tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post5349510506716773177..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Beware the Scott Walker Brady Street molesillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-84455468264166088302010-09-24T12:26:48.504-05:002010-09-24T12:26:48.504-05:00All in good fun. Got to dog the dogger.All in good fun. Got to dog the dogger.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-81530548808162178282010-09-24T12:18:10.063-05:002010-09-24T12:18:10.063-05:00Good to see I have fans here.
Just so you know, ...Good to see I have fans here. <br /><br />Just so you know, the first person I called on this matter was Mike Wittenwyler, who works both sides of the aisle (former Feingold campaign manager who has represented WMC). He had a conflict, so he recommended Esenberg and Dunst. The two offered very similar opinions about the SEIU situation. I tried to make that clear while pointing out Esenberg's ideological bent. <br /><br />Perhaps next time I'll try to make sure I include the thoughts of a politically liberal blogger.Daniel Bicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-1483405923443951282010-09-20T21:33:15.200-05:002010-09-20T21:33:15.200-05:00Anon, I heard Scott Walker was a vociferous oppone...Anon, I heard Scott Walker was a vociferous opponent of frivolous lawsuits so, just doing some advance brainstorming. But seriously, if Bice is going to bring out the election law experts to generalize about the contours of a hypothetical case, why shouldn't someone consider its potential specifics? And I'm a fan of Bice also.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-62547181046166419492010-09-20T12:09:38.283-05:002010-09-20T12:09:38.283-05:00You don't disagree with that ...
This is true...<i>You don't disagree with that ...</i><br /><br />This is true.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-2963431330522000612010-09-20T11:46:33.413-05:002010-09-20T11:46:33.413-05:00I believe that Dan referred to me as a "conse...I believe that Dan referred to me as a "conservative blogger" and I told him that I support Walker (which he suspected to be so).<br /><br />When it comes to my job (and talking to journalists is part of my job), I call it as straight as I can. I told Dan that SEIU can kick Walker's ass until the cows come home, but, if the SEIU coordinates said ass kicking with the Barrett campaign, they've got potential problems. That an SEIU guy says he is discussing an attack campaign with the campaign -that he says, in effect, that this what he is going to do and this what we are going to do - suggests that there may be coordination. This is why, as Morgan said, the Barrett campaign was "nervous" about talking to him. Those are conversations that you typically don't have and, if you do, you don't tell strangers about them.<br /><br />You don't disagree with that and, if you do, you don't understand the law or the ways in which you wind up getting cross wise with regulators.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-54592582228144962882010-09-20T10:45:22.596-05:002010-09-20T10:45:22.596-05:00Brickman said he lied about his identity to avoid ...<i>Brickman said he lied about his identity to avoid creating a scene</i><br /><br />This guy's a Russian nesting doll of bullshit.Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17160568834659305520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-963318083497405252010-09-20T10:25:05.048-05:002010-09-20T10:25:05.048-05:00Oh for crying out loud.
"And while surreptit...Oh for crying out loud. <br />"And while surreptitious bar-time recordings aren't per se unlawful here, I understand they're a bugger to get admitted as evidence in civil cases and this one contains about eleventeen layers of hearsay." So? The relevance of the rules of evidence to this situation is what, exactly? Nobody is denying that the conversation took place or what it entailed. A great deal in politics turns on appearances. You can take your pick (as you do) about who comes off looking worse in this scenario, but the fact that this would be inadmissible in court is just not relevant to the discussion. (disclosure -- fan of Daniel Bice)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com