How over the top does a conservative Republican's political commercial have to be to get Charlie Sykes to back away from it?

Unless memory fails me, it has never happened in the past, no matter how vile, false or egregiously unfair the ad's claims may be.

But Supreme Court candidate Mike Gableman has set a new standard with an ad so despicable that even Sykes had to "throw a flag" on it.

Other right wing bloggers have tried out some tepid defenses of the Gableman spot, designed to make people think that Justice Louis Butler got a child rapist off and released, only to have him rape another young victim.

But Sykes had this to say:

Somewhat predictably, the left is trying to play the race card, by claiming that this ad is somehow racist. Actually it's worse: it is misleading. And, therefore, dumb. The case in the ad is not one Butler handled as a judge or a justice... it focuses on a case he handled as a public defender, a very different matter altogether. The viewer has no way of knowing that even as a lawyer Butler was NOT responsible for Mitchell being out on the street again. The prosecution WON on appeal. So the claim that Butler was somehow responsible for the subsequent rape is completely unfounded.

The irony is that there are more than few legitimate rulings Butler has made that the ad could have discussed. Butler's record on the Supreme Court is an especially target-rich environment.

Instead, they opted to go with an ad that debases the debate and is likely to backfire on the campaign.

Sykes's headline, "Misleading but not racist" is at odds with the Wisconsin Judicial Integrity Campaign Committee, an independent monitoring group formed by the State Bar of Wisconsin, which described the commercial's
"offensive, race-baiting style reminiscent of the infamous "Willie Horton" advertisement."

To view the commercial and read more about it, visit this post: Willie Horton, with Grisham plot, comes to Wisconsin.

Share/Save
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Xoff, I visited Butler's


Xoff, I visited Butler's site. He still doesn't come out to be as "black" which you'd expect if it was a race baiting ad. I actually thought he was that one judge whose on TV during the day. But cheer up, he must be visiting your site. That ad on his site seems to have picked up my point about corporate crime / power. Its not the only one, all of his ads link crime with worker's rights and consumer protection. Well, if he win you'll have to admit your strategy was off base.

Sykes didn't denounce the


Sykes didn't denounce the racism in the ad. He called is just misleading. Racism is not misleading, it's offensive, it's insulting. Even the slightest implication cannot be acceptable and excused as 'misleading' instead of what it is. So Republicans have to be shamed into jumping to the Dems. They must be ashamed of voting as a Republican, they have to support racism, and be accused and forced to apologize, in public! Save their souls from the hate religion of the far right wing! Sykes is divorced, from a judge. He misled her! He lied to her! He must apologize for his sins OF GENDER BASHING! Sykes is a lazy thinker who excuses wrong doing, because he's more a partisan than a human. Far less than a real American. Sykes may not be able to know pornography when he sees it. But we can, and have no problem, grouping those people into one catagory. That of racists.

I have to ask myself if it


I have to ask myself if it was a white guy next to Butler, would it have changed anything. Maybe some would have seen it as more acceptable, but certainly the framing would not have changed. I disagree. This goes to why Peg did and would have again won the AG job whereas Falk was unable to. The anti-corporate message is something that crosses political lines. The problem is right now you try to to "out Republican" "out crime", "out hate" them and they beat you in the final analysis. My real point is maybe electing straight out is not the way to get the best judges. Locally there rarely is no opposition, and state wide we get what we got. It seems the system we got now just encourages the so called molester ads. So, besides Butler's on "your" team do you think he should stay on the court. I have no doubt where Gableman stands, he's a corporate toadie pure and simple. His right wing judicial views are instrumental not ideological. If precedent hindered corporate interests there is no doubt where he's side.

maybe


And maybe, methinks, if Butler and his supporters took that anti-corporate theme it would just guarantee his defeat.

Racism may be in the eye of the beholder, but that independent state bar committee is hardly made up of a bunch of liberals, and they called iit "race-baiting" and made the Willie Horton comparison.

Well I saw the ad, and the


Well I saw the ad, and the first time took Butler as a white guy. Yes, the ad was unfair and dishonest just like the ad he was responding to. In all fairness, no worse than the ads, your organization, I believe, ran against Ziegler last time around. I don't see the racism, unless the consumer assumes the victim was white, or Butler did what he was falsely accused of out of racial allegiance. The latter may be a possibility if we assume that is what Gableman was getting at with "loophole". Lately it seems Democrats in regards to racism, is like the social conservative who sees pornography in every picture. The larger issue is, are these kinds of ads the inevitable consequence of how we select judges. Most Wisconsinites want to elect judges, but then all criteria for making reasonable decisions are taken off the table. They can't discuss how they will rule on issues, or even give the voters any inclination of how they would approach major issues. If all meaningful distinctions are taken off the table we are left with so and so is easy on sex offenders, and so and so let a child molester off. What is so distressing is your side feeds into the right wing frame by making "tough on crime" the central or only issue in which to elect a judge. You got burned last time and will this time to. Maybe if you wanted to use a more liberal frame you would take Gableman to task on how he sides with corporate stateholders instead of consumers. Maybe how he is only against "activist judges" when there is a pro corporate precedent.
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Kachingle!

Regular Reader? - Support Uppity Wisconsin and other sites with Kachingle! Spend $5/month across your favorite web sites, including Uppity Wisconsin. Mouse over above to find out more.

Uppity Fund
Tom Barrett (WI-Gov) $
Russ Feingold (WI-Sen) $
Paulette Garin (WI-01) $
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) $
Gwen Moore (WI-04) $
David Obey (WI-07) $
Steve Kagen (WI-08) $
Pat Kreitlow (WI-SD-23) $
Kathleen Vinehout (WI-SD-31) $
Kristen Dexter (WI-HD-68) $
Jeff Smith (WI-HD-93) $
Recent comments