Sockpuppetry, deception and Boots and Sabers

You've got to be kidding me.

Last week the Boots and Sabers family booted longtime commenter John Foust on a bogus call of sockpuppetry. Ol Lady Owen Robinson subsequently maintained that the good Mr. Foust had posted under different names on a half dozen occasions. Although he provided no evidence.

Today it turns out that foul-mouthed blogger Wendy Robinson, wife of the aforementioned Owen and a proprietor of the blog, recorded a phone call for the Americans for Prosperity in opposition to the $119 million West Bend school referendum. A referendum that has been wildly misrepresented by the AFP with calls that have come close to breaking the law.

Now sockpuppetry is an Internet no-no. But here's a no-no for columnists (when he's not writing an inspired "Heh" on Boots and Sabers, Owen is  an utterly predictable columnist for the Waukesha Freeman): Actively Working -- or your spouse doing the same -- for an advocacy group on a cause without disclosing it.

Now by working, the Brawler doesn't mean receiving money for your troubles. Volunteering crosses the line.

The reason, of course, is that it raises questions about your independence and it raises the appearance of a conflict of interest. And while columnists are paid to have opinions, they're expected to be more than mouthpieces or flacks. (That said, the Brawler pities the reader who expects intellectual independence from Robinson.)

And, no, it doesn't matter if you (or your spouse) are expressing opinions you would have anyway.

The classic example is George Will helping prep Ronald Reagan for a debate against Walter Mondale and subsequently calling Reagan's performance brilliant. There's no question Will supported Reagan and he no doubt would have extolled his performance regardless of his involvement. But his -- undisclosed -- participation in the process was  widely seen as a breach of trust.

And so it goes with Boots and Sabers.

Another interesting point in the Mike Nichols piece: Apparently AFP has three or four dozen members in West Bend. Apparently that makes it a grassroots organization in Owen's eyes.

A final point: Owen doesn't mention Wendy's involvement with the AFP in yet another broadside against big gummint in his latest Waukesha Freeman column. His key insight: Votes are decided by people who show up. You read it in the Freeman first!

UPDATE: Upon further review, a paragraph has been dropped.

Comments

[BrawlerSaidWhat]

Yes, it would appear the Robinson family doesn't like being taxed out of their West Bend home.

Obviously they received a financial benefit from opposing it, thus they are guilty of more than merely thought crimes - and hate crimes against the school board - they have crossed the line and became involved in order to keep their taxes from going up.

Someone must act immediately and put a stop to this insolent, self-interested conduct. Taxpayers must not be allowed to speak out for their own (and their similarly situated non-bloggers neighbors too) pecuniary gain.

This is an unspeakable act, and I am sure you and your pals will work to pass laws to make it unspeakable too.

Thanks crawler.

[Left guy]

One of the realities at Boots and Kittens is that unless you worship at the alter of Owen and his fellow neo-con evangelicals you will be berated, demeaned and possibly run out of the blog. What was once a forum for relatively well thought out discourse has now become just one more spot to rip "typical" liberals. Their definition of liberal is anyone who cares for public education, health care for the poor and fairness on the airwaves. Profanity is encouraged and accepted as a part of fabric of that blog. It truly is a shame, but Owen will get what he deserves. A following of mouth breathing practitioners of bumper sticker politics that truly adds nothing to the betterment of this state and country.

[Keith Schmitz]

I also notice in Wendy's robo call that for a party that savages kids when they are used in a political appeal, she mentions she has four. But she leaves it up to the listener to decide if they are in public school -- and she is advocating bite the bullet -- or they are in private school and she is hacked off about paying both priviate school tuition and local taxes.

[John Foust]

I believe O&W have said their kids are in a private, Christ-centered school. (What Would Jesus Do? Would he answer the robo-call that rings during the Last Supper? Would He make robo-calls to interrupt other people's homelife?)

I think the Milwaukee Conservative Chorus considers anyone who disagrees with them to be a liberal. It's not unique to B&S. Ridiculing Bush and head-in-the-sand thinking branded me a liberal in their minds. I think they use it because they consider it a blanket insult. This is why the Republicans are doing so well, I think. It's all about the purity tests. It's Us vs. Them 7/24.

Of course O&W have standing to criticize tax increases. People have many reasons for sending their kids to private schools. O&W have mentioned religious reasons. Many do it because they're appalled with the public schools. Where does O&W stand on vouchers? Would they accept public tax dollars to subsidize their religious training or not? If they're holding themselves up as an example household, I think it's fair to mention that they've opted out of the system they're accusing of greed and waste. Are they opposed to public schooling in general, or just this referendum? To me, these are more interesting deeper questions about their motivation, disconnection or hypocrisy.