Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2011

So . . . What Did I Miss? Did Something Happen in Wisconsin??

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:36 pm



Looks like the major domestic story in the last few days has been Wisconsin. I’m behind the curve and have nothing to offer in the way of breaking news. But the various strong-arm tactics used by the left, the unions, and their supporters have raised various questions about morality that I think are worth discussing.

Some of the issues are easy, it seems to me. If you’re not a partisan hack, you’ll agree that in almost every instance, it is wrong for legislators to flee a state to prevent a vote on a matter of public policy. For a few days Aaron has been handling another easy issue: if you’re a doctor, you don’t give sick notes to people who aren’t sick.

But what about the dude who called up Wisconsin’s governor pretending to be one of the Koch brothers? We know we don’t like him, but what if he had been that lovable scamp James O’Keefe instead of the nasty partisan lefty he is? I think the clearest difference is that O’Keefe found something while the Wisconsin imposter uncovered nothing — but what if that weren’t the case?

Prof. Jacobson has an argument today that the imposter may have violated a Wisconsin statute against impersonating people. Let’s assume he’s right. The lefties accused O’Keefe and Giles of violating state laws against taping people without their consent, and in some cases they may have been right. But most of us felt that the corruption they were uncovering at ACORN was worth it. What if O’Keefe had called up a Chuck Schumer and gotten him to say corrupt things on tape? While pretending to be a big Schumer donor, violating various laws against illegal taping, and so forth?

Does it all just come down to whose side you’re on? Or is there a legitimate distinction to be made here that has nothing to do with the underlying politics of left and right?

Similarly, we heard a story that a restaurant in Madison tossed out the governor after a crowd allegedly started booing him. Now, the actual facts of the story are messy. The blogger who originally reported the story has taken the post down, replacing it with another that amusingly claims: “I believe in a certain amount of transparency.” Note well: she didn’t say how much! Her new replacement post claims that the restaurant has gotten all sorts of nasty calls, but does not explain why the original post has been removed rather than the name of the restaurant redacted. Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers have been claiming that the entire thing was a hoax by the restaurant, basing their claim on this post and this phone call, in which a conservative blogger calls up the restaurant which alternately refuses to issue a statement, denies that the incident happened . . . and then discusses the matter internally, unaware that they have failed to hang up and are still being recorded:

I find the call not entirely conclusive and the post not entirely convincing, conflating as it apparently does the web site of the restaurant with the blog breaking the original story. But again, the particular facts are a bit less interesting to me than the theoretical question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for a restaurant to refuse service to a person because the restauranteur, his patrons, or all of the above disapprove of the customer for whatever reason.

My inclination upon hearing a story like that is that the other patrons were boors. They caused the disturbance, so they should be ejected. But had it been O.J., pre-Nevada conviction, I think it would have been proper for the restaurant to throw in their lot with the booers. Granted, I’m loading the dice there; O.J. was a killer and Wisconsin’s governor is not. But what if it were some politician we didn’t like? Like, say, Obama? Or Barney Frank? Might we not be on the side of the booers?

Ultimately, for most, I suspect the answer will come down to “tactics that help my side win are good, tactics that help the other side win are bad.” At that point it becomes an exercise in rationalization. And yet, if your side is right — and how important the issue is — may be a relevant point. But should that be the ultimate distinction? And are we headed towards a world where even restaurants are politically polarized, and we can’t choose an eatery based on the quality of its cuisine, but instead must scrutinize the owners’ donation record?

All food for thought and discussion. Understand, I’m playing devil’s advocate with most of this — but I do think it is a useful exercise in these situations to imagine the political tables turned before we rush to denounce the tactics.

76 Responses to “So . . . What Did I Miss? Did Something Happen in Wisconsin??”

  1. Not all at once, please! We must maintain order!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. O’Keefe does face prosecution when he runs afoul of the law. That’s the risk he takes sometimes when he’s not careful about what he does.

    Indeed, a whole lot of people who support O’Keefe still agreed that he should be penalized if he broke the law with the Landrieu false pretense entry issue. Granted, it wasn’t a very serious crime in most opinions here, but it’s not like we simply say the law doesn’t count for conservative scofflaws.

    Similarly, if the Koch hoaxster broke a law, then he should be prosecuted. He won’t be. Left wing activists are held to a much lighter standard. From what I understand, he’s a really nasty fellow, but I don’t mind his attempt to expose some kind of corruption.

    His hoax was a massive failure, and it’s a shame he didn’t admit it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  3. Pat,

    I blame the partisan media, if they were questionng everyone like O’Relly and Russert, then the O’Keefe’s, Breitbarts, HuffPO’s and to a lessor extent the Soro’s arm of the media would have less of an impact and open targets of corruption today.

    But when blind eyes and nee, whtewashing and outrght coordinated propagandizing is going on first by the left wholesale and internally at Fox between conservative viewpoints –

    We are in an open season…

    I will say this though the Wisconsin Governor didnt have his phones turned off

    a point missed by the media

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  4. O’Keefe does face prosecution when he runs afoul of the law. That’s the risk he takes sometimes when he’s not careful about what he does.

    Indeed, a whole lot of people who support O’Keefe still agreed that he should be penalized if he broke the law with the Landrieu false pretense entry issue. Granted, it wasn’t a very serious crime in most opinions here, but it’s not like we simply say the law doesn’t count for conservative scofflaws.

    Similarly, if the Koch hoaxster broke a law, then he should be prosecuted. He won’t be. Left wing activists are held to a much lighter standard. From what I understand, he’s a really nasty fellow, but I don’t mind his attempt to expose some kind of corruption.

    His hoax was a massive failure, and it’s a shame he didn’t admit it.

    I agree with all this. I think you’re saying that, morally, you’re OK with the phone hoaxster.

    Morally, not legally.

    How about the restaurant? That actually seems like an easier call, huh? It’s tough playing devil’s advocate on that. Frankly, I think many restaurants might have thrown out booers even if it were O.J.

    A politician? Even one you REALLY don’t like? Not a close call. Eject the people making the disturbance.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  5. Dustin,

    O’Keefe lied to federal officials carried a concealed camera and was attempting to access a very secure area, true his intentions were not to tap a phone or commit espionageh and the fact he had a son of a US Attorney in his group, is why he’s walking around today given the prosecutorial environment in New Orleans, he’s real lucky the Feds didnt hand him over to Landrieu’s Brother the mayor.

    He’s also real real real lucky that the Federal Prosecutor Maselli who is a lifelong friend of the Senator, serves on boards with her family – didnt go ballistic on O’Keefe, she has been known for unreasonabe vindictive political prosecutions, mostly though of democrats (she is a Republican)

    This guy phoned in under false pretenses – wrong yes, but at some point a line has to be established.

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  6. But what if it were some politician we didn’t like? Like, say, Obama? Or Barney Frank? Might we not be on the side of the booers?

    I’d like to think not because, as you say, that behaviour is boorish. It’s possible for a grown adult to disagree about a policy without losing perspective on himself. Anger makes people stupid.

    Channel your anger into the ballot box.

    Craig Mc (74104c)

  7. Personally, I fnd all hoaxsters, anyone who calls in to interfere with government officials are guilty of some kind of crime, however the phoning in and Landrieus turnng off her phones are an issue with people’s rights to speech and redress of government

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  8. What was the punishment of that fellow who hacked Sarah Palin’s emails?
    Seems he did get off a little lite IMSM.

    “What if it were Barney Frank?”

    I would buy him a drink….
    and promptly throw it in his face!

    AD-RtR/OS! (f760ca)

  9. O’Keefe lied to federal officials . . .

    Wow. That’s a new one on me.

    Care to substantiate that accusation?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  10. Got to go to Al Khor, enjoy

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  11. Do you mean, like, the receptionist?

    You don’t mean the FBI, right? Because that’s how I read it at first.

    Sure, his group lied to the receptionist. Whether she qualifies as a federal official is, I think, open to serious question.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  12. I base that on reports on the comments by the Judge as to why O’Keefe was geting this plea deal an not being charged with more serious acts

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  13. Eric, I don’t think O’Keefe has anything to be ashamed of, but I agree completely that he’s damn lucky to be a free man. He stood up to one of the most corrupt towns in our country. I think he was both foolish and courageous, and hope he learned something, not that I could have done any better than he did.

    We’re not going to save our country without getting our hands dirty. Anyhow, insofar as he broke some laws, he should face justice. He did, with his head held high because he’s a hero.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. It seemed a little foolhardy to be walking around ACORN Central after the first series of stings. Then again, I’m crazy to think people would have
    the ‘attention span of a ferrit on double expresso’
    and not realize who he was.

    narciso (bf58f6)

  15. The judge was a putz.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  16. Pat,

    You can look at the whole chain, the security guards questioned them and the GSA official was ied to at the direction of O’Keefe, the staffers who were called by th receptionist to rely information – who knows who they were, the credientials are in the van thing is another

    This is what I was worried about

    You’re right Stanwood and Knowles are not my Favorite people – but you is where you is as they say in quarter

    Also Maselli has been known to be wildly unpredictable she could turn a temp employee at the IRS into a federal agent and why – yes she did!

    Now does this compare to the prankster, no – the prankster is actually worse, he under false pretenses tied up an official in a highly volatile situation, and should also be prosecuted

    O’Keefe is FREAKIN lucky to be walking around, I agree with comments about the political and prosecution system in New Orleans and think most comments are understated.

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  17. But I gots to go as they say,

    I still think Landrieu also should be facing an ethics complaint for turning her phones off as well

    But I’m off to the deep desert where there aren’t even camels anymore, just factories and factories and ,,,,

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  18. I still think Landrieu also should be facing an ethics complaint for turning her phones off as well

    Great point.

    That’s who actually tampered with phone lines, and as the isolated blowhard pretended they cared about that behavior, no one seemed to be looking out for my rights or the rights of other citizens to contact their so-called public servants. For a Senator to shut down the public’s right to petition her office should be seen as a newsworthy story.

    I don’t think O’keefe’s plan was a good one, but we have a lot of journalists in this country with a lot more experience who could have done their job, but left their job to people like O’Keefe.

    Anyway, my point was simply that conservatives should expect O’keefe to be held to the law, and some did just that. I don’t think this Koch faker deserves any different.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  19. If you want to catch up, Althouse has a lot, being from Madison. This includes a 2 hour discussion/debate in the law school about it. Powerline and SteynonLine have some good facts about the conspiracy to blame the Koch brothers. theBadger14 has some more stuff, including how Rockford Illinois department of tourism is taking advantage of the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwcVHyk3FBE

    I think if a person breaks the law, be it O’Keefe or the hoax caller, they should be held accountable, and a person claiming civil disobedience should be willing to take it. Perhaps more important in the general debate is the PR camapign of making the illegality more important than the more serious crime exposed/ or not exposed as the case may be.

    I think posing as something you are not, e.g. a pimp is different than impersonating a specific person. If someone wants to do business with a pimp, they they would do business with a pimp, that’s the story, not that the pimp wasn’t a pimp. As far as Landrieux, I don’t think we know what happened. Pretending to be a phone repairman to find out if the phone was turned off is very different from trying to access secure lines and interfere with communication, blah, blah, blah. I think it was more of the former, and not a huge deal. Pretending to be a specific person is different I think.

    Ideally one would want appropriate consequences for any crime done, and appropriate attention paid to the bigger issue.

    I guess a restaurant owner has the freedom to kick anybody out they want under the banner of freedom of association, as long as they don’t do it as part of systemic discrimination (?). Whether they should or not, and whether they should throw out the few not wanted or those making a fuss is up to them, and whether they want to do it on some principle or for advertising is up to them. [I remember back in the 70’s there was a “beef crisis”/shortage. Some butcher shop/ meat market in DC made national news by telling the Nixon WH they “could not” supply some specific steak order for a formal dinner. Of course the news article showed him with a cut of meat that he said he “could not” supply. Whether he improved his business or went broke never getting another WH order who knows.

    An interesting thing at Althouse is the discussion of precedent of letting protestors camp out in the Capitol Building, usually closed to the public at 6 pm. Apparently those in charge of maintaining the building/etc. decided to let the protestors hang out rather than remove them. But what happens when somebody else wants to inhabit the building but is told no?

    Most importantly, you missed two song parodies about the situation, “Wisconsin” (to the tune of Chicago by Graham Nash) and “Dems on the Run” (to “Band on the Run” by that McCartney guy.

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  20. As for the boo-ers, I would say it depends entirely on who the restaurateur hopes to draw for clientele. Also, it is way easier to get rid of one person/party than it is to get rid of multiple (assuming that he was actually drawing negative attention from more than one table).

    When you take actions that are unpopular in some quarters, even when those actions are the right ones, there may be some odd costs to pay. Not being able to eat a quiet meal at a favored restaurant may well be one of them.

    Too bad Heart of Atlanta and the other public accommodation cases came out the way they did, a business owner should be able to refuse to serve anyone, any time, for any or no reason, even if they have served that person in the past. The only penalty I would associate with such behavior is that people are less likely to make a choice to do business there if they know the proprietor is an arbitrary nutcase.

    Soronel Haetir (c12482)

  21. I’m starting to wonder what those professional protestors do when they aren’t camped out in a government building.

    Madison does have a history of (somewhat bloody) conflict in removing protestors from government buildings that they probably did not want to evoke memories of. (Occupying the Commerce Building to protest Dow Chemical’s presence interviewing job applicants in’68, I believe. Dow made napalm.)

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  22. I can easily see a restaurant owner in the area throw out the governor in the moment thinking it a great idea, like doctors giving and teachers getting fraudulant excuse notes, but then in retrospect, especially when back-flak started, begin thinking it wasn’t so bright of an idea after all.

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  23. As for the boo-ers, I would say it depends entirely on who the restaurateur hopes to draw for clientele. Also, it is way easier to get rid of one person/party than it is to get rid of multiple (assuming that he was actually drawing negative attention from more than one table).

    Of course. It’s his property after all.

    But it’s also extremely rude to kick out the polite guest to silence the rude one(s). Of course it’s always easier to screw over the quiet nice guy than the aggressive jerk. That’s the entire point of these union goons being what they are.

    The protesters have been unbelievably nasty, and if Madison hasn’t had enough of this crap yet then I’m glad I’m not living in that hellhole.

    The only penalty I would associate with such behavior is that people are less likely to make a choice to do business there if they know the proprietor is an arbitrary nutcase.

    Yup. I don’t want to dine somewhere trashy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Patterico: “A politician? Even one you REALLY don’t like? Not a close call. Eject the people making the disturbance.”

    David Duke?

    DWPittelli (2ca9c8)

  25. MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly – Any idea how much the protestors they bused in to Trenton were getting paid?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  26. Patterico – OT, but you may also have missed a great piece by Lee Stranahan over at Big Government on what a complete fraud John Boyd of the National Black Farmers Association happens to be. There was also a great link supplied in the comments to a piece on another blog on the same subject.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  27. I believe that Governor Walker has denied setting foot in that restaurant. And`furthermore– logic dictates that in this day and age had the Gov. actually been there, there would have been cell phone camera`shots`of him and the boo-ers all over the internets.

    So I am calling BS on the whole “asked to leave the restaurant” thing which was likely a PR or stunt posting which quickly got out of hand. You gotta feel bad for the FireDogLakers though. As a group they were so aroused by the possibility of the Gov being humiliated that I’m sure multiple underwear changes were needed by the juvenile slugs posting there.

    elissa (9ddc2b)

  28. Well as long as the unions understand that they are being paid by China, I guess it’s all OK.

    I would challenge any lefty to deny the reality, but they won’t. The nation is broke. There is no more money for collective bargaining, no more money for pensions, nor for Social Security or Medicare.

    It is all gone. Shouting will not bring it back.

    We have fallen over the brink. Screaming as children may make everyone feel better, but what you, or they, believe is available as a nation is gone.

    Perhaps China will be benevolent. Or perhaps America can realize the peril, but my money is on the government unions. They don’t really care about the outcome, they only care about the power. With the full weight of the government, they will win.

    Even though every penny they earn is paid by me and you.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  29. No idea, daley. I’ve paid more attention to Wis. and wondering if there will be a pro-Scott Walker rally here in Philly along with pro-union rallies. Of course my youngest is only 10 so I’m hesitant to go even if there is…

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  30. dictates that in this day and age had the Gov. actually been there, there would have been cell phone camera`shots`of him and the boo-ers all over the internets

    Very good point, elissa.

    I’m like so stuck in 2005 or something…

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  31. if Madison hasn’t had enough of this crap yet then I’m glad I’m not living in that hellhole.
    Comment by Dustin

    To get by in Madison a conservative makes like one of the remaining humans in Invasion of the Body Snatchers…Since most of the Lefties can’t imagine people not agreeing with them you’re pretty much left alone. And there really are a ton of people who think the lefties are just too into causes for the sake of it and want to go to class, drink their beer, and eventually graduate (if they have to) and get a job (if they really have to). The campus is beautiful, especially if you like living where there are 4 seasons, with one of them having snow.

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  32. LOL, MD — I think there are many days when a lot of us wish we were back in 2005, before all the…well, you know.

    elissa (9ddc2b)

  33. Dustin (and Patterico, since you missed out)

    You need to remember the multiple time mayor Paul Soglin visited Castro and gave him a key to the city. Hey, not many towns can claim that distinction.

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Patterico:

    I have actually thought about your question — if we applaud James O’Keefe, why not Ian Murphy (the Koch hoaxter)? — quite a lot for some time now; this isn’t the first time such parallelism has cropped up.

    Fortunately, there is a good analogy. In military combat, troops are required to obey the orders of their superiors, from non-coms all the way up to the Commander in Chief (the president).

    But on the other hand, our military, more than any other with the possible exception of the Israeli Army, wants all servicemen to think for themselves, to evaluate the situation and decide what to do. We give tremendous power to non-commissioned officers and junior officers, and we expect them to use it… even when that might fly in the face of earlier orders from higher-ups.

    But — and this is what Larry Elderberry calls the “big butt” — if you’re going to defy orders, you had damn well better be right.

    Maybe you have a better grasp of risk and opportunity on the ground than some colonel forty miles back, or some general looking at a map in the Pentagon. Maybe you know the enemy better than some newly minted CO (think of the movie Fort Apache). If so, we encourage you to take the initiative.

    But if you turn out to be wrong, the chain will be all over you like ugly on an ape.

    If your judgment was sound and better than your superiors, if you achieve a greater victory (or avoid a worse loss), then you’ll probably get a medal. But if your judgment was bad, and you compound a problem or fail to achieve a projected victory, you’ll get a court martial: It’s our policy to reward achievement and punish stupidity.

    (Contrariwise, if you just follow (legal) orders, and they turn out to be incompetent, then your CO’s butt will be in the doghouse, not yours; you did what your boss told you to do. You’d do well to have proof of those orders, though; if you think an order is utterly stupid, but you’re not ready to flout it, then at least get it in writing!)

    So it makes perfect sense to apply that standard to such hoaxing as O’Keefe and Murphy did: If your journalist’s instincts were good, if you uncover something significant, something immoral or illegal — as O’Keefe did — then we retroactively approve of your tactics; your spectacular scoop justifies the petty misdemeanors you committed to get it.

    But if you wind up with a red egg on your face, if your little investigation was barking up the wrong herring, then you’ve got no reservoir of revelation to wash away the taint of criminal behvaior: The law should chew you a new ton of bricks.

    Needless to say, I have to say that the standard applies equally to a journalist of any ideology.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd the Rulemaker (632d00)

  35. Thanks for this post. I had an experience in So Cal last weekend at a Sunday brunch where we discussed the Wisconsin controversy, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s take on it.

    I had an elderly guy at the next table approach me as he was settling up. He said that he had overheard our conversations, and that he had listened to Rush, and that Rush made 25 million. The teachers in Wisconsin, according to this guy, make 40 thousand.

    He also falsely claimed that Rush had stated that the teachers were greedy. I said, oh really? And, of course, he started walking away. I said, excuse me,sir, but you’re a goddamn liar. Rush Limbaugh never said that, and put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    This fool turned around and said “I don’t smoke.”

    To which I replied, “you don’t think, either.”

    Dirty Old Man (6bc7af)

  36. “I base that on reports on the comments by the Judge as to why O’Keefe was geting this plea deal an not being charged with more serious acts”

    EricPW – You have been perpetuating various smears of O’Keefe since his New Orleans arrest without substantiation. The government admitted in the plea agreement it had no evidence that the group intended to commit any felonies in Landrieu’s office. O’Keefe was not charged with lying to a government official. This appears to be another of your fantasy obsessions. I suggest you prove it or retract it.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  37. Patrick

    On the imitation thing… The situation is different from O’Keefe as follows. First, bluntly recording statutes stink, at least when it comes to recording conversations by a participant. If I voluntarily tell X person Y information, why should I be able to lie about what I said later? I can’t figure out what purpose that statute serves except to protect liars. So I have zero sympathy for a “he illegally recorded me” argument, period.

    And putting on the uniform of a certain profession to get into an office and see if the phones are working… I don’t see how any harm is done by that.

    But on the other hand, imitating another person… What if the man called up claiming to be the man’s lawyer? Or his priest? That would be an extreme example, but in general, outside of a criminal investigation, a person has a right to decide what to disclose and to whom.

    By comparison O’Keefe wasn’t (to my knowledge) ever using his fake names or disguises to pretend to be someone in order to get a person to open up to them. I mean O’Keefe didn’t try to make those Acorn workers think he was their best friend. He was presenting himself as just a random pimp off the street to show how they would react to a STRANGER who presented himself that way. I see that as a significant distinction.

    Of course there is always a danger of a political double standard. We have seen this all week in Wisconsin. As James Taranto noted earlier this week, every single bad thing ever said about the tea party has actually been true about these union protesters. The fact that the left has no problem with this conduct is not just hypocritical; it call into question their sincerity in ever making those complaints about the Tea Party.

    But like I said, I see a genuine distinction with this imitator. I will also say this. He is a fool to put himself at this much legal risk for so little reward. I’m with althouse. The tape means nothing.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  38. I have been wondering, lawyers. Does the real Koch brother whose identity was used/stolen have any grounds for action against the reporter should he choose to do so? Impersonating people in a number of specific professions is illegal. What rights do we as private citizens have not to be impersonated? Any?

    elissa (9ddc2b)

  39. Dirty Old Man
    I believe the average is close to $80,000.

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  40. One of my sons lived in Madison for a few years recently. His apartment overlooked one of those main thoroughfares leading up to the Capitol. Visiting him on his birthday, there happened to be a multi-generational legal pot parade going up the street toward the Capitol with the Grateful Dead blaring from a sound system in a supermarket cart. It took quite some doing to restrain my son and his buddies from raining some hurt down on the dirty smelly hippies with their arsenal of paintball and airsoft weaponry. It would have been fun to watch, but the consequences probably would not have been pleasant. Shelling out dough for lawyers to defend the stupidity of my kids is not one of my favorite activities.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  41. Legalize not legal.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  42. You’ve seen this Murphy character’s previous vulgar
    anti war rant, he seems more deranged than most, like that Kangas character that stalked Mellon Scaife in the late 90s.

    narciso (bf58f6)

  43. daley, I can relate, and agree completely!!!

    MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72)

  44. I would guess, in my legally uneducated manner, that a properly written law would not make it an offense to impersonate a class of people but not a specific person while making it an offense to impersonate a specific person.

    O’Keefe impersonated a generic and perhaps somewhat overblown pimp. He did not impersonate a specific pimp. He was simply a blank face with pimp written over it.

    The caller to Walker’s office impersonated a specific person. That probably should run afoul of anti-impersonation statutes to some degree. Had the caller simply impersonated a “rich investor” on the pretext of talking about a donation to Walker that might still run (more) afoul of anti-impersonation statutes than O’Keefe’s impersonation.

    As it is I figure both O’Keefe and the radio show host skated very close to the boundaries of any anti-impersonation statutes.

    Is it politically wise for Walker to be seen as sicking legal dogs on the radio show host? The chief thing that came out of that “interview” was that Walker doesn’t know any of the Koch brothers from a crumby radio show actor. He’s apparently never met them.

    {^_^}

    jdow (98e9d7)

  45. I would go so far as to say, the behavior of the left and the media in regard to Wisconsin does not just call their sincerity into question: it conclusively demonstrates that they were not sincere. If there was ever any doubt that the whole civility charade was a fancy way of telling non-leftists to shut up, we can lay it to rest now.

    As for the restaurant thing, it may not be true, but even if it isn’t, that the leftists on the net seem to be proud of emailing it around as though they would be proud if it really had happened demonstrates that they have no interest in either civility or actual discourse.

    Annaeus Seneca (5b3675)

  46. MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly – The sad part is that at my son’s age, I would probably have aired it out at the dirty, smelly hippies for sh*ts and giggles, but I just would not have done it from my own apartment windows. Nuance I felt unnecessary to explain at the time.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  47. No big deal, Patterico. Everything that you missed was also missed by 14 Dem. Wisconsin state senators. I’m sure that if anything important actually happened they would be right there on-the-spot to deal with it.

    Icy Texan (53dae7)

  48. It is not entirely the same thing…but didn’t Ben Nelson have to leave a restaurant in Omaha after some people started yelling at him over his Obamacare vote?

    Terrye (eec529)

  49. Some thoughts;

    1) The restaurant has a right to decide who to serve. We have a right to ridicule them for exercising that right.

    2) O’keefe made fools of some operatives of a nationwide criminal conspiracy. The Radio Show host made a fool of himself (actually, God seems to have done that, but the host made it publicly obvious). I think both hoaxsters should be publicly reminded of these consequences at frequent intervals.

    3) If we were enforcing the law in an evenhanded manner, most of the command structure of ACORN would be in prison awaiting trial, neh?

    C. S. P. Schofield (71781e)

  50. OJ was kicked out of an Italian restaurant a few years back.. got up with his peeps and left. The Enquirer had interviewed the owner.

    An aside, I don’t know why tricking a receptionist on federal property would be any different than lying to a higher up.

    The left now and the whole civility thing has fully been exposed. Like Ag80 sortof says above, it’s really the govt against the taxpayer.

    Vermont Neighbor (ae55d7)

  51. I would have guessed that with all this going on that there would have been a couple of security guards around the governor, and that it might have been just a little uncomfortable for anybody who wanted to throw the governor out.

    TimothyJ (5a11f5)

  52. Aaron, so what about the prank calls that radio hosts used to do, where they would call an unsuspecting victim and pull off a joke? And what about Lila Rose and her pretending to be a fourteen year old pregnant sex slave (or whatever thing she’s now claiming)? And O’Keefe did have a fake badge that identified him as a telephone company employees when he went into Landrieu’s offices, so wasn’t that impersonation?

    jim (ad29d8)

  53. A little off topic – the OJ restaurant incident. CNN 5-9-07

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: O.J. Simpson kicked out of a restaurant. Well, here`s what happened. O.J. stopped by a steakhouse with some friends while he was attending the Kentucky Derby in Louisville over the weekend. When another diner mentioned to the owner, Jeff Ruby, that O.J. was there, Ruby went right up to O.J. and said, I`m not serving you.

    O.J. left calmly. Ruby says that the other diners gave him a standing ovation for throwing O.J. out. Now, Ruby believes O.J. killed his wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ron Goldman. Of course, you remember that Simpson was found not guilty in a 1995 criminal trial, but he was found guilty — or liable, rather, in the civil trial that followed. Oh, and get this. O.J.`s lawyer said that Ruby`s move was racially motivated and intends to go after him on O.J.`s behalf.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: That was from “SHOWBIZ TONIGHT” here on HEADLINE NEWS. They`ll be covering this later on tonight.

    You know, it`s amazing that now a lawsuit is being threatened against this guy. And we`re going to unleash the lawyers in just a minute. But first, joining us tonight is a very, very special guest, Mr. Jeff Ruby, the owner of a string of Jeff Ruby`s restaurants, who kicked Simpson out of his restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky. Mr. Ruby, it`s an honor to have you on the show. Thank you for being with us.

    RUBY: My pleasure, Nancy.

    GRACE: Mr. Ruby, is it true that one of your guests came up to you, thrilled that Simpson was in your restaurant?

    RUBY: He seemed to be giddy. But he may have just come from the racetrack, and you know, saw those horses and was thinking giddyup or something, I don`t know.

    GRACE: What exactly happened?

    RUBY: He — well, you know, O.J.`s been in my restaurants before in Cincinnati, and back in the `80s, the Precinct, the Waterfront. He`s been to the restaurant — actually, he`s been to the Waterfront since the murders and — but he was in town for a hip-hop show he was doing, and I knew he was there. I wasn`t there that night, but I knew he was there. We didn`t do anything about it.

    But that was before the, “If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened” part of this whole tragedy. And you know, I watch your show. I watch you on Court TV. I watch you, I think, at 3:00 o`clock. I watch you on CNN, all three reruns of it every night. I watched Fred many times. And I`ve got three kids. I`ve got a 24-year-old daughter who is marrying in seven weeks an NFL player with the Cincinnati Bengals.

    I`ve taken this very personal. I`ve got two sons. One`s a waiter, one`s a busboy. I relate to Ron Goldman and Fred Goldman and what happened to his son, who was just bringing back a pair of glasses that Nicole left at the restaurant. My waiters do this all the time. One waiter yesterday returned a briefcase from a garage, a parking garage two blocks away. And this young man was murdered because he returned a pair of glasses. I have been very caught up and emotional in this whole thing.

    This was not about race. By the way, five minutes after O.J. Simpson left that table, a gentleman with a party of 30 was seated in that room at that table by the name of Michael Jordan. Enough said about race. And the other 28 names you would all know, too, and you would know it`s not about race. So that doesn`t even need to be addressed.

    O.J. — I think we sent you a picture of me and O.J., arm around arm, laughing, smiling from the early `80s, when he was at one of my restaurants. His picture was on the wall at my restaurants prior to the murders. I took it off back in `94. (etc. etc.)

    Vermont Neighbor (ae55d7)

  54. Granted, I’m loading the dice there; O.J. was a killer and Wisconsin’s governor is not.

    No point is too obvious for Liberals…. haven’t you heard-

    Walker=Hitler.

    Get with the program.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  55. Now the question is-*if* you could boo Hitler-would he leave your restaurant, and then could you live to lie about it? (-or whatever the hell happened.)

    Try asking your resident Liberal that question….

    I predict possible implosion.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  56. For anyone who is interested–Live feed to the interior of Wisconsin state capitol as the protesters receive union training for handling their upcoming arrests which are expected to start within the hour. Some of the accompanying twitter comments are hilarious. And they most definitely do not appreciate it when a few “trolls” keep slipping in comments.

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/afl-cio-2010-rally

    elissa (320342)

  57. jim

    who exactly did o’keefe imitate?

    and he didn’t do that to get someone to confide in him. He did it to get access to check whether phone line was out of service.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  58. “…carried a concealed camera …”

    I’ve run into more than one ignorant cop who thought that was a felony.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. “And O’Keefe did have a fake badge that identified him as a telephone company employees when he went into Landrieu’s offices, so wasn’t that impersonation?”

    jim – I believe O’Keefe was in plain clothes and just said he was waiting for somebody. His buddies were dressed as telephone repair people. You have a link for the fake badge assertion? Do you also think they were tampering with the phones?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  60. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVE_rLjxnfU

    Things are getting interesting.

    “I think the clearest difference is that O’Keefe found something while the Wisconsin imposter uncovered nothing”

    Not true.

    Bernard F. (d80b5a)

  61. To the contrary, Bernard, the prank call to Walker revealed nothing. You want to write “Not true”, then back up your BS.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. See link. They were all dressed as telephone repairmen. The other two claimed to be telephone repairmen, but apparently O’Keefe didn’t.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604145.html

    jim (ad29d8)

  63. Your future under Koch:

    As compared to what, our future under Trumka?

    AD-RtR/OS! (7c5a79)

  64. The Times computers and printing presses won’t run on unicorn dust, although that might be worth an experiment.

    narciso (bf58f6)

  65. AD-

    FWIW, Trumka appears to be more than a bit overweight. Very unhealthy for a man shouldering such awesome responsibility. Photos I’ve seen of the Koch brothers suggest they are in much better physical shape for the challenges which lie ahead. 🙂

    elissa (320342)

  66. What, a Man of the People, Leader of the Proletariat, living high on the hog?
    elissa, say it isn’t so!

    AD-RtR/OS! (7c5a79)

  67. “See link. They were all dressed as telephone repairmen.”

    jim – That’s not what your link says. Try again.

    “O’Keefe used his cellphone to take pictures of two men, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who are accused in an FBI agent’s sworn affidavit of impersonating telephone company workers.”

    “According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel were dressed in blue denim pants, blue work shirts, light green fluorescent vests, tool belts and white construction-style hard hats when they entered the Hale Boggs Federal Building on busy Poydras Street.”

    What about the badges jim?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  68. Bernard, repeating nothing remains nothing. The comment you highlighted was meaningless.

    But then, that’s typical of your BS, no substance at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. Wy are you such a disingenuous dishonest midget hilljack coward, William Yelverton?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  70. jim, is there a reason that you can’t read the links you yourself provide? Incompetence? Illiteracy?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. Shut up yelverton you manprostitute.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  72. “The pair told Landrieu’s staff members that they were telephone repairmen….”

    From the link, SPQR and Daley.

    Odd. I posted it before and it didn’t show up.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  73. Simply repeating a lie does not make it true, “Jim”.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  74. “The pair told Landrieu’s staff members that they were telephone repairmen….”

    Jim – Pair means two, which would have been Flanagan and Basel, as I excerpted from your link in #68. O’Keefe is conspicuously absent from being described as being dressed as a telephone repairman.

    What about presenting those fake badges you described? I see nothing about that. Is that at another link that did not appear?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  75. My business is a member of a union from the private sector and I disagree with a good number of what is reported that they are in the proposed payment. I am also appalled in the tactics of the Democrats leaving the state avoiding their duty to vote.
    Obama explained that “Elections have consequence” in addition to “We won. ” once the Democrats were passing their agenda in the national level. The same should apply in the state level; in this specific case, the Republicans. Think about, if you will, if all the time the minority party doesn’t for a bill, it up in addition to leaves the state.
    Within private industry, if somebody did this, they will be fired. If a person did this from the military, they would be regarded as a deserter and tried in the military court. The end won’t justify the means and personally We would never re-elect a representative would you flee the state capitol instead of perform their job in addition to stay and vote. Post wouldn’t care if which representative was a Democrat, Republican, Unbiased, or any other bash.
    The Democrats need to travel home and do its jobs. If the voters don’t much like the new laws that tend to be passed, they can elect new people from the next election cycle in addition to change the laws. That is certainly how Democracy works.

    prazsky krysarik (a42373)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1054 secs.