One of the things on the list was: "the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers." I believe that "knowledge" refers to the clerk's failure to include one city's votes in her first report. But Kloppenburg casts aspersions on bloggers as evidence of something worrisome going on.
Who are the bloggers? I'd like the links to the blog posts that support the statement!
I'd like to know if I'm one of the "conservative bloggers," and, if so, why am I being called "conservative"? (At the link, above, you can see why I suspect the reference is to me [and how I got my knowledge]. ) And who are the other bloggers?
Kloppenburg is stirring up public suspicion of the vote-counting process. That is a very serious matter, especially for someone who aspires to a seat on this highest court in the state. She should be scrupulous about the way she presents facts and should not manipulate public opinion. If the evidence does not warrant mistrust, it is injudicious to stimulate mistrust.
Her list of things that "raise significant questions" about the process in Waukesha felt long, but what is really on it?
a one-and-a-half day delay in notifying any responsible party about a county vote total that [the clerk] knew was incorrectIt sounded like big list, but there are only 4 items. And 2 of the items are the absence of anything. An absence of evidence might be probative of something that matters, but you have to build a foundation for why it matters.
the absence of any reasonable basis for her explanations
the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers
the complete absence of knowledge by the canvass board until the press conference
The first item on the list is simply the mistake we all know about: The clerk, Kathy Nickolaus, initially reported zero votes from the city of Brookfield and later provided a vote total. (The vote total is easily consistent with what you would expect from Brookfield.)
The second item is an attempt to make something out of what looks like a mistake. What is the evidence that it's anything but a mistake? The most substantive point is the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers.
So, really, this is important! What was she talking about?
ADDED: Before writing this post, I emailed campaign@kloppenburgforjustice.com: "What does 'the prior knowledge by conservative bloggers' refer to? I would like the names of the bloggers and the links to the blog posts that support this statement." That was 2 hours ago. I'll let you know if I get a response.
AND: Still no response from the Kloppenburg campaign, but a few people have indicated that they think one of the "conservative bloggers" was Christian Schneider, writing at National Review's Corner, noting the "computer error... revealed today" approximately 1 hour before the press conference. I don't know who the other bloggers were or what their sources were.
Posts
137 comments:
She had to say something. You can't just say I want recount because I can get one. Honesty takes courage because nobody wants to hear it.
Where there is no drama, invent it.
I really think she was speaking specifically about you and/or your commenters. I visited other sites covering WI politics that night and the first (maybe only?) one that was talking about the discrepancy was right here.
Now that you're officially a conservative, we expect you'll be attending the Tuesday night meetings where we coordinate our attacks on gays, the poor, and minorities.
If she is really referencing "conservative bloggers" as a vital part of her recount reasoning, then she obviously has no idea how to handle factual evidence, which leads me to conclude that she is in no way judge material. Assuming she is referring to this blog as a prime example, all she--or anyone--would have to do would be to look through the comments in the election threads. Simple as that. When Waukesha County goes from a low percentage of the precincts reporting to a high percentage, and the vote totals have barely changed, it's a pretty obvious flub on the COUNTING end, not some conservative conspiracy that needs to be taken out!
She doesn't know herself what she is talking about. That's why she needs an investigation, to find out what she's talking about.
Boy, Wisconsin, you really dodged the bullet this time. Can you imagine having this temperament a sitting judge?
I assume your questions are rhetorical...
She had no problem with the "Prosser <3 Pedophiles" ad, do you really think casting aspersions on you or the Waukesha County clerk is a problem?
She lied and/or twisted the facts yesterday. Big surprise.
Why don't you walk over to her house and ask her?
She's a slighted woman that also buys into any conspiracy theory to fit her mindset. It's scary to think another moonbat like her could be sitting on our Supreme Court.
This next comment is completely off-topic, but I just noticed it:
Today is Julian day 111. 11111 if you add the year, but not the century. There will be a special ceremony at 11:11.
You said you suspected the total was off, right? That's what she's talking about. It's a desperate clutching at straws. Will cost the state millions, her floundering about. "If I don't win, I'll make sure everybody loses." It's childish, but what do you expect from the starry eyed hope and change crowd.
The vortex claims another victim.
Well, Professor Althouse, I suspect you are conservative by the standards of Madison, Wisconsin.
And what she is calling "prior knowledge" seems to be your noticing that there was a discrepancy in the Waukesha vote totals on election night. In other words, you're a conservative (by her standards), who turns out to be smarter than she is (not a particularly high bar to pass IMAO), and conservatives are stupid (according to lefties), so you must have had prior knowledge. Q.E.D.
And, please tell, is Kloppenburg really the best that the perpetually-enraged-about-something-or-another Left can come up with in the way of a judge? Because, if so, then they're pretty hopeless.
Why don't you walk over to her house and ask her?
That would rob Althouse of about 50 blog posts. I think Klopp meant the NRO, and some other outlets that knew beforehand the Nickolaus "I forgot to tell you guys about these 7500 votes" announcement was coming. There was something in the complain about Walker meeting Prosser secretly the day after the election?
Considering Ms Klop is a member of the WI bar (presumabably) and as a fellow lawyer yourself, perhaps you should ask her directly--professional courtesy and all of that
Apolgies to Mad Man who asked the question earlier
note to self--read entire thread before commenting
and the woman from the Wisconsin State Journal on van Susteren last night added to the Kloppenburg list the fact that Kathy Nickolaus is a known Republican.
So, suspicions confirmed! It has to be fraud!!!
However, you should be careful aboout what you wish for. There are some grumblings out in the weeds about the character of the votes from Milwaukee and Dane County too.
garage, What does any of that have to do with the vote counting? You forgot to mention area 51.
And you're pretty hopeless, too, garage.
"What was she talking about?"
Herself.
Her sense of entitlement.
The innate superiority of her ideas.
Etc.
The list is long.
(I started out with some respect for this woman. She was taking the time to run for public office against long odds. I hoped it had something to do with beliefs, convictions and a sense of duty. Now what I see is another self-entitled, narcissistic, ill-educated crank.)
"She" (i.e. JoAnne Kloppenburg) likely isn't saying or implying anything. I suspect that all of the items on her list are talking points that were agonizingly constructed and vetted by local democratic operatives over the past several days. One easily could get distracted by the specific charges, but what strikes me is the similarity in tone and content with the statement supposedly put out by Ramona Kitzinger last week.
What was she talking about?
It doesn't matter.
She is enabling a narrative that bozo's like garage can lap up...
A friend and I were chatting online for most of the night, and both of us noted the discrepancy in Waukesha County. I think we both count as conservatives, too. So maybe she was eavesdropping on my instant-messaging.
Is she a parrot or a paranoid? That is, is she repeating some punchlist a PR flak gave her? Or does she really believe in her petty objections?
It can be mesmerizing, if not exactly heartwarming, to watch partisans construct their bunkers. Perhaps Kloppenburg has really convinced herself into thinking that the easily corrected oversight of Brookfield's vote totals is a nefarious conspiracy. One hopes she's just a parrot.
Certainly some of our beloved progressive commenters here exhibit the same baffling conviction. There's only so many ways to maintain suspicion about something so plainly unsuspicious; I hope, by now, we've seen them all.
Maybe Kloppenberg reads the blogs (blogs?) that have triggered her paranoia, but that would be unfortunate. That would mean she's not a parrot, and not just paranoid, but a poltroon as well.
Althouse should invite her to comment here with her suspicions. Perhaps some ridicule will act as therapy.
Actually, there was a buzz about the announcement of the missing votes about 2-3 hours before the press conference in which the announcement was made.
The likely reason? Someone whispered something. BFD. Complete secrecy in advance of an announcement didn't hold.
I saw it on some WI reporter's twitter feed, which was blogged by someone else. (I live in WA state.) I forwarded it on to hotair, and they blogged about it around 20 minutes or so later.
News travels fast in the Internet age. Stop the presses.
Today is Julian day 111.
Not to be a dick, but it's actually ordinal day 111. Julian day is something else. Some other dick corrected me another time.
What if Prosser gave the same speech?
It might have been better for her and her side (the wave of Lefty anger that could wash her away as well) to accept defeat graciously. Long term calculation and all. Hopefully she's not so naive as to think they really like her.
Ride that wave by the light of the Madison moon, Kloppy.
Her voice sounds like she's talking to a bunch of kindergartners, or perhaps she's merely telegraphing her concern for the poor, the ever-reformable, or the union man.
"Conservative" bloggers apparently have this unnatural ability to look at previous vote totals and current vote totals and notice a difference. I wonder whether she considers Politico to be "Liberal" or "Conservative".
Short question, why the labels at all? Would the real issue be if insider knowledge of voter irregularities was known by anybody, regardless of affiliation?
Maybe now would be a good time to upgrade the qualifications necessary to run for Wisconsin supreme court justice. It seems they are much too lax.
Professor;
You can't fool us, you have been as consistently conservative as Texas has been Republican.
SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!
Kloppy is annoyed
Because she stopped faking votes
Before it was time.
Liberals always cast aspersions. They suffer from aspersion syndrome. A condition for which their is no cure.
I guess more technically accurate would be noticing a lack of difference in vote total despite a change in status.
When this is over, can we use Kloppenburg's arguments here as proof that apparently liberals indeed do not have brains? Or a least that they are extremely unperceptive, despite their claims of understanding nuance.
Use a condom, don't get The Klopp
Kloppy and the Dems are just upset b/c the Waukesha error made it much more difficult for her crew to "find" the votes necessary to steal the election. They just won't say as much.
Repeating what I said in the other thread, it's ironic that on election night when the totals showed her ahead by 200 votes, Kloppenburg instantly declared victory! 200 votes was enough to erase all doubt in her mind!
But after the official totals (not the erroneous AP-reported totals) came in, 7300 votes is too few for Prosser to have won.
Someone call her on this. Why was she so sure of the outcome when she led by so few votes, but now she demands a recount when she lost by 36 times that same amount?
Use a condom, don't get The Klopp
Especially when visiting a Prossertute.
Lets be honest here...
If Brookfield reports on time
Klöppy wins the race.
Donks don't stop counting
Until they have enough votes...
Or they think they do!
From the perspective of several states away (Ohio), I thought Prosser looked limp as a candidate; he was extremely fortunate in his opponent.
Barring some vanishingly unlikely turn of events, this recount is very likely to help him and hurt the left, because (a) it will uphold the outcome; and either (b) Kloppenburg will accept that or (c) she won't; in any case, her nuttier allies certainly won't. And when that happens, the resulting freak show will be the unwelcome face of the opposition in Wisconsin. It will be something like what the White House has--by inaction--tried to make happen with the "birther" issue.
So it may be that what Gov. Walker said in the "secret" meeting with Prosser was, "never interfere when your opponent is busy destroying herself."
Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change? I think main reason to do the recount is to clear the air, and if voting irregularities occur in Milwaukee or Waukesha expose them to keep the system healthy.
You don't understand what's happening here. The Dems are trying to de-legitimize the electoral process. Anything and everything they say about things that are wrong with the vote is projection. They have been accusing conservatives of doing exactly what they do. The Dems want power, control, and money. Not honest elections.
Clear the air? Did you read Althouse's post? 2 of the 4 "points" made by Kloppenburg are designed entirely to muddy the waters. Try again.
So, really, this is important! What was she talking about?
Liz Hurley beauty tips. We've been over this already. Geez. Relax, you'll give yourself wrinkles.
Henry said...
"Is she a parrot or a paranoid?"
"Parrot," I'm guessing, but that doesn't absolve her of responsibility for her charges.
BTW, a less innocuous label would be "stooge."
Adding to peter hoh, is this the highest level victim of the vortex?
PoNyman - sadly, no. There will be more... and higher level victims of the vortex - they don't know when to stop.
wv: jautdog
Those who think this is just Kloppenburg tossing red meat to her genocidal base, just remember: in the Obamanation the Far Left will always double-down. Always.
I'm pretty sure that Kloppenburg wasn't the "chosen" liberal candidation. I don't think that anyone thought that Prosser was beatable, so no one paid much attention to the candidates who opposed him and the canidates who opposed him were pretty much self-selected. Of course, things happened and all of a sudden liberals realized that Kloppenburg could be used to advance their cause. The liberals were lucky that Kloppenburg happened to be a very liberal person who was easily influenced by those around her, and Kloppenburg was lucky because all of a sudden she went from being a sure loser to a candidate that had a shot at unseating Prosser. Klooppenburg is smart, but it turns out that she is not a practical person and that she is a weak person who is easily influenced by those around her, neither of which traits make a good Supreme Court judge in my opinion.
Threemonths ago, Kloppenburg was electoral cannon fodder because the (re)progressives needed somebody to run against Prosser.
Given Kloppenburg's apparent lack of clarity of thought and communication and her astonishing lack preparedness for the news conference, it amazes me how the (re)progressives are rallying around her like the second coming.
I mean, really, does this woman have the mental acuity and gravitas to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
I think obviously not. But in all likelihood she will be honored forever as a martyr for the “cause”.
How long before Democrats start demanding "international observers" to oversee future Wisconsin elections. Observers from (say) North Korea, China and Iran?
Kloppy may truly not understand it all. When she talked about numbers in her victory speech, she had a deer-in-headlights looks like she herself didn't understand what she was saying and hoped she wouldn't be called on it. Now the numbers have changed, and the explanation for it may require a mental capability she doesn't possess.
My ex-wife is like that. Very smart in some ways, but when it comes to anything numerical, no matter how simple, she becomes absolutely retarded.
Ann -
You're going to have to get used to this. If you are an honest 'truth seeker' ( you seem to be one, to me), you will eventually be labeled a 'conservative', as you will be finding more social and political truth in that direction, the more you look.
Same sort of thing happens if you are a 'realist', as you will be eventually labeled a 'pessimist', given human nature and the indifferent universe ( just ask the dinosaurs ) we all reside in.
I wonder when the Wisconsin Democratic Party is going to realize that running Democrats from Madison for the Supreme Court is a losing proposition? It's unfortunate that they (Democrats from Madison) are most likely to get through the primary.
It's sorta the mirror image of Conservative Republicans (Socially Conservative) getting through the primaries for other offices.
Is this Kloppenburg "Scream in Racine" moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ6nQaE2FM8) where her political bias becomes so obvious that the electorate can no longer ignore it? The original "Scream in Racine" moment occurred during an annual union rally in Racine, WV when then West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren Mcgraw ranted about how Republicans were "destroying democracy" among other things.
Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change?
How about a 200 vote difference versus 7000+ vote difference.
It wasn't just "conservative bloggers".
From KausFiles, April 7:
P.S.: Am I crazy, or does The Nation’s Wisconsin reporter John Nichols sound surprisingly tentative when describing the eventual outcome?
I have a feeling Ms. Kloppenburg’s numbers might well hold. … If Kloppenburg wins, as I do think is very likely now …
Does he know something we don’t?
MarkG said: How about a 200 vote difference versus 7000+ vote difference.
That's exactly what I was going to say! There's a heck of a lot of difference right there.
It's just another example of the kind of myth-making Democrats rely one (nowadays disconcertingly known as "narrative") in lieu of learning. Whenever an election doesn't go their way, or a policy fails to produce the promised results they blame it on conspiracy. This relives them of responsibility for their own fate; they never learn. And it's also the reason this nation is headed at flank speed for Third World status. The Democrats have only had three ideas in their entire history, and only one since Woodrow Wilson.
Gosh, here we are away from the media giants who used to make money selling advertising space, placed near their crappy stories.
If you've seen the graphs, you know they've lost subscribers. Which means they've lost money. Not that I care.
One of the "take aways" from Kloppy is that she is so obviously LYING!
Heck, the night she announced her "sublime happiness" at winning ... someone said her 'eye blinks give her away.' She's LYING.
This time around? Well, if you didn't puke, you got to her "finger snapping" ... and even here she's weak on finger snapping.
You know, I don't think Anne, that you had to email Kloppy. Because she won't answer. But you bet,she is surrounded by stinkers who run here so they can snicker behind her back.
The other disaster? Besides her "turkey neck" red cover? Her skirt was way too short! And, nobody in that room walked away impressed.
But she did it!
The bar has been lowered on what we expect candidates to stay ... Let alone what we expect from the robed wonders.
I think she wore black to prove she'd look great in a robe, too.
And, she wants to give "Loophole Louis" a run for his money.
I miss Groucho Marx's You Bet Your Life. When the duck would fly down with a $50 in its beak, if the contestant said the magic word.
Watching Kloppy, someday, can be a game to see when such a duck would fly down.
PS: No, she won't take on a law professor on this topic, either.
What blows my mind is Ms. K has degrees from Yale and Princeton, and a law degree from UW. She is not stupid. And despite her soft spoken demeanor she is playing political hardball. My gut tells me that Justice Prosser should be very wary.
Hey, Haiku Guy!
Kloppy's spring is stormy.
The counting was cut short.
Prosser looks at ease.
Overlooked Kloppenburg Votes Headed for Wisconsin
There goes that "creamy hippie love chick center".
And Meade loved it sooo much.
Now nothing but "crusty Conservative coating" all the way through.
WV "palimp" What the Lefty trolls go every time Miss Sarah breathes in their direction.
The US military calls the numbered day of the year the Julian Date. They may be wrong, but they have taught millions of people to call it that over the years.
shiloh must be cackling right now. A big I TOLD YOU SO. Oh you hillbillies, you've been had.
She says at the end that the law "requires" a recount. It, of course, does not.
I'm at a complete loss as to what Kloppenburg and her cohort think happened here, what kind of "fraud" was committed. Surely they can't believe the Brookfield votes were fabricated out of thin air. Can they? What, then??
I know we're all pretty much stuck with the voice God gives us, but, JoAnne, after listening to you, fingernails on a chalk board would be a relief.
Ann, I'm interested in knowing if you've noticed any changes in the attitudes of your colleagues and students toward you since all this began.
"Is she a parrot or a paranoid?"
Yes.
Do you understand what big trouble you 'baggers are in? You tampered with an election. Time to frog march all of ya!
Ann, I'm interested in knowing if you've noticed any changes in the attitudes of your colleagues and students toward you since all this began.
Shun mode ON.
Kloppenburg is just showing she's a loser, in more ways than one.
Can't really expect judicious conduct from someone with no judicial experience, now can you?
Kloppenburg is a typical sore loser(in the vane of an Algore type)and she doesn't give a hoot about honesty or the cost of the recount...that's typical of the Unions in Wisconsin: Let them raise taxes to pay us and to pay for the useless vote recount.Then to add insult to injury Kloopenburg throws in the allegation of a fraudulent election?
@roesch voltaire
Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change?
First, the margin of victory at that time was ~200 votes. Now it's over 7300, and close to the statutory limit for an automatic recount of 0.5%.
Second, as Prof. Althouse and others noted the night of, Waukesha's results looked off. Prosser's people probably saw the same thing. Now Kloppenburg's people are saying what exactly, that Waukesha's original report was the accurate one, and that Kloppenburg is still ahead by 200 votes?
The reason it sounds like such a long list is that she's unbelievable slow and dull in how she talks.
And I don't mean like a normal adult who is careful, but in a peculiar way.
She's like that stewardess lead actress in 'Airplane', only slowed down 90%.
She spent 10-20 seconds in silence before answering 'Do you think you won'. She could make a McDonalds Menu seem longer than the Old Testament.
Anyway, her judgment is very flawed to raise this accusation of prior knowledge in a press conference. She hasn't specified specifically what constitutes the charge, and why not? She said we need to shine light on the process and be absolutely sure, even when the chances of Prosser not winning are unbelievably low, but she hides important details? The truth is that Klopp knows she was lying, and she knows she did that to delegitimize Prosser's victory.
That's been her MO all along. She insisted she won before the results were even in, or canvassed, and that was because it was clear a large number of Prosser votes were about to be counted. The writing was on the wall, and surely the candidates knew of the problem. By announcing victory, she delegitimizes the true result.
It's very slimy, much like her reliance on that molestation ad. Her defense is that 'there is no evidence I'm linked'. Not that she disagrees with that kind of horrible ad. An ad that punishes Prosser for being a good judge, even when the defendant is hated.
I guess I could go on for a long time on this. It's sad that Wisconsin took Klopp seriously.
The so-called Julian Date is a quantity used by astronomers which consists of the number of days since January 1, 4713 BC, noon Universal (Greenwich) Time. According to the Paris Observatory, noon today in the Central Daylight Time standard in the Althouse blog will be Julian date 2455672.7916666665.
close to the statutory limit for an automatic recount of 0.5%.
Wups, excuse me, that was wrong. It's close to the 0.5% statutory limit for a state-financed recount. I don't know if there's a threshold for an automatic recount or not.
"I'll let you know if I get a response."
We won't be holding our fucking breath on that one.
Kleptoberg is too important to deign to interact with a mere law professor - especially one who ... oh my dear ... blogs (sniff).
Mw. Kloppenburg made an equally incredulous claim yesterday that hasn't gotten much attention when she asserted that the ostensibly independent Government Accountability Board is "not independent."
Its ironic since all six of the Board's members were appointed by Jim Doyle.
Two points to make:
A) I remember during the Annette Ziegler/Linda Clifford Supreme Court race, it was noted that the conservatives ran a "babe", while the progressives ran a "donkey". Kloppenberg definitely falls on the "donkey" end of the spectrum, no?
B) I think Kloppenberg does have a lot riding on the outcome. During her "victory" speech she mentioned putting 15,000 miles on her mother-in-law's Buick while campaigning. I imagine she and her husband have promised the mother-in-law that they will move out of her basement as soon as Kloppenberg gets a better job.
The Klopp reminds me of a kintergardener upset when eliminated from game of Musical Chairs. She has been told that she must ask for a recount to have a chance for the next dem nomination.
Rs should hope she gets it.
Drew at 9.35 won this thread.
Althouse, your continued insistence you’re not a conservative blogger is part of what makes you a conservative blogger -- your utter denial of reality.
Gee, how about starting with the fact that you always defend conservatives/tea partiers and always mock/complain about liberals -- at least every time I look in on this blog you do? And how about the fact that you're a big fan of Rush Limbaugh? Jesuschrist -- Helloooo! Oh, and your being for gay marriage doesn't count because if I'm not mistaken, you have a gay son. That's right, IT DOESN'T COUNT because like Dick Cheney being okay with gay marriage who just happens to have a lesbian daughter or Nancy Reagan supporting federally-funded adult stem cell research whose hubby just happened to have a disease that could potentially be cured by it, shit has to hit home with conservatives before they finally get it. And in case you or anyone in your conservative peanut gallery accuse me of going over the line with personal attacking, pause for a minute or ten minutes or whatever it takes and seriously try to understand this point of view: I don't consider homosexuality something to be ashamed of. So I’m not attacking your son at all about anything.
Secondly, it’s surely no surprise to you that those who “mistakenly” call you a conservative blogger always seem to be liberals because they’re generally wrong anyway, right? Conversely, it always seems to be conservatives/non-liberals who “correctly” observe that you’re not a conservative blogger because they’re generally right about stuff anyway, right? Is this not your observation? Of course it is. And it’s as cluelessly un-self-aware and absurd as the first thing you said that made me notice you when you told Bob Wright on Bloggingheads several years ago that it’s liberals who are mean to you (with your “cruel neutrality”) while conservatives are nice to you; and your explanation for this was that it’s because liberals look for heretics and conservatives look for converts. Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be because of any bias on your part to the right-wing, oh no. Ugh.
Like an observant, much more eloquent and concise commenter than me once said over at Bloggingheads:
The least attractive thing about Althouse is her pretension to evenhanded, sensible non-partisanship.
This quality is evidently shared by her fans.
Oops, that was supposed to be embryonic stem cell research.
"Althouse, your continued insistence you’re not a conservative blogger is part of what makes you a conservative blogger -- your utter denial of reality.
"
So let me get this straight, you're deranged enough to think being conservative means denying reality, and you think you're an authority on who is and is not conservative?
She voted for Obama! She's a professor in Madison! She's hardly socially conservative, and she's criticized Republicans many times.
What exactly makes you so sure she's conservative? Is CNN conservative to you? Is Greta Van Susteren? Is Bill Clinton?
Let's face it: Althouse gets to decide if she's conservative or not. It's not important, anyway. This isn't some kind of sport with opposing sides. She just wants to talk about issues and nonsense. Why do you need to label her conservative?
Oh yeah, because then you can say that proves she has no credibility, of course. Because that's how you think. That's not 'reality', that's 'delusional'.
Of course she's talking about you, Ann, when she says "conservative bloggers." And by "conservative," she means what every other movement leftist means by "conservative," "far right," "wingnut" and similar terms: she means, anyone who disagrees with her or questions her about any part of her belief system or her power claims. "Conservative" is an all-purpose epithet meant to delegitimize (by questioning of motives and imputation of the list of sins attributed to "conservatives") anyone who stands, or is perceived to stand, in their path.
oops--"transcendentally" sorry for the typo
Why did K was sured she won by 200 AP votes, and raised hell about P's 3000+ votes?
Simple: She knew the Democratic Party would always make just enough votes to win. By exposing the AP mistake so late, the Republican county clerk had deprived the Dem Party their chances to make enough votes. All those cemeteries ballots, abandoned warehouse votes were shredded as confetti in K's victory euphoria. The Republican county clerk had definitely "stolen" K's entitled Supreme seat. The clerk must be made to pay, the Wisconsin taxpayers who did not vote for her must pay with their tax dollars, every vote for P must be challenged so he could not take his seat, and Govt. Union vs Wisconsin Taxpayers would be decided 3-3, letting Sumi's silly ruling stay.
To paraphrase Daddy Kennedy: I'll buy you just enough votes to win, no more and no less.
Fr Fox said:
From the perspective of several states away (Ohio), I thought Prosser looked limp as a candidate; he was extremely fortunate in his opponent.
Prosser thought he was running in a sober, dull election. He was running as a sober, dull jurist. It wasn't until after the return of the Fleebaggers and the effort to turn what was a boring election into a hyperpartisan attack on the Governor that Prosser's demeanor became an issue at all.
Frankly, I think judges should be boring.
I imagine she and her husband have promised the mother-in-law that they will move out of her basement as soon as Kloppenberg gets a better job.
The Kloppenburg's house is a very nice one on Madison's near west side. Your imagination could use some work.
I think it's hilarious that "joklo" (heh) has the gall to accuse Althouse in this way, but is too cowardly to reply to a direct response.
She can't stand up to Althouse? I mean, this is one nasty accusation. 'Prior knowledge'. It's just the little tilt you need to turn a cleared up mistake into a theft.
I guess this is the kind of person who would actually shut down the legislature if the voters wanted republicans to run it. this is the kind of person who would say 'If I can't have you, nobody will!'.
Klopp seems so trashy. Before I thought she was a bit dim, obviously hopeful of being a judicial activist because her politics are so much more important than the system itself to her, but now... she just seems like desperate trash.
I didn't even have a problem with the recount. I just asked that she handle this honorably. Throwing lies around is not OK.
@Drew 4/21/11 9:35 AM said...
. . .
Why was she so sure of the outcome when she led by so few votes, but now she demands a recount when she lost by 36 times that same amount?
The answer is really very, very simple -- it was not just about the numbers.
Understand?
See, her declaration of victory with a 204 vote lead was made before the GAB oversaw the entire county-by-county canvassing process, one whereby each of the counties verified their totals, many of which changed as they more carefully double checked their numbers, including the three counties [Milwaukee, Crawford, Sauk] that kept adding and re-adding their columns of figures, hoping the outcome would somehow change in favor of Kloppenburg; while the 7,316 statewide vote difference was arrived at only after that entire process had taken place.
Oh wait . . . never mind!
Does anyone else find the sexism overwhelmingly offensive in these comments?
Does asking for recall really make Kloppenburg "unpractical" and "weak?" If roles were reversed and Prosser was asking for the recount, I have a feeling most of the comments would be praising his strength.
Comments on her appearance also seem really misplaced. Why does it matter that she wears scarves? How does that affect her abilities as a Supreme Court candidate?
Kloppenburg didn't understand the numbers like your ex-wife? Ick.
With what information are people supposed to cast their vote for Supreme Court justice? Why hasn't anyone here mentioned decisions by Prosser that they liked or disliked?
Is there a relation between asking for a recount and writing a reasoned legal opinion? After all, she not breaking the law. Why is her decision seen by the commenters being not judicial?
Why is her decision seen by the commenters being not judicial?
Well, for starters, because she said that the law "requires" a recount...
"Comments on her appearance also seem really misplaced. Why does it matter that she wears scarves?"
Considering that the scarves are always red pardon me for mistaking her for a member of the Cuban Communist Party.
Ann, any word yet from Camp Kloppenburg on any of the "specific identifiers" from their Konservative Glossary of Bloggers (KGB)?
Well Mikio quoting the poor souls at boringheads is really not the way to convince anybody about anything.
Shouldn’t you be worried about your radioactive sushi? Just sayn’
Obviously Ann, you are smarter than Kloppenburg and for that, its off the Gulag with you!
" Does anyone else find the sexism overwhelmingly offensive in these comments? "
LOL.
She's a dishonest idiot who lies about the law and the facts.
Her vagina has nothing to do with it, though she is also quite ugly, so that opens her up to a lot of the typical petty crap people say about ugly people. That's not helpful or anything, but it would be similar if she had a penis instead of a vagina.
End of the story is that Klopp lacks the ability to follow the law or the evidence. She's absolutely not qualified for any role in government, especially as a judge.
We need a recall petition against her boss, unless she's terminated. We don't need liars who don't honestly report the law handling prosecutions.
Insofar as someone's been sexist to her, or Tricia, or Governor Walker, or Prosser, or Althouse, sure... that's no good, but Klopp stinks anyway.
That's more or less my response when someone points to a murky group of people in such a context.
"They got names? No? Then shut up."
roesch-voltaire said...
Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it, I wonder why the change?
r-v, would you mind giving us a source for your rememberance? Newspaper? TV? I've googled but just can't seem to find exactly when it was David Prosser said he was "for" a re-count.
@TGI: That's opening a real can of worms to say that she is also "quite ugly." I mean, some people insist that Michelle Obama is beautiful but it doesn't add credibility to the discussion.
It might help if we could just mentally put bags on everybody's heads (men and women) and discuss the issues apart from looks.
"That's opening a real can of worms to say that she is also "quite ugly." I mean, some people insist that Michelle Obama is beautiful but it doesn't add credibility to the discussion. "
Yes, I know. I'm just granting that Klopp has taken some attacks with don't really have anything to do with a legitimate issue.
Sure. Especially she is physically not attractive. Personally, I don't care. It's not like Prosser is physically attractive either.
So there's always this element of people saying nonsense insults, and that is always worse when they talk about ugly people. Such is life. People are jerks.
It's bad. It's bad whether Klopp is your idea of beauty or not, and whether these attacks are directed at Walker (he's gotten much more bigotry and personal attacks that are nonsense than Klopp has).
But the fact remains that, when we ignore the nonsense and accusations of insensitivity, Klopp does not handle the law with honesty. She does not handle the evidence with honesty. She plays hardball, even if that harms the innocent. And she wants to be a judge.
"This is truly an historic election," Prosser said. "There is little doubt there's going to be a recount in this race, no matter who comes out on top -- tomorrow or today or whenever. But I'm very pleased we have sustained the most difficult assault on a person's character in the whole history of the Wisconsin judicial system. We're still in this race, I've weathered the nuclear blast and I'm still standing. Okay maybe not for it, but not against it either, Meade.
Also, Meade's memory has no holes. Prosser never said anything about a recount. That's just another lie.
I remember that Kos diary where so many said it's great to just lie and lie and lie to establish a narrative. But Prosser was quite classy about this. He knew, when Klopp was saying she won, that this was when they figured out a reporting problem existed. He knows what she did, but he's just being quiet.
Frankly, he could call her a bitch. People who trample on laws and the truth deserve to be called out. But that would be unprofessional of Prosser.
Not to mention the point that calling for a recount with 200 votes of margin is 30 times more reasonable than doing so with 7000 votes of margin. But he didn't.
"Okay maybe not for it, but not against it either, Meade."
Exactly.
Prosser didn't call for a recount, period. Even with 1/30th of the margin!
Of course, he wouldn't have to if the vote was that close, but it wasn't. When Klopp claimed victory, she was trying to freeze in time a point she knew was fleeting and incorrect. Why would prosser call for a recount when it was already clear he had won?
I have no dog in this fight at all--seems to me Ms Klop is within her rights to ask for a recound IAW wisconsin law--her explanatory comments seem a bit over the top but it is politics.
In the end Mr Prosser will win, but Ms Klop... has burnished the meme that republicans are evil, democrats are good and somehow the conservative bloggers and Koch brothers are all behind some grand conspiracy.
and in the end who really gives a damn what happens in wisconsin--(although I will credit the packers--the only good thing that has come out of wisconsin in 60 years)
@smsvends at 4/21/11 1:39 PM ...
You asked, in part:
. . .
Is there a relation between asking for a recount and writing a reasoned legal opinion? After all, she not breaking the law. Why is her decision seen by the commenters being not judicial?
As to the relationship, "Yes." As had been carefully pointed out by several commenters, she publicly and confidently declared that she was absolutely the winner the day after the election, whilst holding a very, very thin and utterly unverified lead of 204 votes, prior to the beginning of the GAB overseeing a statewide canvassing process.
Not to pun, but that was a "good" example of what any reasonable person would call "bad judgment." And judgment is, one would hope, the primary qualifier for judges and justices -- not just writing, but thinking.
Following that lengthy statewide, county-by-county canvassing process -- after all the checking and double-checking had been undertaken in every county in the entire state, and an investigation had been completed of the reporting "anomaly" in Waukesha County, it became very clear that Joanne Kloppenburg was down by 7,316 votes. She lost.
But, in spite of her prior victory declaration, she suddenly decided to undertake a "free" recount (one paid for by the taxpayers) for reasons that are very thin indeed, including one regarding yet-unexplained aspersions that she cast at so-called "conservative bloggers," which is the topic of this post! Do you have a response to the question Joanne Kloppenburg refuses to answer?
Under the circumstances, that decision to seek a recount stands out as a second example of bad judgment on her part.
Your question suggests that you somehow equate her "right" to ask for a recount, to a sufficient justification for seeking one . . . because it's not illegal!
Just because you have the "right" to do something does not mean you should go right ahead and do it! Clearly, in her press conference she did not make the case for going forward with the recount. There is little if any chance at all that she would prevail, or even come close to prevailing in a recount.
The full canvassing process did not result in the unearthing of any evidence whatsoever that could possibly change anything more than perhaps a few votes.
Finally, to date, no one has produced any evidence that any candidate has ever come even remotely close to overcoming a 7,316 vote deficit in a full recount in Wisconsin.
This is simply a case of one instance after another of exercising bad judgment on her part, post-election. Since April 5th, I'd argue that she has persuasively shown that she actually lacks the requisite qualifications, and that Wisconsin has dodged a bullet.
But what you said was that we should remember that Prosser was "for a re-count before he was against it."
Why were you telling us to remember something that never happened, r-v? To make Prosser appear to be a liar or a hypocrite or someone who can't be trusted?
Some people are saying that JoAnne Kloppenburg's true motive for requesting a recount (yesterday she erroneously asserted "the law requires a recount") is to delegitimize an otherwise free and fair democratic election for supreme court judge.
Many people have suspected that the protesters and Democrats and public employee union officials have been trying to delegitimize the free and fair democratic election of November 2010.
roesch-voltaire, what is your motive for trying to get readers here to remember something that never happened?
Meade--when Mr R-V provides some documentary evidence to support his assertion, we can safely think him to be a liar. I will, of course, retract my statement in light of any evidence Mr R-V can summon. Link required
Some people are saying
This is a rhetorical device that bugs me. If Some people are saying it, you should be able to quote them (that's a generic you addressed to all who use this -- Presidents seem very fond of it. It's not addressed to you specifically, Meade).
I've ground this axe before. Apologies for the duplication.
TGI said: But the fact remains that, when we ignore the nonsense and accusations of insensitivity, Klopp does not handle the law with honesty. She does not handle the evidence with honesty. She plays hardball, even if that harms the innocent.
Agreed. As I said last night, I heard nothing but hubris when she spoke last night. And it seems to me (though I cannot prove) that others more powerful than she are putting her up to this. Not unreasonable considering what's at stake here.
wv: capersc
Hey it should be "caperwi," not "capersc."
WV is losing street cred.
rogerj wrote --(although I will credit the packers--the only good thing that has come out of wisconsin in 60 years)
I resemble that remark, especially since I am younger than 60 and "came out of" Wisconsin (not to quibble with your assessment of the Pack).
wv: aranish. The secret language of white supremacists.
MadisonMan,
Kindly put the axe down and slowly back away from the computer, my friend.
Here you go:
"Kloppenburg is stirring up public suspicion of the vote-counting process. That is a very serious matter, especially for someone who aspires to a seat on this highest court in the state. She should be scrupulous about the way she presents facts and should not manipulate public opinion. If the evidence does not warrant mistrust, it is injudicious to stimulate mistrust." - Ann Althouse
I posted the quote upon which my memory was based, and yes he did not say he was "for" a recount, but my only sinister motivation was to suggest that Prosser seemed to acknowledge that a recount would take place, which is different than what he said a few days later. And my motive was made clear in the first post--clear the air for the sake of future elections. And please note I did not throw out any personal insults against the girly/man or the color of his ties :)
It does not appear that the person who calls himself "roesch-voltaire" is in any hurry to answer my question.
I'll check back later. Meanwhile I must return to my work of judiciously pruning some woody plants before the spring season begins in earnest.
Carry on, clever commenters.
This is a rhetorical device that bugs me. If Some people are saying it, you should be able to quote them.
Dude, scroll up. Meade doesn't need to quote people (although he does anyway to make you happy) when all you need to do is look at many of the previous comments prior to yours. See Glenn at 9:39am or Quaestor at 10:38am. Then there are the previous posts and comments on this blog, and that poll, that shows a strong majority thought she shouldn't call for a recount, but that she would anyway.
It's not a rhetorical device when it is backed up by facts. You're blatant willingness not to look at the facts, doesn't mean they don't exists right in front of your face.
from hell's heart, Kloppy stabs at thee.
at least she has the right hair for it.
"Just remember Prosser was for a re-count before he was against it,"
You've got that backwards don't you?
Ace of Spades posted the item at ~4:39 PM April 7th. He got it from Schneider's post on NRO approx. same time.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/314467.php
"...if I'm one of the "conservative bloggers..."
"...why am I being called 'conservative'?"
AAAAH HA HA HA! If only the song "You're So Vain" were the title track to the movie "Clueless."
See, I see that phrase and lose all perspective and reading comprehension skills.
Some people say that, at least.
hmmm--if I posted stuff from my memory I would probably be committed.
R-V: I will retract my accusation of lying, but I will reiterate that you may be profoundly in error. The short answer is you thought you heard him say it but you really dont know.
Do I have that right?
Add Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club to those in awe of Annie and the Alties.
Not surprisingy some sites, like Ann Althouse’s for example, become very accurate leading edge indicators of breaking political developments. Commenters and author are striving with each other to accumulate peer-scored points in their universe. They become so good it is spooky...
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/04/21/the-rise-of-the-machines/#more-14212
Wait, didn't the 'Brookfield Patch' report the exact same totals for Waukeshaw on election night that were eventually the difference?
Maybe Ariana Huffington is the conservative blogger she is talking about?
http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/04/11/no-conspiracy-in-wisconsin-supreme-court-election-brookfield-vote-totals-posted-on-election-night-by-aolhuffington-post-reporter/
Waiting...what does the K-berg campaign have to say for itself?
You were not one of the bloggers.
@Meade at 4/21/11 3:21 PM . . . I did see a funny comment the other day that "quoted" Kloppenburg asserting:
"I was a judge before I wasn't."
Man, Wisconsin is seriously f*@ked up.
You guys are like the crazy uncle that we try to keep hidden in the attic, but he keeps running around the neighborhood in his jockey short and helicopter beanie hat.
The Grand Inquisitor is right on the money. It all makes sense now: from her first press conference at which she unconvincingly declared herself the winner to her press conference last night and the reasons given for a recount, all, all of it a set up, to create doubt, a narrative of a stolen election. She's a terrible actress otherwise they might have pulled it off.
I'm impressed inquisitor.
Saul said...
"You were not one of the bloggers."
Who were the bloggers? Kloppenburg used the plural, so she clearly meant more than one. Or was she not accurate with her facts?
Also, why would her campaign not reply to Althouse?
Now that the question of Althouse being the "conservative blogger" is becoming an internet meme, it appears that the Kloppenburg campaign is incompetent and unprepared for the questions and scrutiny that lie ahead.
That "15 second" pregnant pause may be only the beginning of awkward moments for JoAnne Kloppenburg..
I think the recount is a complete waste of money. She should have said no to the recount, but had people donate for the recount, and used the same money for a good cause, like hunger in Wisconsin.
Don't know the "conservative bloggers" other than it wasn't an Ann reference. It was apparenly a reference to blog posts earlier in the day.
Meade, whatever happened when you met with Bret Hulsey?
Saul, thanks for your answer.
Whoever the "conservative bloggers" were that Kloppenburg impugned in her press conference Wednesday, I hope we end up getting a clear explanation from her as to why "prior knowledge" by bloggers is one of the "irregularities" warranting a recount.
My meeting with Brett Hulsey and his chief-of-staff went very well, thanks. Cordial, respectful - I think we shared some valuable information between constituent and representative. I think he shares my opinion on that.
Did you know that Wisconsin legislators' office staff members are state public employees who are NOT allowed to join a union or in any way collectively bargain? That includes collectively bargaining for salary and wages? I was surprised to learn that Brett Hulsey and is chief-of-staff did not know that until I informed them.
Apparently, Democratic legislators are shocked and outraged that Scott Walker and the Republicans are attempting to limit the powers to negotiate with Wisconsin taxpayers that public school teachers and others have. But those same Democratic legislators are either ignorant of or quietly condone their own unlimited power to fire at will public employees who have jobs in their own Capitol offices.
If Wisconsin legislators have the power to hire and fire their employees at will, why shouldn't Wisconsin school boards have that same power?
Typical Dem response. During the Democratic Senators' vacation. I wrote to Senator Cullen... he responded about 3 weeks later and when I wanted to give him a counterpoint response... my address had been blocked... stall, ignore, move on, "we have spoken" and accept no debate!
"Apparently, Democratic legislators are shocked and outraged that Scott Walker and the Republicans are attempting to limit the powers to negotiate with Wisconsin taxpayers that public school teachers and others have. But those same Democratic legislators are either ignorant of or quietly condone their own unlimited power to fire at will public employees who have jobs in their own Capitol offices."
sarge here har har now meadie my boy yar caint be so stupid as to believer yar own apples an oranges bullsghit now can yar?
holy crap yer a petulant lil pussy boy arguing like some 12 year old b girl aint yar?? bsides everyone knows it was charlie sykes cuz the repubs aint gona mistake lightwts like meadie an annie green springs for the serious goebbel-ettes they likes to do election steelin bidness wiv
Wouldn't it be great to have a new justice who supports witch hunts and opposes free speech? It doesn't matter whether it was you and Meade or anybody else. She's calling for an investigation into what people have said or written about a political issue and campaign. What does that tell you about what kind of justice she'd make?
wv: shesche - French spelling of sheesh
Post a Comment