Right-wing blogger goes bananas

Here's some typically unintentional and low comedy from one of Wisconsin's "leading" (or so I'm told) right-wing bloggers.

Like many of Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick's most ardent political supporters, this one is apparently not well pleased by the fact that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's reelection committee has been outraising Koschnick's confederates by a ratio of 56 to one.

The right-wing blogger, it seems, is upset with a very misleading story that appeared in the AP the other day and is clearly troubled that every single justice on Wisconsin's popularly elected Supreme Court has benefited from campaign contributions, some of which come from — Blessed Saint Ivo of Kermartin forbid! — lawyers.

As explained here, here, and even here, the Associated Press report is a bit of a poorly conceived joke, albeit only slightly less of a joke than some of the outraged, self-satisfied reactions to it.

But the following reaction — and that would be reaction as in right-wing reactionary — merits a dishonorable mention award:

Blog commenter: Why didn't you point out that Abrahamson also received contributions from Foley & Lardner, who was on the losing side of the malpractice case?

Right-wing blogger: Because that was not in the AP article, and only adds to the bill against Abrahamson that she has no reservations to taking money from both sides. Shame on the AP for not reporting every aspect of her sordid fundraising.

sor•did adj 1 : marked by baseness or grossness : VILE 2 : DIRTY, SQUALID — The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.

As fundraising by candidates for the Wisconsin judiciary is circumscribed by a number of State statutes, there's more than a little innuendo of impropriety, and even illegality, contained within the right-wing blogger's risible expression of petulance.

Mind you, this is the same right-wing blogger who claims to have "argued" that Chief Justice Abrahamson "invented" the law in State v. Knapp, despite her not having authored a single one of the four separate written opinions contained therein.

So consider the source, as they say. Its credibility = zero.