The funny thing is that the Supreme Court seats are allegedly non-partisan. The whole article and the liberals interviewed don’t even pretend that to be the case.
After Wisconsin Democrats suffered sweeping defeats up and down the ballot in November, they will offer no challenge to Republican-backed Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler in April.
Some on the left say that’s the fault of a weakened state party infrastructure, while others argue progressives have been intimidated by massive spending from groups on the right.
[…]
It’s not the job of the party chair to beg a candidate to run, one Democratic strategist said, but it is the party’s job to make potential candidates feel they would have a chance at winning.
I would point out that in this last election, Clinton and Feingold both way outspent their opponents. But again, that doesn’t fit the narrative that the right is the home of big money and the left is the home of the little people.
Your earlier post about this subject showed that you, yourself, also don’t even pretend the Supreme Court isn’t a partisan race….so why is it suddenly funny that those people also think so?
And yes, Clinton and Feingold campaigns outspend their opposition campaigns. Big difference is in the outside spending and dark money…while the Dems do get a bit of a push from other groups it is nothing compared to what the GOP machine has built the last few years.
And that goes double in our state…the national lefties have turned their back on Wisconsin (starting with the recall elections and continuing on with Clinton not campaigning in our state after the primaries), while the national righties, on the other hand, are eager & happy to throw unlimited funds into Wisconsin for any/all local and state races.
Can’t blame it all on the funding issue but there is little doubt that a lack of $$$ is the major factor in Justice Ziegler running unopposed. If they had the funds then their would be at least a token candidate put forth.
Liberalism has no winning message. That is the problem, not the party leaders.
And what is your message? Hate those you don’t want to understand?
Nord,
Free markets
Free minds
Free Society
Odd, but the minds and society you have espoused in the past are anything but “free”.
Nord,
I’ll bite at you unsubstatiated statement once again.
Example?
Kevin:
Your lectures have proven numerous times in the past that you are religiously, scientifically, socially, and fiscally intolerant of anyone that disagrees with your narrow world-view. Just look back on your old statements. If you are to be judged by your opinions on this blog, you are possibly the most intolerant and incurious person I have ever inter-acted with.
Off topic, empty rhetoric … and that noise you just heard is a liberal’s head exploding.
Nord,
You could not come up with even 1 statement where I allegedly do not support Free minds and a Free society?
Why do you say it if you cannot back it up with even 1 little example?
Admit it, you love the meessage….
Look back on you old posts. In the past you have promoted deporting citizens because of religious beliefs, indoctrination of youth, yada, yada, yada. Your support of trump says it all.
Nord,
Example of that?
Nord,
Still have not found 1 little [accurate] quote example to back up your false claims about me?
This is hilarious coming from the guy that demands scientific proof about every little thing in triplicate.
Kevin:
While you have time to make up sorts of conspiracy theories about how liberals are the devils spawn, I have things in my life to accomplish. So I won’t page back through the 1000’s of your lectures to dig out exact quotes. But here are some general themes that come to mind that are relevant:
You want to deport all Muslims
You are intolerant of any religion other than your own
You are (or at least were) all-in for building a wall on the Mexican border
Evolution and climate change are both a hoax
The pope isn’t christian because of his postion on evolution and climate change
You are unwilling to accept any new knowledge that doesn’t conform to your world view
Now go ahead and start the excuses and rationalization. Deny if you like, but I’m pretty sure even your religion places a penalty on making stuff up.
And you never answered the question: Did you drop your dilly bar price when milk prices dropped 43% ??
Nord,
Still have not found that quote?
1.) Never said that. I did say I want to convert Muslims to Christianity. Big difference between “convert” and “deport”. Check that out sometime.
2,) Not intolerant. Just willing to stick up for universal truth of Jesus. People are still free to practice false religions whether they listen to me or not.
3.) I support building the wall. Need to keep criminal illegals out. Just good law enforcement.
4.) They both are a hoax. I know I am a heretic in the evolution religion and the climate change cult. Proud to be a heretic in your dangerous liberal cults.
5.) Never said Pope was not Christian because of his support of climate change religion. I said “If he embraces evolution, he denies Genesis 3, The Fall, which denies the problem of sin. If problem of sin does not exist, you deny basic conviction of Christianity, Christ as your redeemer from sin.” Glad to clear this one up for you.
5.) I accept new knowledge all the time. Especially when science continues to prove liberal doomsday predictions are false! I really enjoy debunking climate change doomsday predictions in that religion. It’s a target rich environment. I’m also upgrading my I-Phone soon, so very welcoming of new tech and ideas. Just not thrilled embracing new, false religions, like climate change, evolution, or the liberal feminist cult that thinks one has to have an abortion to be a real woman, but thinks sexual predators, like Bill Clinton, should run free to abuse women. I don’t embrace those “new ideas”, for the safety of women.
You still have found no quote where I am “intolerant”. Disagreement with someone does not equal intolerance.
1.) Yup, you did. You need to work on your memory skills.
2.) You can’t even get through two sentences without proving my point.
3.)Bingo ! But folks in LE would disagree with you.
4.) And again. It’s getting better !
5.) You sure did, and lots of times.
5 or is it 6 ?.) Again you use religion as a crutch and excuse to close your mind to anything that isn’t preordained in your narrow and intolerant world view. Thanks for providing all the evidence to prove my point.
Now have the last word.
1.) For the umteenth million time…produce the accurate quote.
2.) Expressing universal truth, Jesus as your Savior, openly, is intolerance? Maybe you check your intolerance at the door of the First Amendment.
3.) Was always open about that.
4.) Always open about that. Clearly, you are a passionate disciple of these 2 religions. I applaud your evangelism of climate change and evolution. We need that kind of evangelism passion on Christian side.
5.) Produce the quote. I have made the Pope’s problematic embrace of evolution quote many times. It applies to any claimed christian that embraces the false gospel of evolution….they deny their Christianity by doing so.
6.) If expressing concern about protecting women from Bill Clinton is “narrow and intolerant”….guilty as charged.
>”Expressing universal truth, Jesus as your Savior, openly, is intolerance? ”
Don’t worry Kevin, it is just another in a long list of embarassing examples of the local self proclaimed public servant misusing the English language. He will probably trip over his mom’s purse racing to his keyboard to get another lame retort posted.