Brew City Brawler

Rick "Shark and Shepherd" Esenberg: Innuendo for me and not for thee

Over at Shark and Shepherd, Rick Esenberg is angry that some on the left have speculated that the 18 month old John Doe investigation (which yielded charges against two ex-Walker aides and another individual today) will not end well for Scott Walker.

Because John Doe investigations are secret, I'm not assuming anything. One of the things that has bothered me about this is the innuendo that has come from the flacks and bloggers who don't know a damn thing but act as if they do. I admit that I don't know a damn thing and, therefore, am not going to claim or hint that someone must be in a lot of trouble.

Those of you who can recall the Georgia Thompson debacle may remember Ese was not so circumspect with spreading innuendo about a Democratic governor back then (Nixon reference -- subtle). And after a federal appeals court overturned the conviction, Ese continued to speculate, sans evidence, that she was acting at the direction of her superiors.

No hinting there.

 

 

Was Wisconsin a welfare magnet?

Here's the deal. If you grew up in certain white neighborhoods in Milwaukee during the 1970s and 1980s you would encounter white people who said bad things about black people. One of the things they would say is that blacks just moved up here for welfare. They didn't have any evidence, mind you, it was just obvious.

But when Tommy Thompson first ran for governor he turned this racist urban legend into part of his platform.

Charlie Sykes, whose audience consists of not a few white flighters, has in the past raised the "welfare magnet" line. I cited this as an indicator he'll engage in race baiting and dog whistles in an exchange with Rick Esenberg at Shark and Shepherd.

Esenberg responded:

There is ample evidence of folks moving up to Wisconsin for higher benefits. Read Jason DeParle's book The American Dream. 

Instead I'll refer to what actual surveys demonstrated at the time: that higher benefits was not a leading cause for people moving to Wisconsin (as I noted nearly three years ago).

Rick "Shark and Shepherd" Esenberg: Fraud paranoia for me, but not for thee

Rick "Shark and Shepherd" Esenberg, April 11:

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.

(He was right, by the way.)

Rick "Shark and Shepherd" Esenberg, December 14 on the "threat" of massive recall signature fraud:

Are there enough such people to cause a problem? I don't know but here's a sobering thought. Let's assume that there are 5000 people who sign an average of 25 times. That sounds like a lot of people but it's less than 1% of the number needed to recall the governor. (Brawler's bold) Such a scenario would result in 120,000 invalid signatures - over 20% of the total required. While I would think that many signatures from one person would be caught even by the GAB, that's nor clear and there are other scenarios that would be more difficult to detect. The point is that a relatively small number of people can create a significant problem. When recall proponents are telling people that they can sign more than once and when the GAB says it won't look for duplicates, the problem cannot be dismissed out of hand.

 

 

Shark and Shepherd prediction for recalls

In case you forgot, here's what Rick Esenberg predicted in April:

What can we take away from the Supreme Court vote? I think it suggests that the recalls will fail and there is no groundswell of opposition to Governor Walker. The "backlash" is largely a Dane County phenomenon and that is not surprising. Challenge the prerogatives of the company town and the regulars get mad. Dane County had a disproportionate effect because it turned out like crazy in what was still a low turnout election. 

I did an interview for Channel 12 tonight in which they shared some numbers in the districts of GOP Senators who are facing recall petitions. You play four quarters but I don't see the GOP losing Senate seats in our part of the state - and probably no where in the state. Whether the Democrats will lose seats is another issue. My best guess is no change.

As far as recalling the Governor, not a chance.

Stay tuned!

 

Rick Esenberg must be a scary easy grader ...

... based on the slack he cuts Ron Johnson for his nigh-interminable parade of inanities.

 One might think language matters to a law prof, but apparently not so with Herr Doktor Professor. Rather we should excuse silly things Ron Johnson says about global warming because he's a businessman, dammit, not an academic, politician or lawyer (like Rick!).

But as Jim Spice points out in comments, that's hardly a defense:

If Johnson is the caliber of businessman his supporters say he is, he should have the skill set to read and analyze a spreadsheet. The same skills could be put to use to understand the science behind AGW (which already does, by the way, take into consideration "other impacts on the climate such as solar activity"). 

Given his disregard for the scientific consensus, either he is not the businessman he makes himself out to be, or he is stating something he does not believe for political purposes.

I suppose there could be a third possibility, that he has not looked at the data and feels qualified to comment authoritatively nonetheless.

None of these three instances seem particularly confidence instilling to me.

The scary truth may be is that all Ron Johnson knows about politics he learned from talk radio. Certainly as a CEO of a company that had 70% of its business with his father in law, he had time for such luxuries.

Rick Esenberg ought to repent over "mosque" column

Rick Esenberg, the smartest member of the Ron Johnson apologist set, begins a post on the manufactured Park51 controversy promisingly. He asserts the right for it to be built and says he's not comfortable with the push to get the sponsors to back down.

But then he slips into blaming the victim while excusing the real villains of the piece.

Ese writes:

Perhaps the controversy could have been avoided had Mayor Bloomberg and other NYC officials recognized the potential problem earlier and engaged the sponsors on the issue or if the project's sponsors were more attuned to the legitimate concerns that the project raises and more willing to take steps to defuse them.

"Legitimate concerns that the project raises with"...whom, exactly? There was zero controversy around this project for months and when the controversy began it didn't spontaneously arise spontaneously from families of 9/11 victims (who are hardly united on this). It was whipped up by the deranged Pam Geller and picked up by Fox News. And of course Rick's friends Charlie Sykes, Patrick McIlheran, Jeff Wagner and others. And the relative legitimacy of their concerns can be measured by their need to lie about the building (it's not a mosque, it's not "in the shadow of ground zero") and to lie about and distort Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Suffice it to say there is nothing Rauf, Bloomberg, etc. could have done to "defuse" these demagogues.

Rick's compromise is that the center explicitly condemn violent jihad (which Rauf, who at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, declared "I am a Jew," has done) and call on its participants to repent. His time may be better spent calling on his friends at Journal Communications to repent for their vile attacks and Muslim baiting. Fat chance on either.

A good question

Posed to Rick "Shark and Shepherd" Esenberg by Another Tosa Voter:

Seriously Rick, can you explain in a single post why the GOP resembles a credible alternative to the Democrats right now? Do they have credibility on anything? Any issue at all? Is there any part of the GOP’s message that should make me think, “you know, this sounds like a good idea into which they’ve put a lot thought”?

Shark and Shepherd flip-flops on puerile attack on Butler nomination?

Today Rick Esenberg says this:

I am not much impressed by the argument that Butler should not be approved for the federal bench because he lost two statewide elections.

Which struck the Brawler as odd, given that last summer Ese said this in an interview with the Wisconsin Law Journal:

But Esenberg noted that Butler has twice been defeated in state Supreme Court races, the last in 2008 by Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Gableman.

“While one could argue that a person who has twice lost a statewide judicial race ought not to be elevated to the federal bench, I doubt that argument will carry a great deal of weight with the senators or the White House,” Esenberg said.

Now, ambiguity hangs over these paragraphs. Did Ese "note" the point or was he led by the reporter? Did the reporter cut language making it clear that Ese was "not much impressed" with this clearly embarrassing argument? Or were the reported remarks -- ambiguous and ambiguously caveated as they are -- an accurate reflection of what he had to say?

Anklebiting? I think not, as Ese's remarks to the WLJ are repeated on the Sykes show every time Butler comes up. And certainly Esenberg acolyte Patrick McIlheran took them at face value. Though admittedly McIlheran's reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired.

Meanwhile Obama plans to renominate Butler, as he should. And the illusory Tenant wades through the well-considered arguments of teabaggers who berated Feingold over the nomination.

UPDATE: Esenberg weighs in in comments.

Have Republicans grown more paranoid or more stupid since 1992 -- or is it both?

I first became acquainted with right-wing media in 1992 whilst living south of the Mason Dixon line. The nascent Rush Limbaugh was my drug of choice and, man, was he a hoot. His show on Election Day was particularly Hootacular because, as you may suspect, caller after caller reported they had voted for  one-termer Bush.

There was a poignant moment when one caller suggested that maybe -- just maybe -- Bush might win because everybody he heard calling claimed they voted for Bush. Rush gently suggested to the listener (not in these words) that, no, you're listening to a self-selected group not representative of the whole.

"Oh, OK."

Now, of course, that listener would blame Republican defeat on the machinations of ACORN.

Losing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.

The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. Clearly the ACORN card really is an effective one to play with the voters who will decide whether Hoffman gets to be the Republican nominee in a possible repeat bid in 2010.

I think it's safe to say that, back in 1992, half the Republican electorate wasn't so whacked that they thought Clinton had stolen the election.

What's changed?

Well, I can't peer into the soul of Republicans or gauge the malleability of their brains but I would wager that the willingness of the right-wing media to scream "voter fraud!" "ACORN!" -- and the willingness of the Republican Party and supposed serious Republican voices --  has had something to do with it.

I mean, the Republican base has been instructed since Nixon not to believe anything the mainstream media says ... and certainly callers in to the Sykes show like to boast they no longer get the Journal Sentinel or watch the news (or presumably read the New York Times) ... if they listen to a right-wing media that's willing to say absolutely anything, what are they going to believe? And it's documented that watching Fox News makes you stupid.

I don't know for sure, but I'd wager Wisconsin Republicans beat the national average in believing Obama stole the election. Why? Because inept RPW chairman Reince Priebus says he's tired of losing elections because of voter fraud. Charlie Sykes told his listeners he was deeply concerned that ACORN could throw the election. Patrick McIlheran seems  to believe the absence of proof of voter fraud demonstrates it exists (Patrick McIlheran's concerns about registration fraud leading to voter fraud could be eased by findings in Washington State, but he can't let facts jar his curious faith). And Shark and Shepherd, while not willing to make an idiot of himself as is Sykes, hints that it's possible that a massive voter fraud conspiracy could exist -- we just don't know.

This crazy level of stupidity, ignorance or paranoia -- or a heady brew of all three -- is exactly what Sykes feeds into and it's of a piece with the popularity of Sarah Palin and the belief among her flock, against all evidence, that she is somehow representative of America (Dude, she quit her elected position mid-term!) or popular with most folks.

It's not a good place for a political party to be ... one wonders whether any conservative voice will attempt to lead his or her ideological confreres back to reality ... not that there's much reward in that in Republicanland these days.

Shame on Rick Esenberg or Shark and Shepherd says something wrong on the internet

It takes a law professor to pack as much Obama Derangement Syndrome into 153 words as Rick Esenberg does in his latest opus,"Shame on Obama." The subject of his Ese's ire: Obama not going to Berlin to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Shark sets himself up as a voice of considered moderation. "There are some criticisms of Barack Obama that go too far," he says. Like, I dunno, fact-free accusations that Obama's stage at the Dem national convention was going to be a Greek temple. But Obama skipping the Berlin ceremonies goes too far! The fall of the wall was "one of the most significant and improbable events of the past fifty years; brought about, in large part, by constancy in American policy."

Let's unpack:

1. "Significant" -- sure
2. "Improbable" -- only improbable if one believed in hyped estimates of Soviet strength
3. "Brought about, in large part, by constancy in American policy" -- in this formulation, false; drop "large" and this phrase works fine.

Ese moves on:

To stay away is to send a message and it is the wrong message. Whether he seeks to placate the Russians, repudiate American exceptionalism or refuse to acknowledge a Republican accomplishment, rejecting what brought about one of the most remarkable and peaceful victories over tyranny is shameful.

OK:

1. Given Medvedev was in Berlin --  and Obama did deliver a message via video -- it's difficult to see how Obama's absence was motivated by fear of Russians
2. I'm not sure how Shark would articulate American exceptionalism, so can't comment on this. Obviously it's not clear that American exceptionalism, broadly defined, is a good thing.

Republican accomplishment. Ah, a laugh out loud line. This is Rick's defense of this statement, in comments at his site:

It's a Republican accomplishment because Reagan decided to win the Cold War. Had Carter been reelected, it would not have happened because he wouldn't have applied pressure when he had to.

One hopes that Rick expects a bit more supporting evidence from his students because this is about as fact-free assertion as one can make. Here are some facts. There is no evidence that the Reagan arms buildup "bankrupted" or weakened the Soviet Union. There is no evidence that bellicose Reagan rhetoric frightened the Soviets out of their wits -- quite the opposite (and seriously, apparatchiks who survived the Hitler invasion, either  as vets or as kids, were going to quiver over comments by Reagan?) . To the extent the ending of the Cold War was anyone's accomplishment, it was the accomplishment of Mikhail Gorbachev,who didn't want to play anymore. Had he wanted to take the USSR down the bellicose path, the country could have lumbered on. But he gambled that he could change it (and lost). Reagan's contribution was recognizing that Gorbachev could be dealt with and tried to deal (earning the wrath of the right).  As James Mann puts it in "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A  History of the End of the Cold War": "Reagan didn't win the Cold War; Gorbachev abandoned it."

Just ask Angela Merkel:

She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.

"You made this possible — you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect," she said.

Now, the Brawler doesn't know why Obama didn't show. Presumably it had to do with passing a health care bill -- a defense Esenberg sneers at before muttering about the need for more debate as if the GOP had any interest in being an honest debate partner.

In any event, Esenberg demonstrates his true seriousness by concluding thusly:

For the winner of a faux peace prize to ignore one of history's singular triumphs for peace is an embarassment.

OH! Faux peace prize. The Brawler would suggest that the Shark should think about who's embarrassing himself here.