Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Statistics And Stooges

We have already seen that Illusory Tenant has been doing the intellectual work of any ten men during the past week or so. He has been deftly thwarting the lies and misrepresentations being slung around by squawkers like McBride and McIlheran, and has single-handedly been taking on the falsehoods being presented by WMC (Wisconsin's Most Corrupt).

He hasn't slowed down yet. The illustrious and indefatigable one takes on both McBride and the CFAF, showing how both of them use the same faulty data, and gets the same faulty conclusions, in their desperate efforts to promote the same faulty judicial candidate, Gableman.

iT's work is ponderous that it took up not one, but two, different posts. Here's a sample to whet your appetite:

She could have asked, I suppose, but since when were investigative reporters in the business of asking questions? That's just crazy talk! Who knows or cares what in the world these numbers mean, the main thing is, they're WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!1Whatever they are.

McBride then goes on to ramble pointlessly about a number of cases that aren't on the list of 62, despite the fact that, in the meantime, the Butler campaign had released the revised list of 70 cases, which contains all the cases McBride is wondering about (and, natch, taking advantage of the occasion to call Justice Butler a liar, and so forth).

Even when McBride did get her mitts on the revised list, she still has no clue what all the little (0:1)'s mean. What are they?! Oh never mind. Butler's a liar!


  1. Lighten up on McBride. I have a vision. First she slows her posts to nothing. While they remain incoherent, stupid and look like a kindergardener's computer project, they are not as biting as before. Her husband becomes a trial lawyer. She starts defending the Clinton's against Obama. SHe changes to topics albeit very few on her blog that are more meaningless and less controversial than ever. She sets up a separate blog to post her remianing neocon views. Her now trial lawyer husband starts endorsing an uber liberal for the appeals court.

    Do you get the picture? The McBuchers are becoming liberals!

    What say ye?

  2. Dan Bice has an interesting column.

    Calls into question all the experience of the Bucher backed liberal for the appeals court. Now they're calling 12th hour foul. Might make for some interesting new commericals before Tuesday.

  3. I wish Gableman would have picked up McBride and Bucher to help on his campaign rather than just having her post fuzzy math statistics on a web site. The way Bucher's handled or advised the Appeals Court campaign applied to the SC race would have guaranteed a Butler win next week.

    If the Governor's two appointes are returned to the bench it will send another message to the brazen right wing talk show hosts.

    Belling today told his producer Paul Kromforst he "had to vote for Gableman."

  4. Wow, Paul tell us one more time how closely Gleisner matches your thoughts and values.

  5. This was posted on the Journalists site

    Justice Louis Butler was the second most pro-criminal defendant justice on Wisconsin's court during the overall time period he's served - even when his own flawed numbers are used.

    I ran a comparison with my judgment calls on cases (top left) and his (bottom left). Obviously, the percentages shrink because his list contains legal and factual errors to falsely deflate his pro-criminal numbers (at the expense of conservative justices who had ruled the other way in some cases).

    Yes, Jessica, obviously Supreme Court Justice Butler falsified numbers and YOU are telling the truth. He is biased, dishonest, incompetent and doesn't understand the law as well as you.

    Let's see, by your standards, we make two columns. Lable one pro criminal and anti criminal.

    How about this unique idea? Lebel one column correct analysis of legal matter. Label the other one incorrect analysis of legal matter. Get someone that is unbiased and understands the law to profess an opinion.

    In this country Jessica, the question is supposed to be, was justice and the law properly applied. The question is not what do Jessica McBride and Paul Bucher think?

    Why don;t you go back and try to resucitate the Gleisner campaign your husband is running and leave Justice Butler and legal matters you don't understand to those more competent.

  6. Dear Mr. Capper,

    Could you please read the latest post at


    and say something as I am speechless.

  7. Dear Sharon,

    It will be my pleasure, fair lady, to do battle with such ignorance.