Racist Gableman Ad?

This is an ad being put out by Judge Gableman’s campaign. 

Some on the left are calling it racist.  I must admit that I’ve watched the ad several times, and I can’t find the racism.  I believe that the lefties are referring to the part near the end where it talks about Butler finding a loophole to free a child molester and the child molester went on to rape more kids.  The ad uses a bit of spin. 

For example, the ad says “Butler found a loophole.  Mitchell went on to rape another child.”  Those statements are entirely true.  Butler represented the rapist on his appeal as a defense attorney.  Butler won at the Court of Appeals but lost at the Supreme Court.  After Mitchell was released, he did indeed rape another child.  So the statements are factually correct, if marinated in political spin.

But I still fail to see the racism.  Is it because Butler is a black man and so was Mitchell?  Is it because the ad puts up a picture of both men?  Those are real pictures, aren’t they? 

It seems to me that what we have here is yet another example of a bunch of lefties crying “racism” when they don’t like someone being critical of a black candidate - even when no racism exists.  If Butler and the criminal were white, would they level the same charge?  Of course not.  If these lefties every really want a colorblind society, they will have to stop screaming “racism” where none exists. 

1. And we’re supposed to be surprised?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2008 at 2135 hrs




2. The ad uses a bit of spin.

   rofl! This is priceless.

   Posted by illusory tenant on March 17, 2008 at 2145 hrs




3. Are you saying it doesn’t?

   Posted by Owen on March 17, 2008 at 2147 hrs




4. marinated in political spin

   It is a laughable characterization.  There is a difference between spin and outright intellectual dishonesty. 

   The ad is blatantly misleading.  Butler was doing his job according to the law he did nothing that led to a rape.  You should acknowledge that.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2008 at 2204 hrs




5. You should acknowledge that.

   Reminds me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfgrj_62-Y

   Note timestamp 2:05…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2008 at 2342 hrs




6. I don’t believe the ad is racist although it uses racial imagery to create an uncomfortable effect.

   I do believe that the ad is an outright, bald-faced lie.  Justice Butler defended his client and used the law to win another trial for his client.

   If Gableman, as an officer of the Court, believes that Justice Butler should have done anything less than his best in the service of his client then he doesn’t understand the law well enough to be serving as a judge.  He should just step down now and admit he’s too dumb for the job.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0620 hrs




7. If these lefties every really want a colorblind society, they will have to stop screaming “racism” where none exists.

   Let me help. The constant and non-stop harping over Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0720 hrs




8. Where is all of your outrage at the outright lies being spread by leftist special interest at Gableman.

   ABSENT.

   You have no legs to stand on.

   Posted by Fred on March 18, 2008 at 0735 hrs




9. Where is all of your outrage at the outright lies being spread by leftist special interest at Gableman.

   Gimme a break Fred.  Did any of us defend them as spin?

   Anyone supporting ads like this one and the equally mendacious PP ad in the JS should be ashamed.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0818 hrs




10. While the ad is blatantly misleading, that is just the way dirty politics is played. On both sides.

    Please forgive me, but I can’t remember all the details (or almost any). But, I seem to recall an ad before nov. ‘07 (‘06?) elections of someone releasing a criminal and him killing again. Something like that. It happened when he was in a northern county and now running for a Milwaukee office. Anyone help my aging memory. I do turn 30 in 2 days, and my mind just ain’t the same anymore.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0905 hrs




11. J.B. Van Hollen. It was the Bayfield case. Ah ha. I knew it would come to me.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0908 hrs




12. The fact of the matter is Butler in doing his job set a child molester free. Now, I agree Butler was doing his job but does that mean the event never took place? I agree with Owen th ad is spun and not deceit or racism.

    If you want to attack the ad fine, but does attacking it by calling it racist actually accomplish anything more than that young boy who cried wolf?

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 18, 2008 at 0929 hrs




13. Butler is black???  Didn’t know that.  Haven’t been able to tell by any of the ads.

    To all of those defending Butler because “that was his job” - that is part of the problem.  His job was to find loopholes so that criminals can walk the street again.  The problem is that as a Judge, he still thinks that is his job.

    Posted by Clint on March 18, 2008 at 0940 hrs




14. Marcus Aurelius- You are wrong.  All Butler did was win a new trial where the guy was convicted, served his full sentence, and then was released.  So how is this a negative?  How does what Butler did result in another child being harmed?  This ad is disgusting.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 0946 hrs




15. Oh,

    So if I understand correctly, the molester was accused, given a new trial, convicted, sentenced, served said sentence, was released, and then went onto to rape another child? I was under the impression said molester struck again between trials.

    Racist - still not even close, misleading? Yes, even if the component facts are true they are presented in such a way to mislead.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 18, 2008 at 1005 hrs




16. I don’t know what is more sad, a pretty young girl whoring out her body for money or smart people whoring out their minds for ideology.

    The ad is blatantly misleading.  Accusing Butler of finding a “loophole” is holding our entire criminal justice in contempt.  Butler was defended a man from an unfair trial, a right we are all guaranteed by our constitution.  If you don’t appreciate that right please move to China.  We should commend him for performing that job, not belittle him.  His defense did nothing to lead to more crime.

    It is sad that we are even debating this.  It is a complete non-issue.  The dirty politics that bring the debate down to this level are contemptable and indefensible.  We need someone like Sam Kinnison to get up and scream in anyones face that is willing to argue otherwise.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1007 hrs




17. I agree that it’s misleading.  But no more so than any other ad like this.  It presents facts in a way that is intended lead the viewer to a false conclusion.  We can debate this all you want. 

    The point of my post was that it is NOT racist.  The charge of racism is an entirely different debate than the charge of the ad being misleading.

    Posted by Owen on March 18, 2008 at 1013 hrs




18. I think the choice is clear when it comes down to which candidate is more interested in our courts being fair and inpartial and it’s not Butler.

    Outside of all the special interests, this is what people are most interested in. Gableman is not beholden to all the judges as Butler seems to be. Moreover, Gableman is the only one that claims he’ll give people a fair shake. Something we need in the courts.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1015 hrs




19. I see characterizing this sort of deception as “spin” as tacit approval.  I have always viewed you as an honorable guy Owen.  If we want to improve this country and it’s politics we should all condemn dishonesty when it is apparent.  Thanks for admitting that it is misleading.

    I agree that the charge of racism should not be leveled flippantly.  This guy’s mug shot was intended to frighten.  Would it have been less frightening if it was a white guy?  Would they have run an ad with a prominently featured white guy?  I doubt it.  Is that racist?  I am not sure if I would call it racist, but I would say it is trying to appeal to the latent prejudices of an overwhelming white electorate.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1030 hrs




20. I don’t think it should be dismissed as “spin.”  Spin is a candidate who loses the popular vote in Idaho but stands in front of a mic and says ‘we did better than expected.’  When you imply that a defense attorney successfully defended a child rapist and who is therefore somewhat culpable for the subsequent crimes committed by this person—when in fact the attorney was a) doing the exact job which he must do, b) didn’t get the guy off, but instead just got him a new trial, and c) the guy didn’t get off at all, but served his sentence…  That I call an outright lie.

    Anyone who defends it or who uses language weaker than “dishonest” to describe it must be working for the campaign who benefits from it.

    Posted by scott on March 18, 2008 at 1039 hrs




21. Personally, I think there are plenty of things that Butler has done in his career that would make people want to vote for someone else.  I think Gableman should have used one of the countless other examples instead of McGuyvering this example to make it fit what he was trying to say.  The ad is dishonest, just like the ad against JB was dishonest.  I’m miffed that Gableman stooped to this level and I hope that his future ads are fair and honest. 

    That said, I don’t think the ad itself was racist.  I think that the facts were distorted to make it appear that Butler was responsible for something for which he was not responsible.  But I don’t think it was racist.  Besides, when I think child molester, I think middle-aged white man. 

    Seems like it would be hard to run for judge when a person has been a defense attorney.  It would be easy to find many cases where a good defense attorney has been successful for his client, which makes him seem a bad guy.  Frankly, I don’t know how some of them sleep at night, but it’s a job someone has to do.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1115 hrs




22. If this ad is viewed as “spin” and racism, then by the same token Butler cannot that he vigorously supports the rights of the people since to do so would be his own “spin” justifying his use of loopholes.

    The ad is accurate, but doesn’t fully tell the story that Butler was obligated by his profession to do what he did. However, it does point out to cheeseheads that Butler was involved in a part of the system that they may not fully feel comfortable with.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1124 hrs




23. Scott makes an important distinction between spin and deception, and he’s exactly right; I think this ad crosses the boundary and goes beyond spin and into outright deception.

    I’m always a little hesitant to jump into Wisconsin subject matter, because I obviously don’t know any of the people involved but as to whether or not this ad is racist…well that’s entirely dependent on the intent of the campaign running the ad, isn’t it? In a colorblind society, no, of course it’s not a racist ad. A horrible crime was committed, and race is not a factor. But as grumps pointed out above, it used racial imagery to create an uncomfortable effect. The question y’all have to ask yourselves is, was that uncomfortable effect deliberate? Is Gableman the type of person who would deliberately use race in that manner? From the far-off remove of Austin, I have no way of knowing that. If you think he’s that type of person, your choice is clear.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1248 hrs




24. When one group starts negative ads of questionable valditiy then it spurs the other side to nail the first group.  The truth hurts and it is tough for a defense lawyer to get elected cause his job is to represent the” “scum of the earth” as many defense lawyers term their jobs.
        Eventually some of the “scum” will do more crimes.  Most of the crimes are done and repeated by a very small number of people.  Every right given to someone has to come from someone.
      The ad is factual and frankly from the pictures of Louis Butler in the news you cannot tell if he has colcor in his face. He is lighter than a lot of people I see every summer.  If someone had added some tint they could holler but you are what you are.  The color has not seemed to hurt Obama and Ferraro thinks it has been an asset.
      So, who is right?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1536 hrs




25. That was off by about a mile.

    Of those few who are engaged in following the election, just about all of them know Butler is African-American. That issue is bogus.

    So too with comparing Obama with Mitchell. Darren Schmitz, who is probably one of the biggest creeps in Wisconsin politics and a bargain basement Karl Rove at best, knows damn well what he is doing by featuring a black man in connection with crime.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1604 hrs




26. Of those that are following the race.  You mean alll 5%?  If you asked the average person at the Sentinel sports show this weeken who they werer going to vote for in the Supreme court race and you would be luck to find 3% that even knew that there was a race going on.
      If Butlers race is such a big problem than how did Obama win Wisconsin and get more votes that Hillary or McCain.  I think that everyone knew that he was not a Norwegian.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1708 hrs




27. Keith,

    So by your reasoning Butler is not good for the bench since this will put him in vicinity with criminals.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 18, 2008 at 2019 hrs




28. Dohnal said,

    “The ad is factual.”

    Explain how. Especially given that in the case in question, Butler lost, Butler’s client was convicted and spent time in the can, and then he committed the crime afterward.

    Then explain the phrase, “lying by omission”.

    Be specific.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 2034 hrs




29. Did Mr. Mitchell molest another child or not?

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 18, 2008 at 2038 hrs




30. I don’t think there’s anything overtly racist about the ad. But it is highly misleading. 

    Marcus, you should seriously think about Tosa’s question about “lying by omission.”

    Posted by scott on March 18, 2008 at 2249 hrs




31. Marcus Aurelius- After he served his entire sentence, yes.  All Butler do was get him a second trial and he was convicted.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 2332 hrs




32. marcus, john, others, you have the facts wrong. Butler was not his lawyer at trial. he was the appellate lawyer, assigned the case. he won at appeals court, then lost at supreme court. the guy didn’t get a new trial, or anything. he simply served his sentence ‘til he was paroled, then committed another crime. butler had nothing to do with anything that actually happened, and the ad is clearly a damned lie.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2008 at 0244 hrs




33. Thought so, Dohnal.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2008 at 1317 hrs