Thursday, May 31, 2007

All McGee, all the time

Ten posts in 36 hours on Michael McGee Jr.?

And McBride's just getting warmed up.

At what point does it become an obsession?

(Sorry, no links. We are not enabling her.)
Posted by at
Labels:

12 comments:

  1. AnonymousMay 31, 2007 at 9:42 AM

    Imagine what we would have heard on her radio show.

    I'll bet she has said that more than ten times in the last 36 hours.

    Would have been great stuff for the local tapers of talk radio. Some how Belling found out, but who cares?

    -- Real-to Real, Reel-to-Reel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 31, 2007 at 4:40 PM

    She continually identifies, at least, when it's convenient, with Milwaukee. On what basis? Her life is in Waukesha, her sympathies lie with the white-flight suburbs and her privileged background was not-at-all like the vast majority, black, brown or white, that call the city home.

    So the question becomes why is she so scandalized by Michael McGee? Did she know him at Bay View? Does she have supper with his constituents? Has she ever experienced anything like the life in his district?

    The answer is that McGee is an easy caricature for her racialist agenda, a convenient foil for where to store her manufactured shock.

    The irony is rich, though. Like any demagogue, she recognizes those qualities in the other: They both are ethically challenged, they both are clownish, and they both are bullies who rely on bluster instead of brains.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMay 31, 2007 at 6:21 PM

    Bay View? Huh? She never was there.

    She's from up north in Wisconsin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMay 31, 2007 at 9:00 PM

    Actually ... am I alone or do others notice the quiet and calm of no Jessica? She's become obscure on her little blog. Speaking of which ... she reprinted an AP story ... aren't AP stories copyrighted? Do you suppose she gets permission from AP before reprinting their stories?

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMay 31, 2007 at 9:58 PM

    McBride's scapegoats and targets:
    Kane.
    McGee.
    Immigrants from Mexico.
    Isn't the definition of a pattern when things come in three's?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJune 1, 2007 at 11:32 AM

    Six posts on various topics (whatever passes through her mind or into her email inbox) between midnight and about 1 a.m. this morning).

    You have to ask: Is this mania?

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJune 1, 2007 at 1:59 PM

    I do find this ironic that a blog devoted exclusively to Jessica McBride is complaining about Jessica being obsessed with McGee.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJune 1, 2007 at 2:13 PM

    To the last anon:

    You have put your finger on it:
    McBride and McGee have much in common.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJune 1, 2007 at 2:54 PM

    And one post determines that McGee already, because of the (ridiculous) statements by his lawyer, has been proven guilty.

    Straight from the arrest to the arraignment to the conviction.

    Does she realize that her version of the process would put defense lawyers, like her husband, out of work?

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousJune 1, 2007 at 5:27 PM

    Shouldn't McBride be disclosing that her husband had McGee's recall challenger as a client!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. illusory tenantJune 1, 2007 at 9:01 PM

    the (ridiculous) statements by his lawyer ...

    Maybe not so ridiculous, because while Wisconsin law authorizes the use of intercepted communications as evidence for a specific list of crimes, that list does not include misdemeanor battery (nor conspiracy to commit it).

    See Wis. Stat. § 968.28.

    So McGee's lawyer is probably seeking to have the intercept tossed out altogether, in that it was unlawfully authorized.

    It pretty much goes without saying that McBride's statement is ridiculous, however.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jay BullockJune 2, 2007 at 12:50 AM

    McGee's lawyer is probably seeking to have the intercept tossed out altogether, in that it was unlawfully authorized.

    Dude. We live in America.

    In 2007.

    Ain't no such thing as an unlawfully authorized wiretap. Duh.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)