Tuesday, October 27, 2009

JS' "Reporting" on Lawton Is Woeful UPDATED

Big story, right?


THREE JSOnline reporters all over it, right?

They even got some hints!!

"My deep commitment to our state is second only to my commitment to my family," the e-mail said without giving specifics on why she wasn't running.


Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa) traveled Saturday to La Crosse to campaign for Lawton. He said she gave no indication at the time that she might not run but called him Monday to say she was stepping aside because of what he called "family challenges." He declined to elaborate on what those were

"Family committment." "Family challenges." Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Gee, guys. The Lawton mystery was .....ummmm........de-mystified yesterday afternoon, and the link was posted by NoRunnyEggs in the evening on a tip from Kevin Binversie, another blogger.

UPDATE: Bader pulled his story today 11:23 AM. The links to Binversie and NoRunnyEggs have been pulled from this site. My apologies to Ms. Lawton and her family for having run the links.

Keep up with the news, fellas!!


Anonymous said...

"My apologies to Ms. Lawton and her family for having run the links."

Maybe you ought to think next time before you pound the keyboard? Just because one of your wingnut buddies types something doesn't make it true.

Political discourse in this country sinks lower and lower every year. Why did you find it necessary to re-publish Bader's slime and then chortle about it? You run with skunks and the stink attaches to you, too. This proves it.

Take a look in the mirror tonight and ask yourself what kind of Catholic you were when you posted your slimy comments. Yes, you put up an "apology" but look at what you left up -- you're still rolling around with the pigs, DaddyZero.

Anonymous said...

Hey Turd head, before attacking dad, you may want to check a few Barbie realities of your own.

The true story will emerge, and much of what Bader reported is well known.

The biggest story is the blackmail part, and it came from you damn liberals.

John Foust said...

Wow, two anonymi spitting at each other.

So does this make Bader part of the untrustworthy "blame-stream, behind the curve, ostrich-head-in-the-sand media?" And bloggers are to be relied upon moreso than the old, dead tired media? What standards? If it feels right, run with it. If your buddy in Green Bay who really knows the inside skinny in Madison said it was so, why not put it on the radio and let the bloggers run with it? It boosts ratings, which makes jobs for ad-sales at the radio, so it's pro-business, so it must be good.

Surely some aspect of 2,000+ years of Catholic scholarship must've touched on the moral aspects of this issue. Where's the inside baseball on this one, Dad29?

Dad29 said...

Well, John, for the time being it's a mystery-in-an-enigma thing.

Did Bader get taken? I don't know.

Was Lawton's withdrawal odd? Certainly yes.

Is there more to the story than what she's telling? I think so.

Anonymous said...

Daddy-O, methinks you answered 3 questions, but none of them were the questions asked by Mr. Foust.

Anonymous said...

Shame, shame on the prickly Catholic, who knows all the words the Church teaches but can't put them into practice. Note that DaddyZero was called out today on wisopinion.com:

"Bader was on the air as usual in his Tuesday morning 8:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. time slot, and listeners indicate he did back away from the story during the broadcast. Bader didn't respond to this reporter about his original podcast. At the radio station, Jeff Flynt, a reporter/anchor who answered the phone Tuesday afternoon, said all comment from the station was being confined to a statement on Bader's blog that the talk radio host posted Tuesday morning. That comment, timed at 11:23 a.m., stated in all capital letters: 'I have lost confidence in the sources that provided information yesterday regarding Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton. Therefore I cannot stand by the story posted yesterday.'

"But until then, conservative bloggers helped spread the word of Bader's original claims. After Bader posted his original podcast some time Monday afternoon, links appeared to it on at least six conservative blogs. One, 'Dad29' a Milwaukee-area blogger, went so far Tuesday morning as to mock the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's coverage of Lawton's original announcement: 'Keep up with the news, fellas!' 'Dad29' titled the post: 'JS' 'Reporting' on Lawton is woeful.'"

Dad29 said...

Note my comment above. I STILL think the JS reporters are not cognizant the whole story (for that matter, I think they're melting the phone lines to get it as we type.)

I don't know what the story is, but I seriously doubt that it's merely "family committment" issues.

Aaron Rodriguez said...


Good job going with false reports. Way to make conservatives look just like liberals.

Anonymous said...


You are a shameless hypocrite and a disgrace to your professed faith.

Aaron Rodriguez said...

That's the reason why I didn't run the Lawton story on my blog; it sounded way to sensationalistic to be true, so I waited for more proof before trashing someone's personal life for political gain. Good job, Dad29.

Other Side said...

Well, I'll say this. Even though daddio was quick to jump the gun, at least he didn't send the post down the memory hole and had the guts to admit his faux pas in the same post.

Though, a bit more prominently would have been better -- such as a separate post to match the provocative one he ran.

Dad29 said...

Thanks, OS.

Aaron and one "anony" have their own agenda, which has NOTHING to do with the Lawton post. But it's handy.

For example, Aaron might get traffic on his blog.

And "anony" might get traffic on hers!

John Foust said...

So Dad29, we'll soon see a deeply detailed discussion of Catholic theology with respect to gossip and rumors, and how you've changed your ways? Or even a heartfelt discussion of what drove you to post so quickly?

Aaron Rodriguez said...


If I really wanted more traffic, I wouldn't be posting on your blog. Instead, I would have published an article about how you are willing to jump the gun and attack a person's character than check your sources.

Well, I hope this serves as a lesson to you.

grumps said...

Umm, A-Rod? Object lessons serve for everyone.

You might take it to heart as well and lose the attitude that got the Pharisee damned.

Aaron Rodriguezh said...


Well, since the Pharisees were criticized for hypocrisy, I'm betting that you're calling me a hypocrite.

Will everything I report on my blog be true? No, of course not. We all take risks by linking to sources that may not be factual. The difference, however, is that I won't hang a civil servant's person out there on a string of evidence.

This is the one thing about blogging that really irks me. Bloggers think that politicians aren't real people. The Cognitive Dissidence is a perfect example of relentlessly attacking a civil servant with lies.

Some claims don't need much substantiation, and some claims do. My criticism of Dad29 is his unwillingness to distinguish between the two.

Dad29 said...

First off, Mr. Sanctimonyguez, you DO know that I did not quote Bader; I only linked him.

Secondly, you DO know that Bader IS a professional newsguy, right? His ex-boss wrote a lovely testimony to Bader's skills and careful work--before he alleged without foundation that "Republican operatives" spun Bader.

So, Aaron: what, specifically, do you consider to be "good sources?"

A professional journalist with 20+ years' work and time-in-grade?

You analyzed this wrong, Aaron. It's not a question of "substantiation," nor of "knowing the difference."

This is no different than the case of the national journalist-columnist who ran with a fake quote from Obama's "college thesis."

There remain several very pertinent questions on this whole thing. They will be answered, eventually.

Aaron Rodriguez said...


This wasn't about a college quote. It was about the alleged "lesbian affair" of a married woman. This is the type of stuff that you pass on if you don't have hard evidence.

Like I said before, I refrained from posting it on my site because I didn't want it to bite me in the butt if it were a hoax. The question is why you didn't get the same cautionary light blinking in your head?

Dad29 said...

I'll ask you again, Aaron:

What do you consider to be "good sources"?

A 20++ year journalist like Bader?

What about 20++ year journalists in the JS newsroom? The WSJ? Time Magarag?

Answer that question, Aaron.

Aaron Rodriguez said...

My apologies, I'm not getting my point across effectively. Here is another way of doing it.

Why did you apologize to Lawton after you retracted the link? And do you always apologize after posting a link that turned out to be incredulous?

Dad29 said...

Third try, Aaron:

What do you consider to be "good sources"?

A 20++ year journalist like Bader?


The answers to your questions are obvious to most people, Aaron.

But YOUR answer remains a mystery.

Why is that?

jimspice said...


Nowhere in the brief mea culpa are the words slandering, disparaging, defaming, deprecating, etc. This is on par with those apologies that start with "if I offended anyone..."

The links are not what you should be asking forgiveness for. The motives are.

I agree that your leaving in place of the original post was the right thing to do. However, a more prominent correction, preceding the post is warranted, as is formatting the post in strikethrough just to make it perfectly clear.