Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 02, 2014

Wisconsin state Rep. Brett Hulsey, a Democratic candidate for governor, plans to hand out white Ku Klux Klan-style hoods to Wisconsin Republicans as they gather for their annual convention Friday to highlight what he says are their racist policies. Hulsey, who is white, came into the state Capitol press room on Thursday to show off a hood he made with his daughter's sewing machine using curtain material purchased for $1. "It's a Wisconsin Republican Party hat," Hulsey said. "And people can interpret it any way they want."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

justanoversight

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Classy!

#1 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-01 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

He must have gotten that hood from his own closet. Typical Dem move, divert attention through accusation. He can't be creative for what he will do, so make up stories against his opponent.

Sad.

I'm so sick of the racist accusations, and childish behaviors!

#2 | Posted by path at 2014-05-01 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm so sick of the racist accusations..."

Hang in there. The overnight shift from racism to misogyny is just over two years away.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-05-01 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 1

"I'm so sick of the racist accusations..."
Hang in there. The overnight shift from racism to misogyny is just over two years away.

#3 | POSTED BY REDIAL

FF!

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-01 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

stay classy, Madison, WI!
(Tor, you on this?)

#5 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-05-02 02:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

A stupid act by Mr Hulseys.

#6 | Posted by SLBronkowitz at 2014-05-02 07:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Brett Hulsey plans to hand out white Ku Klux Klan-style hoods to Wisconsin Republicans

Drama queen.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 08:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

This guy must not be a serious candidate. If he has any big donors and party support behind him, they will abandon him after a dumb publicity stunt like this.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's refreshing to see some of the standard DR lefties calling this idiot out.

#9 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-05-02 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

This guy must not be a serious candidate. If he has any big donors and party support behind him, they will abandon him after a dumb publicity stunt like this.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah an if he was a republican you guys would be calling him the face of the party.

#10 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-02 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's refreshing to see some of the standard DR lefties calling this idiot out

Learn from it.

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's strange considering the last KKK member in congress was a democrat.

#12 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-02 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not just a member but, a leader in the KKK. Byrd was such a big racist that when he realized there were no Klan groups in his area he started one.

#13 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-02 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The natural progression of the party of no ideas so just call everyone racists or bigots.

But as said it is nice to see that there is a too far and even hardcore lefties can admit that.
Kudos, now just apply it to all the other idiots pushing fabricated racism or sexism as a reason to be afraid of the boogyman.

#14 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-02 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The party of Lincoln. Lincoln would be horrified at the attempt at twisting the truth 180 degrees.

#15 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-02 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a JERK!

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's strange considering the last KKK member in congress was a democrat.

#12 | Posted by Dalton

Wasn't that some old fart from W VA? Tird Bird?

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"using curtain material purchased for $1" LOL cheapskate ..
The Koch brothers would have gladly spent a few million to make the Republican "Robert Bird" version

#18 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-02 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope he made them tri cornered so they can fit over the cheese heads.

#19 | Posted by squinch at 2014-05-02 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guess he 's not read the history of the KKK or he would have known they were southern democrats, or maybe he does know as he seems to know how to make those hoods...

#20 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-03 01:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Even if I was a Democrat in Wisconsin I wouldn't vote for this guy.

#21 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 01:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The natural progression of the party of no ideas so just call everyone racists or bigots.
#14 | Posted by salamandagator

I suppose since your parts only calls 47% of Americans lazy welfare cheats, you think you're doing better.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I suppose since your parts only calls 47% of Americans lazy welfare cheats...

Again, snoofy proves his works can't be taken seriously.

That was Romney, not the party.

I would advise you to stop lying, but you long ago became the boy who cried wolf, snoofy. I guess it goes along with your admission of being a thief and racist.

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

The dude needs to be spending his money on orthodontic work, not hoods.

#24 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Again, snoofy proves his works can't be taken seriously.
#23 | Posted by goatman

And yet, here you are, taking my works seriously.
How's that working out for you?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 03:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

And yet, here you are, taking my works seriously.

I shouldn't be?

Sorry. I didn't realize you were trolling.

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess it goes along with your admission of being a thief and racist.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 03:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess it goes along with your admission of being a thief and racist.

???

#28 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

???

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

"That was Romney, not the party."

As the chosen representative and spokesman for the Republican party, upon whose behalf do you think Romney was speaking?

His own?

True, he was probably using hyperbole to con his audience out of their money but he was still speaking as though his personal viewpoint coincided with the party viewpoint as a whole. He DID use the word
"we" a lot ~ speaking of himself and the party as one.

Snoofy's comment was right on the mark.

#30 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 03:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

As the chosen representative and spokesman for the Republican party, upon whose behalf do you think Romney was speaking?

His own. Just like the clown in this story.

Or does Hulsey, as the chosen representative for his district, speak for the all the Wisconsin Dems in that district?

You can't have it both ways.

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy's comment was right on the mark.

Fair enough. Then Hulsey speaks for the Dems in his district, right?

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or does Hulsey, as the chosen representative for his district, speak for the all the Wisconsin Dems in that district?
#31 | Posted by goatman

His job is to speak for everyone in the district, not just the Democrats.
That's what made Romney's comments so problematic, by the way.
He said there's 47% of America that he would not go to bat for.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

His job is to speak for everyone in the district, not just the Democrats.

So everyone in the district, not just the dems, think his stunt was justified.

Um, OK snoofy.

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't say he was doing his job well.
I'm just saying what his job is.
See also: Why Romney lost.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 04:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

He said there's 47% of America that he would not go to bat for.

Poor lying snoofy. What is it with you and your continual dishonesty?

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said.

www.usatoday.com

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 04:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

If that's what they picked him to do, yes. At least for the last 50 years and 26 terms ~ right up to the time the people in his district picks someone else.

In which case, it's not having it both ways. They were both picked to speak on behalf of their constituants.

That's aside from the fact that Hulsey only spoke for a very small segment of the population ~ and Romney was picked to speak for a party that wanted to represent the whole United States of America and everybody in it.

I'd say there's a very big difference in your anology.

#37 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 04:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There are 47% of the people... and so my job is not to worry about those people" -- Mitt Romney

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 04:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd say there's a very big difference in your anology.

Of course ou would. Proggies rarely expect the rules they apply to the opposition to apply to themselves.

As gubernatorial candidate, Hulsey speaks for Wisconsin just as Romney spoke for the Republicans (as you say). You can't have it both ways.

BTW, I know several Republicans who didn't buy into the 47% remark, so he didn't speak for them. That alone pretty much dashes your absurd premise to the rocks, twinpac. What is it with you "all or nothing" people? I've never been able to understand why so many people hold that attitude.

#39 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 04:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, I know several Republicans who didn't buy into the 47% remark, so he didn't speak for them

Yeah, that's pretty much the reason Romney didn't get elected. Who exactly was he speaking for with that 47% comment? I mean, I don't actually think the GOP platform states 47% of Americans aren't worth their notice. Yet, that's what their nominee said. Pretty crazy.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 04:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yet, that's what their nominee said. Pretty crazy.

Which is why I voted third party. Both candidates sucked big time.

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 04:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

You know several Republicans ~ so what? I know several Republicans who cancel your several Republicans.

As a gubernational candidate, just exchange "district" for "state" and you still come up with the same results ~ A slightly less small segment of the population. That only means Hulsey wants to be spokesman for 1 out of 50 states. So your Hulsey analogy still doesn't apply.

Looking at the results of the election in hindsight, there's no denying the fact that Romney's deadly portrayal of his party's views as a whole (that means sans your several Republicans) was correctly attributed by Snoofy.

#42 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 04:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

So your Hulsey analogy still doesn't apply

Yes it does. You are telling me that one candidate speaks for his party's constituency, (the US republicans) but another candidate doesn't speak for his party's constituency. (the Wisconsinsin democrats) That doesn't make sense, but if it makes you feel better saying otherwise, I'll just chalk it up to yet another example of how blind allegiance to a party really screws with a person's abilityy to reason -- and let it go there.

Looking at the results of the election in hindsight, there's no denying the fact that Romney's deadly portrayal of his party's views as a whole (that means sans your several Republicans) was correctly attributed by Snoofy.

???

Really? So you really think that the ones I cited are the only ones in the party who disagreed with Romney's statement -- that the othe 54,999,995 agreed? Wow. Chalk that up to two examples of blind allegiance to a party screwing up a person's ability to reason rationally.

#43 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 04:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

You're the one who used the word "several." I doubt that you know the percentages of the other 54,999,995 (wherever that figure came from).

Aside from the fact that I never said Hulsey didn't speak for his constituents (I said the exact opposite in fact) let's look at the numbers to judge the influence and affect of both candidates:

Wisconsin: Pop. 5.6 million
United States: Pop. 300.6 million

And there you have the stopper.

This debate between you and I has gone far afield of you calling Snoofy a liar when he clearly wasn't.

Which was my point to begin with.

#44 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 05:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wisconsin: Pop. 5.6 million
United States: Pop. 300.6 million

And there you have the stopper.

Nope. Population has nothing to do with it. If I had said Hulsey represented all the dems in the US you would be correct and population would indeed matter. But I didn't say that. In fact, I clearly stated in my last post each candidate's party's consituency to remove any doubt.

So yes, it is a valid analogy. If Romney speaks for all Republicans in the US, then Hulsey speaks for all dems in Wisconsin. btw, I find that notion absurd anyway. Romney did not speak for all republicans as snoofy said. Just as Hulsey does not speak for all Wisconsin democrts.

You can't have it both ways.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

ps check your email

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

Neither SNOOFY nor I said that Romney spoke for all Republicans. We said he spoke for the "party" as their chosen representative. It's probably a given that a certain number of Republicans were mortified to death when they heard that 47% blunder.

You could hear the chins hitting the ground.

Just as a certain number of Democrats in Wisconsin were probably looking for a hole to crawl into. I personally wouldn't vote for Hulsey if he sprouted wings and a halo. So you needn't accuse me of blind party loyalty like you've been doing in this debate. Plus, rose colored glasses clash with my hair.

My numbers still stand.

#47 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 06:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

My numbers still stand.

I don't dispute them. But they are irrelevant to my point.

#48 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 06:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

I'll read your email later. Right now my inbox is crammed with flight, hotel and car reservations and confirmations for a trip I'm about to take, zig-zagging up and down the east coast. And please don't tell me to use a travel agent. The last time I did that I ended up on an old prop plane from Chicago to Paduka, Ky. with no car waiting to take me to Cairo, Ill. where I had to find my own hotel, which, incidentally, burned to the ground that night along with all my luggage while I stood outside in my nighties watching it happen.

I'm sour on travel agents.

#49 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 06:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

GOATMAN

What point were you trying to make when you called Snoofy a liar? Or when you said, "that was Romney, not the party."

Romney WAS the party and all it stood for. Just like Obama IS the party and all it stands for. Or just like Hillary is going to be the party and all it stands for.

Can I go back now and say ~ Well, that was just Obama ~ not the party? Or when Hillary, on the campaign trail (like Romney), says something out of line (and she will) can I claim that she wasn't speaking for the party?

I don't think so. You'd be all over me like white on rice if I did what you're doing.

#50 | Posted by Twinpac at 2014-05-03 06:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Aw, Gee, No Fair!
Just because the ------- have a Southern Strategy; but that's about state's rights. (wink, wink).

#51 | Posted by squinch at 2014-05-03 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm.. sincerely doubted that Dems would pass off their family heirlooms to the Republicans.

#52 | Posted by aescal at 2014-05-03 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The media and left constantly harp on the religion and politics of those like Bundy, but when a Jewish Democratic Party oligarch like Donald Sterling is exposed, they keep those little details muzzled.. You wonder why I point out the bigoted skewed anti-American demographics of the consolidated media? This is exactly why .....it is a propaganda machine typically used manipulate the many and protect the few.

#53 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-04 08:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I just hope you guys are taking notes on who is bringing up race and making it an issue.

If anyone is talking about race, it's usually a democrat.

#54 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-04 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort