I agree. In fact, why don't we just do away with the judiciary altogether? The sheriff can just shoot the prisoners 'round back.
You can find the long and (dare I say it?) thoughtful article from the NYT at the link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/
2...agewanted=print
Do you really want to bring up Willie Horton? Don't you remember who brought up the subject of Willie Horton? It was Al Gore attacking Mikey Dukakis. You want to scream racism, go do it to the inventor of the internet.
It was a ridiculous article.
Race was not the reason Butler lost, judicial philosophy was. No matter how much unhinged leftists like Mathias want to pretend it was something else.
The article also talks about qualifications and Gableman's sad lack of same.
Give it up Grumps.
A sad liberal paper wrote a sad liberal story.
The man is qualified.
Now lets talk about WMC while ignoring money from liberal special interests going to Butler.
You are all a bunch of spoiled children crying in your milk because you got beat.
The man is a qualified fundraiser and an experienced parking ticket shuffler. I pointed out that the article pointed that out.
Sort back. I came out against the WMC ad as heavy handed. I didn't ignore it, Fred.
I did call Michael Gableman a proven liar. That's hard to contradict because he did lie and then said he was proud of his lying campaign.
Don't be a hater, Fred. You backed a liar and you won. Embrace that.
Hey Fred, who gives money to the WMC? Does it matter?
John, where is the concer over liberal special interest money?
Absent.
Once the lefties worry about liberal money half as much as they worry about conservative money then we can discuss it.
I'm concerned about both, naturally. Which group spent more money, and why? Why does the money matter?
Because you hear the shrill cries of the left on how WMC bought themselves a judge.
Yet they have no cries about all the WEAC, union and trial lawyer money.
Ya know, in Foust's defense he's been really bipartisan about hatin' on the money. Fred, you're missing the point of the article.
Try to hang onto the thread. It wasn't about the money. It was about electing a hack. The rest of the world can't understand why we'd put the less qualified candidate up for selection much less put them on the bench.
They just don't have a grip on the McCallum Reward System like some of you do.
Grumps, find one time that I have lowered myself to be critical of Judge Butler on anything other than his judicial activism... Go ahead look.
I am so sick of you and your liberal buddies supposedly so tolerant throwing works like hack, unqualified, Deke suggested he took his bar exam with a crayon.
It is you liberals that are unhinged and acting like 2nd graders throwing a tantrum.
I'm not going to get in the mud with you.
The people voted and they said they would rather have a judge who would make decisions based on the rule of law rather than their judicial philosophy.
I spoke with Gableman personally multiple times and found him very sharp.
So you keep being classy and perpetuating your distortions and your selective outrage of some money, but not all.
Why does the money matter, Fred?
Read this slowly John, it might sink in.
Everytime you read a leftie on this they bitch about WMC buying a seat.
Those same people have no issue with liberal special interest spending in equal or larger numbers.
I point it out as thier silly rhetoric needs to be put into perspective.
I don't think the lefties spent more than the Gableman supporters this time around. When I met Butler, he was claiming he was being outspent 20 to 1, but I believe that ratio dropped to, oh, 3 to 1? 4 to 1? But again, tell me why the money matters. Because if it matters when it's lefty money, doesn't it matter when it's righty money? Why don't you like special-interest money in politics? You think Michigan pizza moguls are sincerely interested in Wisconsin? You don't think corporations should be spending their money this way? Yes, if you begin to answer, it might sink in.
Assuming you are talking about the rate, going from being outspent 20:1 to 3:1 or 4:1 would require an increase in Butler funding and decrease in Gableman funding by a combined factor of 4. That is an incredibly large rate change.
. . . I meant to say more than 4 . . .
No, I wasn't taking about the first derivative, I was just talking rough amounts at a point early in the campaign compared to the final tally.
Commenting by HaloScan
