June 5, 2012

Voter suppression by "Walker allies" or last-minute, uncheckable smear by Barrett people?

Salon reports:
With both sides counting on dramatic turnout, Tom Barrett’s campaign is charging Scott Walker supporters with dirty tricks. In an e-mail sent to supporters last night, Barrett for Wisconsin Finance Director Mary Urbina-McCarthy wrote, “Reports coming into our call center have confirmed that Walker’s allies just launched a massive wave of voter suppression calls to recall petition signers.” According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”

Last night I talked to a Wisconsin voter who says she received just such a robo-call. Carol Gibbons told me she picked up the phone and heard a male voice saying “thank you for taking this call,” and that “if you signed the recall petition, you did not have to vote because that would be your vote.”
There's a dirty trick in here somewhere, but whose? Somebody said she received this junk? Prove it. Who was it from? All the Barrett campaign is on the hook for saying is that they've heard reports from people who say they've gotten these calls. Why would Walker people do this? They aren't the desperate ones.
Urbina-McCarthy’s email requested donations to fund a new round of phone calls to all recall petitioner signers to make sure they know they still need to vote. 
Oh, they raised money off this completely deniable allegation?
Reached over e-mail, Barrett spokesperson Phil Walzak said, “If true, this shows the desperation of Walker and his right wing allies in the final hours of the campaign, and the depths to which they will sink to maintain their grip on power at the expense of the people and values of the great state of Wisconsin.”
This shows desperation, all right, but the Walker campaign isn't the one that's desperate. I love the egregious deniability here: If true... Great intro phrase for the sleazy rumor-mongers of the world.

ADDED: David Prichard — a journalism professor at U.W.-Milwaukee — has this May 2012 article in Wisconsin Lawyer about prosecuting false political speech in Wisconsin:
Wisconsin has three misdemeanor statutes that may be used against people who make intentionally false statements in political campaigns. The statutes prohibit false representations affecting elections, criminal defamation, and giving false information for publication. This article reports how the Wisconsin statutes have been used – and, in some cases, misused – over the past two decades....

Political speech is not automatically protected by the First Amendment. Intentional, calculated lies may be punished; at least 17 states have laws that forbid various kinds of false campaign speech. But the wisest course of action is to save criminal prosecution for the most egregious cases. The statutes discussed in this article should never be used against a sincere critic, a confused or careless partisan, or the perpetrator of a juvenile prank.

190 comments:

Original Mike said...

This aspect of politics is so depressing.

PETER V. BELLA said...

It's Salon, so consider the source. It's politics and politics is dirty. Nothing here folks. Just move on.

Patrick said...

Reminds me of one of the commenters here a day or two ago: "I'm not saying it's true, but just think - what if it is?

AprilApple said...

The left like to accuse what they actually do.

Chuck66 said...

If it were true, and anyone falls for that, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

Tom Spaulding said...

Lefty tears are said to be delicious when cried during yet another lost election.

IF TRUE, I will use them to sweeten my tall glass of bourbon tonight after the tally is announced.

The Farmer said...

"Prove it."

How?

alan markus said...

I have a distant relative (young, teacher in Milwaukee) who posted on her Facebook that this was going to happen. She also posted this: there are right-wingers from Texas flying up, who believe that poor people shouldn't be voting. These Texans will be at some of the polling places and may try to question people about their right to vote

Well, I hope they dress up as Black Panthers if they want to get away with that.

Calypso Facto said...

Allie Oop writes for Salon? They really ARE struggling to find talent.

Curious George said...

Allie Ooop (what is what the doctor probably said when he dropped her on her head) presented this as fact in a previous post. And then called people naive.

SGT Ted said...

This is the propaganda set up to challenge the legitimacy of the vote and to try and discredit the coming Walker victory.

There will be no talk of Barretts union stooge activists rounding up drunks and paying them with cigarrettes and booze to vote for Barrett. Not to mention any dead or double voters, such as out of state college students.

This tactic is what the redistributionists now are trying to use in undermining democracy when they don't get their way.

edutcher said...

The usual October Surprise stuff. If anybody wants to suppress turnout, it's usually the Demos.

Remember Eric Holder's "people" in Philadelphia?

David said...

How hard is it to figure out that you actually have to vote if you signed a recall petition? I realize a lot of voters don't follow things too closely--they have lives beyond politics. But, please.

Ann Althouse said...

One reason I don't believe it... or I think it's a limited prank call or a double-false-flag tactic is that it's such a blatantly stupid thing to say. How dumb would you need to be to believe that signing the recall petition counted as voting.

Chuck66 said...

How do you prove it? Hard to do, but I would like to see everyone who claims to have received this call come forward. Lets here it directly from them. finaragi 35

Michael K said...

This is just a mild preview of November.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Prove it."

How?

--> Well, I suppose they could use technology to find the number the call came from and do some actual investigation. Maybe, since this is a crime, do some digging.

Or, we could just say: "Must be true!" Like Walker's love child.

Oh, wait.

Original Mike said...

"It's Salon, so consider the source."

This will be treated as gospel on Hard Ball tonight.

Chuck66 said...

AA, that is what I am thinking. Are "Republican operatives" so stupid that they think Democrats are so stupid that they would believe this?

Michael K said...

"How dumb would you need to be to believe that signing the recall petition counted as voting."

Welll.

Bailey said...

Misleading and false robocalls are a bedrock of Republican sleazy campaigning.

Plants!

Get out the vo, er Prevent the Vote!

Matthew Sablan said...

And that, by the way, is the biggest problem with the stories about fake love children and pending indictments (which have been about to happen for at least five months or so, from what I've been hearing). Now, you have a story that is marginally believable that most people wouldn't have asked for too much proof of. They might believe it happened, but was not the campaign doing it, for example. But, so much good will has been used and abused that I won't even assume it was over zealous Walker supporters being jerks. You've wasted my good will. Now, you've got a higher bar to clear to prove your case.

Lying sucks, eh?

cubanbob said...

Last night I talked to a Wisconsin voter who says she received just such a robo-call. Carol Gibbons told me she picked up the phone and heard a male voice saying “thank you for taking this call,” and that “if you signed the recall petition, you did not have to vote because that would be your vote.”

Only democrat voters would be that stupid. The same stupidity that couldn't read a butterfly ballot or punch the ballot through.

damikesc said...

How?

A recording?

A script of the call (I'm sure these "nefarious" groups wouldn't allow their callers to just go off the top of their heads with stuff)?

You know, something that proves it existed in the first place.

damikesc said...

Misleading and false robocalls are a bedrock of Republican sleazy campaigning.

Present proof of it.

You're aware that phone companies can actually provide the numbers of blocked ID's, right?

You're attempting to invent a controversy with, LITERALLY, no evidence to back it up.

You're actually arguing that some nefarious group went through the entire list, cross-referenced addresses for all signees, and is just calling SOME of them, at random?

They'd spend untold millions for...what?

SGT Ted said...

The other major part of this propaganda narrative is that the Good People were going to win, but Evil Foreign Meddlers came in and stole it from the Good People by "tricking" them. It wasn't a lack of support for them or their policies; it's always Nefarious Evil Shadowy interference from Outside Interlopers who 'fool' the voters into voting against their "own interests".

All those out of state union goons and operatives working for Barrett? NOT TO BE DISCUSSED.

Nevermind the unstated inference that Barrett voters and voters in general are so stupid as to be fooled by a random phone call on election day after all the press exposure they have all gotten over the last 18 months.

Fuck you Barrett supporters for being such mendacious drama queens.

Chip S. said...

If true, what a clever minimal-intelligence test to apply to prospective voters!

damikesc said...

I have a friend in WI who received calls stating that if they did not sign the recall petition, they did not need to vote since their lack of signature had the same legal impact as a vote.

Robert Cook said...

I would think telephone records could show whether calls were received and from what originating number. Given that the federal government is surveilling all of our electronic communications, they probably would have recordings if such robo-calls were actually made.

Matthew Sablan said...

There was a time, only a scant years ago, where unverifiable claims of political skullduggery (of any stripe) would be taken as gospel with no push back. I'm glad the internet has allowed people to demand proof of accusations like these more openly and readily than just believing what they're told to be believe.

Tom Spaulding said...

Was the voice that of Eric Holder?

yashu said...

They saw the backlash from-- disgust generated by-- those progressive neighbor-voting mailers. So maybe they're trying to fabricate some "backlash" against the other side too.

Hagar said...

The pro-Walker faction went into this election with a 5-10% lead in the polls, and they are the desperate ones?

damikesc said...

I would think telephone records could show whether calls were received and from what originating number.

You would be 100% correct. No matter what the caller tries to do, somewhere in the deepest levels of a phone network --- the actual phone number used is recorded. And can easily be cross-referenced to see who owns it.

There is no such thing as a blocked ID that cannot be found out. It usually requires a court order or some other official authority --- but it is quite doable.

Given that the federal government is surveilling all of our electronic communications, they probably would have recordings if such robo-calls were actually made.

They likely do not since the sheer volume of data would be utterly useless (sifting through several billion records a month every month is absurd). But any company that actually handles phone service undoubtedly would have it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wisconsin Democrats and Union leaders have obviously never read the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Time and time again, their made up scary stories and lies are exposed.

We just don't believe you any more.

kcom said...

1) If you're stupid enough to believe a call like that, you're too stupid to vote.

2) If that is really happening, maybe it will help cancel out the bus brigade from Michigan.

Chuck66 said...

Is this kind of like the stories about the Jew businessmen Kochs who secretly control the state?

Christopher in MA said...

The other major part of this propaganda narrative is that the Good People were going to win, but Evil Foreign Meddlers came in and stole it from the Good People by "tricking" them.

The old Stab-In-The-Back theory; dolchstoss, as our National Socialist friends called it. I expect a lot of this tomorrow should Walker win.

How dumb would you need to be to believe that signing the recall position counted as voting?

Considering the majority of democrats believe Dubya was behind 9/11 and that we invaded Iraq for cheap oil, I'd paraphrase Mencken about underestimating the intelligence of the left.

carrie said...

This is just like the last minute allegation that Scott Walker fathered a child. Throw mud that won't be cleaned up until after the election. A friend who lives on the near West Side of Madison told me that someone came to her door with a clipboard with a list of voters in her neighborhood, including her name, and asked her what time she would be voting and then said that you'll be voting for Barrett, right? My friend found that to be intimidating.

Hagar said...

And Wisconsin has been dropped from the list of 57 states in the Union?

leslyn said...

Getting such records from the phone company takes much longer than today's election.

As The Farmer said,

"Prove it."

How?

tim in vermont said...

Accusing Repubulicans of "voter suppression" by printing up a couple of flyers or making a non disprovable claim is SOP for Democrats for their "Ground Game" playbook.

These accusations fly every election, but nothing ever seems to happen afterwards. Some guy gets pulled over for speeding three blocks from a polling place and this is called attempted intimidation of black voters.

Don't you liberals wish you had your credibility back?

Seeing Red said...

--Misleading and false robocalls are a bedrock of Republican sleazy campaigning. ---


They don't remember FLA, do they?

Original Mike said...

"The other major part of this propaganda narrative is that the Good People were going to win, but Evil Foreign Meddlers came in and stole it from the Good People by "tricking" them. It wasn't a lack of support for them or their policies;"

This has got to be the real reason for this crap, because it can't have the obvious effect of suppressing the vote. Nobody's that stupid to fall for it.

LincolnTf said...

Classic Leftism, spend over a year obstructing Constitutional procedures and attempting to overthrow the will of the voters, and then claim that Republicans are messing with the vote. Wisconsin Democrats and their Union leash-holders have lost all credibility, and will probably end up having to re-brand their Unions to escape the ignominy of 2011-12.

leslyn said...

Christopher in MA said,

"Considering the majority of democrats believe Dubya was behind 9/11 and that we invaded Iraq for cheap oil...."


Prove it.

Seeing Red said...

--The other major part of this propaganda narrative is that the Good People were going to win, but Evil Foreign Meddlers came in and stole it from the Good People by "tricking" them.---


Because the "good people" really are that stupid? I thought they were the smart ones?

Original Mike said...

(continued) And in fact, to achieve that effect, you don't even have to do the false flag operation. All you have to do is claim the calls were received.

tim in vermont said...

"I have a friend in WI who received calls stating that if they did not sign the recall petition"

An anonymous blog commenter has a "friend in WI." Case closed, it really happened people.

Seeing Red said...

The cheap oil part is really easy to prove. Who got the contracts and my CC statements from the past 10 years. Oil isn't cheap yet.

leslyn said...

LincolnTf said...

"Classic Leftism, spend over a year obstructing Constitutional procedures and attempting to overthrow the will of the voters...."

Oops. Other way around. (Wrong party.) Wisconsin Constitution, Article VIII, Section 12.

leslyn said...

tim in vermont said...
"I have a friend in WI who received calls stating that if they did not sign the recall petition"

An anonymous blog commenter has a "friend in WI." Case closed, it really happened people.

An anonymous blog poster not even from Wisconsin knows all the facts.

leslyn said...

tim in vermont said...

"Accusing Repubulicans of "voter suppression" by printing up a couple of flyers or making a non disprovable claim is SOP for Democrats for their "Ground Game" playbook."

Prove it.

Ann Althouse said...

"Getting such records from the phone company takes much longer than today's election."

Right. Which is why the Barrett campaign can say what they are saying now to try to get some boost today and only later, when it doesn't matter, will we find out anything. And at that point, they'll still be able to say well all we said was we heard from a lady who said she got a call and we said "if true."

Then what is the remedy?

Who has the motivation to lie here? That's the best I can do to approximate truth today.

Consider the source: the campaign that has wafted rumors of an impending indictment and some old love-child crap. It's more stink coming from a place that has smelled of desperation for over a week.

edutcher said...

leslyn said...

Considering the majority of democrats believe Dubya was behind 9/11 and that we invaded Iraq for cheap oil....

Prove it.


Any number of polls - Gallup, Pew, etc.

Spend an hour with Google.

damikesc said...

Tim, amazing how that works, huh? :-)

Leslyn, YOUR side is making the accusation. You need to back it up or STFU.

As far as Democrats and 9-11, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html

X said...

leslyn said...
Getting such records from the phone company takes much longer than today's election.

As The Farmer said,

"Prove it."

How?


you have a point. it is impossible to prove something happened if it didn't.

Chef Mojo said...

Leslyn, you might want to pace yourself; it's gonna be a long, bad day for you. Save up your best shots of stupidity for later. More entertaining for the rest of us.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Getting such records from the phone company takes much longer than today's election."

-- I don't think it would; not if there were someone who really wanted to find out. Emergency things happen all the time. Not if a lawyer finds dozens of people willing to swear out to receiving this and convinces a judge that people are being denied their rights. The DoJ is in town, so they could even put in a request or testify or do what they need to do. The only thing stopping you from getting these records are:

1. No one wants to take the case.

2. No one wants to swear in court to receiving these phone calls.

3. You can't find a friendly judge in any jurisdiction in Wisconsin.

4. You can't find someone with the imagination I have to make a big enough stink about it.

You could also get a journalist to approach people at the telephone company for leaks proving it, though that's less of a sure thing. There are ways to get the information, don't be lazy. Prove it.

Last attempt to post this before I give in.

Chip Ahoy said...

My sister, the one fathered by an alien creature from outer space, is transparent as hell this same way. From her perspective as an alien, our ability to detect her motives that she transmits so clearly appears to be psychic. There is no surprise or shock contained in the accusations she makes because it is recognition from within. She projects and sees herself, she thought about these things and now sees them, and blabs what only she sees thus exposing the darkness of her wayward thinking. Her motivations. She could always be read as easily as a primer.

WV: for the numbers, the lossy little pictures of calendar pages are total copouts. 22 could have been a caliber.

Rocketeer said...

Great intro phrase for the sleazy rumor-mongers of the world.

Alluded to above, but it can't be said enough:

At least in part, she's talking to you, Allie Oop.

Stay classy!

leslyn said...

Matthew Sablan said,

"...if a lawyer finds dozens of people willing to swear out to receiving this and convinces a judge that people are being denied their rights. The DoJ is in town, so they could even put in a request or testify or do what they need to do."

And do you really know how long your hypothetical takes, or are you just being disingenuous?

Then, of course, there is the result to consider: Let's say you could interview and get affidavits from dozens of people like you said, find the staff to go through all of them and double check them and run history checks, file the motion and write the brief, get a judge to read the brief and agree to rule on the motion before the polls close--

What's the remedy?

Fen said...

Also, police have set up roadblocks and are using dogs to keep blacks from the polls. Just like Florida 2000.

Fen said...

Barrett is left hoping that a White-Hispanic stalks and kills another black "youth"

Chip S. said...

The only rational point of this latest charge is to prepare an excuse for losing. An excuse that also happens to allow the Perpetual Campaign to move on to its next phase--denying that a Walker win reflected the views of True Wisconsinites™.

phx said...

One reason I don't believe it... or I think it's a limited prank call or a double-false-flag tactic is that it's such a blatantly stupid thing to say. How dumb would you need to be to believe that signing the recall petition counted as voting.

Right. And the stupid Nigerian email scam never actually worked either.

Seeing Red said...

Timing is everything, Wretchard's latest from The Belmont Club:

Tim Arango and Clifford Krauss of the New York Times report that “despite sectarian bombings and political gridlock, Iraq’s crude oil production is soaring, providing a singular bright spot for the nation’s future and relief for global oil markets as the West tightens sanctions on Iranian exports.” The sky’s the limit apparently. “Foreign executives express cautious optimism that Iraq can eventually produce oil in amounts that could put it in an elite group of exporters with Saudi Arabia and Russia sometime in the 2020s.”

Wait a minute. Surely if America fought a war for oil, then Iraq’s oil resources would be in the hands of evil Republicans? But apparently not. Rather they are in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese. “Exxon Mobil has by far the largest stake of any American company in Iraq, but most of the major players are European and Asian, like Lukoil and Gazprom from Russia, and Chinese companies like China National Petroleum and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.” So there you have it. American blood, Russian and Chinese oil. Funny how that worked out.

X said...

stay useful Allie.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"And do you really know how long your hypothetical takes, or are you just being disingenuous?

Then, of course, there is the result to consider: Let's say you could interview and get affidavits from dozens of people like you said, find the staff to go through all of them and double check them and run history checks, file the motion and write the brief, get a judge to read the brief and agree to rule on the motion before the polls close--

What's the remedy?"

--> Hey, you just wanted to prove it, in a day. You can. You just need to do *work*.

Christopher in MA said...

Edutcher, thanks for having my back.

Like he says, Leslyn, google it.

Original Mike said...

"And the stupid Nigerian email scam never actually worked either."

To actually influence an election, it has to work a lot.

Conserve Liberty said...

This is nothing more than preparing the battlefield for the inevitable challenge and call for a recount - see, we are so close and those nefarious robo calls suppressed the vote.

Original Mike said...

"Also, police have set up roadblocks and are using dogs to keep blacks from the polls. Just like Florida 2000."

I actually watched the hearing by the Civil Rights Commission on voter "suppression" in Florida (it was on C-Span). re: this claim, they hung their hat on one police car with a radar gun set up on a different street and 2 or 3 miles away from a polling place. Pathetic.

Fen said...

This.

Ann Althouse: One reason I don't believe it... is that it's such a blatantly stupid thing to say. How dumb would you need to be to believe that signing the recall petition counted as voting.

Only Dems think their base is this stupid. The goal of the robocall (if it even exists) is to outrage Dems. Thats why the robocall is so lame - its Dems imagining what Goldstein would do.

Matthew Sablan said...

All I'm saying is that this is a provable claim; if Barrett's team is too lazy to prove it, then why should I be expected to reward laziness?

Scott M said...

Does anyone thing some news or cable organization managed to get Trumpka to sit around with them live while results come in?

Old Dad said...

There may be something to this. The caller is depending on the utter ignorance and asininity of those cheese heads who signed the recall petition in the first place. that's compelling.

Original Mike said...

Don't get cocky, Scott.

Scott M said...

Don't get cocky, Scott.

Oh, I'm not. But either way it goes, you'd have to admit that would be must-see-TV.

Hagar said...

"Barrett people," Barrett team"?
As far as I can tell not even the Democrats are in favor of Barrett; he just is the only one they could get to run.

EDH said...

According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”

And the people decrying the effect on the vote of such tactics, "if true", are the ones who make a big deal of arguing for the primacy of evolution?

Original Mike said...

Anybody know if garage is tweeting about secret routers today?

Nathan Alexander said...

Leslyn said:
What's the remedy?

Oh, this one is easy:

Democrats should stop lying about robo-calls.

But asking a Democrat to stop lying or cheating to win an election is like asking a scorpion to not sting you. It's an inherent part of their nature, as the old story goes.

Nathan Alexander said...

According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”

If this specific quote is taken at face value, it's actually pretty much true/accurate.

Fen said...

According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday."

Heh. I've done that to my liberal friends in November:

"Don't forget to vote on Nov 7th!"

gerry said...

If it's on teh internet, it's true.

People are not that naive anymore, thanks to the all-truthful interwebs.

P.S. How many busloads of Barrett voters from Chicago and Detroit have choked the expressways into all the counties along the state line so far today?

RHSwan said...

If the caller is using something like Skype or other internet phone service, I have heard it is impossible to trace.

DADvocate said...

Sorry. I would have commented earlier, but some friends and I bought some prepaid cell phones without giving our true identities. We've been calling Democrats in Wisconsin all morning telling them not to vote. We tell them it's to save the environment and stop climate change.

gerry said...

My sister, the one fathered by an alien creature from outer space, is transparent as hell this same way.

Did her dad carry the pregnancy, or was it conventional?

Also, does she live in Wisconsin?

traditionalguy said...

Walker' voice was hoarse when he spoke last night. That Proves that he made those thousands of calls himself. What a criminal genius he is!

And has anyone gotten back the DNA sample from Walker run through the Criminal Databases? Well if not, then that proves he is a criminal and a cover up master too!

leslyn said...

Christopher in MA said...
"Edutcher, thanks for having my back.

"Like he says, Leslyn, google it."

I have. Why didn't you?

A blog? That's your authority?

1. Polls conducted have asked Americans. I found one poll that asked the respondents to say whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view." Rasmussen Reports.

No Democrat majority.

2. Other polls typically ask:

"Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely" Scripps Howard

"How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?"
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other" Scripps Howard

I find these results (which ask about officials in the government, not the President specifically) unsurprising. On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

"FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack." National Security Archive (broadcast by CBS news in 2002).

Then there's Richard Clarke, Bush's counterterrorism advisor. Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq.

So, the claim posted here that a "majority of democrats believe Dubya was behind 9/11" is false. A majority might not have trusted "some in the government," but that is far from the same.

leslyn said...

gerry said...

"If it's on teh internet, it's true."

"People are not that naive anymore, thanks to the all-truthful interwebs."

"P.S. How many busloads of Barrett voters from Chicago and Detroit have choked the expressways into all the counties along the state line so far today"

So...which part of the original post do you believe?

Chuck66 said...

leslyn...first of all, the report to Pres Bush said that there is a chance that some kind of an attack is being worked on by Islamic terrorists. That was it. No specifics.

Jay said...

Who takes these claims seriously?

In any high profile election I can remember, Democrats have accused Republicans of "voter suppression"

Please.

Original Mike said...

"I find these results (which ask about officials in the government, not the President specifically) unsurprising. On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

"FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack." National Security Archive (broadcast by CBS news in 2002).

Then there's Richard Clarke, Bush's counterterrorism advisor. Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq."


Hell, you believe it, don't you, leslyn?

Brennan said...

Umm, Josh Eidelson is a former 5 year organizer for Unite Here.

So, yeah, he kind of believes the claims of his comrades.

Daddy Binx said...

I feel guilty for finding this so amusing:
WI: "Om the dome" sing-a-long and group meditation

And the singing...

Please, someone, make it stop!

Chuck66 said...

"Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

So 61% of Democrats think Bush did, or at least may have, had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yes, pary of moonbats and wackos.

leslyn said...

Nathan Alexander said...

"Leslyn said:
"What's the remedy?"

Oh, this one is easy:

Democrats should stop lying about robo-calls.

But asking a Democrat to stop lying or cheating to win an election is like asking a scorpion to not sting you. It's an inherent part of their nature, as the old story goes.

You have an unhealthy belief that everyone who doesn't totally agree with you is lying.

leslyn said...

Chuck66 said...
"Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

So 61% of Democrats think Bush did, or at least may have, had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yes, pary of moonbats and wackos

Got it wrong again, Chuck. But you will see what you want to see, whether or not it is there.

purplepenquin said...

One reason I don't believe it... or I think it's a limited prank call or a double-false-flag tactic is that it's such a blatantly stupid thing to say

You talking about the Scott Walker had a love child claim again?



Seriously...looking at the difference between the way you reported that story and this one kinda dispels that "neutral" myth you like to put forth.

Ross said...

The liberals sure are desperate. I look forward to the vote tally tonight.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Seriously...looking at the difference between the way you reported that story and this one kinda dispels that "neutral" myth you like to put forth."

-- One was debunked within, what, a few hours of going live. The other is a whispered rumor that is difficult to check (and which Walker has no interest in checking since it is a lie). Barrett can take actions to prove it. He is apparently too lazy to stand up for the election integrity. He has people telling him this has occurred, but can't be bothered to go through with exposing it. But, let's all ask: What if it were true? What then?

damikesc said...

I find these results (which ask about officials in the government, not the President specifically) unsurprising. On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

Then there's Richard Clarke, Bush's counterterrorism advisor. Clarke said he asked for a Cabinet-level meeting in January 2001, shortly after the president took office, to discuss the threat al Qaeda posed to the United States. "That urgent memo wasn't acted on," Clarke told CBS. Instead, he said, administration officials were focused on issues such as missile defense and Iraq.


How cute, leslyn is a Truther. Scratch a Prog, Find a Twoofer.

OK, genius --- no federal building in NYC was attacked. Thus, the government did all the evidence told them to do.

Should they just shut down all air traffic on the Eastern seaboard forever? Feel free to provide an "action plan" and keep in mind Progressives bitch about most restrictions now AFTER the event already happened. They will bitch more if they propose them BEFORE it happened.

Clarke showed why Bush didn't go to him for much since he is apparently clueless as to what "actionable intelligence" is (hint: "Dude wants to attack the US, somewhere, somehow, eventually" ain't actionable). It's nice to see you, leslyn, self-identify yourself as a rube.

leslyn said...

Chuck66 said...

"leslyn...first of all, the report to Pres Bush said that there is a chance that some kind of an attack is being worked on by Islamic terrorists. That was it. No specifics."

You're correct. It didn't help relieve a growing mistrust, however. Some people want to blame, even if the blame is amorphous.

damikesc said...

Seriously...looking at the difference between the way you reported that story and this one kinda dispels that "neutral" myth you like to put forth.

One is easily debunked.

The other one is nearly impossible to debunk and, literally, no evidence is provided for it.

Got it wrong again, Chuck. But you will see what you want to see, whether or not it is there.

Nope, he spells it out pretty explicitly. You, as a Truther, don't seem able to keep up.

Original Mike said...

"How cute, leslyn is a Truther."

Even in a post with the intent to argue that Democrats aren't crazy, she just can't help herself.

damikesc said...

You're correct. It didn't help relieve a growing mistrust, however. Some people want to blame, even if the blame is amorphous.

...but assuming Obama wasn't born in the US --- THAT is beyond the line. Sure, it's asinine, but less asinine than assuming the government can pull off a 9/11 attack without any actual evidence to demonstrate that.

Accusing a President of allowing the mass murder of thousands? Well, that was his fault for not relieving mistrust.

Chuck66 said...

leslyn, "not sure" means they think Pres Bush may have knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time, but are not sure.

Chip S. said...

@leslyn:

In at least two comments in this thread you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of the fundamental logical propositions that "not all" does not imply "at least one" (the error you make in your response to gerry's 11:34 comment) and that "some" does not imply "all" (the error you make in your 12:01 comment).

Being an internet scold requires more game than you seem to have.

leslyn said...

@Original Mike:

Hell, you believe it, don't you, leslyn?

Believe what, specifically?

@Chuck" Change the poll response to whatever you want it to mean.

Chip S: How quaint.

damikesc said...

Believe what, specifically?

We know you're dense ... but you're not this dense.

You're a Truther. You've already outed yourself on that.

Original Mike said...

Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

damikesc said...

Change the poll response to whatever you want it to mean.

Feel free to differentiate what "no" and "not sure" means, since you seem to think they are basically synonymous.

If 35% say he knew, 39% said he didn't know, and 26% aren't sure --- those 26% sure as heck aren't saying he did not know.

traditionalguy said...

Drinking the Cool Aid upon command must be a DNA defect that surfaces in moments like this one. Natural selection is all the GOP will ever need to trick those voters.

The major new development in the world we live in today is the much higher level of social common sense spreading among all users of digital intelligent devices connected to the internet.

Colleges will all be On Line soon. The Madison elite will seem like everyday klutzes then.

Fen said...

So 61% of Democrats think Bush did, or at least may have, had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Yes, pary of moonbats and wackos

Yup. Just take a peek at DemocratUnderground. They discuss it so much, they even have acronyms to designate their position:

LIHOP = Bush let it happen on purpose

MIHOP = Bush made it happen on purpose

Lesyln loses again.

Patrick said...

Purple said: You talking about the Scott Walker had a love child claim again?

How is one supposed to "neutrally" report the story of an alleged "love child" in which the alleged mother denies the story?

And when the same side brings up a story like this, for which there is no real evidence, wouldn't you see reason for skepticism, even if the story favors your political side? I would think it would.

Chip S. said...

@damikesc, You're wasting your time.

Logic is beyond leslyn's comprehension.

Sigivald said...

Telephone companies have records of at least that person X got a call from some number Y at a given time.

(The number is so easily faked or proxied that it proves little if the caller - if any - was not a complete fool, but presumably the telco could see if that same number called a lot of people in the area...)

A court order could easily get them to reveal that - and I see no reason why a court wouldn't be willing to order that, given that the robocalls, if real, would be illegal, I assume?

(I agree with our host's suspicions - talk is cheap, especially anonymous third-party talk used to energize the base.

If it's true, I want the culprits nailed to the wall... but the behavior of the fundraisers here doesn't make me assured that it's true.)

Jay said...


Should they just shut down all air traffic on the Eastern seaboard forever? Feel free to provide an "action plan" and keep in mind Progressives bitch about most restrictions now AFTER the event already happened. They will bitch more if they propose them BEFORE it happened.


Leslyn/jeremy/love isn't capable of answering these questions.

We could also post a link to the 1998 PDB that was given to Clinton that said the exact same things, but we don't want to be mean.

wildswan said...

There's 96 people in the US named Carol Gibbons in the White Pages but none of them live in Wisconsin

DADvocate said...

According to this poll, 50.8% of Democrats believed to some degree that Bush "was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks." That's a majority.

Original Mike said...

"they even have acronyms to designate their position:

LIHOP = Bush let it happen on purpose

MIHOP = Bush made it happen on purpose"


That's funny. Sad, but funny.

Nathan Alexander said...

You have an unhealthy belief that everyone who doesn't totally agree with you is lying.

Not at all.

I have a healthy belief that when a group of people or individuals have a long history of lying for political gain, their unsupported claims should be considered to be more lies until proven otherwise.

Whereas you have demonstrated you have a unhealthy habit of using linguistic tricks and logical fallacies to try to claim moral high ground.

Which is why you have no credibility for unsupported claims.

Paddy O said...

“If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday."

Even if these calls did happen, I still don't see how this is vote suppression.

It doesn't say signing will count as a vote, it says "your job is done. "What's "your job"? To send a message? To protest Walker? It also says "you don't need to," not "you can't vote.

Sure, it's deceptive (if actually real), but no more deceptive than other political speech like "Walker will bankrupt the state," or Walker hates poor people, or Walker has a love child. How many inflammatory lies took place during the Madison protests? All meant to inflame the masses a certain direction.

Bailey said...

Even if these calls did happen, I still don't see how this is vote suppression.

LOL. Then what is it? Why are the calls being made?

Matthew Sablan said...

"There's 96 people in the US named Carol Gibbons in the White Pages but none of them live in Wisconsin"

-- That doesn't prove any thing. She could have changed her name since last the White Pages updated; she could use a cell phone that originates from another state with no updated street address, etc. It's curious, but not enough to prove that she does not exist/is a composite voter.

gerry said...

So...which part of the original post do you believe?

None of it.

Do you believe we've walked on the moon?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Even in the sea of hellfire, Alinsky nods in approval.

Original Mike said...

Leslyn isn't denying it.

Original Mike said...

Fascinating.

gerry said...

their unsupported claims should be considered to be more lies until proven otherwise

Lessee...is that the same thing as disproving a negative?

damikesc said...

Gerry, nah. That's expecting proof of their claim before it is accepted.

Original Mike said...

Well, I'm off to vote.

Phil said...

Yay, Leslyn!! "Only" 35% of Democrats are abject fucktards! Yay!

Scott M said...

Well, I'm off to vote.

If you signed the recall petition, you don't have to go vote. The signature counts.

Roger J. said...

Legal question for Wisconsonites--what is the vote difference that triggers an automatic recount?
Thanks in advance

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

Someone earlier said 1/2 a percent but it can't be that small. Can it?

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

ScottM and Curious George--Thanks very much for your comments. Much appreciated

Jay said...

And the butt hurt begins:

According to Journal's first set of exit poll data, Walker is winning independents 56% to 42%

Scott M said...

Don't get cocky, kid.

Bailey said...

turnout way up in Milwaukee, extra poll workers called in.

Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.

Jay said...

Bailey said...


Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.


Hilarious.

I like watching you silly people tell yourselves lies in order to get through the day.

Roger J. said...

Re Bailey's post: if the GOP has tried to suppress the black vote in Milwaukee, they appear to have been quite unsuccessful--I am happy to see Wisconsin voters exercising their franchise however the results come out.

Fen said...

Bailey: Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.

Because blacks can be expected to vote for the Dem Plantation Massa?

You certainly seem to have that expectation...

Massa Byrd, is that you?

Scott M said...

Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.

Very interesting. Now...where have I seen that before. Oh! Right. In St Louis. During the presidential election. In 2008. Oh, and 2004. And 2000.

Have fun tonight, Bailey. My kids are more important that the pearl-clutching bound to happen for hours upon hours tonight. If it's even close, the losing side will challenge in court, so outside what scholars typically call "epic butt hurt", there won't be any resolution for days if not weeks.

Curious George said...

"Roger J. said...
Legal question for Wisconsonites--what is the vote difference that triggers an automatic recount?
Thanks in advance"

NONE not Nope. Losing candidate must request it. Within .5% free to loser, over that amount they have to bear costs.

Roger J. said...

hmmm--lots of black people voting in Milwaukee--could the demographics of Milwaukee have anything to do with the composition of voters? The key question is what are the demographics is the State of Wisconsin, IMO.

Calypso Facto said...

Bailey likes to categorize people and intuit their intentions based on the color of their skin. Shocker!

Rusty said...

Bailey said...
turnout way up in Milwaukee, extra poll workers called in.

Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.


Goddamn but you're thick.

Roger J. said...

Clearly the concept of sampling is beyond Bailey's grasp

PatCA said...

Since when can you register to vote on election day??

http://elections.wispolitics.com/

The you know our DOJ is not monitoring for this! They are sending in Spanish speaking lawyers to make sure everyone can vote.

AllieOop said...

Bailey, I've been driving voters to the polls in Milwaukee, it is AMAZING. The turn out is unprecedented, perhaps even bigger than the Presidential race in 2008! Stopped to take a 15 minute break, then we're off again.

Curious George said...

"AllieOop said...
The turn out is unprecedented, perhaps even bigger than the Presidential race in 2008!"

Perfect!

Roger J. said...

Allie--re 15 break--its all about bladder control and laying off the early morning coffee :)

phx said...

Gotta give it up for Allie Oop. She's actually doing something positive for her cause.

chickelit said...

AllieOop said...
Bailey, I've been driving voters to the polls in Milwaukee, it is AMAZING.

Of course Special Ops agent OOP wouldn't dream of doing the same for her own neighbors--even if they were old and housebound.

Calypso Facto said...

And Oop uses poor black people to further her political agenda. Again: shocker!

damikesc said...

Good work, Allie. When you lose, I won't mock you too hard.

phx said...

Of course Special Ops agent OOP wouldn't dream of doing the same for her own neighbors--even if they were old and housebound.

I don't think she'd even help someone with cancer. You see how she uses poor black people as well.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Good luck Governor Walker, I just want you to know, we're all counting on you.

tim in vermont said...

One thing the Obama machine can do is focus national resources on local elections. When it is just one district, they can turn a race. It remains to be seen whether they can turn this one, but if they do, remember that the winner is in charge of investigating fraud, and look for the voter ID law to be gone for good.

Paddy O said...

"LOL. Then what is it? Why are the calls being made?"

If the calls are being made by Republicans, they're just another in a long list of voter misinformation that has happened on both sides since this began, beginning with the doom and gloom assertions made by fleeing Democratic legislators.

Maybe they're calls from Democrats saying that this election doesn't really matter, those who signed the petitions did their job of protesting Walker's actions. Who knows.

They certainly don't contain any real force or intimidation. They're just, if real, ambiguously phrased suggestions. If that keeps a person from actually voting, then that person really didn't have much intent to vote in the first place.

Matthew Sablan said...

"LOL. Then what is it? Why are the calls being made?"

-- Are they being made? Got any one besides Gibson?

phx said...

Maybe they're calls from Democrats saying that this election doesn't really matter, those who signed the petitions did their job of protesting Walker's actions.

Nailed it. You see, if you think about this stuff clearly enough, setting aside all partisanship and prejudices, the truth floats to the top.

tim in vermont said...

I actually know a little about this, and if you knew the right guy at the right phone company and they had the right software and equipment, and he trusted you and wasn't that worried about whether he would lose his job and expose his employer to gawdawful lawsuits, and himself to possible criminal liability, you could know in ten minutes.

That's a lot of ifs.

Bailey said...

They're just, if real, ambiguously phrased suggestions

No. That's called deliberately lying. And it's illegal.

Probably another pro life group, who notoriously loves robocalls and mailing out fake election shit.

Liars for Jesus!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Bailey, I've been driving voters to the polls in Milwaukee, it is AMAZING. The turn out is unprecedented, perhaps even bigger than the Presidential race in 2008! Stopped to take a 15 minute break, then we're off again.

Well, I sure hope you have plenty of free cigarettes and $5 bills to hand out to those voters you scraped up from park benches and Greyhound bus stations.

Any particular poll stations, or just the closest one to drop off your cargo?

:-)

Matthew Sablan said...

"Probably another pro life group, who notoriously loves robocalls and mailing out fake election shit."

-- You know someone who did lie to try and influence the election? Dr. Bernadette Gillick. We know she lied. We have the proof she lied. So, if this law matters, at all, she should be the first person facing charges. Not shadowy people we don't even know if they exist.

Meade said...

garage maBaileyhal

Or is it garBaileyage mahal?

Bob Ellison said...

Not clever enough by half! The reality is that Walker's campaign did make that robocall, because they knew the Barrett campaign would use it to smear Walker, but that people like most in this forum wouldn't believe it, so it would blow up in Barrett's face!

Or maybe...maybe the Barrett campaign made it up, because they knew my supposition would come up, but it would sound so implausible that people would think it would drive Democrats to the polls.

Or...

Sorry if I'm repeating someone else's suggestion above. I didn't have time to go through 163 comments. So I should expect anyone to read this drivel? No.

Paddy O said...

"No. That's called deliberately lying. And it's illegal."

Where's the lie? The phone call, if they did happen, didn't say signing the recall counted as a vote. That would be a lie.

And if lying is illegal why weren't all the protestors who gathered at the capitol arrested?

Lying happens all the time. And indeed, if lying is illegal, then all sorts of smears against Walker the last few days should be prosecuted.

Or is lying just illegal for some, while if it is done for the side we support it's just politics?

Rusty said...

phx said...
Gotta give it up for Allie Oop. She's actually doing something positive for her cause.



Uh huh. Just as long as she's only making one trip per vote. She's nor exactly known for her unimpeachable veracity.

damikesc said...

Well, I sure hope you have plenty of free cigarettes and $5 bills to hand out to those voters you scraped up from park benches and Greyhound bus stations.

Would it be mean to ask if she took them to only ONE polling station? She could always take a vanful to several stations. With no photo ID or, heck, ANY actual verification --- it wouldn't be hard.

chickelit said...

Meade: "Or is it garBaileyage mahal?"

There is a sintactical style similarity, now that you point it out.

Scott M said...

There is a sintactical style similarity, now that you point it out.

Actually, I don't think so. Bailey sentences are too long.

kcom said...

"garage maBaileyhal"

Oops, did you make a mistake and leave someone out?

Seeing Red said...

--Bailey, I've been driving voters to the polls in Milwaukee, it is AMAZING. The turn out is unprecedented, perhaps even bigger than the Presidential race in 2008! Stopped to take a 15 minute break, then we're off again.---


The gravy train getting cut off motivates people.

gloogle said...

I sincerely doubt that after Walker wins the election, we will ever see Allie Oop post at Althouse again. The humiliation will be too much for her to bear.

As for garage, when's the last time he posted here?

gloogle said...

Wonder if she's been driving people from Chicago to the polls?

Unknown said...

Check Big Government - report just in about Rep poll watcher ejected from Madison polling place.

SAFVet said...

Check out Big Government - report just in about a Rep poll watcher in Madison being ejected from the poll...

machine said...

“If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”

You Stay Classy Fitzwalkerstan....

Michael The Magnificent said...

Bailey said... Those pics are pretty much a conservatives worst nightmare. Lots and lots of black people voting.

How prejudiced and bigoted of you to suggest that.

tom swift said...

"Political speech is not automatically protected by the First Amendment."

That's quite a statement.

Christopher in MA said...

Well, like Scott, I've got other things to do tonight than keep tabs on the Wisconsin clusterfuck. So I'll check in tomorrow. But, no matter wht happens, I'll leave my responses:

Walker loses: Looks like your temper tantrum worked, Allie and Garage.

Walker wins HA! Have another big, heaping, throat-choking plate of crow, you two.

tim in vermont said...

"Not clever enough by half! The reality is that Walker's campaign did make that robocall, because they knew the Barrett campaign would use it to smear Walker, but that people like most in this forum wouldn't believe it, so it would blow up in Barrett's face!"

Why do I get the feeling that this monologue ends with "never enter a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line!"