The big Mandela Barnes opposition research “he’s a lothario!” bomb dropped tonight, and it’s a steaming hot pile of garbage. I’m actually surprised he quit over this (unless there’s some other Damocles’ sword poised to drop or he left for a different reason, like a job promise), and I’m shocked that they printed it. Shame on reporters Mary Spicuzza and Molly Beck. If this is all they’ve got, Barnes should get back in the race. It’s also a racial trope.
You knew the story wasn’t going to deliver when the headline vaguely said, “Sources detail concerns about Mandela Barnes’ behavior toward women.” It reads like they rushed it out half-baked because Barnes quit earlier in the day.
Molly and Mary tell us they talked to three women, only one of whom actually had s*x with Barnes. They stress that no one accused Barnes of abuse. So it was consensual behavior with adults who won’t go on the record and who don’t allege anything criminal or abusive.
So why am I reading this?
We are then treated to anonymous smears.
This is gross.
Barnes Dates Around!
We are informed by the crack reporters at the newspaper that Barnes, then 31, and a candidate for lieutenant governor, allegedly had consensual s*x with a 21-year-old woman he met at the Democratic Party’s state convention. Do I think this is good? Not particularly, but he’s a bachelor. Do I want to be reading about it? No. It’s icky. Is it disqualifying? If we are going to disqualify everyone who hooked up at a state convention, of either party, there won’t be anyone left in politics except Tom Tiffany and Lindee Brill (and a few others).
Is there a lot more and this is just the part the newspaper could prove? Maybe. Everyone in politics has heard the whisper campaign. A reader writes, “Mandela quit because this is the tip of the iceberg.” It may well be.
But we can’t judge the guy on stuff no one will print except an anti-capitalist website that dumped a similar sounding anonymous letter on the internet a couple weeks ago. It offered no names or evidence.
But instead of strongly defending himself, Barnes told the newspaper he was single and “dated a lot.” So what?
Another reader (male) noted that women being attracted to men in power is older than time. Did Mandela “use” his power to get women, or were they attracted to him because of his title and power? Can it work both ways in these situations? Henry Kissinger once said, “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
As I wrote weeks ago, when I revealed that this letter and smear campaign were afoot (but didn’t print or link to it), you’ve got to have more than a bachelor being a serial monogamist. You have to have more than “Barnes dates a lot!” was my point then and now. The letter circled widely around Democrat delegate and media circles for weeks, and there were no takers. Until now, 12 days out. Convenient.
I think it’s fair to consider whether Wisconsinites are ready for an overtly player governor (which isn’t really the first time anyway – he’s just open about it.) And I think it’s fair to reveal that he dated Fran Hong because it’s interesting to contemplate how that changes the dynamics of the race (for example, will it affect whether he endorses her now? He stopped just short of it.) But as I said then, and will repeat now, you have to have more than Barnes whispering sweet nothings in some woman’s ear and then angering her by moving on.
This accusation – Mandela got tipsy and had consensual s*x! – dates back to 2018. If this was so egregious, why are we just learning about it now? The guy ran for lieutenant governor and was a senate candidate after that. How convenient, this drops now with the establishment desperate to clear the field for David Crowley in a last-ditch frantic bid to stop socialist Fran Hong, who was 31 points ahead of Crowley in the last poll. Crowley needs a clear field and Barnes was polling ahead of him. Even that might not be enough.
We also learn from Molly and Mary that “someone” sent a letter making scurrilous allegations about Mandela hitting on women to the state Democratic Party in 2025, then run by supposed wunderkind Ben Wikler. So this is the new standard? “Someone” sends a letter making allegations, and they end up on the front page of the newspaper and a candidate has to quit? What about due process? We are told the party deemed the accusations not actionable because they weren’t specific and were anonymous.
Sounds just like the smear letter I told you was circling around several weeks ago. Why did Barnes quit over this again?
Double Standards Abound
Here’s the other problem. The Journal Sentinel is only interested in people having s*x if they are critics of the newspaper, Democrats who the establishment desperately needs out of the race 12 days before the election (Barnes), or a Republican in a swing district who signed up for Ashley Madison a gazillion years ago. The latter was another Spicuzza special. They aren’t interested in the shenanigans going on in their own newsroom or TV newsrooms. And, trust me, they’re living in a glass house the size of an airport.
They have covered up stories of similar behavior and worse by reporters, editors, sports stars, a religious leader, civic leaders, you name it… for years. The newspaper should address: Did they ever investigate accusations about a male reporter and top political candidate? How many of their reporters have gotten drunk and slept with each other? They set the standard.
Should We Just Cancel It?
At this point, maybe we should just cancel the Democrat primary for #Wisconsin governor. Start over like that movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray as a TV weatherman and pretend we all had amnesia. Can we do that? Sara can double check her campaign finance reports this time, and David wouldn’t quit.
What happens if everyone quits the Democrat primary? Francesca Hong won’t quit. She’s poised to win it. But what IF? Anything is possible these days.
Meanwhile, Wikler is on a very unfortunately timed whirlwind book tour while the shambolic Democrat primary collapses around him. And, hilariously, he’s acting like it’s not happening!
In case you forgot, Crowley isn’t so clean either; he was linked to a crazy old social media page, Dirt McGirk, that made offensive posts about women and declared himself, “Dirty Dave.” Dirty Dave spent a lot of time on that page hitting on chicks. It was 2010, so I guess that was the old version of sliding into someone’s DMs.
I’m starting to warm up to Kelda Roys. She’s getting a bad rap. At least she isn’t writing weird pages as Dirty Dave or hooking up with college co-eds at the state convention. I think. All Kelda did was allegedly make people think she was a lesbian when she’s married to a man. It was in the paper.
Fran Hong isn’t a nun. She dated Mandela. She’s supposedly led a colorful life. Why is only he being singled out?
Someone even sent me a text about supposedly squeaky clean… oh never mind.
Around the same time Barnes quit, Wikler was crowing about his great Supreme Court victories on social media. That was then, Ben, this is now. He’s even hawking a book called “This is the plan,” which is about how Democrats have this genius plan to take back the country, modeled, presumably, on his successes in Wisconsin. The plot is for Wikler to run for U.S. Senate some day against Bryan Steil, presumably.
In light of recent events in Wisconsin Democrat politics, I suggest he revise his book title.
“Sh*t, that wasn’t a great plan as it turns out.”
“I guess the plan isn’t working.”
“Plan B, C, D…What plan are we on now?”
“The plan is to get rid of Fran Hong, but if that doesn’t work, we’ll pretend Tom Tiffany is worse than a woman who wants to abolish the Senate.”
“Run the country like Wisconsin Democrats. At least our conventions are fun!”
It turns out Wikler’s mythic fundraising prowess was really just Epstein island visitor Reid Hoffman’s checkbook.
Spot the pattern.
Suggested book title: “What’s the plan now?”
Table of Contents
