Is Jessica McBride for Real?

Occasionally I read Jessica McBride. My friends tell me not to bother.  There are more important things to worry about than her blog. Usually I am bright enough to take their advice.

I looked at her post, Scott Jensen verdict: What has society gained? and could not help but marvel at her comments. Sorry, but I could not avoid making a few myself:

• Punishment/retribution? I doubt the public is clamoring for retribution because a guy is convicted of directing state workers to campaign on state time. She can only be out of touch. The outrage and demand for reform came from the nonpolitical people.  They were more offended than the political hacks in both parties here in Wisconsin. And why punish him and not the parade of others?  And I suppose next time a gang leader or mob boss can be convicted, we should drop the matter since we do not prosecute the entire outfit.
• To send a message? What message? What message is sent when so many other people skated? When one sits on the Board of Regents, another on the state Supreme Court, and another is running the governor's campaign? Not to mention the literally hundreds of others over the past decades who did or were involved in doing the same exact thing. So what message is sent? Most of the others sinned not by participating but by turning a blind eye.  Anyway, the message worked. For at least a while they will be squeaky clean from Milwaukee to the State Capitol and Monona to Lake Superior.
• To repay the taxpayers what was taken from them? Well, as mentioned, then the bill is incomplete. But, on top of that, I'd be willing to bet that the prosecution cost the taxpayers more money than the supposedly illegal campaigning did. That would be a great question for the media to ask the Dane County DA: Mr. Blanchard, what was the bill?  The real bonus to the taxpayers is that billions of their hard earned money paid in tax dollars will not be spent based on pay-to-play politics.
• To protect society? Not applicable, obviously. Anyway, the caucuses were disbanded. That was the proper action, not this. Not applicable? Not applicable?  That was a bit dismissive. I suppose the advantage gained by keeping one politician in office who benefits from caucus largess so they can stay in office and vote to plunder the public treasury is not applicable.
• To uphold our rule of law? 1, How is it upheld when so many others admitted to investigators doing the same thing (that means they were caught) and were not also held accountable for it? 2, Even a majority of the state Supreme Court could not reach agreement that there even was a clear law violated in the first place. I need help; anyone else want to jump in and enlighten Jessica on this one?

Comments

[nonheroicvet]

Jessica lives in the wrong country.