June 19, 2014

"Wisconsin's 'Deep State' hasn’t given up on Scott Walker."

"This is just a spoiling attack to try to keep him out of action for 2016," says Instapundit, linking to my post today on the document release showing that prosecutors in the John Doe investigation were working on the theory that Scott Walker was at the center of a "criminal scheme" interacting with groups that supported him in the recall election.

That prompts Ace to look into this term "deep state":
Searching the web for "The Deep State," I find Bill Moyers discussing it in an American context. (Turkey and Egypt are also said to have "deep states.")

He of course claims that it's a conservative-tilting permanent state forever thwarting the aspirations of "the People."
Here's the Wikipedia article on "deep state."

ADDED: Looking around at some local Madison sites and at some less-local lefty sites, I see a scary love of prosecutorial aggression and overreach. The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate. 

138 comments:

Basil said...

Professor, it is a bit disconcerting to realize that your life view has been wrong all along. For me, it was hearing Ronald Reagan speak in person when I was 22. For you, maybe it will be the Fascist persecution of Scott Walker by the hard core leftists in Madison that does it.
I can only offer encouragement in this journey from the security of a false reality to the challenges of facing evil head on with open eyes.
Red pill or blue pill? It really is that simple. But you must choose one.

Jeffrey said...

>>>I feel pushed away onto the side of conservative with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

There's obviously a typo here (or a missing word), and I wouldn't bother pointing it out except that it obscures what your intended meaning was here? Surely you're not referring to Instapundit, a chap who you've obviously associated with quite a few times (to the point of guest-blogging for him, and quite well I might add). Does it refer to Ace, whose tone is obviously much more caustic but whose politics (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, generally contemptuous of culture warriors) actually align rather closely with yours? Or does it refer to "conservatives" in general?

FWIW I find myself arriving at similar sentiments, albeit in an interestingly reversed way: my frustration with the hyper-irredentist "Let it all burn" Tea Party faction of the conservatism/the GOP threatens to push me away into a more centrist/unaligned direction. But then stuff like the John Doe investigation -- and the naked enthusiasm among the online Left for this sort of state abuse of power, to the point of actually acknowledging the reality of abuse, but being okay with it because Republicans Are Bad -- keeps me solidly in the fold. And I mean rock-solidly.

chuck said...

Hubert Humphrey was the last liberal politician of national prominence, Patrick Moynihan was the last liberal intellectual. They are both long gone. What is called liberalism these days is communist inspired and has never had a shred of liberality about it.

Chuck said...

Professor, how about the rank misinformation now gripping the country regarding any "charges" against Governor Walker.

It's astoudning; practically everyone reading this, from New York to New Albany to New Orleans to Newport, are all thinking that these are all new, dangerous, pending charges against Walker. Just read the comments at any of the big left-leaning news sites. The NPR.org story (and comments) are frighteningly representative.

The journalistic malpractice on this one is kind of overwhelming.

Jeffrey said...

Ah, I see Ann has already corrected. Dunno if that was before she saw my post or due to it. Still a question worth exploring, though.

Jeffrey said...

Not to serial-post, but another aspect of Ann's post just jumped out at me:

>>>The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in

Surely it has been suggested to you before that those very liberal values that you believe in are espoused with more fervor -- and with greater ideological consistency -- by the post-Bush conservative movement.

The libertarian conservative strain that has emerged in the wake of the Bush implosion is far more explicitly wedded to old-school liberal beliefs (including those concerning the structural construction of the public sphere) than the Obama-era Left (who, it must be noted, disdain the term 'liberal' for many of these very reasons and prefer 'progressive'). There are still a few creepy Santorum-like social conservatives out there who want to legislatively impose their morality, but they're shrinking into irrelevance...the rest will settle for being left alone.

Ann Althouse said...

@Jeffrey It was just a typo, a missing "s," and Meade found it for me on the proofread.

Thanks for your attention to it, and I'm genuinely sorry when a mistake causes confusion. I'm a little rash hitting "publish," but I do proofread and correct.

garage mahal said...

I like cruel neutrality. Like Ace on one side and Instapundit on the other. It's so cruel. I wonder which way they fall!

Ann Althouse said...

The reason I don't think I belong with conservatives is that I disagree completely on the social issues and on things about economics, regulations, and things like welfare and immigration, I'm in the middle and not ideological.

But I know the liberals more closely, and the things they get wrong bother me in a more personal way. It's the group I really do belong with, but time and again, I find I cannot stand them.

Danno said...

I see the Pioneer Press is running an item on this with an AP author and reference. The title would imply something new has transpired, but it is merely spreading dirt based on the prosecutors' side of things.

Michael K said...

The LA Times is running with this as though the charges were real and not bogus.

Jeffrey said...

>>>But I know the liberals more closely, and the things they get wrong bother me in a more personal way. It's the group I really do belong with, but time and again, I find I cannot stand them.

Understood Ann, and I suppose this is what I would have guessed had I been left to speculate.

I do think your personal story here explains, in an anecdotal way, why the fantasia of a "center party" constructed out of those alienated by the partisan hypocrisies of both parties/movements (and these two concepts really are melting into one another with ever-greater speed) is so remote. As important as the common ground in the "disaffected center" is, the differences remain fundamental and perhaps insuperable as well. The stuff of temporary alliances, but not permanent coalitions.

Theodore James said...

Ann,

I think I see a bit of a libertarian running through those hedges.

ussmidway said...

>>>I feel pushed away onto the side of conservative with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

It is not necessarily a binary choice, a road with just 2 sides; I have been registered as a Libertarian in 3 states over almost 40 years. Sometimes I pull the lever for the Libertarian Party candidate, but in a really close race I will vote for whoever will do the least damage (I hope) to the tattered remnants of our civil liberties.

To be clear about my perspective, I support the precepts of "Reform Libertarianism"; this is the version of Libertarian political philosophy that describes a workable template for Libertarian governance in the real world (not the same as the Ron/Rand Paul version, whatever it is).

Given the puritanical/anti-science streak in some Republican campaigns, I have been known to support their opponents based on principle. I do more often support the Republicans, but only if they are not carrying water for the Fortune 100 (one of our biggest problems today) or trying to impose their religious values.

My favorites are Libertarians in "R" clothing; they are both courageous and precious. They have been successful in changing the debate in WDC on both sides of the aisle in recent years. The concept of "Limited Government" gets more discussion now than at any time I can recall in my lifetime.

Perhaps all the recent incompetence by the Feds will be the final straw that breaks the camels' back, and we can reset thinking about the handful of important responsibilities the Feds should actually handle.

Roadkill said...

Althouse: Allegedly, Churchill said that a conservative at 20 had no heart, and a liberal at 40 had no brain. Life experience would seem to confirm such a conservative-destined trajectory for the thinking class. We'll, we now know that 30 is the new 20 and 60 is the new 40, so your vestigial attachment to emotion-based politics is understandable. But not for long if, as Churchill mused, you have a brain.

Heyooyeh said...

"But I know the liberals more closely, and the things they get wrong bother me in a more personal way. It's the group I really do belong with, but time and again, I find I cannot stand them."

That sounds very much like a personal problem that you seem to reason out as an objective, rational bias everyday on this blog.

Also, it doesn't hurt that conservatives like instapundit link to your blog, which you frequently advertise as a moneymaking amazon portal. You've got a financial dog in the hunt for conservative readers.

And finally, if a tenured law professor at a reputable law school got on the internet and averred that they "know conservatives more closely" and "can't stand them" the conservative blogosphere would be screaming bloody murder. That's worth pointing out and would be very troubling for any potential students who may land in your class.

AJ Lynch said...

It is not a difficult choice - who do you want to have the power? Govt or the individual? As Dave Brat said, govt has the power of violence behind it. You would trade your indivdual freedom so Dems can throw you a bone and allow same sex marriage? Is that worth it when you give enormous power to the Lois Lerners of the world and these loose cannon Wisconsin prosecutors?

Michael K said...

"I disagree completely on the social issues and on things about economics, regulations, and things like welfare and immigration, I'm in the middle and not ideological. "

Social I agree with but economics ? Regulations ?

Immigration ?

That's not the middle, that's the statist position. Nobody should talk about inequality and support illegal immigration.

Kirk Parker said...

Ah, yes -- unfettered killing of the unborn: the sine qua non...

Birkel said...

Professor Althouse:
You may disagree on things economic, but at some point it is only a social science meant to reflect human nature. And at some point your disagreement cannot be sustained. The logic, the history and the mathematics cannot be overcome by belief.

The Classical Liberals -- John Jay, James Monroe and James Madison all giants amongst them -- understood much that modern Liberals have tried, repeatedly, to forget. Neither you nor anybody else can overcome these self-evident truths. We are bound to them. All of your logic and reason cannot overcome human nature even though you are more inclined to thinking deeply than most.

We must hope the institutions modern Leftists so despise protect us from these dark truths. Otherwise, there will inevitably be a reckoning that escapes control. And as history is our guide,nobody can predict accurately the shape of events to come, beyond deprivation and heartache.

Michael said...

I began my migration from the left as it became evident that the good intentions of the welfare system were backfiring horribly, especially in the black community. If you have eyes but do not see this then there is no reason to abandon the comfortable left where intentions trump reality and the warmth that comes with having the other be racist, uncaring, and plain dumb is a smug cloak that there is no reason to shuck. It is just too easy, too wonderful.

The easy discarding of free speech principles by the left is not a big deal when you can swim in rightness. The fascist tactics are not terribly troubling when you are keeping women out of the alleys with the coathangers and making it possible for gays to marry each other instead of being beaten and tormented from one end of thr land to the other. Besides you can be in favor of letting people say fuck on tv. and otherwise stick it to the rubes.





Michael said...

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”
— Edward Gibbon

The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;

Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;

Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;

Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;

Increased demand to live off the state.”
― Edward Gibbon

lb said...

Ann - I totally identify with your statement. I am a conservative fiscally and in agreement with gay marriage and social programs but am totally off put by democrats because they seem to be completely mesmerized and in agreement with positions that I find abhorrant. Government overreach, lying about nearly every issue, IRS targeting, etc. Illogical, ridiculous...I just can't identify with their positions since they seem to based on current ideology rather an a substative argument. Not to mention that it should be abhorrant to every American citizen - who wants to allow their government to lie to them, allow them to break laws and get away with it etc.? Craziness.

Biff said...

It's been impressive to see how quickly Scott Walker came to dominate my Facebook feed today, as my lefty acquaintances (99% of whom have no apparent connection with Wisconsin) became obsessed with sharing articles about the evil, racist, criminal Governor of Wisconsin.

They really are worried that he will be the next President of the United States.

Che Dolf said...

Instapundit got "Deep State" from he-who-shall-not-be-named.

SgtPete said...

Scott is still over target. Just buckle up and put on those flack jackets. Target Hillary awaits. :)

rcommal said...

Looking around at some local Madison sites and at some less-local lefty sites, I see a scary love of prosecutorial aggression and overreach. The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in..."

Looking around everywhere, I see too much of that, the scary love and slavering enthusiasm. The scary loves and the slavering enthusiasms--and this in a time when "all politics is local" has become a notion nationalized: that is, all politics is national, local or not.

So much for the "vote with your feet" notion. That notion is dead--and, ironically enough, the stake was struck [not just stuck] in cooperatively.

David said...

"The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate."

And what does that tell you? It tells me that the core of the American left is rotten. They are not interested in freedom, autonomy, open debate, compromise or harmony. They want to win, empower the state and advance their self interest. They are closed minded, exclusionary and manipulative.

The American left has embraced a corrupt and authoritarian mode of governance. This approach is not intrinsically the nature of only the left. The state tends in this direction without strong countervailing forces. The right is not immune from these tendencies, but the left was a counterforce. Now the counter forces are weak. The left demonizes them, helped by two powerful institutional forces, the media and academia. Both are near mute about the abuses.

I understand your hesitancy and reluctance, professor, but the left is where the danger lies for now.

Anonymous said...

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams

OmegaPaladin said...

Leftists often cause migrations toward the right.

I was politically apathetic with an interest in social conservatism back 1999-2000, and I was a very hesitant Bush voter. Then 9-11 happened, and the left seemed to want us to surrender, kneeling in penance for our sins against humanity or something. I wanted victory. I wanted Al Qaeda to be crushed.

Now, Professor, we have a president just the same as these Leftists you rightly despise. Keep in mind that the conservatives you look down upon saw through Obama while you still saw him as the best thing since sliced bread. I appreciate your considered reassessment of us, but a bit more humility might be in order.

Carl said...

Well, you long to belong, and a warm feeling of belonging is exactly what the lefties sell -- have always sold.

The funny thing is, conservatives distrust each other just about as much as you wishy-washies in the middle distrust them. That's why they rarely get their act together and agree on a candidate, or a movement platform, or even a rallying cry. That's why even the left * tends to trust them with the mechanics of governing, because they can't forge a fascist police state: they don't trust each other enough.

-----
* Lefties want to set policy and broad direction, but they're happy enough leaving the nitty gritty to conservatives. That's why they like the idea of regulations that tell corporations what to do more than flat-out nationalization and Five Year Plans. See, they have the Big Picture, the vision thing, down. Actual execution can lie in the hands of those worker bee conservatives in the military, business, et cetera. And the reason they trust that the worker bees won't sabotage and destroy the operation is -- they're conservatives. They can't march together to save their life. Effective conspiracy is beyond them.

Victor Erimita said...

You may not feel you belong with conservatives on "social issues." But liberals aren't liberal at all any more on any issues except those involving sex. They certainly aren't liberal any longer on most of what we used to think of as fundamental rights, including speech, property, association. "Liberalism" today is statism. There is no longer a single issue "liberals" think is beyond the sphere of government control. Cases like the Wisconsin prosecutorial abuse make that clearer all the time.

Massive overregulation in many areas. A grotesquely growing, unsustainable welfare state that has done nothing in a half century to alleviate. Poverty and has institutionalized it fir many, creating a permanent dependency culture. A failed, exploitative and destructive education cartel at all levels, including universities.

As for "social issues," you mean what? Gay marriage? Attitudes are changing fast on that, and it should hardly be in the top 10 issues of national priority anyway. The "war on women? " Please. Affirmative action? What social issues are you even talking about at this late date? Hey, we're losing our freedom, prosperity, our medical system, our international standing, our middle class. But, hey, we got gay marriage!

Liberalism isn't liberalism any more. It's statism by any means necessary. And tribal identity.

Alex said...

I'd sign up to the Center Party in a moment. I suspect there are 10s of millions more like Ann.

Lee Reynolds said...

This is the problem with terms like Conservative that are substantially subjective.

It is entirely possible for two people to meet, and one of them say he is a conservative, and the other to say that he is not, and yet the differences of opinion and philosophy between the two to be all but nil.

The same is true of the term liberal. It is equally possible for two self-professed liberals to meet, and yet agree on very little at all.

The libertarian label is perhaps the most difficult of all because its nominal adherents are all over the map and often cannot even communicate with each other. I know reasonable self-described libertarians, and I've encountered crazy ones, and the difference is not one of degree.

All of these words do mean something. They are not purely subjective. But they are subjective enough to create problems, not least of all because no single term can encompass the entirety of a person's world view.

I do try to avoid labeling myself as being anything at all, other than possessed of common sense, if only to avoid giving dishonest hacks an excuse to falsely attack me for supporting positions that are not my own.

Haiku Guy said...

You know what pushed me to the Dark Side?

The finding by the EPA that Second Hand Smoke was a "Class A Carcinogen".

That finding was not supported by a single shred of scientific evidence. There was not demonstrable hazard to the general public. But the Agency went forward with their finding on Second Hand Smoke because Clinton wanted to use it as a peg from which to hang his anti-smoking legislation.

All of the regulation of smoking in public places hangs on that EPA finding, and that finding was false Everybody in the EPA knew it was false when they made it, because they were on the side of the angels.

I defer to no man in my hatred of the tobacco industry. If I were President, I would invite the Plaintiff's Bar to run them out of business my first week in office, which would take about another week, without government protection. But if the government is going to rig the game in such a blatant fashion on this, what else are they going to do on matters I don't know so much about?

tim in vermont said...

"I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate."

I guess if you feel a need to "affiliate" politically, you are a liberal at heart. The weird thing about many of us conservatives is that we are genuinely off put by the kind of dishonest rhetoric and political tactics of the left and so basically, we don't know what they genuinely believe, better to just block them.

As an example, here is a liberal poster with the handle Heyooyeh who puts words in your mouth, says you said you "can't stand" liberals, or at least heavily implies it.

This is the kind of dishonest reading of a text that got George Will's column taken out of the Post Dispatch. It is infuriating, but it works for them as a tactic. That is what turned them into a "them" for me.

I voted for Jimmy Carter twice, Ted Kennedy in the primary against Carter.

tim in vermont said...

" acknowledging the reality of abuse, but being okay with it because Republicans Are Bad "

You see this a lot when lefties defend the the IRS. They say that Lerner was justified in taking the fifth because it is a witch hunt, and they have zero problem with 7 different individual hard drives crashing, one after being notified of an investigation, six after being subpoenaed.

If you call them "lawless," they deny it, but what else is it?

Michael Fitzgerald said...

"Regulations" is a very vague meme democrat party members call up to bash republicans with. Are laws not regulations? Aren't democrats who encourage illegal immigration ignoring the regulations for legal entry into our country? There were regulations governing the amount of money a presidential candidate could spend on a campaign, but Obama democrats had no qualms about ignoring them. What is meant by "immigration reform"? Do the people demanding it want to regulate the amount and kind of immigrants entering our country, do they want to re-establish worker programs like the braceros, or do they just want to legalize the illegals already among us? And what does amnesty do to achieve "immigration reform"? Such phrases like"regulations" and "immigration reform" are not ideas or policies, they're codes for democrat party members to weild with voters who don't pay attention.

Mark said...

Its cute that you act like you considered yourself on the fence with Walker when you are one of the biggest local apologists for him.

Funny how you never discuss the economy or any of his failed promises, it is always straight to the same talking points his campaign ends up using.

Cruel neutrality not in practice with Walker, yet you pretend it is.

Fritz said...

Ann, if you haven't seen it already, you might be amused by David Mamet's "Why I am no longer a Brain Dead Liberal":

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/

Gerry Daly said...

"onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate" except, as you are realizing, all of the most important stuff.

Rich B said...

In the end, the left believes that the achievement of its enlightened society justifies any means. The left sees society as a vehicle to be directed and they want to take the controls. The mask has been dropped and the pretense of civility has been abandoned.

The libertarians (really the ur-liberals) believe in restraint in the initiation of force and non-interference in personal choice consistent with that restraint. The conservatives are sometimes in agreement with the libertarians but do not agree that unfettered choice is always good. To a large degree, these two groups share a belief that individuals should be governed by rules but otherwise allowed to live as they choose. Despite the differences between these two groups, I hope they can may common cause against the inherent tyranny of the left and sort out their differences later.

Rusty said...

I disagree completely on the social issues and on things about economics, regulations, and things like welfare and immigration, I'm in the middle and not ideological. "

So you're not a classic liberal. Just a right leaning lefty.
Outlaw!

tim maguire said...

so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away

If you believe in liberal values then this has been your experience with liberals pretty much your entire adult life, hasn't it? It's certainly been mine.

St. George said...

Professor--

When you say you can't agree with conservatives on "economics" issues, I don't know what you mean.

The policies of both parties since the mid-1960s have been driving us to the poor house.

The bigger the government has become, it's become less efficient, less trustworthy, and less successful while simultaneously suppressing prosperity and, yes, liberty. We need a Constitutional convention. Sadly, it appears it's going to take a severe crisis to get us to that point.....

CStanley said...

At least they are giving a clear signal of which candidate they fear. I can't even work up the curiosity to read about what they are alleging he did. I used to feel it was important to be informed, partly to see if there was any "there" there (I have enough intellectual integrity that I don't want to support candidates who are corrupt) and partly to refute accusations when they are specious and inaccurate.

It has now become obvious that specious and inaccurate is the whole point of these types of allegations, so I'm not playing,

Ritchie The Riveter said...

Regarding the social issues, there are only three of any significance these days:

Abortion - which involves the fundamental moral principle of the unalienable right to live, one of those self-evident truths that this nation is founded upon ... subjecting that unalienable right to arbitrary boundaries that can be changed/augmented at any time ... and sets a precedent that human life can be ended if it is deemed "inconvenient" by family or society, which should make one nervous as they grow older.

The requirement that contraception, including post-conception varieties, be provided in ALL insurance programs - which I see as an attempt by the Flukes of the world to jam their moral views (and personal greed) down the throats of employers, freedom of conscience be damned.

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages ... taking an institution that has transcended religion and culture, having an objective basis in its value to human society in stabilizing relationships where the conception of children (inside or outside the marriage) is a possibility ... then opening it up to alternatives that lack that objective basis, in the name of political expediency and "feelings ... nothing more than ... feelings" ... then stand back and watch as that legal recognition is used as a new RaceCard to muzzle even respectful and principled critics of the lifestyle choice (and yes, it is as much of a choice as mine to remain monogamous in the face of male biology - it is not immutable, despite the comparisons to race that some indulge in).

As can be seen above, a secular case can be made for the so-con position on all three issues above ... and those are the only three being talked about to any extent.

So, members of the Althouse commentariat, tell me ... where else are we "so-cons" intruding upon your world? Where are our "blue-haired busybodies" actually threatening your liberty?

Or is concerns over so-cons more about shooting the messengers to protect your mellow from being harshed about your choices in life, with credible criticism ... in the case of Progressives, not just from so-cons, but from conservatives of all stripes?

SGT Ted said...

onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

...except for the commonality of principle of the rule of law and fairness of Government treatment of citizens. That Government is our servant and not our master.

When your political affiliation is in conflict with your core principles as a citizen, maybe your political affiliation needs to be seriously reexamined.

DavidD said...

"The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate."

Ann, Ann, Ann. Conservatives are the only ones trying to preserve liberal values anymore.

Conservative has always meant different things in different times and in different places, Ann.

SGT Ted said...

It's the group I really do belong with, but time and again, I find I cannot stand them.

Your basic problem is the idea that you need to "belong" to a group, other than being a fellow citizen.

And really, support for a political idea or group should adhere to facts and whether or not the idea espoused by the group actually work when applied as policy and not necessarily the politics of the side that promotes the idea.

The Progressives (they are not liberals) have a poor track record of competence on anything other than their support of *some* personal liberties.

Which brings up the other critique; that those you feel an affiliation with as a "liberal" aren't really liberals, are they? They are soft Stalinists at best. Which is reason enough to jettison ones affiliation with them, based on what seems to be one of your core principles.

SGT Ted said...

Ann,

I see you've bought into the spin that the GOP is anti-immigrant as well.

And how do you square your adherence to the rule of law and then continue to affiliate with the Democrats in positions of power openly flouting and ignoring the enforcement of immigration law for rank political purposes?

How do you reconcile with the base contempt for other, ordinary civil rights the Democrats constantly show?

Curious George said...

"Ann Althouse said...
The reason I don't think I belong with conservatives is that I disagree completely on the social issues and on things about economics, regulations, and things like welfare and immigration, I'm in the middle and not ideological."

Sure, all it takes is the ability in one breath to claim that abortion is murder, and then say it's all okee dokee unless mom thinks its so.

Yep, you do belong with them. You have the requisite intellectual dishonesty to get where ever you need to go.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

What are "the liberal values [you] believe in," Althouse?

Might that be: people should be polite and charitable?

Or maybe: the coercive force of Government must be used to enforce politeness and charity according to my personal whims?

Or perhaps: individual citizens are responsible for their own safety and welfare, and responsible as well for the consequences of their actions?

========

Reading the Wikipedia article on "Deep State", seems to be just another phrase for "oligarchy of the political class" - pretty much what we have in the USA today. The two two major parties joust with eachother, but are unified in the belief that sovereignty rests in Government, not in the People.

Mr. D said...

The only thing that mattered was the headline and the now eternal "Scott Walker criminal" Google Search that will generate hits from across the country.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann wrote: . . . I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

Yes. You won't find many of us who fell for Obama's BS in 2008. We think and analyze quite differently.

Thucydides said...

He of course claims that it's a Progressive-tilting permanent state forever thwarting the aspirations of "the People."

There, fixed that for you.

Curious George said...

"lb said...
Ann - I totally identify with your statement. I am a conservative fiscally and in agreement with gay marriage and social programs"

Gay marriage, ok. "Conservative fiscally and in agreement with social programs" tells me you are a moron.

Progressives belief what is sustainable is not, and what is not sustainable, is.

Matthew Sablan said...

The Deep State makes me think of machine politics. They really don't have an ideological leaning besides protecting their jobs and growing their fiefdom's power, which is why we tend to associate them with the left. The party of smaller government is not as easy a fit for corrupt, career government workers. Sure, some find their way, but the path of least resistance is in the party that isn't inherently skeptical of giving people access to so many levers of power.

It isn't even a moral failing of Team Blue; it isn't like their politics are inherently evil or immoral. They are just more easily exploited by evil, lazy and immoral people.

Mark said...

If Social Conservatives weren't losing every battle they fight (and they have been for the past 40 years or so) I'd have more sympathy with your position.

When it comes to belief in a truly tolerant society the positions have flipped. There's a cultural orthodoxy that being aggressively enforced, but it ain't Pat Robertson's orthodoxy. Woe betide anyone who expresses the opinion that two members of the same sex should be able to marry. (Personally I support gay marriage and stranger unions still. I just DON'T support the persecution of those who don't agree with me.)

Bite the bullet Ann and admit you're a libertarian. That doesn't mean you have to renounce all belief in the appropriate use of regulation or the value of public services. It just means looking at the State as the last-resort solution to any given problem.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Looking around at some local Madison sites and at some less-local lefty sites, I see a scary love of prosecutorial aggression and overreach."

-- Do they like prosecutorial aggression though? Ask them their thoughts on whether drug prosecutions are racially imbalanced or if they feel that the Executive branch is right in exercising more discretion in not deporting illegal immigrants. You'll find that their love of prosecutorial aggression and overreach is directly tied to whether that overreach/aggression lines up with their political beliefs.

Freder Frederson said...

The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

Gee, I wish you were as concerned about torture, indefinite detention, and kangaroo military tribunals as you are about whether prosecutors overreached on investigating potentially illegal campaign activites.

gerry said...

You would trade your indivdual freedom so Dems can throw you a bone and allow same sex marriage?

This is a perfect assessment of Althouse logic, and progressive logic overall: who gives a shit about consequences, we need to do this because it make me feel good about my feelings!

nofreelunch said...

The reason that many liberals become conservatives, as they gain life experience, is because they have an open mind that tends to look at both sides of a question. Closed minded people know what they know, and refuse to hear contradictory evidence to their beliefs (i.e.watch Fox News or read The Wall Street Journal).
Liberalism is a giant CON GAME based on lies (like all con games. Open minded people tend to finally see through the lies, closed minded never do. They remain dupes all their lives. This is why so many liberals become conservatives, but no conservatives ever become liberals.

Michael K said...

The Bill Moyers site piece on the "Deep State" is not by Moyers. I posted it several months ago on Chicago Boyz and initially made the same mistake.

Dan from Madison said...

Ann Althouse: "It's the group I really do belong with, but time and again, I find I cannot stand them.:

Well, I happen to know who you can stand with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQIMDTjHB6A

I think I win one internet for this comment.

Basil said...

Professor, so, if I understand your posting, you see teh risk to classical liberal values from the hard left and yet you still feel affinity for them becasue of the "social issues."
Could you be so kind as to enumerate these "social issues" for further exploration?
From my now several years reading this blog (thank you , btw, for making this forum exist, you did build this) I see only two such issues: 1) abortion and 2) gay marriage. Have I missed any?
The conservative position on abirtion is that innocent life is sacred and should be preserved and that the unborn, yet existing child (and the father) should have rights protectable by the state. This is primarily a federalist position where the states could legalize or outlaw abortion, as the people decide. This seems to most conservatives as a workable compromise.
On gay marriage, once again, teh conservative position is a federalist position. States are, and have always been, free to define marriage as they choose based on the will of the people. Conservatives have an additional worry on this issue and that is the risk to teh legitimacy of the rule of law. As bad as Roe was a judicial tyranny, discovery of a right to homosexual marriage in the federal constitution would require such a divination of penumbras and to risk the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It would truly by Humpty Dumpty law. Is a federal right to marry someone of the same sex, as opposed to flying to Massachusetts to do it, worth the risk to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court? To ask the question is to answer it. Of course not. Marriage is a state issue and always has been. The 14the Amendment, written by Puritans, does not cover this topic.
I hope you find your way to the side of classical liberalism, which is where the conservative movement lives. The hard left is the danger here, not the Nebraska Legislature with its old fashioned Americans in charge.

dave in boca said...

Prosecutors & Judges affecting elections. As if the DimmoCrats didn't have millions pouring in from out-of-state for the bogus recall election!

Basil said...

Professor, btw, did you ever read "We the Living"? It is Ayn Rand's novel about living in Russia when teh Soviets took over. There is a great character in there named Comrade Sonia who would fit right in at the Madison campus.

4 and a half stars on Amazon!!!!

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=we+the+living+by+ayn+rand&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=30922692261&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2306485194020480626&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6iswplnpxm_b

garage mahal said...

They are not interested in freedom, autonomy, open debate, compromise or harmony. They want to win, empower the state and advance their self interest. They are closed minded, exclusionary and manipulative.

Liberals have exactly no power in Wisconsin. Republican run everything. This investigation is being led by a Walker voting Republican.

Walker was bragging to Karl Rove about coordinating with outside groups to retain power. Project much?

dreams said...

"Social I agree with but economics ? Regulations ?

Immigration ?

That's not the middle, that's the statist position. Nobody should talk about inequality and support illegal immigration."

I agree with Michael K.

Drago said...

And Freder, right on cue, illustrates precisely the intellectual insanity of the stalinist left.

Freder: "Gee, I wish you were as concerned about torture, indefinite detention, and kangaroo military tribunals as you are about whether prosecutors overreached on investigating potentially illegal campaign activites."

Freder conflates terrorists, engaged in terrorist acts against the United States, with American conservatives/republicans who simply oppose American liberal/left policies.

And if the truth be told, Freder actually finds the conservatives/republicans the greater threat.

And oh, waterboarding is not torture Freder.

What the muslims do ROUTINELY, which is stick a knife in your eye socket and gouge out your eyes is torture.

That's right before they cut your head off.

All of which Freder is silent upon.

And remember, Freder is the one for whom Ann would feel the most political kinship.

Delightful.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"I'm genuinely sorry when a mistake causes confusion."

Indeed I agree causing confusion ought to be from causes non-mistakable.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Social conservatism is icky.

They show pictures of dead clumps of cells and shit.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

The worst aspects of social leftism is dead, obliterated, so you don't see anything hence don't care.

Lack of empathy is the opposite of tenderness so congrats!

Tom Perkins said...

A fair view of Althouse.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/190553/?show-at-comment=735779#comment-735779

She has begun to question her premises.

Big Mike said...

The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in, that I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate.

@Althouse, why do you keep treating conservatives as though we are a monolithic block? Can't you see that there are differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? I don't think that there are any such things as socially conservative "Progressives" and absolutely there is no such thing as a fiscally conservative "Progressive." But on there other side the spectrum is broader.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/February/Reality-Check-Activists-Say-Most-Women-Pro-Life/

"It's a pleasure and a privilege to be with a group that believes that liberated women can believe something other than the rich, diverse ideological spectrum between Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi," Ham told the gala audience.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

We, the defenders of social conservatism, prevented your tender sensibilities from this:

"PARIS — “I am not an anti-Semite,” French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala says with a devilish grin near the start of his hit show at this city’s Théâtre de la Main d’Or.

Then come the Jew jokes.

In front of a packed house, he apes Alain Jakubowicz, a French Jewish leader who calls the humor of Dieudonné, as he is known, tantamount to hate speech. While the comedian skewers Jakubowicz, Stars of David glow on screen and, as the audience guffaws, a soundtrack plays evoking the trains to Nazi death camps. In various other skits, he belittles the Holocaust, then mocks it as a gross exaggeration.

In a country where Jewish leaders are decrying the worst climate of anti-Semitism in decades, Dieudonné, a longtime comedian and erstwhile politician whose attacks on Jews have grown progressively worse, is a sign of the times. French authorities issued an effective ban on his latest show in January for inciting hate. So he reworked the material to get back on stage, cutting, for instance, one joke lamenting the lack of modern-day gas chambers."

THANK US.

You can't handle the truth.

As a Francophile, Rush would bum rush into oblivion this bigotry.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal":
"Walker was bragging to Karl Rove about coordinating with outside groups to retain power. Project much?"

Corrected, this should read:
Walker was bragging to Karl Rove about exercising his First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, which cannot be made illegal.

That is why the federal courts stopped the unconstitutional fishing expedition.

You are welcome for the help "garage mahal".

Thucydides said...

"The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting, so much at odds with the liberal values I believe in"

The Liberal values you believe in are the true liberal values of the Enlightenment, which is why they don't fit in the Progressive context in any way. The Founders chose the primary values of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the benchmark you can test "Progressive" values and programs against. If the Progressive values and programs are in opposition to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", then they are not Liberal at all.

SJ said...

It seems that you have confused goal and aspirations of intellectual liberals for the actual behavior of all members of the social group "liberal-leaning politicos".

Kind of like noticing that some people who take the name "Christian" don't fit your definition of "Christian."

In both cases, you are seeing humans who are behaving more like members of a social class than like intellectually-detached rational persons.

Social classes exhibit all sorts of spite, anger, resentment, and bile against The Other. Even when those emotions and responses are counter to the professed morals of the Social Group.

Thus:
--a University that claimed to be Christian and had long-standing rules against inter-racial dating. (The rules were likely rooted in social pressure of the prevailing culture, rather than taking the Apostle Paul's instruction about the races of humanity, and their equality before God.)

--A feminist group that was putting significant legal pressure on businesses to reduce the "CEO gets sexual favors from his secretary" factor; this group went on to defend Bill Clinton against such charges, even when the evidence was against him. (Because the internal social pressure of feminist groups put high favor on the party-label "Democrat". Even when the Democrat in question was a suspected womanizer who had been charged with such behavior during his stint as Governor of Arkansas.)

Now you're discovering strong social pressure in favor of "abuse the laws, tarnish a man who is likely innocent but is our political opponent."

To me, it looks like some members of Tribe Liberal are all too happy to be ill-Liberal towards people who are not members of the Tribe.

Which is not rational, but is human.

garage mahal said...

That is why the federal courts stopped the unconstitutional fishing expedition.

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.

Where are the state's rights conservatives here? Federal judge shuts down a state investigation and they cheer it? Oh that's right, you have no principles whatsoever, you just pretend to.

ken in sc said...

American conservatives are trying to conserve liberal democracy and a representative republic as set forth in our founding documents--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. European conservatives, at one point in time, were trying to conserve monarchy and an aristocratic class system. What they are trying to conserve now, I don't know. However,these two are not the same thing. Yet the so-called liberals and progressives deliberately confound the two.

eddie willers said...

For me, it was hearing Ronald Reagan speak in person when I was 22.

Mine was the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.

The pure hate emanating from the eyes of Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

The Crack Emcee said...

"The slavering enthusiasm is so off-putting,...I feel pushed away onto the side of conservatives with whom I have little reason to affiliate."

Whew, Girl, been there. But you know what? That's because you're too identified with the rotten, white, segregation-and-discrimination-based "Deep State" liars, and not accepting the fight for Wisconsin's long-standing “Inner Core” that's payed for the white's misdeeds. That's a pretty sick culture, you got there.

Prosecutorial over-reach and a slavering lust to finally - finally - get the upper hand on those who have always posed as our best boy scouts, while being the worst of the bad guys on the corporate, mass, scale?

Let me ask you:

Still cheering Walker's destruction of that "boondoggle" rail line blacks needed to reach jobs?

What were you cheering for? Whites got to save some money! How much, Ann? How much was worth that?

Whites got to maintain the harsh segregated set-up, too! Did Walker run on that? Or was it just implied? I want to know so I can compare the cheering to the O.J. Trial.

Damn, for a lawyer, the old boys really know how to sucker you in, Ann.





tim maguire said...

garage mahal said...Where are the state's rights conservatives here? Federal judge shuts down a state investigation and they cheer it? Oh that's right, you have no principles whatsoever, you just pretend to.

The only people who claim states rights are absolute are the people who don't believe in them.

StoughtonSconnie said...

And the 7th Circuit will rule on the oft-overruled Judge Randa decision.
They sure will, and that would be the same 7th Circuit that earlier this year threw out the parts of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws dealing with issue ads and express advocacy, saying they were vague and overbroad.
Even if they would ignore their own ruling, and overturn Randa, the witch hunt would still be on hold pending the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling on the appeal of Judge Peterson's ruling against subpoenas. Think old Shirley is sitting on that ruling because it's going to go in her favor?
And as for "state's rights", well, you are actually correct, we motley fools who believe the words in the US Constitution actually mean something do generally prefer state remedies to federal remedies. That's called the 9th and 10th amendments. But we also tend to put individuals above both. So if a state or it's actors is trampling on an individuals' God-given right to speech, and it takes the feds to stop it, then so be it. That's because we care about people as actual people, and not things that can be neatly fit into larger groups that can be categorized, infantalized, and eventually criminalized. That is the inevitable final destination of your way of thinking, Garage.

The Crack Emcee said...

BTW - I know it's difficult to read about American slavery, Jim Crow and whatnot, but once you do - and have a context for what's being done today - then the answer, to the question of who are the good and bad players, becomes a lot simpler:

Those unconcerned with who the good and bad players are,...

Drago said...

garage: "Where are the state's rights conservatives here? Federal judge shuts down a state investigation and they cheer it? Oh that's right, you have no principles whatsoever, you just pretend to."

Up is down.

Down is up.

The Left.

I am once again reminded of how the left proclaimed how the people of the Soviet Union and Cuba et al were truly "free" and we were not since the gov't "provided" so many "guaranteed" services.

The complete and utter destruction of language and the plain meaning of words along with the 180 degree twisting of reality are all prerequisites for the growing leftist state.

garage mahal said...

So if a state or it's actors is trampling on an individuals' God-given right to speech, and it takes the feds to stop it, then so be it.

Anything for the party.

Who's free speech is being trampled? O'Keefe has been leaking to the WSJ. Walker's been talking all morning about it. What are they being prevented from doing?

Anonymous said...

...exercising his First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, which cannot be made illegal.

Yet you called out to use tear gas and attack dogs on those who were exercising their First Amendment rights by singing in the Capitol.

You're a sick fuck, no matter what name you post under.

Bella by Sara said...

The socialist facist party got away with doing the same thing to Tom Delay in Austin, Tx without every being punished for it. Now the higher courts here are throwing it all out and showing that it was all just an organized witch hunt to destroy Delay. Until these people are prosecuted for misconduct this will continue to happen. It doesn't matter if conservatives are cleared later, their reputations will have been destroyed. Mission accomplished. Until we punch back twice as hard these horrible people will continue to try and get away with it.

Basil said...

Crack, so yuo're saying that non-white people can't drive cars and must have their transportation paid for by the evil white people?

You hate whitey, believe whitey is the source of all evil in the world but want whitey to pay for all your stuff.

How do you manage to function beyond rolling over in bed with all that hate and cognitive dissonance running around in your head? You, sir are a medical miracle.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
So if a state or it's actors is trampling on an individuals' God-given right to speech, and it takes the feds to stop it, then so be it.

Anything for the party.

Who's free speech is being trampled? O'Keefe has been leaking to the WSJ. Walker's been talking all morning about it. What are they being prevented from doing?

Oh good lord.
Shut up and pay attention. You might learn something.

Rusty said...

madisonfella said...
...exercising his First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, which cannot be made illegal.

Yet you called out to use tear gas and attack dogs on those who were exercising their First Amendment rights by singing in the Capitol.

You're a sick fuck, no matter what name you post under.

You can sit with garage.

Anonymous said...

It is kind of surreal seeing so many right-wingers defend billionaires from foreign countries giving campaign contributions to a state race by calling such an act "free speech"

Those wingnuts are putting their political party above our country, and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

StoughtonSconnie said...

Who's free speech is being trampled?
Are you deliberately obtuse, or are you having a hard time keeping up? The entire John Doe investigation is meant to intimidate and silence conservative groups and prevent them from effectively raising and spending funds. That is a violation of the first amendment, because spending money on elections is considered speech. You may not like that, but that's the current law of the land.
The 7th Circuit case that has your undies in a bundle revolves around exactly that, that the John Doe investigation and tactics is a violation of the target's civil rights.

Alex said...

madisionfella..

It is kind of surreal seeing so many right-wingers defend billionaires from foreign countries giving campaign contributions to a state race by calling such an act "free speech"

Those wingnuts are putting their political party above our country, and they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.</i.

It's exactly this kind of blatant demagoguery that Hitler excelled in. Before you accuse me of Godwinning the thread, go read some history. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

Drago said...

Rusty: "You can sit with garage."

He probably is garage.

Birkel said...

"madisonfella" (aka Inga):
You have accused me of something and are wrong. I expect no correction or admission but if I see lies I won't let them stand.

"garage mahal":
So if somebody is 'leaking' because they have been illegally ordered by a court not to exercise their First Amendment rights then they are, in fact, exercising their First Amendment rights? That's so fucking stupid even you cannot believe what you typed. And you're an unaccountable, unintelligent fool so that's saying something.

The Left is ready to go Full Fascist. The collectivist party is above logic, reasoning, facts, morals or ethics. Power is the Left's most important (and perhaps only) goal.

garage mahal said...

The entire John Doe investigation is meant to intimidate and silence conservative groups and prevent them from effectively raising and spending funds.

There is nothing I know of that is preventing them from speaking or raising/spending money. Again, they've all been talking up a storm. Walker is running new ads as we speak.

The 7th Circuit case that has your undies in a bundle revolves around exactly that, that the John Doe investigation and tactics is a violation of the target's civil rights.

No bunching. Just popcorn.

Meade said...

"Who's free speech is being trampled? O'Keefe has been leaking to the WSJ. Walker's been talking all morning about it. What are they being prevented from doing?"

Don't you mean: What were the targeted O'Keefe and witness Walker prevented from doing while the partisan prosecutors conducted secret raids under an unconstitutional state law in which individuals who were targeted or witness to the investigation were forbidden from making knowledge of it public?

Answer: They were prevented from speaking freely against government power.

Basil said...

Crack? Just got home from work and I see no response to my question. Why do expect whitey to pay for your all your stuff? Nobody alive today in America, well no white person, has ever owned a slave. My ancestors died in the Union Army. Instead of crying about a train that taxpayers decided was a stupid idea, why don't you raise the funds and build it yourself? George Soros could write you a check. Wait a minute, he's a white guy. Oops.

garage mahal said...

Again, Walker, O'Keefe, et al: Nobody is preventing them from speaking or raising money. Damaging documents come out, what does Walker do? Attack Mary Burke on TV. He's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so.

Inga said...

Birkel you idiot, Madisonfella is not me. I haven't commented here for months. Leave poor Madisonfella alone. I was MadisonMa'am, not Madisonfella. What a dope you are, or you're obsessed.

Drago said...

Garage: "There is nothing i know of....."

Lol

And hilarity ensued.

I guess gag orders dont really stop anyone from speaking.

Lol

Garage ia that stupid.

Anonymous said...

Birkel, you are constantly accusing me of being someone else and are wrong. I expect no correction or admission from you but if I see lies I won't let them stand unchallenged.

And if you want to go on the record now as claiming you (under this name or any other name) never said anything about using force to remove protesters from the State Capitol then feel free to actually say so. But as Paul Ryan recently said, "Sitting here listening to this testimony, I don’t believe it”

garage mahal said...

guess gag orders dont really stop anyone from speaking.

O'Keefe has been speaking. Walker is speaking. Are they breaking a gag order? Oh wait, I'm talking to a complete meat head again. Why?

Birkel said...

Hahaha!
Inga doesn't comment for a long while but mysteriously shows up here as I call "madisonfella" "Inga"!!!???!!!!??!!

And in order to prove the sincerity you admit you have sockpuppeted before??!?!!!!?!?!?!!!!!?

Idiot! (Notice the lack of pluralization.)

Meade said...

"O'Keefe has been speaking."

Earlier, you said he'd been "leaking". Why did you change your term? How does one "leak" when one is free to "speak"?

Birkel said...

Drago,
Notice "garage mahal" is using the present tense to describe an order that was (past tense) preventing the parties from speaking. "garage mahal" pretends at cleverness by choosing not to lie by obsessively intending to deceive.

Perhaps "garage mahal" has a conscience.

No, who am I fooling? He and the rest of the Left are ready to go Full Fascist.

garage mahal said...

Okay Meade. Even if O'Keeffe or Walker are under some sort of privacy order, they're still speaking freely it seems.

garage mahal said...

Notice "garage mahal" is using the present tense to describe an order that was (past tense) preventing the parties from speaking

Let's just cut to the chase.

Exactly what is Walker & Co. being prevented from saying, and where can I find that legally binding directive?

Don't even bother replying to me with anything other than "I don't know" or "Here is the link to that legal document"

Anonymous said...

an unconstitutional state law

Did Judge Randa declare the whole John Doe process to be unconstitutional when he ruled that all the evidence gathered had to be destroyed, or is it your personal opinion rather than a legal ruling that the process is unconstitutional?

Meade said...

Unconstitutional is my opinion. Here's the Wisconsin John Doe law.

If Mary Burke wins in November, I trust you guys will support the use of it to fish, I mean, to investigate her campaign's free associations, I mean, nefarious coordinations with liberal issues groups.

Inga said...

Birkel, you dummy, I still read Althouse occasionally and I've seen you call Madisonfella by my name before. You are completely obsessed with me, hahaha! Yes indeed it is pathetic to still be obsessed by a commenter long after she's gone. Damn man, get a life.

Poor Madisonfella, hey I'd get a sockpuppet if I were you.

Inga said...

If Mary Burke wins Meade, you'll have to make up a new song for you and Ann to dance to.

Birkel said...

being prevented =/= was prevented

You see, "garage mahal", verb tense matters. As a judge has ordered the prosecutors to stop their unconstitutional fishing expedition and lifted all prohibitions on participants' exercise of free speech, there is no present tense restriction.

What you should ask is whether the secret tribunals ordered any secret restrictions on participants in the fishing expedition. That you would not even ask the more straightforward question reveals your intent.

The obvious answer to the question you won't ask is: The unconstitutional law prevents people speaking about an unconstitutional investigation but cannot be proven or disproven because the unconstitutional law keeps the proceedings hidden from public view. But the federal judge decided the unconstitutional law was unconstitutional and now everybody can (present tense!) speak about things they previously could not.

Meade said...

Or better yet, you guys would be fine with a John Doe investigation into the coordination in spending done by the unions, democrats, and other outside groups during the failed attempt to recall Gov. Walker in favor of candidate Barrett, right? Were you part of that recall election effort? Hand over all your emails and documents. You can talk to your lawyer when we tell you you can talk to your lawyer. Now shush your crying children and handover all your hard drives, perps.

Meade said...

"If Mary Burke wins Meade, you'll have to make up a new song for you and Ann to dance to."

Very true. The more cheese the better.

Inga said...

Well Meade I hope it doesn't curdle your stomach! May the best Cheesehead win.

garage mahal said...

Dear Birkel
You didn't reply with a link to an order prohiting any human from speaking. I didn't finish reading your post. Sorry, "Birkel".

Drago said...

Inga is back!

#waronwomen on parade!

We need to start a pool to see which conservative/republican/libertarian woman will be called a c*** by Crack and then have that defended by Inga.

There are quite a few possibilities so the field is wide open.

And yes, the madisonfella (who oddly enough showed up in force when Inga left) is now coinhabiting the blog with Inga.

Nope. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

Back on the Walker topic, it is hard to miss the current lefty tactic to pretend that the gag order that was lifted did not impact those under it when it was in effect.

But then again, that's par for the course for our wannabe stalinists.

StoughtonSconnie said...

There is nothing I know of that is preventing them from speaking or raising/spending money.
Sweet smokin' Judas, how dense. To ethically fund-raise, you'd need to inform every potential donor that you were under indictment/investigation. But the John Doe process prevents the targets from talking about it, which is the most pernicious part of a disgusting abomination of a law. Ergo, no disclosure, no fundraising. That has been the intent of the current investigation all along. You'd need to be willfully blind not to see that.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea that the people under investigation were legally not allowed to consult their lawyers until permission was granted. That changes everything. How long where they denied the right to counsel? Did anybody break that rule and if so what happened to them?

No wonder you're pissed. That truly is some fucking bullshit, and people need to know about it.

Anonymous said...

you guys would be fine with a John Doe investigation into the coordination in spending done by the unions, democrats, and other outside groups during the failed attempt to recall Gov. Walker in favor of candidate Barrett, right?

What makes you think such a investigation hasn't already taken place? If you have some evidence of wrongdoing then please forward it to Van Hollen's office ASAP and lets get it investigated.

Anonymous said...

Anybody else notice how Birkel and Drago make the exact same grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes as the "other"? Not to mention how often they will use the same exact phrasing and talking points?

Purely coincidental, I'm sure


*waves to Inga!* Nice to finally meet you. I've also been accused of being Garage, Justin, and one time was even called Meade!

Drago said...

madisonfella/inga: "What makes you think such a investigation hasn't already taken place?"

Uh, the fact that it hasn't?

madisonfella/inga: "If you have some evidence of wrongdoing then please forward it to Van Hollen's office ASAP and lets get it investigated"

LOL

The point is that when it comes to republicans, you on the left do not require any evidence of wrongdoing to get it "investigated".

It's Alice in Wonderland time with the leftists.

Sentence first, then the verdict, then the trial, then the investigation.


Birkel said...

"madisonfella" aka Inga:
You will be hard pressed to find grammar, spelling or punctuation errors in what I write. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile,
You are prepared to go Full Fascist. Fare the well.

Nichevo said...

Oh, Birkel, typo, it's "thee." However, you go!

Madisonfella, I didn't think you were Inga because last she and I spoke, she would never turn down a big fat delicious circumcised cock. However, there is certainly something wrong with you, people's radar is going off, what it is we've yet to discern.

Garage, you can't have it both ways:


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.

But but but...all those Republicans and Walker voters prosecuting him!

So you can't on the one hand say Rs are therefore credible and on the other hand Rs aren't credible.

See, this is a limitation on ad hominem attacks, which perhaps you previously had not understood.

garage mahal said...

To ethically fund-raise, you'd need to inform every potential donor that you were under indictment/investigation

Perhaps they should have listened to national Club for Growth, who warned these yahoos they were on thin ice, going back to 2009.

Tom Perkins said...

Is it possible Garage has been lying to us:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380859/bogus-walker-scandal-christian-schneider

the quote

"any interest the Democratic district attorney had in investigating the over $20 million spent by special interests against Walker during the recall election has likely been lost under his driver’s side seat"

Tom Perkins said...

@ Garage Mahal

"Where are the state's rights conservatives here?"

Why should they pretend that states have a right to violate the 1st Amendment, as you are doing?

Tom Perkins said...

@MadisonFella

6/20/14, 1:27 PM

When a flash mob gathers in the national Capitol--say at the Jefferson Memorial--and observing no event going on with which they will interfere, they sing...this is a proper exercise of the 1st amendment.

When a partisan mob of activists representing a minority of the public gather within the capitol building of Wisconsin, and engage in the obstruction of the lawful government function of the elected majority--and in that period of time also vandalize the building--they are engaged in felony conspiracy to trespass...not the exercise of the 1st amendment.

Tom Perkins said...

@madisonfella

6/20/14, 3:37 PM

I don't think the partisan of the criminal in the Oval Office who shut off credit card verification, bringing in tens of thousand of patently illegal foreign contribution--no kidding, if I recall, several hundred were from "Mickey Mouse"--gets to complain about the perfectly legal contribution any individual makes to any political campaign, and that what's more, you should actually produce evidence any foreign billionaires gave any money to oppose Walker's recall--as opposed to the foreigner Soros, who certainly supported it.

Tom Perkins said...

@ Garage Mahal

6/20/14, 6:17 PM

"O'Keefe has been speaking. Walker is speaking. Are they breaking a gag order?"

Not now they aren't, and the victims of the gag orders are so far as I know, no longer bound by those criminal violations of the 1st amendment perpetrated under color of law. Doesn't mean it wasn't a crime when it was ongoing.

Anonymous said...

Drago/Birkel said: Uh, the fact that it hasn't?

If you have information that Kevin Kennedy committed perjury when he signed his Feb. 21 affidavit then you should forward it to J.P. Van Hollen ASAP.

@Tom Perkins: I'm not President Obama. Why do so many people think I'm someone other than me?

Tom Perkins said...

I didn't say you were Obama, I said you were his partisan.