Some of the writing in the aftermath of Thursday's developments in the Supreme Court race was either ignorant in cynical. Charges that votes were found, went unreported or were "manipulated" by the county clerk on her personal computer are demonstrably false. No ballotes were discovered. No votes were counted on Thursday that had not been counted on election night. No votes went unreported on election night although some were not included in the aggregate total reported to the AP. Whatever Kathy Nickolaus did or did not do on her personal computer is wholly without official impact. The votes that count reflected on ballots that were removed from the machines and secured on Tuesday evening along with absentee ballots that were also counted and sealed. Nothing on Kathy Nickolaus' computer has anything to do with the certified vote totals. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he or she is talking about it.
I fully appreciate that there are some people who don't care because lies or feigned ignorance is useful. There are others for whom the truth long ago disappeared into an ideological haze. I am more concerned about otherwise responsible members of the press - people who ought to know better - who retreat into the passive voice - "questions have been raised" - or a studied agnosticism - "some say" - to avoid grappling with actually happened. We hear that this "looks bad." That is no substitute for addressing whether it is is bad.
There is no doubt that Ms. Nickolaus' error hurt the process. But misstatements or obfuscations of what happened hurt it as well.
17 comments:
I think it is appalling that now we have the democrat representative to the Waukesha canvass, someone who firmly corroborated the canvass process, now backtracking on her statements, adding further haziness and obfuscations. Talk about "manipulation"...I seriously wonder if we're not coming close to that "have you no sense of decency at long last, sir? Have you no shame?" moment for liberals in this state. I wonder, but given the behavior I have witnessed, I actually doubt that we are close to that moment.
Let's at least recall that moment of a different kind of partisanship.
"...at the news conference with Nickolaus, Ramona Kitzinger, the Democrat on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, said: 'We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did. Those numbers jibed up, and we're satisfied they're correct.'
"As a Democrat, she said, 'I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true.'"
adding further haziness and obfuscations
Perhaps if Nickolaus hadn't gaslighted her by not revealing the epic goof before using her as a prop at the press conference, Kitzinger wouldn't be confused now.
Pardon, gnarly, but did she act like a prop in your estimation? So, you believe the vice-chair of the Waukesha Democratic party was so easily manipulated by an acknowledged partisan Republican? Wow...I'm in the wrong field...I need to go into politics.
By the way, did you notice she used the word "we're" in her original statement? Wouldn't that imply there were other democrats that were part of the process? Are they all now confused about what happened?
Indeed. Nickolaus' mendaciousness and shady ethics were well established well before this. Kitzinger should've known better.
I am more concerned about otherwise responsible members of the press
C'mon, Rick. You really found some 'otherwise responsible' members of the press?
Visiting a cemetery?
C'mon, Rick. You really found some 'otherwise responsible' members of the press?
Obviously he wasn't talking about Charlie "if-my-side-loses-it's-voter-fraud" Sykes.
Whatever Kathy Nickolaus did or did not do on her personal computer is wholly without official impact.
I'm sure she was reprimanded by the state for doing exactly the same thing in the past for no reason whatsoever.
Ese pal John Fund reads suspiciously like this "gnarlytrombone" nutjob.
Obviously he wasn't talking about Charlie "if-my-side-loses-it's-voter-fraud" Sykes.
Correct. Sykes is not a journalist; he's an opinion-monger.
Just like Umhoefer.
Correct. Sykes is not a journalist; he's an opinion-monger.
Funny then that Sykes was the person who broke the Waukesha vote story to begin with, don't you think? Sure, that's because it appears Nickolaus went to him before she went to the state or any real journalist, but whatever.
Perhaps if Nickolaus hadn't gaslighted her by not revealing the epic goof before using her as a prop at the press conference, Kitzinger wouldn't be confused now.
Work of the press conference leaked in the early afternoon. Shortly afterward there were rumors it had to do with the votes in Brookfield adding a gob of votes to Prosser's side of the ledger.
How could Kitzinger have been "gaslighted". Are you trying to claim nobody from the Democratic party contacterd her that afternoon to find out if there was any truth to those rumors?
That Kitzinger didn't know something big was about to be announced regarding the vote, when everybody reading the internet did know that, doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Sykes was the person who broke the Waukesha vote story
You mean locally or nationally?
I first saw it on Ace of Spades in the AFTERNOON. Sykes reported it the next morning.
Ace picked it up from Nat'l Review, by the way.
Ace picked it up from Nat'l Review, by the way.
Yes, because National Review is known far and wide for their objective journalism.
I'm pretty sure if the situation were reversed and a story like this had first been broken by The Nation, you'd be off your squeaky rocker, Dad. And you'd be right.
Can you at least acknowledge that Nicklaus is an utter incompetent?
Why does it even matter what Ms. Kitzinger says?
If you think something is amiss. Please suggest the mechanism.
As fwo whether Md. Nickolaus is "an incompetent," I never heard of he before last Thurday and don't know anything else about her. I can't say whether she is or isn't generally incompetent.
Rick, come on now. WIth your credentials, access to the GOP inner circle, and dealings with conservative heavyweights locally and nationally for several years, one could reasonably find it hard to believe that you never heard of Kathy Nickolaus. Never met her? Sure. Never heard of her? Sorry, not buying it.
Certainly you, as a lawyer, are able to offer an opinion regarding her competence since you defended her mistake--which I agree was just that, a mistake--as being "innocent". I would think that during your investigations into her background you would have discovered her difficulties in keeping things straight in previous elections, which was reported in a number of area publications.
I think you CHOOSE not to speak honestly about her credentials, perhaps out of fear you may lose your conservative card carrying privileges.
Because if she was a Democrat who made this error and had a history of making similar errors in past elections, methinks you would be critical of her job performance.
I never heard of her before last Thurday and don't know anything else about her. I can't say whether she is or isn't generally incompetent.
If you read this in Phil Hartman's Caveman Lawyer voice, it makes more sense.
Post a Comment