My Journal Sentinel op-ed on the recount is
here. I understand the Kloppenburg campaign has been claiming that I "work for" Prosser. Not true. I have nothing to do with the Prosser campaign or the recount effort. I was asked to get involved in the latter and declined.
6 comments:
How often should the MJS mention the people you do work for and work with?
I still eagerly await your definition of "political operative" and your explanation of why you aren't one.
You mean you carry water for without the benefit (on your end) of financial remuneration.
Foust, I thought liberals believed guilt by (tenuous) association was improper. When I was a liberal I believed that. I still do.
Oh please! I agree with Anon 8:34 am, you definitely carry the water and kiss butt, too.
Ok, professor, you did not work for Prosser during the recount. But you do "work" for him by promoting his agenda.
"I have no idea how Prosser would vote on highly technical challenges to the new law" , you once wrote, regarding the budget-repair bill. Yes, you do, sir, considering you and Prosser share similar ideologies. Making that statement is disingenious. So please spare us how our legal system is being "hijacked by partisans"!
David, if you or the Professor would be so kind as to draw up a list of his paid or pro-bono associations with WisGOPFitzWalkerStan, we can begin the discussion of whether the connections are tenuous or not. I didn't say anything about guilt through association. I'm talking about direct involvement.
If the MJS makes it look like he's a humble adjunct who likes to popularize the law but fails to mention his direct involvement in a number of suits involving the the usual suspects, is the MJS serving the reader's interest or someone else's interests?
Post a Comment