Might-as-well-be-racist Marcus Carey is an attorney. And he’s lying. He is STILL suggesting that Bruce Lunsford stole a voice recorder (which happened to be illegally recording Lunsford, without his knowledge) and that he illegally erased recordings that were illegally obtained to begin with. We love the spin and appreciate that Marcus– for once– isn’t talking about how badly non-whites scare him. Oh, and Marcus? Bruce didn’t run from the press– he answered questions. And on the video Marcus the probable racist posts, Bruce himself states that he was illegally bugged. Ooh, we love us some probably racist Republican hypocrisy. [Marcus Carey]
Oh, oh– now the McConnell crew is alleging that they have “new evidence” in Recordergate that will send Bruce Lunsford to jail, forever. The end. Because Bruce Lunsford stole that audio recorder and ruined the whole world. Meanie. Can’t find an issue that sticks to Lunsford? Quick, let’s raise all kinds of hell over something absolutely retarded! Spin spin spin. [PolWatchers]
Senator John Kerry did an email blast for Bruce Lunsford yesterday. Here’s part of what he said: Four years ago, I saw how low the Republican attack machine would stoop in pursuit of power when they used veterans to attack me personally. … I said after that election that I would never again let them get away with it. And now that they’re using the same dirty tactics in Kentucky, I’m calling them out on it. … Scared by polls that show the race one of the closest in the country, Mitch McConnell is attacking his opponent, National Guard and Army Reserve veteran Bruce Lunsford, in some really despicable and malicious ads. [Email Blast]
Does this mean it’s now kosher for Katie King to talk about everything she believes in? Is it cool for her to talk about how badly she’ll punish repeat offenders? Or how badly she’ll punish her cok…. er… “friends” ? Does it open the field up for judicial candidates to talk about how badly they’d punish the queers? We’d love to see Marcus Carey try to run for the Supreme Court again. [Mark Hebert]
In reaction to his best buddy Ted Stevens getting convicted on seven counts of being stupid, Mitch McConnell said yesterday was a “sad but serious day.” Well, remember that. Because we’re gonna take a stroll down the Mitch McConnell-Ted Stevens internet memory hole a little bit later this morning. [Politico]
Aww, how sad for Mitch McConnell and David Lewis Williams. They’re STILL trying to drag this recordergate thing out. They don’t realize that it’s a dead issues that appeals to zero voters. But it’s more fun than dealing with real issues or whatever. Since that’s where Mitchy totally loses ground. Bruce shouldn’t have given it back. He should have turned it into a campaign issue with which he should have terrorized the chickenhawk. [PolWatchers]
On a related note, we were sourced in Mark Hebert’s WHAS11 recordergate story and we didn’t even know it! Fancy. Thanks, Mark. [WHAS11]
P.S. The Marshall County Sheriff won’t be doing anything with the audio the Republicans allegedly “recovered.” Because the chain of command was broken. And now there’s no evidence that audio was ever erased from the recorder. [C-J]
4 responses so far ↓
1 Marcus Carey // Oct 28, 2008 at 9:00 am
I haven’t really been following the Katie King matter but to answer the questions you posed regarding the free speech rights of judicial candidates, it has always been my position that the United States Supreme Court had made the boundaries of judical speech very clear, but that Kentucky’s rules were ambiguous.
I first sought clarification from the Bar Association on the matter but it soon became clear that they would not address the issue in time for the 2006 mega election of judges.
In my suit, and contrary to media spin to the contrary, we now have obtained the much needed clarification.
The Kentucky rules CANNOT prevent judicial candidates from openly expressing their views on disputed legal and political issues, HOWEVER, a judicial candidate CANNOT make statements which would cause a reasonable person to believe that they have pledged or promised to rule in a certain way from the bench. This is precisely the position we sought.
With that in mind, you ponder whether Katie King could talk about how badly she would punish repeat offenders, her “friends” and “queers”.
She, nor any candidate for a judgeship in Kentucky, can commit to a particular performance in office if elected. That would violate the rule, and was never the goal of our lawsuit, as I very clearly expressed in a guest editorial published by the Lexington Herald Leader in 2006.
Oh, and by the way, sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to run for the Supreme Court again.
I much prefer the unfettered free speech rights we bloggers enjoy, for the time being at least, until God forbid the Marxist Trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi take control of our government.
2 Marcus Carey // Oct 28, 2008 at 9:10 am
I would respectfully request that you reconsider calling me a liar. I have only cited to other reports about the matter, except in my question which expressed an opinion that Lunsford was running from the press.
Now, today, Mark Hebert has reported new information which seems to confirm his earlier reports which I relied upon.
http://www.beloblog.com/WHAS_Blogs/PoliticalBlogger/2008/10/repubs-rewind-on-recordergate.html
If you watched the video of Lunsford getting in his vehicle as Mark was asking questions with a staff member running interference, and then Lunsford rolling up his window as the reporter was still asking questions, might not this behavior be characterized as running from the press?
True, he was not on foot, but certainly my interpretation of his actions fall way short “lying” don’t they?
3 BHG // Oct 28, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Jake, the phrase is “chain of custody” not “chain of command”.
4 jake // Oct 28, 2008 at 4:59 pm
BHG: Not really worried about it. But thanks.
Leave a Comment