Watch as Republican State Rep. Joel Kleefisch (better known as the Lt. Governor’s husband) votes several times for absent members of his caucus during an Assembly session on February 21, 2012.
Perhaps Republicans who control the State Assembly should institute some measures to prevent vote fraud by their own caucus members.
H/T to the Root River Siren.
In the video, Kleefisch voted 3 times for the voter id law – you know, that law that is supposed to protect against VOTER FRAUD????!!!!!!!
WI republicans need to pass a voter fraud law – against themselves.
There are plenty of things I won’t defend. I’m still waiting for proof that something wrong or illegal was done here, which is why I asked the questions I did. Questions for which no one here apparently has an answer.
This 30 second video doesn’t show much context. It’s done little more than provide you all with a talking point and the opportunity to make fun of Kleefisch’s weight…haughty stuff.
@Patrick…Dem members of the Legislature have heretofore seized every opportunity to criticize GOP members…their silence here is thunderous.
Depends on the meaning of the word “is,” I think Joel was trying to say.
What was the intention of the forefathers who wrote “the chamber”? Did they mean the restroom and the parlor, too? Or did they mean “the chamber”, the big room with all the desks and chairs and microphone and voting equipment in it? If Joel asked someone to meet him in “the chamber” could they justifiably head to the restroom?
He wasn’t exactly forthcoming about the known location of the missing members. You’d think that should’ve been a ready-made part of his excuse. The WTMJ reporter cut that clip, if he had it. It’s OK if they’re in the parlor eating lunch, or in the bathroom? Then where were these two?
It’s not like this issue hasn’t come up before, as the news clip points out. Gee, Walker was against it back then. Why is the WisGOP for it now? What changed?
It’s great to see you recognize the methods of thin partisan attacks, Roland. Can’t beat a great visual. (Cigs for sigs! That girl can’t be 18!) Do you recognize their weakness when you cheer them when they’re made against Democrats?
“haughty stuff”
A Badger Blogger complaining about fat jokes? Really? (nsfw)
You seem to be deliberately ducking so that the point sails over your head. If Kleefisch wants to champion assembly rules and Voter ID for all the smaller people, he should probably make himself a smaller target.
That’s an oldie but a goodie.
The funny thing is, despite hiding behind a pseudonym, Roland’s fellow Badger Blogger outed him.
I guess that this is just too “inside Wisconsin” for me to follow.
Who exactly is “Roland Melnick”? What is his real name? And WHAT was that link that GT provided just above all about?
In any event, I don’t have to know exactly who he is to know that “Roland” is squirming like a “mofo” here.
I still think that he needs to change his icon to a photo of David Koch or maybe even Scott Walker talking to the fake David Koch.
How about it, Roly?
The link GT provided is a screen capture of a blog entry written by one of the contributors at Badger Blogger, in which the author threatened a particular commenter.
The active-duty cop mentioned by the author is actually Roland, if what I’ve been told is correct.
And everyone else at Badger Blogger condoned the blog entry?!
Anyway, so, just so I understand. “Roland Melnick” isn’t a pseudonym, then?
Roland Melnick is a pseudonym….what I meant was that Roland is an active-duty copy (under his real name).
I’ve watched this video a few times and I have a few questions:
1) Whose seats were those?
2) What was the vote for?
3) Is voting done on their laptops?
4) Has anyone who knows whose seats those were bothered to ask if it shows them voting?
Simple questions I’m sure could end this hysteria.
Actually, doesn’t it look like that other person in the dark suit was coming to press the voting device also?
Why are there 4 chairs?
Surely, aren’t the floor desks assigned seating?
I’m not the only one using a pseudonym on this blog- yet I am the only one you make an issue of? Hey, it’s your blog…if you want to go off the topic at hand that’s up to you.
I have my reasons for the pseudonym, not the least of which is unwanted harrassment. It happens on both sides. Prior to using “Roland”, I was on the receiving end of such treatment.
Yes, I remember Foust’s story. I’ve publicly denounced what happened to him and still think it was a childish, stupid act. Foust says he knows who did it. I’ve said he should have prosecuted it. Ultimately, that’s his decision.
While I think it’s nifty that gnarly has mastered the skill of taking screenshots, I didn’t write those things. I won’t defend what Schaller wrote, threats are wrong even if they are rather hollow. I won’t apologize for him either. In case you didn’t notice, “tinman-tim” is a pseudonym. Whoever used it posted over 30 NSFW comments at our blog which routinely contained insults using language to make George Carlin blush. How much patience would y’all have for me if I wrote in such a manner?
Roland, I’m not making an issue of your desire for anonymity, nor would I out you. You have your reasons for remaining anonymous; I was simply providing information to someone who isn’t as knowledgeable about the goings-on of the Cheddarsphere.
I understand all too well about how nasty and personal people can get, so I don’t fault you.
A’right a’right a’right. Just found the fainting couch act rather humorous, given that like Kleefisch Badger Blogger has a propensity for… incivility.
From what I read, it appears you are a policeman who has sworn oaths to protect public safety. To that end, “not defending” Schaller just isn’t enough. You should be on the side of protecting, not on the side of standing on the sideline. That would be doing your duty, eh?
If Schaller had made those comments to a known person, as opposed to an anonymous foul-mouthed troll, you might have a point Steven. As it was, it’s a stretch to say public safety was in jeopardy.
On a related note, Schaller did get the virtual smackdown and hasn’t posted in over a year.
El pseudonymbo, Roland Melnick: “I didn’t write those things. I won’t defend what Schaller wrote, threats are wrong even if they are rather hollow. I won’t apologize for him either. ”
Well, “Roland”, you SHOULD apologize for it, your lazy and entirely convenient deflection on the subject, notwithstanding
Anyway, why not talk about ancillary stuff? You and the rest of the conservatives are getting their ass handed to them here regarding THE subject at hand.
So, “Roland Melnick”, huh? Seriously?! Do you put a “I’m a dork, so kick me” sign on your back when you blog? “Roland Melnick”? You might as well have gone with, “Arnold Horschack”. (*laughing*)
Also, what’s up with the photo icon you use? Wouldn’t a David Koch photo or a “Scott Walker talking with the fake David Koch” photo suit you better? The whole “try to make the President look like a gangsta” thing? Not really happening, my brother.
^^Apparently Badger Blogger doesn’t have a monopoly on obnoxious commenters.^^
“El pseudonymbo”…? Did your mother name you Zuma Bound?
@ Roland Melnick, El Pseudonymbo Dorkando
Thin-skinned, huh? Oh, well. . .(*laughing*)
I live near Zuma Beach in Malibu, a beach toward which I’m always bound, and at which I surf.
Get it? Zuma. . .Bound. . .
Obviously, as a general proposition, I have no problems with pseudonyms. I just have a problem with the goofy-ass ones, like yours. Well, I also have a problem with your dumb-ass photo icon, but since we’re talking pseudonyms here. . .
Capiche?
Look, ROLAND (you were on the A-V squad, right?), I mix snark with substantive comment. Just my schtick. I’m just having some fun with it all. That you fixate on the schtick and ignore the substance, as you have here and over on the Carolina Stark comment thread, says a great deal more about you than my snark says about me.
Like I said over in the Carolina Stark comment thread, next time bring your “A” game.
Fair enough Zach. I’ll take whatever criticism someone has of what I write. I’m a blowhard and I’m not always right…I’m man enough to admit that. I leave comments here because, quite frankly, it’s fun mixing it up with people of different viewpoints. Keeps everyone on their toes.
As for anonymity, I’ve used Melnick for over 6 years. Investing that much time/effort into a pseudonym has its own way of keeping me in check.
The whole pseudonym discussion above was entirely my doing. It sounded like your actual name was something other than “Roland Melnick”, and that your actual name was something that was “out there” in the public domain, at least the Wisconsin public domain. If your name really was Roland Melnick (que lastima), I wanted, among other things to stop putting it in “quotes”. Capiche?
So, as Bernie Mac (may he rest in peace) used to say, “Chill-ax”, huh? We all get the need for, and use of, pseudonyms.
So, you voluntarily chose “Roland Melnick” as a pseudonym, huh? Seriously?! Do you put a “I’m a dork, so kick me” sign on your back when you blog? “Roland Melnick”? You might as well have gone with, “Arnold Horschack”. (*laughing*)
Also, what’s up with the photo icon you use? Wouldn’t a David Koch photo or a “Scott Walker talking with the fake David Koch” photo suit you better? The whole “try to make the President look like a gangsta” thing? Not really happening, my brother.
Pseudonyms are OK, for those who need them, but you have as much admitted that you are an officer of the law. To that end, you have responsiblities, even if you are hiding behind a pseudonym. Else why should we respect the oath you took as an officer of the law? This thread is about an accusation of unlawful conduct, after all, and you refuse to address it. Are you so craven?
I wonder if Roland Melnick does any of his blogging from work? Methinks he does. Maybe someone should do an ORR on him. Include his cell phone in the ORR.
Oops…accidentally “like” this comment. Interesting you have used Roland Melnick for six years. Do you have any of your old work available for us to read? I noticed you scrub a few places of your name and work.
I looked at the Schaller comment again. Just in case there was anyone wondering at BadgerBlogger, I was not “tinman-tim”. Though my first name is Tim.
Having said that … really, I didn’t think anyone at BadgerBlogger had (fill in the blank).
And … I’ll vouch for Roland. He has used that pseudonym for quite a while. I tried to get him to join my site because I liked what he wrote. I don’t mind having a conservative voice there and I figured he wouldn’t dirty up the place. He politely declined as I recall. No harm done. Wiggy is still a member as was I at his old site. Between us, one post was written. Oh well. Wiggy is a friend of mine, though I haven’t talked to him awhile.
Anyway they’re not all bad even if their politics are misguided. And, Roland is less evil than the other BB members. 😉
With all due respect…you have no idea what you are talking about. Roland Melnick is a bastard. I have been reading his words for years…under his real name…and he is a foul mouth disrespectful know-it-all who brags about everything he does as if he is God. He is more hateful than Mickey/Gus. Seriously.
^^And people wonder why I use a pseudonym.^^
Wow, none of my ex’s even hate me that much.
I don’t wonder why you use a moniker. I know you’re a coward.
I don’t think “hate” is the right word…I just find you repulsive.
Spewing insults…is that why YOU use a moniker, Anon? Get a grip. If you think I’ve done something wrong, report me…file an ORR or whatever. If you think you know who I am, out me. There is nothing I can do to stop you.
I can’t imagine anything I’ve ever done in my life justifies the labels you’re applying to me here. You think otherwise…so let’s have it.
Roland…you and I both know the things I’ve said on here I have said using my real name. I say what I mean without editing myself (except to follow Zach’s blog rules).
I just might file that ORR…taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for your political blogging.
“I just might file that ORR…taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for your political blogging. ”
Like Foust, you must have me confused with Chris Liebenthal.
Wiggy censors me every time i have every posted on his blog and blocked me on twitter…he just likes to swear at me then run…..
Speaking of all of this “civility” how is bruce doing?
In the spirit of bipartisanship, here’s a snotty, ill-informed comment from Democratic Rep. Josh Zepnick:
His office ain’t in the chamber, last I checked.
I always love it when Roland Melnick comes out to play. Roland Melnick has no issues when other people being harassed but yet he takes issue when he is the target? Ha. That is a laugh. Don’t be fooled by Roland Melnick…especially when he is sounding reasonable. As Zach once said…he is a classic example of a “Jekyll and Hyde” personality. He’s one of these guys who will do anything (and I mean anything) to get ahead. He is looking for fame and power. Just ask him what the meaning is behind the moniker “Roland Melnick”…it will tell you everything you need to know about him.
Zach…you are too kind. Everyone should be as gracious as you. I know I’m not. I know who he is…and I really have no issues outing him. I have no respect for the man. He’s just about as low and nasty as they come. He and his ilk at Badger Blogger.
Respect is a good thang.
OS…you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Roland Melnick. I’m telling you he hates you. He hates all liberals. He’s just here to provoke. I don’t know how clearer I can be.
I can understand why, say, a police officer would want to use a pseudonym, especially if he liked to read and comment at blogs during the work day. It could get you in trouble! Or if you worked for a company that was fundamentally linked to Medicare funding, you wouldn’t want your conservative or liberal friends to razz you about that. If you were self-aware enough to know that spouting vaguely racist taunts about Obama on a blog might not sound so hilarious if everyone at work knew, you might adopt a nickname. Or if you wanted to say someone’s opinions were so dumb, therefore his wife was sleeping with the UPS man, or if you wanted to make crank calls, you might want to find an alt handle. And there are plenty of other good reasons. Unfortunately, some of the other not-so-pure reasons involve the glamour of anonymous insults, especially when surrounded by others with a similar mindset for avoiding deep thoughts and cheering at the KFC-and-watermelon-based Obama jokes.
Roland’s being quite well-behaved today. Maybe he’s turned over a new leaf. It must be more difficult to be well-behaved over at BadgerBlogger, so maybe he’ll do it here. It’s not hard to find (in an irony-of-ironies example of Wigderson’s psychic powers, a post presciently titled “How to be complete morons”) where Roland cheerfully denies every which way to Sunday the connection between the prank calls I received and the fine band of pseudonymous fellows at Badger Blogger. Maybe he’s changed his mind. Give him a break. But don’t worry, Gus/Mickey is still an active and supported member of the BadgerBlogger community.
I’m surprised to see that if you google “Roland Melnick” (with the quotes) the first hit was his Twitter feed, the second is the article here at BloggingBlue that describes the crank calls I received.
(Hey, Roland – have you done a follow-up to this story you broke? Whatever happened to that Walker campaign investigation?)
Blogging at work? You must have me confused with Chris “capper” Liebenthal.
Erroneous.
Chris was surfing the internet at work….he was not blogging. However, since you brought up Chris, I can’t help but notice that you guys at BB neglected to write a scathing critique of Darlene Wink’s alleged ILLEGAL campaign work on the taxpayers’ dime, while you certainly didn’t hesitate to crucify Chris.
And the vice-versa could be said of you. So we’re both partisans, no revelations there.
Except what you said about Chris was a lie. It’s not being partisan…it’s just flat out being a liar. You made some shit up and lied.
The allegations about Wink and the others are all true. Blogging about fraud/public misconduct in the CE’s office is not being partisan…it’s being a responsible blogger who cares about getting the truth out.
The difference between you and Zach is night and day. Don’t flatter yourself by comparing yourself to him.
No worries…gus/mickey is alive and well!
Or maybe that is what they want you to think. Timing was too perfect IMO. I think Roland slipped up by saying g/m is not commenting anymore. I believe him. I think he can’t per court order.
Foust…just because a person prank called you doesn’t mean it was gus/mickey. They could have been doing it for g/m.
I did learn one more thing about g/m…and that is he likes to or liked to go into chatrooms looking to pick up “smart women”. The women he approached all turned him down…they were smart indeed.
Fred works for Macgyver also? wow
@anon: Don’t presume to tell me how to think. I’ve given Roland and others hell more times than not. Ask Zach. He may hate me, I don’t know or care. His opinion of me is none of my business. I choose not to hate.
FWIW…I’ve disagreed with Other Side plenty, although not in a long time…but I don’t hate him.
No problem OS…and don’t you presume to tell me how to think. Roland Melnick does not deserve my respect…whether you think “respect is a good thang” or not.
No offense, Zach…but I think your regulars find the Melnick feeding frenzy more interesting than the Kleefisch witchhunt.
What a narcissist.
@anon: I didn’t. Whatever. This comment string has gotten boring.
One thing I really can’t stand is when someone like you preaches to me that “respect is a good thang”…and so then I go over to your blog and it’s anything but respectful to the people you write about. I don’t care what side your on…that’s just down right f*cked up.
Oh…and your comment that you “choose not to hate”…you’re kidding…right?
This is the most mind-numbingly stupid string of testosterone-driven, argument-for-argument’s sake (yet you don’t even seem to know what you’re arguing about) verbal fappery I have seen in a long time.
Kudos, gentlemen.
Roland, you’re smart enough to know what Capper was (correctly and successfully) accused of. He was reading blogs on County time. No one at the County ever brought forth the claim that he was writing comments or posts. Do you think if Capper had stayed anonymous, like you, that this would’ve happened to him? If indeed several BadgerBlogger members or commenters are reading and posting during the work day, where is CRG’s attention to them?
Q – No one’s mentioned Nazis yet.
Wasnt it badger blogger regs who put in the ORR’s the great watchdogs that they are….
Gnarly, it is truly unfortunate that there seems to be little discussion of the wider issue of how voting takes place in the legislature. The issue has come up again and again. Walker spoke out about it when he was there. Yes, Zepnick is wrong. He’s new, and he learned from the incumbents. Legislators seem to like the flexibility. I’m sure it builds trust.
I would suspect – although no one’s presented chapter-and-verse – there is a mechanism for the absent-but-voting member to be able to challenge their placed vote. I can’t quite imagine how that would work, though – who is recording who is actually there and not there? WisEye only has a few cameras, and they’re not part of the official process.
Same goes for the issue of redistricting. The stench of the WisGOP’s strategy and tactics are distracting from the more reasonable discussion of how we’d like it to take place next time, and how the partisan nature can be eliminated. (Iowa has an approach that pleases my computational side.)
Where’s the reasonable discussion? I’d like to go there.
@JF – I really don’t have a fundamental problem with leggies pushing each other’s buttons (although at some point it becomes open to mistakes and/or abuse). It does highlight two huge problems in the Capitol: the hypocrisy of maniacally enforcing idiotic, self-serving rules about cameras et al, and the increasing casualness of the approach to legislative procedure.
Kleefisch is obviously a moron. But Zepnick should know better, and his comments are amazingly tone deaf in light of all the sketchiness he’s witnessed.
As for the casualness and automation of the process, I find that disturbing, too. Public hearings are pro forma and the agenda of speakers are rigged with stacks of lobbyists, laptop professors, and intertwined operatives. Is the Capitol itself even suitable for hearings that attract hundreds? Floor speeches are ignored and pro forma. Caucus meetings closed. I’ve already made up my mind, so I don’t need to be there. Rude behavior, Mike Ellis with sunglasses, legislative aides rolling their eyes at the public, in public.
So where’s the debate? Why not just let the Brothers Fitz cast everyone’s vote?
I think it’s safe to say much of this has gone on for a long time. But the degree to which it has been taken is stunning, for me particularly how much bidness is being conducted off campus.
And most of the leggies have no clue how bad even this minor kind of sketchiness looks to people who are witnessing it for the first time. Mark Pocan played it perfectly on Sly the other day, admitting that the button pushing has become routine without dismissing one iota of the anger.
My problem comes in the fact that basically the first thing they did is pass the most restrictive voter ID bill in the country, go on every right wing tv and radio show they can telling about the massive voter fraud in WI(even though they know its not true) and then do this without batting an eye. Then when called on it play the victim.
I know it shouldnt, but sometime the pure hypocrisy that these guys show is just too much to stomach!
Well, Gnarls, maybe that’s what they really mean by “running government like a business.”
Whoops, I meant “lapdog” not “laptop” up there.
Hey presto, the MJS Editorial Board agrees with me.
I wonder how this worked for building trust. Sorry I couldnt find a better version of it, or why the dems werent allowed to vote for each other here. DOes this unwritten rule only apply sometimes?