Write the editors of The Wall Street Journal, noting the "breathless page-one stories" about Walker's "criminal scheme" to coordinate campaign activities that didn't make it clear that all we were reading was "a prosecutorial theory floated to justify a secret grand-jury fishing expedition," that the documents were coming out as a result of a thus-far-successful civil-rights case against the prosecutors, and that "the two judges who have looked closely at the evidence have found no violations of law."
To the contrary, both judges have ruled that the prosecutors' theory of illegal campaign coordination is faulty and itself a violation of the defendants' right to free political speech. The document dump amounts to prosecutors losing in court but then having the press treat the prosecutors' claims as if they were the gospel truth.
Much more detail at the link. The details are complicated enough that you might feel tempted to forgive the press for jumping on the spicy "criminal scheme" business and not bothering to explain all the surrounding legalistic material, but I'll bet what determines whether you succumb to that temptation is whether you oppose Walker or not. And, of course, there is every reason to suspect that the press chose its presentation because it opposes Walker and snapped at the opportunity to try to bring him down.
[T]he document dump is serving a political purpose that prosecutors have intended from the start—to tarnish Mr. Walker as he seeks re-election.... This is typical of the behavior of Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and Assistant DAs Bruce Landgraf and David Robles from the beginning. The Democrats hired [special prosecutor Francis] Schmitz, a nominal Republican, as special prosecutor to put a nonpartisan gloss on an investigation that the DAs realized would be seen for the political prosecution it was.
ADDED: My link may cause you to hit a pay wall. I really don't know why the WSJ wants to keep this editorial from having the effect the editors' words show they want. Anyway, try googling some text I've quoted and go in through the link you get that way.
Posts
123 comments:
My local paper (in NJ) covered this in such a way that the casual reader would think that Walker was involved in an illegal scheme, but had NOT YET been indicted.
Only because I've followed this here did I know the truth behind the story.
The damage is done. Too late.
This is the way it works nowadays. I do not see any rising force that will change it. "The Internet" is not the countervailing voice because, when all is said and done, the greatest volume on the internet is rebroadcast of mainstream articles.
Don't forget Christian Schneider's spot-on column for the MS-J:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/263876811.html
"Zero Evidence of a Walker 'Criminal Scheme'"
"there is every reason to suspect"
I'm going to start reading every white person with those words in mind because, it's pretty obvious, whites don't care about anything but their own suppositions.
Say something "may" be good for their health and they start insisting everybody's got to take it.
Say something "could" happen on TV and they start insisting everybody's got to watch it.
Say somebody "might" have done something and they start insisting it was done.
They rarely think few others share their paranoid strain so their "every reason to suspect" is probably waaaay wrong.
They rarely think they're telling the rest of us how they think and reason and it's total baloney - you "suspect"? - blowing white's image as intelligent people.
Try listening to what people say - without your horrible, evil, mental input - and things might work out better for everyone.
Oh - and are we in agreement now, that Scott Walker's toast?
Yes or no?
If yes, enjoy it with my blessings.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy - who hired a racist staff,...
The gleeful spin over at MSNBC is, "Isn't funny that both GOP Governors have been scuttled by scandals now. Christy and Walker are both finished. So what ever will the GOP do to find bench Presidential players?"
I am really confused. Wasn't it The Club For Growth, which demanded that the documents be released, the ally of Walker? Did they think the documents demonstrate prosecution overreach.
These emails show that Walker was indeed coordinating with the outside groups. Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal because the outside groups were not involved in "express advocacy". But what he did was sure as hell sleazy and makes him look like he is bought and paid for by extremely rich and powerful outsiders.
The details are complicated enough that you might feel tempted to forgive the press for jumping on the spicy "criminal scheme" business and not bothering to explain all the surrounding legalistic material, but I'll bet what determines whether you succumb to that temptation is whether you oppose Walker or not. And, of course, there is every reason to suspect that the press chose its presentation because it opposes Walker and snapped at the opportunity to try to bring him down.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been beating this dead horse for months. The document dump is just an excuse for another series of hit pieces. This is shameless and dishonest.
In the future, certain individuals will link to this obfuscation, and declare it to be gospel.
What press? There is no MSM press. They are just Democrat Party operatives. The actions of these political prosecutors proves the point that prosecutors should be stripped of immunity.
Only because I've followed this here did I know the truth behind the story.
Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy again.
Tank said...
My local paper (in NJ) covered . . .
Probably a feed for the highly misleading and incomplete AP story.
AP has well distributed voice. Sometimes they are just incompetent and lazy. It's hard to separate that from the gleeful bias.
Let's not get bogged down with details. Do we really need to know whether Scott Walker did or didn't do something wrong? Seriously. How is that going to help anyone? It only creates confusion and distracts from the real issues. There's a bigger picture here. When a journalist finds him or herself in a situation like this its always best to go back to basics. Remember what they taught you in J school on day one and every single day after that: D good. R bad. Embrace the clarity!
Successful propaganda requires only a story line, and a predisposition towards belief. Facts become mere details, to be manipulated as needed to achieve the desired affect. There is after all no such thing as truth, only what we wish to be true. The farther we travel down this road, the fewer become our chances for recovery
My understanding is that the judges not only said that Walker was not involved, but also that if he had been, it made no difference since the alleged activities in any case were perfectly legal.
Of course. The MSM (with a few exceptions) has one & only one mission: advance the democrat party.
Bottom line>>> The neo-fascist left know in their hearts that anyone on the "right" is not allowed access to free speech.
The left can bulldoze anyone they want-- they have the corrupt media to do their dirty work.
I agree with your argument.
Crack
You still dont get it.
What press? There is no MSM press. They are just Democrat Party operatives
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has endorsed Walker every election going back to the 1990s. Journal Communications (which owns the MJS and WTMJ)employs/markets some of the most right-wing nutjobs in the country. If we had an adversarial press in this state we wouldn't be overrun by a bunch of corrupt teabillies
Another example of how, for the left and their msm allies, lying to further the cause is not just acceptable - it is considered a sacrament.
Freder Frederson said...
I am really confused. Wasn't it The Club For Growth, which demanded that the documents be released, the ally of Walker? Did they think the documents demonstrate prosecution overreach.
These emails show that Walker was indeed coordinating with the outside groups. Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal because the outside groups were not involved in "express advocacy". But what he did was sure as hell sleazy and makes him look like he is bought and paid for by extremely rich and powerful outsiders.
6/21/14, 8:51 AM"
I gather you are upset because your presumption that Walker was acting like a typical garden variety Democrat? And thats a low level Democrat , not at the olympian level like a Clinton or Obama.
This is a particularly bad example of a practice that is a pet peeve of mine - reporting the allegations of one side of a legal proceeding as fact. The professor will confirm that you can't lie in court pleadings, but you can certainly select and shape the facts. How often do you see a glaring headline about some unbelievably awful event - and then read at the end of the story "So alleged the plaintiff in his/her filed complaint. The other side did not comment."
This talk about Walker being toast is premature. In fact, all the talk about 2016 is premature. The midterms still loom for Obama and his herd of ilk.
Scott Walker's job is governor and his next goal to get reelected in Wisconsin this fall, not to run for Emperor in 2016.
More journalistic malpractice.
Shorter Freder Frederson:
Fake, but also not accurate. That First Amendment sure is sleeazy!
Freder Frederson said...
I am really confused.
yes. yes, you are.
The Tea Baggers are screaming two different stories in their defense of Scott Walker.
One claim being heavily pushed is that he wasn't involved in coordinating anything at all with any outside group and the email to Karl Rove is about something else entirely. The other claim is that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional and thus there is nothing wrong with Scott Walker personally overseeing all the dark money, including donations from foreign billionaires, that was directed towards him.
Funny thing is that both claims are being uttered by the same people! They are trying to throw out as many excuses as possible to justify the governor's behavior and hope something sticks.
I left out "... that according to the documents presented by the prosecution, there was no evidence that Walker was involved ..."
Freder Frederson,
These emails show that Walker was indeed coordinating with the outside groups. Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal because the outside groups were not involved in "express advocacy".
You can stop there, please, because that's where the law stops.
Yeah, all my lef friends and family are posting about this.
"Walker's going Down!"
"Better than Christmas."
"Still there are so many who will support him right up to the door of the prison, declaring this is a witch hunt, a socialist conspiracy. It's amazing to behold the support he has from those who get all their news from Rush / Hannity/ O Reilly and the Faux News Lie Machine."
There are all too stupid to understand this for what it is.
So, if I understand this correctly, garage has been completely vindicated. Who would have guessed?
At some point one realizes that Crack's ubiquitous obsession with race isn't observation; it's projection.
"This is shameless and dishonest."
Ya think? The Democrat party is a criminal organization from top to bottom, which is the inevitable outcome of any enterprise that seeks to acquire power at any cost.
As of 11am ET Sat.
CNN.com front page and CNN politics page has nothing on Walker story.
FoxNews.com front page has nothing, their politics page has a story at the very bottom which is a blurb of a pro-walker story from another website.
MSNBC.com has nothing on their front page except an article about unions beinng against Walker, if you click "see more" on the right
CBSnews.com has nothing on the front page. On the politics page it is near the bottom.
abcnews.com has nothing on the front page or the politics page.
yahoo.com has nothing on their main page and I don't see that they have a politics page.
You can stop there, please, because that's where the law stops.
Not true. It's the same case. Or does Walker need to pardon Mark Block?
"At some point one realizes that Crack's ubiquitous obsession with race isn't observation; it's projection."
No shit.
But to elucidate Althouse's leftist underpinnings imagine a white "Crack" saying all the same things with the races reversed. Such a commenter would be banned immediately.
@madisonfella
Why are you always thinking about testicles in your mouth?
AReasonableMan:
If by vindicated you mean "the targets of these unconstitutional fishing expeditions are likely to win substantial judgments from the prosecutors because those prosecutors attempted to deprive citizens of God-given civil liberties", then yes.
"madisonIngafella" wrote "One claim being heavily pushed is that he wasn't involved in coordinating anything at all with any outside group..."
You missed the word "illegal" after the word anything. That should clarify things. You are welcome.
Walker has a response out.
Wasn't Walker endorsed by the MSM in Madison and Milwaukee newspapers?
Michael,
"You still dont get it."
I get it - whites put their suspicions above reality. That way, nobody gets a chance, because who can dislodge whites from what they imagine? Nobody has that power. But whites - just by their numbers - have the power to force their suppositions on everyone else and, in many cases, make them fact.
Beorn,
"At some point one realizes that Crack's ubiquitous obsession with race isn't observation; it's projection."
You moron - of course it's a projection - of what's in front of me. Haven't I said that a billion times here? Or are you new? If you're new, why are speaking about me without doing some research?
Oh - you thought your projection would be better,...
Freder Wrote:
These emails show that Walker was indeed coordinating with the outside groups. Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal because the outside groups were not involved in "express advocacy". But what he did was sure as hell sleazy and makes him look like he is bought and paid for by extremely rich and powerful outsiders.
Not illegal. So then, why is this scandal going on? Because the left is trying to destroy Walker because that's what they do.
And yet, how many on the left are suggesting that the IRS magically having 8 hard drives crash doesn't require further investigation.
I still want to sort out whether it was secret servers or secret routers. Garage was back and forth on these devices and the severity of the non-crime rises and falls on the difference. Either way not a crime but the effort of a secret server cries out for an independent prosecutor. Because something.
"Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal"
probably?
""The press ignored the Scott Walker/John Doe story "when 2 judges ruled against the prosecutors' theory of the case,"
Asked and answered.
madison fella wrote:
One claim being heavily pushed is that he wasn't involved in coordinating anything at all with any outside group and the email to Karl Rove is about something else entirely. The other claim is that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional and thus there is nothing wrong with Scott Walker personally overseeing all the dark money, including donations from foreign billionaires, that was directed towards him.
Funny thing is that both claims are being uttered by the same people! They are trying to throw out as many excuses as possible to justify the governor's behavior and hope something sticks.
the two are not mutually exclusive.
But two judges already adressed your issues. Didn't you read Althouse's heading? What is it about 2 judges ruling opposite of what you contend don't you understand?
Andrew Sullivan bought into it too.
Aside, stripping prosecutors of their immunity in political ethics cases would seem to make sense to balance the partisan playing field.
Yep Garage has been completely vindicated. Walker is totally being frog-marched to prison for being a Conservative American.
No laws broken, mind you. And not really frog-marched, and not really going to prison. But Walker's got a bad case of Incorrect Positions and something's got to be done.
-----Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy - who hired a racist staff,…----
Charlie Brown Crack MC
Waaannhh,Waaannhh…..WaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhh….WaaannhhWaaannhh…..racist…..WaaannhhWaaannhhWaaannhh
----But what he did was sure as hell sleazy …
What's sleazy is sloppy thinkers like you making a post and not actually specifying what you think is sleazy.
But you have a free-speech to do that, just like Walker has a right to communicate with political contacts.
------One claim being heavily pushed is that he wasn't involved in coordinating anything at all with any outside group and the email to Karl Rove is about something else entirely. The other claim is that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional…
Oddly, that second claim was the one reaffirmed by judges at both the State and Federal level when this crock of crap was tossed out with prejudice.
Looking forward to chapter 2 when Club for Growth takes the pants off DA Chisolm.
So, if I understand this correctly, garage has been completely vindicated. Who would have guessed?
If you believe all charges are accurate and a verdict in a trial is unimportant, sure.
Judges saying that there was no crime is immaterial. Prosecutors say there was a crime so there must be one.
Which, of course, means that the Duke lacrosse team really DID rape Mangum, in spite of every speck of evidence claiming otherwise.
Ken Starr had a rather deep investigative report of Clinton's actions.
Ergo, per garage and ARM, Clinton was guilty of everything!
People claimed Obama was born outside the US. Because a claim was made, totally accurate.
You Lefties are a mind-numbingly dumb lot.
"So, if I understand this correctly, garage has been completely vindicated. Who would have guessed?"
The point here is that you (and Garage) don't understand it correctly. The prosecutors lost in the courts and are using the press to do damage anyway.
Either way not a crime but the effort of a secret server cries out for an independent prosecutor. Because something.
Turns out it was a crime. A felony. We never did find out how that router ended up in Walker's office. Odd place for it don't you think? Why wouldn't Kelly Rindfleisch put in her office? Was someone trying to set Scott Walker up? Maybe we'll find out when millions of pages of documents come out from that investigation. (The first John Doe, not this one)
Let me make a prediction here. To all those folks dancing on what they think is Gov. Walker's grave - you're dreaming. Gov. Walker will be re-elected this fall in Wisconsin, where this story is old news. As for 2016, the only effect of the current contretemps is to create a groundswell of support for Walker among the Republican base, most of whom never heard of Walker until this week. As for middle American voters, they could care less now and will care even less two years from now when this story won't even be old news, it'll be a vapor on the wind.
Garage, two judges say it's not a crime. Can you cite what laws were actually broken?
@Birkel aka Tank aka Drago aka manyothernames:
Why are you always imagining me as a woman? NTTAWWT, of course.
The point here is that you (and Garage) don't understand it correctly. The prosecutors lost in the courts and are using the press to do damage anyway.
Sounds like you don't understand it correctly. Walker is lying to you when he says the case is over.
Freder Frederson said...
Yes, he probably didn't do anything illegal because the outside groups were not involved in "express advocacy". But what he did was sure as hell sleazy and makes him look like he is bought and paid for by extremely rich and powerful outsiders.
It's telling how partisans always say the opposition is bought and paid for, while their guy is backed by big money simply because of his pre-existing principles and ideology.
As for the press, they take Harry Reids lead of guilty until proven innocent for their political opponents.
Modern journalism's partisanship is more transparent than ever and technological change is making them irrelevant and desperate.
To critical thinkers, they are now white noise...with all due respect to Crack.
Wisconsin has strict campaign finance laws. That may not be popular with most reading here. Walker appears to have stretched those laws so far, they snapped. If Walker didnt think the campaign laws were fair, he shouldve ran for office elsewhere. That's what happens to those who run for office, who overreach and are greedy in Wisconsin.
"madisonIngafella"
I never imagined you were female when you used Inga as a name. And I don't imagine you a boy because you use 'fella' either.
You are an it who happens to be a fool. Gender matters less than foolishness.
Garage Mahal, congratulations are due for sticking to your story, being right all along and being 'unintimidated'.
Just to clarify, garage...are you now AGAINST judicial review of laws?
Why, those meanies!
That idiot Congressman Becerra floated this bullshit at the IRS hearing yesterday! After he apologized to that demonic IRS flim-flam man, Becerra suggested that Walker was dirty based on this "theory"! They have no shame!
Having a router in your office in Wisconsin is a felony?
Garage
Do you know what a router is? I am serious. Do you?
I've had success getting through the WSJ paywall with Bing as well. It doesn't seem to be a Google exclusive anymore.
-----Walker appears to have stretched those laws so far, they snapped. If Walker didnt think the campaign laws were fair, he shouldve ran for office elsewhere. That's what happens to those who run for office, who overreach and are greedy in Wisconsin.
Sloppy grammar.
Sloppy thinking.
What snapped? Judge Randa told the prosecutors to stop dead. He practically cheer led for the victims of the nazi-like police raids civil rights suit.
What's fair? Prosecutors making up their own laws? Not allowing victims of middle of the night searches to call their attorneys?
As we stand up to the lefty thugs, we are slowly dispelling the police-state aspects of Wisconsin.
Birkel aka Drago aka Tank said "You are an it"
You don't even recognize me as a fellow human being. That explains your raw hatred and sleazy attacks.
You're a sick fuck, no matter what name you're posting under.
madisonfella said...
"Birkel aka Drago aka Tank"
Okay guys: fair warning — back on topic or find your comments deleted. You may want to have a personal relationship with each other but we don't want to have to have it with you. I suggest using e-mail.
Having a router in your office in Wisconsin is a felony?
These fucking idiots set the router and network up in the County Executive office, INSIDE THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE. Kelly Rindfleisch joked about how she hoped she wouldn't go to jail over it. LOL. Haha. Well, she is headed to jail.
Since you're an IT Expert, any guesses how the router got there? Did the janitor put it there?
"Wisconsin has strict speech suppression laws. "
FYP
By the way, this is the Army Colonel leading the probe Scott Walker is throwing slime at, a Republican who said he voted for Walker: Here.
Meade:
To be fair I offered a single word to madisonIngafellas's ignorance as a correction above.
""One claim being heavily pushed is that he wasn't involved in coordinating anything [illegal] at all with any outside group..."
I have the Constitution and the facts on my side. Anybody arguing that there was a criminal conspiracy -- in the face of the judicial review and the likely future judgments against the corrupt officials who turned state law into a partisan, unconstitutional fishing expedition -- are simply upset that their hoped-for high-tech lynching fell short.
The Left is prepared, in many quarters, to go Full Fascist. When they do attempt their fantasy to completion, fair warning has been offered.
Online, we are all a series of zeroes and ones.
garage, from your link:
"However, another source noted that whatever Schmitz’s skills are in spycraft, he has no First Amendment experience and no election-law background.
A source speculates that Schmitz, because of his “nominal ties to Republicans, gives a hyper-partisan investigation the public appearance of fairness.”
garage mahal said...
By the way, this is the Army Colonel leading the probe Scott Walker is throwing slime at, a Republican who said he voted for Walker: Here.
Speaking of sliming, garage, here's what you said in the previous thread:
"And the 7th Circuit will rule on the oft-overruled Judge Randa decision. Randa, of course, has ties to Walker and a Koch Junket frequent flyer."
Why did you find it useful to include Francis Schmitz's military service while omitting Judge Randa's military service?
back on topic or find your comments deleted. You may want to have a personal relationship with each other but we don't want to have to have it with you. I suggest using e-mail.
Has Crack ever been warned about his thread jacking and personal attacks?
I know I have never been warned about my personal attacks on Crack after he has called me a racist.
So, garage, a process where the accused have no right to speak publicly about charges against them is OK with you?
Honestly?
Speaking of sliming, garage, here's what you said in the previous thread
Rand's wife works for Walker's lawyer, and Randa went on several Koch junkets. That's sliming?
The important word is "said".
I can say I voted for anybody or nobody.
Secret ballots.
"insert poster name here" voted for Pol Pot.
"insert poster name here" voted for Scott Walker.
"insert poster name here" voted for Idi Amin.
"insert poster name here" voted for Hitler.
"insert poster name here" voted for George W. Bush.
"insert poster name here" voted for Abraham Lincoln.
Really just good clean fun.
Meade said...
madisonfella said...
"Birkel aka Drago aka Tank"
Okay guys: fair warning
Properly, you should say:
Okay guys and gal: fair warning
madisonfella is a new gender confused sockpuppet for Inga, not a guy.
It's by definition a sockpuppet because she's been using for a couple of days in concert with her old Inga screen name, addressing one from the other, accusing other people of doing what she is doing - sockpuppeting. She's done this before. You locked and purged a thread a few weeks back last time she did this.
Former US Attorney Francis Schmitz signed an affidavit stating he voted for Scott Walker. That is a lot different than some bozo on the internet saying she voted for Hitler.
Plus two of the five District Attorneys involved were elected with an "R" after their name. Add in the fact that this John Doe investigation was authorized by the bi-partisan Government Accountability Board, which was chaired at the time by a long time Republican in the State House who later became a judge appointed by Tommy Thompson, and these claims that John Does is nothing more than a DemocRATic witch hunt only makes the Tea Party look desperate in their war against election laws and financial regulations.
"Former US Attorney Francis Schmitz signed an affidavit stating he voted for Scott Walker."
Do you know that for a fact? You've seen a copy of the affidavit? Here is all can find:
"Schmitz, who is the named defendant in WCFG's federal challenge to the probe, submitted a sworn affidavit to the federal court stating that he has no animus towards Walker or other Republicans, and in fact generally supports Walker's policies."
Meade said: Do you know that for a fact? You've seen a copy of the affidavit?
I haven't even seen Francis Schmitz with my own two eyes, let alone the affidavit. But I heard about both allegedly him and what he allegedly signed. Quick google search found this:
Both Republican and Democratic prosecutors in five counties agreed to hand off the investigation to a special prosecutor, Francis Schmitz, a former U.S. attorney who signed an affidavit saying he voted for Gov. Scott Walker.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/john-doe-targets-sue-wisconsin-election-officials-in-waukesha-county/article_62fad641-1daa-58ed-b5f9-1a8a76b58f1b.html#ixzz35JCdfTOZ
Birkel and B are you two not able to get beyond some sick fascination with Inga? Really it's ridiculous and distracts from the discussion. I'm surprised Meade and Althouse don't delete these immediately.
Prosecuter Schmitz voted for Scott Walker
It's telling how partisans always say the opposition is bought and paid for, while their guy is backed by big money simply because of his pre-existing principles and ideology.
Partisan I may be (and so are you), but I hate the influence of big money in politics, whether it is supporting Democratic, Republican or independent candidates.
I have stated numerous times on this blog that I think what we need is a constitutional amendment that clearly states that money is not speech.
And just because something is not illegal, that doesn't necessarily make it ethical.
As usual, Mark Twain nailed it: "I you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed."
Wisconsinite said...
...not able to get beyond some sick fascination with Inga
Actually, Inga, since I came to the conclusion some time back that you are mentally ill - as easy as it is to identify your sockpuppets - I usually just shake my head ruefully and pass by. I think others should ignore your baiting as well, but then I think the same about crack and people ponitlessly respond to him.
Freder:
".. and makes him look like he is bought and paid for by extremely rich and powerful outsiders."
Freder - have you ever taken note of who Obama tends to meet for dinner and campaign events? Does he ever break bread with a plumber or dishwasher? No he does not - he is too busy with the CEO of Comcast or some Hollywood bigwig.
I haven't even seen Francis Schmitz with my own two eyes, let alone the affidavit
to my knowledge there is not a public photo Schmitz. But the Wall
Street Journal labels him a "nominal Republican". How the hell would they know? I bet Schmitz won't vote for Walker again after Walker trashes his entire career as some sort of dupe for a County DA. What a twat.
@Crack
All you've done is demonstrate your ignorance of the term "projection."
How cosmically self-unaware are you?
Freder
The Cantor loss in Virginia is a pretty clear example of how money has less impact on election outcomes than is generally believed.
So now we're on to the Wisconsinite sock puppet? That's just groovy.
Freder Frederson:
If you want to get money out of politics then you will support the minimalist approach to government. The more things the government controls, the more regulations that are imposed by captured agencies, the more money will necessarily attempt to buy favor. If you support an expansive, centralized government then you cannot simultaneously support limiting political donations because the one causes the other. All you can do is posture.
The other possibility, of course, is that all you (and your fellow travelers) really want is to limit disfavored political speech. That, good sir, is why I believe many on the Left are primed to go Full Fascist. And the results will be the same as they always are when your lot attempts control.
Otherwise:
This thread is a perfect illustration of the Left. They don't care that judges have ordered the investigations stopped and judged the accusations unsupported and unconstitutional. All the Left cares about is power and any tool that comes to hand to exercise power will do. Go ahead. Don't be shy. Go Full Fascist and make it snappy.
Is the press so mindlessly partisan (as opposed to liberal) that they don't see that the whole reason Scott Walker is controversial is because he reduced organized labor's leverage over state and local public treasuries?
Why would a "liberal" want more taxpayers' money going into the pockets of workers, rather than for programs? Wouldn't you rather those funds be spent on the poor, students, the environment, and other public services? What is the press' romance with public employee unions all about? "You have pensions and benefits that private sector workers, including journalists like me, could never get -- and by got, I'm here to make sure it stays that way." Why is tarring Walker such a lure to these people? They say they want equality yet all the fight for, practically speaking, is inequality. They say they prefer liberalism because it is responsive to human needs, but the percentage of public money that goes to employee compensation and benefits is growing rapidly, and the impact on public services is dire. This is what liberalism fights for, even fights dirty for? What the hell does the anti-Walker crowd get out of this?
Crack wrote;
"Oh - and are we in agreement now, that Scott Walker's toast?"
Depends on what you mean by "toast".
If you mean he won't win re-election in Wisconsin this November, then no, we don't agree. I think he stands a very good chance of winning in November.
If you mean he won't win the Presidency in 2016, I think that's a pretty safe prediction right now.
It's like saying the San Diego Chargers are toast for next years Super Bowl.
It's easy to predict who won't win, because there are so many who won't win.
---I think what we need is a constitutional amendment that clearly states that money is not speech.---
Right. So only idol lefties without jobs and unions who can give unlimited amounts of labor will be able to influence politics.
Why don't we just make government smaller with less opportunity for graft? A government focused on its constitutional duties with simple transparency instead of the ponderous, incomprehensible money gushing mess we have now.
What is the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe?
In both cases you give money to a politician in order to get what you want.
Bribes are not protected free speech.
Damn Birkel or B or whatthehellever. I never cared for Inga, but you guys do appear more than a bit obsessed. Althouse, you have moderation on, why do you let these two or three go on and on about "Inga", it's boring and makes your blog look like stalker central.
"Hot forging prevents the work hardening that would result from cold forging, which would increase the difficulty of performing secondary machining operations on the piece."
I've started the Walker forging sequence.
Hot.
However riled you may be, it is not nearly riled enough.
The Kochs and I are taking over, and there's not a damn thing your gonna do about it.
I laugh at you!
Wisconsinite griped: That's what happens to those who run for office, who overreach and are greedy in Wisconsin.
No, that's what happened to those who were unelected, who overreached and were greedy in Wisconsin.
FTFY
----In both cases you give money to a politician in order to get what you want.
Bribes are not protected free speech.----
Not up to your usual standards ARM. What your preoccupation with money in politics comes down to is your recognition that you can't suppress the speech of conservatives.
If money were eliminated then government would fund campaigns and in a few years we would have progressive A running against progressive B both arguing about how they are going to spend more money on health care.
"What is the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe?"
A bribe is money that goes into the pocket of the bribed in return for a specific action to be performed by the bribed.
A campaign contribution is not that.
Would there were a pill for stupid.
Freder Frederson said...
Partisan I may be (and so are you), but I hate the influence of big money in politics, whether it is supporting Democratic, Republican or independent candidates.
Freder,
As you must know, money is, always has been, and always will be, the mothers milk of politics. Politicians will find a way around campaign finance laws just like smart wealthy people find ways of minimizing taxes (one of several good reasons to reform our tax system and even abolish the IRS).
If you want to minimize the influence of money in politics, you have to minimize the size and importance of government on business and industry through regulations and tax codes designed to sandbag those not favored.
As for Walker, in order to bring fiscal sanity to his state, he stepped on the toes of state government unions and attracted the attention of all government unions across the country. The allies in the mostly progressive press now run lockstep with government unions and democrat operatives to squelch this threat.
Larry Nelson said...
If you want to minimize the influence of money in politics, you have to minimize the size and importance of government
This argument fails before it gets started. The most corrupt politicians are local politicians with very little power. I have never lived anywhere where the town/county level politicians weren't total sleaze bags.
"I voted for Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin's 2012 gubernatorial recall election," Schmitz said in a sworn declaration filed with the U.S. District Court on Tuesday.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/255433971.html
---This argument fails before it gets started. The most corrupt politicians are local politicians with very little power. I have never lived anywhere where the town/county level politicians weren't total sleaze bags.---
But your local friends don't have the vast sums to steal. They don't have the ability to damage entire industries.
There's no money in Cuban politics but Fidel Castro is worth billions. There's no money in Venezuelan politics but Hugo amassed billions in a short time.
Unknown said...
But your local friends don't have the vast sums to steal. They don't have the ability to damage entire industries.
There's no money in Cuban politics but Fidel Castro is worth billions. There's no money in Venezuelan politics but Hugo amassed billions in a short time.
You might want to attempt to put together an argument next time you post.
"You might want to attempt to put together an argument next time you post." ---
Said the poster who thinks his own experience with local politicians is dispositive. GTFOOH
Meanwhile, the national politicians are spawned in local politics. And as they aspire to greater power their corruptions affect more people. And one cannot simply move to the suburbs to escape the corruptions. Unlike Unknown above, I believe this is exactly on the level of AReasonableMan's normal fare: utter rubbish.
----There's no money in Cuban politics but Fidel Castro is worth billions. There's no money in Venezuelan politics but Hugo amassed billions in a short time.
You might want to attempt to put together an argument next time you post.---
I know your emotional attachment to these evil all powerful dictators impaired your ability to discern my example of government released from consent by the governed as expressed in free speech (in the form of campaign donations).
You known that politicians all the way from dogcatcher to president and dictator as sleaze bags, yet you constantly advocate giving these sleaze bags more power. Delusional, no?
--Meanwhile, the national politicians are spawned in local politics. And as they aspire to greater power their corruptions affect more people--
Well said Birkel.
Birkel said…
GTFOOH.
You might want to try putting together an argument yourself.
Invective is not an argument.
The American experiment was driven by a desire to minimize the power of the federal government. That approach had never been tried before, and for 200+ years it has been the most successful experiment ever in self government.
My progressive friends often mistake libertarian philosophies for anarchy. That is a straw man argument.
The more power centralized in DC, the more corruption. Just take in the arrogance of the IRS as an example.
Larry Nelson said...
The more power centralized in DC, the more corruption.
You provide no evidence for this. I can just as easily cite the arrogance of our local planning board, multiple members of which have also been sent to jail. Corruption is a personal quality not an organizational quality.
Corruption is people responding more or less rationally to the incentives they encounter. That is the reason there are checks and balances. So long as power is distributed across institutions and individuals the incentives to corruption are fewer, the payoffs are smaller and the trade-offs for detection, capture and punishment lead people to act in ways we deem less corrupt.
That is the reason for federalism. We distribute power to more sleaze bags. And then people can vote with their feet. And et cetera...
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Collectivists suck in their willful ignorance.
AReasonableMan said...
Larry Nelson said...
The more power centralized in DC, the more corruption.
Well, I am no expert, and don't feel like taking the time to research evidence that wouldn't change your mind anyhow. But check out this quote, FWIW:
“The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be the responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the Irish Patriot, Henry Grattan: ‘Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.’”
John F. Kennedy
I would also add, that you do make good points that corruption is a personal, not an organizational quality.
You only need to look at the local corruption of Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia or New Orleans to name a few democrat sewers.
Maybe I am wrong and you would like to live in those utopias.
This whole thing is a result of Walker stepping on union toes in order to create fiscal responsibility.
How about a couple more quotes on the ethics of public employee unions:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service".
Franklin D Roosevelt
"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
- Albert Shanker, founder of the UFT, AFT President 1964 - 84
ARM: "You provide no evidence for this."
It is a question of scale.
Which is easily discernable via relative budgets and extent of the proliferation of agency power in "interpreting" statutes and then enforcing those interpretations upon the populace, particularly in self-serving and partisan ways.
Which, to be honest, is precisely what ARM loves about it.
Birkel said...
Corruption is people responding more or less rationally to the incentives they encounter.
Personal ethics play no role? Kind of a bleak vision you have there. Not every member of my local planning board went to jail.
Post a Comment