On the surface, the FBI raid on the home of Cynthia Archer, former Scott Walker Aide when he ran Milwaukee County, and current Scott Walker appointee in Madison, seem to be small potatos.  Sure, the FBI seized some files from Archer’s home, and  one source is claiming this investigation to be growing.  Maybe it is, with Walker denying he has been contacted by the FBI, but also lawyering up with a specialist in white collar crime, Steven Buskupic.  But I’m not going to get my hopes up. 

Still, my friend Chris Bowers over at DailyKos is reporting on this story, and also offering a little bit of editorial comment.  His point is that if this story erupts, it could be devastating for Walker’s chances during a potential recall election in 2012, and I’ll add that public corruption can only hurt the chances of any other Republicans on the recall list.  Blindly following Walker will not do them well considering his policies, but if Walker is at the center of a public corruption investigation, that’s going to be a lot worse for a Republican Senator like Van Wanggaard.  I’ve known Chris Bowers since 2004, and have shared many a beer with him at the Philadelphia version of Drinking Liberally.  He doesn’t speculate lightly, but I’m still not getting my hopes up.  Yet. 

The problem here is that the FBI is keeping this tight to their collective vests.  I suppose that’s what a John Doe investigation is all about, but this leaves the rest of us DYING to know what’s going on.  Chill.  There will be many more political stories to follow, like people getting arrested in the state capitol for exercising their rights, and if we follow those stories, this one will develop or not while we keep busy. 

Still, it’s OK for me to be optimistic here, isn’t it?  This story just might break at exactly the right time, after all. . .

Tagged with:
 

29 Responses to About that FBI Raid in Madison

  1. Jeff Simpson says:

    Yes where is the outrage from the right about arresting people for silently filming? where is the ” these people are hurting their cause and the whole state is watching blah blah blah” that we hear everytime Jeremy ryan is doing something? crickets?

    * i will give credit where its due and wiggy did speak up!

    Steven we need to have some beers sometime

  2. Fred says:

    No beers left they are being thrown at people by pink dress guy. Where is the story on that?

    By the way when yo mention people attacking Jeremy Ryan you might want to include Zach.

    • gnarlytrombone says:

      ZOMG beers. Call the FBI, Freddie. Stat!

      • Zach W says:

        Fred’s full of selective outrage.

        He’s also full of shit.

        • Zuma Bound says:

          Okay, Zach, given your recent and untoward criticism of my tweaking the noses of wingnuts with a bit of pointed humor, I’ve got ONE more comment for you before I take my leave.

          Here’s what you posted on September 13, 2011 at 9:18 pm on the “Gov. Walker starts tamping down expectations created by his own job creation promise” in response to an eminently justified comment that I directed at Ray, Notalib’s heir apparent at Blogging Blue:

          “Why must these comment threads degenerate into name calling and insults?

          I really do get tired of having to remind grown people that I’d like to see more dialogue and less name calling.”

          http://bloggingblue.com/2011/09/13/gov-walker-starts-tamping-down-expectations-created-by-his-own-job-creation-promise/#comment-82858

          How exactly do you square that comment with the comment which you directed at Fred, just above?

          Zach, honestly, you just don’t wear either “supercilious” or “hypocritical” well.

          While Fred is, in fact, “full of shit”, you’re not exactly elevating the discourse here, nor following the standards you apparently expect everyone else to follow, are you?

          • Zach W says:

            Oh, and I forgot to mention that Fred Dooley has earned an exemption from my “name calling and insults” policy, based on his past comments and behavior.

            Have a great day!

            • Zuma Bound says:

              Well, at least your “consistent”, huh?

              (*laughing*)

              “Exceptions”? I guess your list of “exceptions” is kind of like the “double, secret [kind of] probation” that the Animal House frat were ambushed with by Dean Wurmer when he needed to find an easy way to justify doing what he was doing to them, huh?

              Your newly discovered/published, “double, secret” list of exceptions notwithstanding, you’re still a petulant, self-righteous hypocrite, Zach.

              Every wingnut that I have ever punked has had it coming, whether it was Notalib or Ray or Wingnut, having “. . .earned an exemption from [your] ‘name calling and insults’ policy, based on [their] past comments and behavior.” And yet you got in my face over an idiot like Ray who had then just advised me to “take off my tinfoil hat”?!

              You’re behavior here has been not just wrong-headed, but slimy, at best, however you arbitrarily choose to justify it. Your lack of apology for any of it is just further evidence that you have lost your “center”, something that I hope you recover at some point.

              In the meantime, “Have a great day?” Do me a favor, and just stick that smarmy, insincere shit in your ear.

              And do yourself a favor, too. If you’re not going to offer an honest apology for things, just…stop…demeaning yourself by commenting further on this thread,

              • Zuma Bound says:

                Now your moderating my comments?

                (*laughing*)

                How “Notalib-esque” of you.

                Young man, you’re proving to be SUCH a disappointment.

                (*laughing*)

                That said, I hope that you wake up from this regrettable and petulant fog that you’re currently walking around in because you’re coming perilously close to D-Bag status.

    • Jeff Simpson says:

      Fred,

      Thanks for visiting but you have it wrong. I am not just a “contributor to zach’s blog” , I am Senior Fellow at the non partisan, slightly regulated marke, blogging blue think tank, and secretary of the “Accidentally spilled beer on robin vos” society.

      I will cover this important story as soon as i find out what kind of beer it was. Because vos is such a douchbag, that if it is anything better than Busch Light i will be upset and might resign my secretary position. I need to work on becoming glued.

  3. Steven Reynolds says:

    I would like to meet this pink dress guy, and would like to buy him a beer.

  4. Fred says:

    Just as I would expect you people would approve of this assault.

    How is it to have no ethics or integrity? Must make it easy to go through life.

    • Zach W says:

      “How is it to have no ethics or integrity?”

      I dunno Fred, you tell me.

      • Zuma Bound says:

        Okay, Zach, given your recent and untoward criticism of my tweaking the noses of wingnuts with a bit of pointed humor, I’ve got ONE more comment for you before I take my leave.

        Here’s what you posted on September 13, 2011 at 9:18 pm on the “Gov. Walker starts tamping down expectations created by his own job creation promise” in response to an eminently justified comment that I directed at Ray, Notalib’s heir apparent at Blogging Blue:

        “Why must these comment threads degenerate into name calling and insults?

        I really do get tired of having to remind grown people that I’d like to see more dialogue and less name calling.”

        http://bloggingblue.com/2011/09/13/gov-walker-starts-tamping-down-expectations-created-by-his-own-job-creation-promise/#comment-82858

        How exactly do you square that comment with the comment which you directed at Fred, just above?

        Zach, honestly, you just don’t wear either “supercilious” or “hypocritical” well.

        While Fred is, in fact, “full of shit”, you’re not exactly elevating the discourse here, nor following the standards you apparently expect everyone else to follow, are you?

        • Zach W says:

          I thought you were on a permanent hiatus.

          The difference between my comment and yours is that mine was one comment among many that I’ve made, while many of your comments are almost all identical in their tone and nature.

          Thanks for your feedback!

          • Zuma Bound says:

            Look, stop acting like your above the fray, with loftier ideals than everybody else.

            Your “[Fred is] full of shit” comment unambiguously demonstrates your arrogant hypocrisy on the subject at hand.

            Employing a logical fallacy to suggest that you weren’t being hypocritical in responding to Fred as you did is just pathetic, and simply evidences the fact that it isn’t just Fred that’s “full of shit”.

            You can unjustifiably criticize my writing all you want, homeboy, but it doesn’t really serve to mask your blatant display of hypocrisy here.

            You should just cop to it, and move on.

            Or, and I suspect that this is going to be your choice, you could just double-down again, and start inviting comparisons to Notalib.

            Good luck, Zach. I think you’re going to need it. You’re definitely losing whatever it was that used to keep you centered.

            • Zach W says:

              I didn’t say I was above the fray; I simply pointed out that my comment was just one of many I’ve made here; many that weren’t insulting or derogatory. On the other hand, many of your comments have been insulting, and while I suppose it’s the “fight fire with fire” approach, sometimes it’s just better to be the bigger man.

              On that note, I’m done with you, but good luck to you!

              • Zuma Bound says:

                I said that you were ACTING like you were above the fray, not that you SAID that you were above the fray. Nice sleight of hand, though, Zach.

                All part of dancing around the hypocrisy, I suppose, huh?

                You can try to plaster over your hypocrisy above by playing a numbers game all you want, Zach, but in calling Fred “full of shit” even once, you’ve unambiguously demonstrated that you’re a hypocrite.

                Or does your “be the bigger man” standard only apply “sometimes”?

                Either you admit to the hypocrisy or you embrace it.

                The incivility that you showed Fred in saying that he was “full of shit” doesn’t really measure up to the standard that you set for others, does it?

                It isn’t a numbers game, Zach. You violate your own self-important standards, and then try to justify it by saying it was “just the one time”. Even if it was, and it wasn’t, that is blatantly hypocritical and self-indulgent.

                You’re a hypocrite, Zach.

                And, you’re “full of shit”.

                I’m sure people like Notalib’s protege, Ray, will probably feel free to follow your fine example.

                Have fun explaining your “it’s okay to be uncivil to people we disagree with and/or don’t like SOMETIMES” and/or “don’t do as I do, do as I say” standard to them when they do.

                That’s the trouble with being a “holier than thou” hypocrite, Zach. People just think that you’re “full of shit”.

                • Zuma Bound says:

                  Zach: “The difference between my comment and yours is that mine was one comment among many that I’ve made, while many of your comments are almost all identical in their tone and nature.”

                  And yet, while the “tone and nature” of my comments hasn’t ever really varied since I began posting comments at Blogging Blue, you wanted me to become a contributor here:

                  “Zuma Bound’s morning links”

                  Posted on May 20, 2011 By Zach W

                  “Though he’s resisted my overtures to become a contributor here at Blogging Blue, Zuma Bound typically sends me a bunch of really great links every day. While I can’t always compose a full blog entry on each link I’m sent, I feel the links are worth sharing.

                  Having said that, here’s Zuma Bound’s morning links.”

                  http://bloggingblue.com/2011/05/20/zuma-bounds-morning-links/

                  Funny how you’ve conveniently chosen to complain about and/or disparage the “tone and nature” of my comments only after I call you out on your hypocrisy regarding the subject of civility.

                  How pathetic it is that you would go to such lengths just to avoid losing face, rather than have to admit to your hypocrisy or relinquish your obvious feelings of entitlement to “holier than thou”/”do as I say, not as I do” blog proprietor status.

                  Zach, that’s exactly the kind of thing that Notalib does over at his micro-blog.

                  And it’s truly fucked up.

                  You should have just admitted that you screwed up, instead of trying to dance around it by disingenuously implying that you’ve always had some kind of problem with the way that I post.

    • Jeff Simpson says:

      Fred,

      I am on your side man. If only the guy would have reflexively grabbed Vos by the throat. We know that is not a prosecutable crime and heck its just reflex it could happen to anyone.

      Vos was handed a pink slip and now had beer spilled on him, what a true hero he is. Maybe he should take the rest of the month off to handle his PTSD!

  5. Jan Tessier says:

    Well, this is ironic…I want to be the peacekeeper here.

    Zach, I don’t have any problem with you saying Fred is full of shit, because he is.

    Zuma, I don’t have any problem with you saying right-wingers are full of shit, because they are.

    I don’t want to not read either of you, so please don’t give up on each other or this blog. Thank you. Peace.

    🙂

  6. Zuma Bound says:

    Yeah, Zach, it really isn’t. Jan and I are on the same page. You aren’t.

    And you’ve elected to deal with the fact that you and I aren’t on the same page in a less than honorable and defensive way.

    @ Jan

    It is ironic, isn’t it?

    As you know, I have a habit of tweaking the noses of the wingnuts who deserved it here, all in good fun. You’ve always gotten where I’m coming from, and where I’m going with stuff. Zach is apparently different.

    Every so often he cops this “holier than thou” attitude with me, and lectures me about the need to be the “bigger man”, while, as it turns out, reserving the right to take a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude about such things whenever it suits him, as he did with Fred Drooley above.

    But, hey, it’s his blog. It’s therefore his prerogative. His problem, though, is that, while you can roll a turd in powdered sugar, it still isn’t a jelly donut [tip of the hat to Berta, “Two And A Half Men].

    I agree with Zach that Drooley is “full of shit”, and I think that Zach should tell him that at every opportunity. He just shouldn’t be lecturing the rest of us to behave any differently.

    Notalib is GONE because I hounded Zach about banning him, while tweaking Notalib’s little pinhead with reckless abandon whenever I was given the opportunity to, and Zach finally realized that I was right, stopped worrying about the potential for the perception of progressive bias here against conservatives, and banned him.

    Zach got his hackles up here on a different comment thread because I went after Ray, Notalib’s stand-in/protege here, in a similar fashion, and then failed to welcome his, “Why do these threads have to dissolve into the exchange of insults” and “You need to be the bigger man”, comments from on high with open arms.

    Then he comes here, and promptly, without the slightest twinge of conscience or concern about double-standards, insults Drooley.

    Zach didn’t handle my observation up above about that being hypocritical with any great degree of honor or integrity. Plenty of “I just did it the ONE time” defensiveness, but not much honor or integrity.

    Maybe you can explain that to Zach, Jan. I’m done trying. He’s lost his “center”, and starting to run this blog just like Notalib and Drooley run theirs. I’ve got better things to do.

    I’ll miss ya, Jan. I’ve always loved your integrity, your passion and your honesty.

    When you have time, ask Zach what happened to his.

  7. Jan Tessier says:

    Could we take a collective breath for a moment?
    Zuma, I’m confronted daily by hypocrisy. Just this morning, as I was ending a third shift stint at the store, a man comes in who is busily engaged in a loud conversation on his cell phone, which he has set on “walkie-talkie” mode. So, not only are we hearing HIS loud conversation, but we are hearing the woman he is having his loud conversation with in what almost appears to be stereo. Several patrons glare at him while trying to make their coffee and say their good mornings to each other, and a few are irritated enough to say something to the clerk who has relieved me. He is oblivious to the antipathy. Finally, I approach him and say: “Sir, would you mind turning your phone down or having your conversation outside? People are having difficulty hearing.” He stares at me blankly for a moment, then barks into his phone: “I’ll have to call you back, okay? Evidently it’s illegal to use your phone in (names store) now!” Then he stomps up to the counter.
    I’ve lost count of the times I’ve had to ask people not to smoke at the pumps, yap loudly on their phones, blast their car stereos outside the doors so that our computers vibrate, or any other number of offenses—only to be told to fuck off, I’m “rude”, or pick your invective.
    Why did I say all this? Because Zach’s “offense” doesn’t rate your antipathy. Zach, like many of us, is trying to maintain a standard. That he failed at it once isn’t worth getting upset about. We all have our breaking points, and I don’t blame him for breaking.
    Look, Zuma—I have never met either one of you, but you are both my brothers in an honorable cause: All of us want to make this world a better place. Can we forgive each other our peccadilloes and mistakes and momentary lapses of reason and go on to face the real enemies in this struggle?
    I am just as guilty of insisting on a standard of behavior from other people, only to find myself engaging in the opposite. This gives me no moral high ground to stand on. Mea culpa. There are no absolutes in this world except that we will all die one day. While we are living, let us be united in what makes us different from those on the Right. We are the hope for America. All of us.

    • Zuma Bound says:

      @ Jan

      It’s deeper issue, Jan.

      Zach just has a certain and oftentimes counterproductive, myopic/dysfunctional way of looking at things over which, as he knows, I have gone toe-to-toe with him via e-mail.

      I’ve been right about a number of things about which I’ve privately gone toe-to-toe with him, but, as with Notalib, for example, it took a lot of frustrating and sustained effort to “lift the veil” from his eyes with respect to them.

      Over time, Jan, Zach has demonstrated to me a tendency for “getting his back up”, and stubbornly, and sometimes petulantly, holding onto a misguided/wrongheaded point of view, just as he has in this instance.

      What he has demonstrated here in how he has handled things is that, ultimately, if push comes to shove, he’s more than willing to play the, “It’s my blog, and I’ll do what I want” card, rather than do the right thing. So, fuck him. If he can’t appreciate what I do here, as you clearly can, well, there are plenty of other places where I can fight for progressive values.

      You see, Jan, to borrow from your story, Zach is the rude and arrogant customer who feels that one standard applies to him. The rest of us are you and the other customers in the store whom the rude customer would presumably expect to abide by a different standard.

      It isn’t Zach’s hypocrisy in connection with Fred (and, for the record, this wasn’t his only transgression) that troubles me most. What is most troubling is seeing him fail to cop to it, and try to dance around it, and, apparently feeling oh so dishonestly and dishonorably comfortable and justified in disparaging me in the process as he does that.

      So, Jan. now that Zach has shown his willingness to play his blog proprietor, “I can do anything I want/”Do as I say, not as I do”/”Fuck off if you don’t like it” trump card, and self-servingly and unjustifiably disparaged me in the process, he’s finally lost my respect. He has rather unambiguously demonstrated that he is nothing more than just another unprincipled, arbitrary and “Notalib-esque”/”Fred Drooley-esque” blog proprietor.

      Continue fighting the good fight, Jan. Rest assured, I’ll be fighting it, as well. Just not here.

      That said, I’ll miss ya, not to mention your passion and your integrity.

      @ Zach

      Do you remember the comment that Jan posted in which she said that one of her primary reasons for coming to Blogging Blue was the entertaining manner in which I always cut Notalib down to size?

      The next time, sanctimony starts to get the better of you, try to remember what she had to say back then.

    • Zach W says:

      Jan, thanks for your perspective on things.

      Listen, I’ll be the first to admit I’m not perfect, but who among us is? If Zuma wants to tear me down because of the what he judges to be flaws in how I comport myself on this blog, then so be it….that’s his right.

      Perhaps one of my flaws is my willingness to give the folks who visit this blog a little latitude when it comes to their comments. In Notalib’s case, he took advantage of that latitude not only by his comments, but by his attempts to find a way around my moderation/banning of him, which is why he’s no longer with us.

      If Zuma wants to air his grievances against me, then he’s certainly entitled to do so, but I’m not going to let any commenter dictate to me how I should run my blog. This is my slice of the intertubes, and if folks don’t like how things are done around here, then they can just shove off.

      Having written that, I’m done with this back and forth, but I do want to reiterate that I do appreciate your perspective on this, Jan.

  8. Zuma Bound says:

    “. . .but I’m not going to let any commenter dictate to me how I should run my blog.”

    See, Zach, that’s the problem. You were, and are, projecting. At least that explains the defensiveness.

    I thought only someone like Notalib could be that insecure.

    That said, I’m glad that you finally copped to the Notalib-esque/Drooley-esque/”bigfoot”/”I’ll be as arrogant, sanctimonious and hypocritical as I want to be” blog proprietor bullshit.

    Funny, I thought that you were “done with me”. Guess not, huh? It’s kind of pathetic that you had to resort to using Jan as a beard to get in your remaining “two cents”. Unfortunately, doing that didn’t really help you retake the high ground, Zach. You’re still a high-minded, sanctimonious hypocrite.

    Over and above that, thanks for demonstrating the aptness of my comparison of the way that you are now running your blog to the way that Notalib and Fred Drooley run theirs. You have finally achieved D-Bag status. Congratulations.

    Mark my words, Zach. This exchange of ours will come back to haunt you. Temporarily trying the jive, hypocritical “bigfoot” blog proprietor thing on for size is one thing. For someone with a conscience, and a sense of right and wrong, as, on some level I think that you continue to be, the way you are currently acting, unless you change it, will torment you over time because It’s just flat-out wrong, and, deep down, you know it.

    Enjoy the personal angst.

    Enjoy, as well, the infamy that comes with outting yourself as an unrepentant, Notalib-esque/Drooley-esque,/”bigfoot-ing”/I’ll be as big of an asshole as I want to be” kind of guy who justifies being that way for no better reason than “because this is my slice of the Intertubes”.

    Hasta la vista, homeboy.

    Take care of yourself, Jan. It’s truly been a pleasure getting to know you.

  9. Jan Tessier says:

    I am sorry that both of you cannot find some good connection. I’ll remove myself from the argument. I feel badly that both sides can’t walk a mile in each other’s shoes. I can walk in both your shoes, and it grieves me that I can’t do anything to facilitate compassionate communication.

    • Zach W says:

      As far as I’m concerned it’s all over and done with. Everyone has written what they needed to write, and I’m moving on. If Zuma wants to do the same, then so be it, but if not, that’s his choice.

  10. Steven Reynolds says:

    Amen, Jan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.