I believe that "stipulated" means that Susan Bysiewicz agreed to it, correct? This appears a bit less dramatic than it sounds.
Fuzzy,Bysiewicz’s role in this latest judicial fandango was – please forgive me – intentionally fuzzy. There was no clear obiter dicta from her end, just discreet phone calls. The intent was twofold: 1) to solidify the impression planted by the media that there was some vital connection between McMahon’s campaign and WWE, the buried axiom of nearly all the Democratic propaganda; and 2) to subtly intimidate McMahon voters. The whole thing blew up in her hands – dramatically.The media, left out in the cold by McMahon's monetary independence, went along for the ride until ol'Vince bodychecked the much bruised Bysiewicz.
I had to laugh this morning driving in, listening to a news story where Bysiewicz professed incredulity that this was a big deal, and that there was no need for Vince's lawsuit, then they played a recording of her original statement on TV when she said that she had contacted voter registrars to be on the look out for WWE parphanalia, and that "it might be a problem". Such a hypocrite. I'm so glad that she's going to be gone. I just wish the voters would do the same for Blumenthal. That and getting rid of Dodd is almost like a taxpayer trifecta!
Don, I'm at a loss for how McMahon voters would be intimidated by not being allowed to wear WWE paraphernalia to the polls. Are you suggesting that before Judge Arterton issued her opinion, McMahon supporters were going to stay at home on Tuesday, cowering in fear because they couldn't wear their Stone Cold Steve Austin t-shirt to the polls? If Susan intended to intimidate McMahon supporters, she picked a pretty stupid way of doing it. And will there be more people than usual wearing WWE paraphenalia to the polls this year than if Linda wasn't in the race? Of course. And it would be foolish to think that they are all doing so simply to support WWE, and not as not so subtle support of McMahon. M Make no mistake; many of the folks wearing WWE to the polls will be in compliance with the letter of the law, but they will almost certainly be violating the spirit of the law. There is a good reason why you cannot wear political items into polling places. Considering a ban on items branded with a company so closely associated with one of the candidates is not at all preposterous. Call me old fashioned, but regardless of what I was up to that day, I always wear a tie and jacket when I exercise my franchise. It seems the most respectful thing to do when exercising your most sacred of rights.
Fuzzy, A subtle intimidation, I think. It’s intimidating in the same sense that Catholics might be intimidated from voting against, say, a pro partial birth abortion candidate after a ruling from the secretary of state that no crosses may be won at poling stations. That would be an insufferably stupid ruling. If your question to me is: Would you personally be intimidated by such a ruling, my answer would be “Nope.” If your question is Does the ruling itself have an intimidating character, I would say it did. Prohibitions that reach the laity from politicians on high are intended to affect behavior. The point of every law and regulation is to intimidate by inhibiting.I always dress up in a tux for the great day.
I agree that what Bysiewicz was attempting to do was subtle intimidation.I do hope that Denise Merrill loses the race for Secreatary of State because mark my words: She will be a lot worse!
Post a Comment