April 5, 2008, 9:37 a.m.
Rufus, we can both agree that the advertising that the WMC sponsored was misleading and coarse. I would add that WEAC and other opposing groups produced similar ads. However, it is a canard to suggest that the WMC somehow bought the election by producing ads. That is, unless, you cynically assume that the electorate are idiots and will vote only on what they see on TV. And we all now that next verse in this song: "campaign finance reform." And we all know that this only seeks to silence one half of the political discourse, the right half. Regardless if it were applied to both halves, it would violate the 1st amendment.
I, for one, saw the ads and cringed but voted for Gableman anyways because I wanted a judicial conservative on the bench, not a liberal one. The judiciary may be unified on their desire to be segregated from election pressures, but too bad. As long as justices' decisions will be based on political or ideological agendas (hey, check out the Gary George decision. The state bar didn't even want this guy back in!), the rest of us will want a say in who serves.
Democracy, as I understand it, revolves around majority rule. The votes were counted, and Gableman won. Neither of us liked the discourse and, frankly, I'm troubled by Gableman's willingness to engage in this kind of stuff, but don't assume Butler lost because of it.
 |
Rate this:
Number of ratings: 0 - Average rating: 0.0
|
 |
Post your comment/review now |
 |
 |
Thank you for so clearly showing your hand. This is why I abandone ...
Well, if those commercials didn't have an impact, why, do you supp ...
Rufus, we can both agree that the advertising that the WMC sponsor ...
to that last commentator ... Are you serious? What critics, you sa ...
"Critics say the WMC has bought the Wisconsin Supreme Court." Whic ...
| Top Clicks | Top Searches | Most Talkbacks |
| How would you rank 2008's Summerfest? | |
| Results after 313 votes Archived polls |
