut" shows that you are never "for" something -- always just mobying around to stir things up. You kind of remind me of "Florida". So I'll say to you what I say to the rest of the "profiles not available" types: fuck you and good bye.

James said...

"It quotes the public record. Prosser refused to prosecute pervert priests."

Ut, generally I don't bother to engage you since you're an insufferable asshole but where in the public record does it refer to "priests?

Ut said...

"I'll say to you what I say to the rest of the "profiles not available" types: fuck you and good bye."

Joe The Plumber probably wishes his profile had not been available.

But your reaction is why you convince nobody. You're just a name-caller ... like the Democrats. Your main argument is baselessly transparent ad hominem.

Why not just state your case and I'll state my case and let the better argument carry the day?

I suspect it's because you don't have a case. And you know what they say ... if the facts are on your side pound the facts and if the facts aren't on your side pound the table.

Me ... I say you can pound sand.

Ut said...

" ... always just mobying around to stir things up."

What does this mean?

I read Althouse (religiously). I have opinions. I engage the community.

Isn't that called "conversation?"

Oh, I see ... if I don't toe the Republican line 100% of the time ... then I'm a "moby." Is that it?

Oh, I get it now. You want to cocoon.

Cheryl said...

The ad is appalling but how is it any different from the ads against Justice Louis Butler in 2008? Why is a misleading ad wrong now but acceptable in 2008?

vnjagvet said...

UT:

I think you have made us aware of your point. Indeed you have made the same point in most of your numerous posts. But it is clear that there are many of us that believe you are simply wrong. Isn't that what a discussion is all about?

It is a good thing we have elections from time to time so that our differences may be evaluated by the voters.

My question to you is whether you are trying to persuade or trying to pound the same point until some of us change our minds?

Ut said...

"Generally I don't bother to engage you since you're an insufferable asshole but where in the public record does it refer to "priests?"

Can you name a pedophile priest that Prosser DID prosecute? It is my belief (based on what I will admit is a not unlimited knowledge of Prosser's entire prosecutorial career) that he never once prosecuted a pedophile priest.

But if you have some additional information, that would be helpful.

But let's remember that Prosser stood idly and knowingly by while the priest he knew molested those two boys was sent into another jurisdiction. He met with the bishop. Arranged it.

Knowing what he knew.

And yet, he didn't warn anybody.

Could have.

Didn't.

Kids were then raped.

Children.

Just innocent children - raped because Prosser chose (for whatever good-intention reasons he now explains) to let the guy go.

Good intentions are not enough.

Ut said...

"But it is clear that there are many of us that believe you are simply wrong."

I've stated some undisputed facts and then voiced my opinion. None of the facts that I've proffered were wrong, but if you disagree ... please tell me HOW I'm wrong.

I merely think that a prosecutor who uses his prosecutorial discretion to allow a vicious pedophile to remain on the streets to rape again has made a grievously stupid decision. And that informing voters of this dumb ass decision is not out of bounds.

Wouldn't you agree?

jimspice said...

I believe that each Prosser supporter here should be required to succinctly state "I support Prosser's decision not to prosecute a child rapist" and sign your real name.

Put up or shut up.

Ut said...

"and sign your real name."

That's not really necessary. People should be free to voice their opinions without having to fear a Joe-The-Plumber type oppo research witch hunt against them.

That's the Democrat Party's facist way of intimidation ... and we should discourage it.

Ut said...

Jesuit priests today coughed up $166 million to keep their asses out of a courtroom.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/jesuits-pay-record-166-1-million-in-child-abuse-case/?hpt=T2

Alex said...

shiloh - you're pathetic and sad. When is the last time you contributed actual content rather then your usual insult hurling?

Alex said...

all shiloh/garage/Ritmo/AL do is come in here and hurl invective. At least FLS makes an attempt at debate. The rest are astroturfing lefty trolls.

Alex said...

My question to you is whether you are trying to persuade or trying to pound the same point until some of us change our minds?

We need people like Ut to express the cold-eyed rage that many of us feel. That he is not "nuanced" is a plus IMHO. Ut is an American patriot and I salute him and all like him. They make the country WORK.

Ut said...

"That he is not "nuanced" is a plus IMHO. Ut is an American patriot and I salute him and all like him."

Thanks Alex!

Nuance is for pansies.

Fen said...

Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979.

And those of you that "care" about this were doing what from 1979-2011?

Progressives - using child molestation to save the Union kickback con. Doesn't get any classier than that.

Fen said...

Its just our weekly reminder of Democrat-Alinksy "values".

And is why it was so hysterical to see them shouting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" last week.

Ut said...

Names I was called in this thread:

1) "ugly asshole."

2) "partisan hysteric."

3) "Astroturfer" (hahahaha - This one is really funny. I wish I got paid by the word for what I write here ... you just THINK it's Althouse's blog but it's not really. It's MINE! I write twice as much as Ann does here.)

4) "the slowest among us"

5) "transparent smear"er

6) "concern troll"

7) "insufferable asshole"

Believe it or not ... that's not even a record number name-callers.

I thought it was only Democrats that engaged in name-calling. Surprised to see so much of it in an Althouse thread.

UP YOUR GAME, PEOPLE!

vnjagvet said...

I merely think that a prosecutor who uses his prosecutorial discretion to allow a vicious pedophile to remain on the streets to rape again has made a grievously stupid decision.

Having been a prosecutor, I don't agree with this part of your argument. I have often been in the position in which I declined to prosecute because the evidence that I had available to me at the time would not result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In such instances my duty was to decline to prosecute. I was not into show trials.

I am reasonably certain that my failure to prosecute under those circumstances allowed the accused parties to commit other crimes like those that I could not in good conscience prosecute. I did not consider myself at fault for future crimes of those I could not prosecute. Similarly, I did not consider myself at fault if an individual whom I prosecuted and was acquitted by a jury went on to commit like crimes after acquittal.

Prosecutorial discretion can be exercised for good or bad reasons. Without knowing more facts than those in your links, I could not agree that Prosser had bad reasons for declining to prosecute the pedophile priest.

And that informing voters of this dumb ass decision is not out of bounds.

If I believed the decision not to prosecute was "dumb ass", truthfully informing the voters is not out of bounds IMO.

Big Mike said...

When you can't win on the issues, go negative. And there's no way a liberal can win on the issues anymore.

foxtrot said...

Here is how the left passes judgment on the following types of child molesters:

A priest or preacher: That Pope lover or Bible thumper has to pay dearly.

A white man from anywhere, but especially the South: That stupid redneck is going to fry for this

An African American: A guest visit from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson

Michael Jackson: We must forgive him because he was abused as a kid, and nobody understands his struggle as a pseudo white/black gender shape-shifter.

A LGBT (or BLT, whatever the f*ck the abbreviation is): (S)he clearly had to express his sexuality after all of these years of Republican oppression

foxtrot said...

Is it me, or does Kloppenburg look like she had an old man's pubes super glued to her head?

Ut said...

"Without knowing more facts than those in your links, I could not agree that Prosser had bad reasons for declining to prosecute the pedophile priest."

OK then. Let me give you some more facts.

1) Prosser met with the archdiocese bishop to discuss the allegations.

2) Prosser and the Bishop then met with the mother and convinced her not to go forward with the trial.

According to press accounts, Prosser told a mother he did not want to prosecute the pedophile because "it would be too hard on the boys" -- even though the two victims were prepared and willing to testify.

3) Prosser, accompanied by a deacon and another member of the parish, went to the woman's home, where he told her the trial would be too hard on her sons.

Sound like a dispassionate prosecutor to you, sir? Or someone pressuring a worried parent?

5) "I was ready to take the stand," Troy Merryfield the victim said. "He (Prosser) said it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest? Then he said, what really makes it bad is that Feeney's brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then."

So, now with this new information, counselor, do you care to change your pleading?

Ut said...

"Prosecutorial discretion can be exercised for good or bad reasons."

And not for nothing, but I agree with this sentiment.

Having made his choice, we must now judge Judge Prosser.

Would you vote for a man who let a pedophile priest he believed to be guilty go free to rape again (even if he did so for a well-meaning reason)? Is it out of bounds to air a political ad about this decision he made?

Is it "negative" to tell voters who may be unaware of his actions that he did this?

I don't think it's out of bounds, or negative, for voters to have this information.

Althouse calls this a "negative" or "subliiminal" ad. It's not negative. It doesn't make any false statements that I can see. Merely recounts the man's record.

His record is what it is and that's what we should judge him by.

He let a pedo priest rape again.

In my book? 'Nuff said.

Tar.

Fucking.

Feather.

YMMV.

foxtrot said...

This debate between the two candidates is classic.

A 57 year-old woman has to use her mom's Buick to go campaigning; that's pretty damned lame.

This air-headed old hag from the 19th century has no business as our next justice.

Synova said...

"Lawirl:"Nope. Evidence in a later case proves nothing about available evidence in an earlier one. I stand by my statement that it proves NOTHING. Nothing."

It appears to be the exact same case. Feeney was convicted in 2004 of the exact same crimes that Prosser declined to prosecute in 1979. Absent some sort of blue dress, evidence comes down to the statements of the victims which were probably the same in 1979 as in 2004.
"

The ability to convict based on the statements of the victims likely differs between 1979 and 2004. Prosser could have honestly felt that prosecution would have hurt the victims again with little hope of conviction and been right or wrong about that. Attitudes about how best to serve the victims has also changed in 30 years.

If nothing else, no one today would ever ever believe that a school or church or someone else would "take care of it". That Posser seems to have accepted this assurance is unfortunate, but doesn't at all prove some desire to protect the priest.

Ut is being hysterical.

Hank Rearden_WI said...

A letter from the victim of the Feeney attacks is available below.

At the end of the letter the victim, Troy, endorses Prosser.




http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes

shiloh said...

Names I was called in this thread:

1) "ugly asshole."

2) "partisan hysteric."

3) "Astroturfer" (hahahaha - This one is really funny. I wish I got paid by the word for what I write here ... you just THINK it's Althouse's blog but it's not really. It's MINE! I write twice as much as Ann does here.)

4) "the slowest among us"

5) "transparent smear"er

6) "concern troll"

7) "insufferable asshole"

Believe it or not ... that's not even a record number name-callers.

I thought it was only Democrats that engaged in name-calling. Surprised to see so much of it in an Althouse thread.

UP YOUR GAME, PEOPLE!
~~~~~


Indeed, AA's flock needs to up their game lol

Hey, all I ask for is creativity ...

Again, there are only so many ways of sayin' Obama/Dems suck! :-P

Belkys said...

But victims right were supposed to be a conservative cause. Kagan? Or some other liberal

vnjagvet said...

There are other factors that I would evaluate. Among them:

What was the percentage of Catholics to other religions in the county at the time? e.g. where I grew up in NW PA, Catholics made up more than 1/2 of the population back then. To the extent that Catholics in the jury pool approached 50%, it would be nearly impossible to seat a jury without several Catholics. It only takes one to hang a jury.

Is there any evidence other than the testimony of the alleged victim? If not, what is your evaluation of the relative credibility between the victim and the accused?

How far in the past was the alleged assault?

Did the victim report the assault to anyone at or about the time it allegedly occurred?

If so, to whom?

If so, how credible does/do the witness(es) to the complaint appear to be?

There are more questions, but these are illustrative.

I haven't seen anything including the info you linked to that answer any of these questions which would be critical to a potential prosecution.

traditionalguy said...

Shi...Listen and you shall see that Obama doesn't suck at what he does. He is a genius at what he does. It is "troubling" that Obama plans to starve the USA from its needed energy resources at the same time he plans to devalue the US dollar into worthless paper. He is a real genius at being a Fifth Columnist inside the White House as he diligently uses every crisis to distract our attention from his plans for our destruction which are reaching critical mass.

Ut said...

"That Posser seems to have accepted this assurance is unfortunate, but doesn't at all prove some desire to protect the priest."

We can't measure the man's desires; but we can judge him by the outcomes.

By allowing the priest to walk, he ensured the priests continued ability to rape other kids.

Prosser BELIEVED the priest to be guilty, and yet ... for perhaps well-meaning reasons ... chose to let him go free.

Now, we should judge him on his decision ... just like he judges us every day.

I look at his actions and find them wanting of intelligence.

It is prosecutors like Prosser who created the Catholic Church scandal. Their collective actions allowed thousands of priests to molest hundreds of thousands of children.

There has to be a price to pay for their negligence and for me, hounding them out of public office is just the beginning of the price they should be made to pay.

I encourage you to sit in conversation with a victim of child abuse, Synova and then review Judge Prosser's actions again in that light.

His actions protected the rapist priest and allowed that priest to rape more children.

He isn't FIT to hold public office.

foxtrot said...

Regardless of what Prosser did 30 years ago, the debate on TV last night showed that Kloppenberg's head was in the clouds, and that she had no idea of what she was talking about. It's sad that Wisconsin's financial destiny may sit in her hands.

She gave vague answers, as pretty much every other Democrat has in Madison and in D.C. to explain everything from blowjobs (Clinton) to Libya (Obama).

galdosiana said...

If people watched the debate last night on tv, Prosser came across as knowledgeable and easy to understand. He was also obviously affected by the negative ad against him.

Kloppenburg came across as extremely soft-spoken, wispy, and honestly a bit air-headed. She was, at times, very difficult to follow, and often did not directly answer the questions.

I was really surprised that she refused to speak out against the ad, especially when given multiple explicit occasions to do so.

Chris said...

The ad is gross.

But is this really news to you, Prof. Althouse?

Who could have seen this coming after the ugly races in 2007 by Annette Ziegler against Linda Clifford, and in 2008 Michael Gableman against Louis Butler?

Surprise, surprise: looks like money and mud flow in both directions.

Is this really the "Mother of All Negative Ads"? Are there any lies? Any wolves howling at the moon? This looks like part of the "new normal" to me.

It's a race straight to the bottom, and everyone shares the blame for this.

ken in sc said...

I was recently on a jury in a child sex case. The seven year old girl testified that the accused had done it. The accused's brother-in-law testified that the accused had admitted to it. The accused offered no defense. Yet we had a hung jury. Only three out of twelve voted guilty.

Freeman Hunt said...

I wouldn't mind if we had the death penalty for child rapists.

But if I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't put kids up on the stand to recount their horrors unless I knew I could win.

Freeman Hunt said...

According to the victim's letter, there was new evidence by 2004. Also, other victims had come forward, bolstering the case.

Care to change you tune, Ut, considering that not even the victim agrees with you?

Synova said...

"I encourage you to sit in conversation with a victim of child abuse, Synova and then review Judge Prosser's actions again in that light."

Why do you assume that if only I *really understood* how terrible it was, that I'd agree with you? I don't *know* if Prosser should have prosecuted the priest at the time. I don't have enough information. I'm only trying to point out to YOU that you don't know either and no amount of horror at the crime or belief that the guy was guilty beyond any doubt, changes that.

You act as though there is no legitimate way to even begin to think that perhaps the trial itself is a repetition of the abuse. You act as though the *conviction* itself was Prossers choice based on his belief of who was guilty instead of his best guess as to the outcome of a trial brought to a jury.

You don't know that any more than I do. You're being hysterical.

Synova said...

And the add doesn't simply let voters know the facts. The add suggests what you just claimed not to care about (which is also proven a lie from everything you've written here) that you're not interested in Prossers *desires*. Yet the add, and you, are all about how what Prosser *wanted* was to let this guy go, to protect the church, that he refused to even INVESTIGATE, which "fact" I haven't seen supported anywhere.

We're supposed to believe because the ad outright SAYS that Prosser wanted to protect child molesters.

That's not facts, it's speculation about his motivation. And not even speculation since it's not presented as anything other than proven.

vnjagvet said...

I see that instead of meeting the points in my last comment, UT went back to what sounds like his canned screed.

He simply won't respond to reasonable points that Freeman, Synova and I raised.

My verdict: Troll

WV papering as in UT is papering over the hard facts to make his point.

lawyapalooza said...

Three years ago, Merryfield was critical of Prosser, saying he should step aside when cases involving priest sexual misconduct come before the high court.

"He knows damn well what happened and what was said," Merryfield said at the time. "He dropped the ball, and he should recuse himself."

Freeman Hunt said...

Link?

Art said...

Outagamie County in the late 1970's was extremely Catholic.

There was zero chance of a conviction lacking a soiled hassock and even that may not have helped, as we had no DNA back then, just blood types.

The world of 1979 looked nothing like the world of today. The priest sex abuse scandal did not even occur until the 2000's.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com