Walker accidentally vows that unions won’t “steal back” Prosser’s victory!

“Steal back,” eh? Interesting choice of words.

How typical is this? The only ones who scream about election fraud are those who perpetrate it on a massive scale. Indeed, they wouldn’t even be there if they hadn’t stolen (and concocted) votes; and yet they scream that those they’ve robbed intend to rob them.

Meanwhile, the other ones–the ones who’ve been ripped off–just sit there, never warning that the thieves might try (again) to rob them. (They can’t warn that the thieves might try again, because they can’t or won’t acknowledge that the thieves have struck repeatedly before.)

So what we have in the US today is a fringe party of projective psychopaths who keep attacking, and defeating, a much larger and yet weaker party of (they must be) masochists in deep denial–the former acting like the latter’s victims (even though they’re covered with the latter’s blood).

What will it take to snap those victims out of it? In this case, a proper statewide recount, at the very least.



Gov. Walker Vows: Unions Won’t Steal Prosser Election Win
Sunday, 10 Apr 2011 06:22 PM
By David A. Patten and Ashley Martella

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is vowing to Newsmax readers that organized labor will not steal back the dramatic come-from-behind victory of Supreme Court Justice David Prosser even if unions end up paying for a recount.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax — part of a national tour to drum up national support for his dramatic fight against public union power in Wisconsin — the Republican governor says there is no way any legitimate recount would result in a victory for Prosser’s liberal opponent.

But that doesn’t remove the threat. Under Wisconsin law organized labor can get a recount if they’re woking to pay for it. Walker says unions hope to replicate in Wisconsin “what was pulled off with Senator [Al] Franken in Minnesota.” He promises, though, that Republicans will be on guard against any post-election ballot shenanigans.

Read more.

13 thoughts on “Walker accidentally vows that unions won’t “steal back” Prosser’s victory!”

  1. Mark, there’s a 14 minute video embedded in that article that appears to contain every actual quote from Walker that’s used in the article. The word “steal” is never used. He hints at it (“if there are other discrepancies, certainly we want to monitor that, make sure there’s no voter fraud,” and claims that his opponents want to “throw out everything here, and hope that somehow they can pull off what was pulled off with Senator Franken in Minnesota”. But “steal back” appears to be Ashley Martella or David Patten’s phrasing, not Walker’s.

    You, on the other hand, talk about “stolen elections” all the time. So my headline would be “Mark Crispin Miller makes strong case that Mark Crispin Miller steals elections.”

  2. Oh Joe, Newsmax uses the word “steal” in their headline and the text of the story.
    Last Thursday I thought of you, Mark. As in, now we’re in MCM territory!! Did you see this:
    Interesting. It seems no one noticed that Ramona admitted at the presser that she wasn’t even there when the “mistake” was discovered. Of course our GAB Pres is now saying that the numbers in Waukesha Co all add up. Of course they do!! Kathy is the patsy. I’d like to see Nate Silver or Max Blumenthal do the numbers on Winnebago Co, were residents submitted recall petitions just hours before the Waukesha bomb dropped. Randy barely one his election by a few hundred votes, but Prosser prevailed there. It may have helped that several wards ran out of ballots and forced people to vote on the single touch screen machine, refusing to photocopy ballots for several hours until threatened by a group of lawyers. The fix is in, but it’s not in Waukesha. Keep up the good work!

  3. Joe, if Walker didn’t use the phrase “steal back,” then, as you say, it wasn’t he who made that slip, but whoever wrote the headline for that Newsmax article.

    But it’s absurd to claim that Walker didn’t charge the Democrats with trying to steal the race. That’s obviously what he meant by “voter fraud” and their presumed attempt to “pull off what was pulled off by Senator Franken in Minnesota.” What else could he have meant?

    Lacuna, Nate Silver always finds some way to justify the outcome of a race, no matter how bizarre it is, or how much evidence of fraud. As far as he’s concerned, there’s simply no election fraud in the United States—period. And he won’t even talk about it, or answer questions vis-a-vis his methodology in that regard.

  4. “pull off what was pulled off by Senator Franken in Minnesota”. By that do you mean verify and recount all the votes in an open and transparent manner and not give in to thuggish Republican intimidation, claims of being conspiricy therorists, and the eagerness of the supremely ethically challenged Walker to enact an extremely unpopular bill into law (which has nothing to do with Wisconsin’s budjet) so he can recieve his massive payola from the Koch brothers? There are a lot of trolls and disinformers out there regarding this election- on Alternet, OpEd News, and now, appearently here too.

  5. Mark, thanks for replying. I’m not trying to be a troll, but can see why my snarky “alternate headline” could read that way.

    I do think that Walker believes the “ACORN steals elections” nonsense, and that he was referring to that when he talked about Franken. Actually, my tinfoil hat theory is that Nikolaus withheld the Brookfield totals (either intentionally from the start, or when she realized her error the next day) until Thursday because she thought the Democrats/progressives would be trying to stuff the ballot boxes on their side, and wanted to give them a false target to shoot for.

    That’s probably giving her too much “credit,” I know. Her computer should certainly have been seized to preserve any evidence.

  6. Well, it just so happens that the votes she so conveniently produced were just enough to make Prosser’s “victory” margin big enough so that there’d be no mandatory statewide recount.

    As Jonathan Simon has observed, this suggests there’s some compelling reason WHY the WI GOP doesn’t want a statewide recount. (And THAT means that there SHOULD be such a recount, and as soon as possible.)

    In any case, I’d like to know exactly HOW “the Democrats/progressives” could have “stuffed the ballot boxes on their side.” This isn’t 1856. Today it’s hard, if not impossible, for countless Democrats to cast ONE ballot, much less nine or ten.

  7. Is it still the case that the margin is too big for a state-funded recount? I thought Prosser’s lead was down under 7,500 now on over 1.5 million votes cast. I expect that lead will hold up, but I would support a recount.

    I called the “ACORN steals elections” theory nonsense because I think it is nonsense. But I think Walker and Nikolaus believe it, as much as you believe the right-wingers are stealing elections.

    Do you know what kind of voting systems were used in Waukesha county? If they’re paper ballots, a recount should be simple and beyond the ability of anyone to fudge.

  8. If you read, just as a suggestion, “The Myth of Voter Fraud” by Lorraine C. Minnite you would know, not just think or suspect, that the narrative of ACORN stealing elections is total nonsense. The idea that Karl Rove and the GOP stole the 2000, and the 2004 Presidential elections, which people on the right (and even some on the left, especially if they work in the media) blithely dismiss, has been proven beyond a shadow doubt to be true for those who care to look. MCM, Greg Palast, and numerous other journalists have shown copious amounts of forensic evidence, not to mention the open hearings in front of Congress led by Cynthia McKinney (on You Tube) where election fraud in 2000 was openly admitted to have been committed.

  9. Whether they really believe it or not is actually a fascinating—and important—question.
    They may half-believe it, and at the same time see it for the lie it is. (That’s what Orwell’s
    “doublethink” is all about.)

    In Waukesha they used DRE machines as of 2006, and I assume that they still do; so there
    would be no ballots there to count.

  10. Instead of assuming, I went and found a list of the voting equipment in all Wisconsin municipalities here:


    All municipalities in Waukesha use optical scan machines, so there are paper ballots to count. Only six municipalities out of hundreds in the state use DRE machines. This should be of some comfort, yes?

    Look, I agree with you that DREs are not to be trusted, and I would support a full statewide recount in this election. But don’t you think you should check basic facts like what kind of equipment was actually used?

  11. Re: recount, Milwaukee still hasn’t finished its canvass, but unless there’s a pretty big shift there, Kloppenburg appears to be entitled to a free statewide recount.


    751,914 Prosser
    744,609 Kloppenburg
    1,496,523 total
    7,305 Prosser lead

    0.488% margin

    Prosser’s lead would need to increase by about 178 votes to get over the 0.5% margin. If that happens in Milwaukee, I’d be very suspicious.


  12. One other interesting thing I got from this headline….does Walker really still believe he’s only up against the unions???

Leave a Reply

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