A Logical Conclusion

The fallout from last Tuesday's election, in which WMC was able to oust Justice Louis Butler and but in their bobble-headed puppet Gableman, continues. But there is an interesting pattern of thought among the right wingers.

Each and every one of the squawkers, from McBride to McIlheran to Sykes to Belling have all been crowing about Gableman's victory. (OK, Sykes doesn't actually write anything on his own. But he did put up several posts linking to other people writing the same point, over and over and over.)

Also, using eerily similar language, they all try to convince us that Gableman's winning the election had nothing to do with the huge amount of money spent by special interests, or Gableman's racist ad playing on the fear of people. No, my friends, they try to tell us that the only reason Gableman won is because Gableman was the conservative choice. For the sake of this discussion, let's use this as the first given: Gableman won because he is conservative.

Now, let us look at the allegations by the left. They claim Gableman's ad was racist and lacking in truth and integrity. James Rowen points out, in a post that criticizes McIlheran's incomplete essay on the matter, that no less than 30 state judges and one former Supreme Court justice found the ad had "exceeded the boundaries of fairness, honesty and integrity for candidates running for judicial office."

Clyde Winter again does his usual exemplary job of research and writing to show us a history of the whole scandalous election. He also provides us a couple of links to FactCheck.Org which tells us that the ads from CFAF were full of untruths, half-truths and unethical claims. FactCheck.Org also points out that the ad that came from Gableman himself is in the style of the Willie Horton ads, and that it would be generous to call it misleading (especially when it was blatantly fraudulent). Heck, even Sykes said that Gableman's ad was an embarrassment.

And let us not forget how our favorite barrister, in great pains-taking detail, itemized the incorrect allegations and assumptions of the likes of McBride, who couldn't even get the basic facts correct on which she launched her vitriolic eruptions of lies and hate. That's not the first, nor was it even the latest, time that she has gotten her facts completely wrong. But what do you expect. It takes a professional journalist to even know that they should start out with the complete and actual facts of the case. It is unfair to expect that level of journalism from McBride. (And to think, she is on the public dole for supposedly teaching journalism. Talk about wasting tax dollars...)

So, we see that, based on findings from lawyers, judges (including a former Supreme Court justice, and a fact checking organizations, the ads were racist, filled with lies, dishonest, unscrupulous and fear-mongering. Let that be our second given.

Following logic, given that Gableman won because he ran as the conservative, and given that the ads supporting Gableman were racist, misleading, dishonest, and unethical, one must presume, by their own admission, that these "conservatives" are racist, dishonest and unethical.

But we already knew that, didn't we?

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!