Monday, June 28, 2010

How Many Hotel Rooms, Again?

This is why you do not try to disprove absurd statements with "evidence," but keep the burden of proof on the accuser.

When Terrence Wall's accusation of corruption at the WisGOP convention broke the Johnson campaign release hotel invoices to various media outlets. WisPolitics reported:
Johnson’s campaign manager released a copy of an invoice for five rooms Johnson booked at the Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, the site of the convention.

One room was booked for Ron Johnson and his wife, Jane. The other four were occupied by campaign volunteers and staff, the campaign said.
Got that? 5 rooms.

But the Journal Sentinel reported:
But [Wall] provided no evidence of his allegations, and the other candidates in the race said they had no knowledge of the claims. The manager of the Johnson campaign quickly released electronic copies of records from the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Milwaukee that showed the Johnson campaign bought six hotel rooms on the two nights of the convention on May 21 and 22.
Now we're up to 6 rooms, a figure supported by the State Journal.

I'm going to chalk this up to error by one of the reporters, but discrepancies like this are the reason why the campaign was better served attacking the messenger and demanding that he be the one to offer proof rather than trying to outright disprove the accusations itself. If the "vote buying" didn't happen, which is likely the case, then there nothing Johnson can do to prove a negative.

Of course, if Johnson told WisPolitics one thing and the MJS another, then we have another issue on our hands.


Anonymous said...

New Headline at the Hill:

"Republican to face Sen. Feingold accused of 'bribery'"

The Inmates Are Running The Asylum said...

I am confused by this Room issue. But i do know that response to any kind of accusation is really important. It reminds me of another recent issue in which the people responding out of hysteria and just plain ignorance of the facts actually pumped things up. Maybe divisive, drama-inducing "action" is their intent - keeps people riled up and engaged in bloggers internecine wars? if not, then...
well then I think the response to the "blogging while at work" issue actually increased the chance of the guy getting into some trouble. (Unless everyone is just being jerked with faked up drama)

The initial accusation based on timestamps as if they were some unalterable concrete damning evidence was competently ignorant. Had the 'accused: not been equally ignorant, they could have let it lay with the accusers. Then when the accusers lack of understanding of Timestamps came to light, you could hope they would feel dumb and drop it.

Instead everyone stirred the pot and so both sides "owned" the ignorance. Then (omfg) the accused relies on a guy from the other "team". Dumb because while that guy is proving the initial claim is dumb, he knows how it can be ascertained if the blogger blogged at work or not. And he wants his ass. Don't praise a guy for his knowledge and "help" when he wants yer head on a platter. You look like a Tard.

So now the accusing group just has to kick it up a notch and maybe now they DO know how to determine objectively if the guy was blogging when he wasn't supposed to. And if he did - he deserves what he gets for goddam being do ignorant. Anyone who by now doesn't know that your employer is gonna track every thing you do on their computers during work hours is a CHILD.

A Child.

Especially government entities, who we all knew were making block lists years ago of blogs etc. Well how do the block lists work if all traffic is not recorded? Web traffic, employee documents, inter-office communications - all that is backed up on the servers multiple times a day.


So maybe if they let the accusers feel dumb it would have died. Maybe not, because someone who did know might have told them eventually. But you know how it gets. People get this protected little posse and don't look beyond that. Then if the little posse is badly informed and/or gets hysterical and shoots first and asks questions later. They're screwed.
Now it's a no-brainer that the accusers are going to go for that employer's record of web traffic. That will show whether there were log-ins to a blog or not, and no one will be able to argue with it.

The whole planet is swirling around the bowl and the people in positions of power or influence are full of Drama Drama Drama like a bunch of airheaded girls in middle school. Like you're prepped and laid out in the O.R. with nurses clustered around, but the Surgeons are throwing paper towels at each other as you lay there dying and the nurses hold the scalpels patiently, Respectfully not wanting to "interrupt the Important People as they engage in critical issues".

bah humbug! rooms and timestamps! idiots! we're out of time for all this!
yes! out of time!!!!

CJ said...

"Wall said supporters had come to him to say that their hotels rooms were paid because they voted for Johnson, while another man said he took votes for Wall and "[put] them in his pocket so they weren’t counted."

"I've got over 100 stories like that of corruption, bribery, you know, coercion," he said....

"Look, we all thought Wall was going to win," Westlake told the Wisconsin State Journal. "But I didn't see anything, or hear of anything, like (vote tampering or buying votes) going on."

Ha. Where's JB Van Hollen when you REALLY need him?