Owen Robinson trips to the dark side

That benchmark blogger from Boots and Sabers quipped:

I’d almost rather have Tom Barrett in office than Neumann.

A guy named Mark Maley puts it all right. Go read for yourself. (He’s comment #3.)

Although Robinson isn’t on the Facebook page, he certainly seems to have joined the club.

Come on, guys. Show some class. Yes I’d like Mark Neumann to win the primary next Tuesday, but I certainly show allegiance to the other guy over Tom Barrett.

How shameful of you. It’s an election, not a coronation.


  1. His claim that he wants honesty but is supporting Weasel Boy is in itself dishonest.

  2. You couldn’t possibly mean Mark Maley, the editor in chief of Journal Communications NOW sites, could you? I thought the lamestream media was all in the bag for the Dems.

  3. Mark Maley is a dunce.

  4. I’m liking what this Mark Maley says, Lorax. He’s not the one sounding dunce-like.

  5. I don’t know Lorax. I’d suspect there’s more than one person with that name, but who knows.

    Actually, I seem to remember the Maley of which we speak leans Republican.

  6. I do too, but his politics had nothing to do with my opinion of him.

  7. Couple things…

    First, it’s not the same Mark Maley. The one who comments on my blog is a West Bend businessman and coach at the high school.

    Second, I gave two specific examples of Neumann lying. Not spinning. Lying. I have more examples, if you like. You complain in your “club” post, Cindy, that Neumann’s detractors don’t provide specifics. I did. And I stand by my opinion of the man.

  8. Owen, in that post you said Neumann was dishonest, but I didn’t see two examples.

    My comment was about your preference for Barrett over Neumann. You stand by that, too?

  9. My apologies, it wasn’t in that post. It was in my column this week where I said:

    “Perhaps the most troubling thing for me, however, has been how Neumann has run his campaign. Frankly, I think he has run a dishonest campaign and that is not the kind of person I want as my governor. Although there are many examples, two stark ones come to mind. The first was when Neumann came unannounced to the Washington County Republican Party office when it was closed and then complained to the media that he was being “locked out” by the party. It was an utterly fabricated media stunt at the expense of good Washington County Republicans.

    The second example was one that I witnessed, videotaped, and questioned Neumann about. At the Republican State Convention, he held a rally outside of the building with a group of supporters and claimed that they were being excluded from the convention. Again, it was a complete lie since he spoke on the convention floor and anyone could be a delegate. In fact, it was later learned that there were delegates in Neumann’s gaggle who were actual delegates who had removed their badges for the rally.”

    As I said, I have more examples. I only ask that you don’t accuse all Neumann detractors of not being specific. When I call Neumann dishonest, I have plenty of evidence to back up my opinion of the man.

  10. Owen. Far as I can tell this:
    “Again, it was a complete lie” could be a complete lie from you.

    What evidence do you have to validate that statement?

    I was told by someone who was actually a part of that group that their group was prohibited from entry into the lobby area access. They were not trying to go on to the convention floor. They wanted to stand in the general public area and greet their candidate when he finished speaking INSIDE of the building. Even while they were being denied access to enter the building, others without convention hall badges were let inside.

    They went to the sidewalk and were interviewed by the press only because they were denied access in the building. There was no grand scheme to create a demonstration on the sidewalk outside.

    So, how does one determine that you have not fabricated a lie in your advocacy for Walker, or are spreading a lie you heard?

    I am believing the person who was on site and relayed this information to me the day following the convention. That person had no motive to be untruthful, and has never told a lie to me in the past. Others in the group validated the sequence of events on Mark’s facebook site after the convention.

    I was invited to be a part of that group and the pre-communication was devoid of subterfuge you’d like to insinuate. It was simply planned to show support for Neumann.

  11. “What evidence do you have to validate that statement?”

    Hmmm.. let me see… I was THERE. I was at the rally. I spoke with Neumann. I spoke with party officials about it. I saw rally members enter the building. I walked in and out of the building a dozen times without my delegate credentials on (they were in my bag). I’m not basing my information on 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. I was THERE.

    Good enough for you?

  12. Owen. Are you saying you were with that group when they were at the door?

  13. Were you?

    You’re intentionally obfuscating the point in order to support your candidate. Neumann didn’t say that his supporters were denied access to hold a rally in the building to show support for him. He said they were denied access. Period. That’s a flat out lie as I witnessed several rally participants entering the building and at least one of them was a delegate with access to the convention floor.

  14. Geez, Owen. I already told you I wasn’t there. You didn’t answer me. Where you a part of that Neumann group? What quote are you referring to about Neumann not saying his group was denied access to the building versus the hall? Where is that from?

    I told you earlier, my contact said also that people were let into the hall, without badges, just not them. So, were you a part of the group and that is how you know specifically they were not let inside?

    I am not intentionally obfuscating the point. I am trying to shed light on how you, with your own bias and unique perspective, could perceive something as a flat out lie, when, perhaps, it was not.

    I have no idea who you are, you must be really important to speak at the rally? (Maybe that is why the door people didn’t check your badge.)

    I am just telling you the truth as I understand the events from someone other than you. Evidently you prefer to believe your own truth. But you can’t prove anything, you can only prove you have an opinion. BTW. I don’t lie or intentionally obfuscate. I have a tendency to believe that people who like the word obfuscating actually are prone to obfuscate. Just my theory.

  15. Oooops. sorry for the typo Owen. Were, not Where, you a part…..

  16. Owen, thanks for the clarification. I was thinking I had missed something.

    Fine, you are invested in a Walker win. I am now invested in a Neumann win. In a week it will all be over.

    You still haven’t answered, though. Do you still stand by your Barrett statement?

  17. Will Owen now be voting for Barrett since Walker was caught up in a lie?