counter statistics

Monday, March 13, 2006

Responses to Lloydletta Posts Criticizing Matt Entenza

I got the information that I posted in "Matt Entenza: Draft Dodger?" post from a source that I consider reliable. Michael Brodkorb makes a good point - and defends Matt Entenza.

While I don't usually defend Matt Entenza, I don't think it's fair to call him a "draft dodger."

Fair enough. The information I recieved was that it was common knowledge at MPIRG (this from a former MPIRG employee) that Matt Entenza was one of the John Doe plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Solomon Amendment which was a federal law that required proof of draft registration before receiving federal student financial aid. As I mentioned earlier, this is from a source who I consider reliable.

I got some comments from Entenza supporters:

Eva Young...slanderer?

I will be interested to see if you print a retraction when we all find out that your fact-less biased accusations, a hallmark of Republicans like you, turns out to be nothing more then continued Republican slander.

Don't bother with the "I am just reporting what someone" told me line. You print it, you are responsible.

After all Eva, Jeff Johnson is sooooooooooo good on your supposed issues. Oh wait...he isn't. But he is a Republican, and after all, that i the point of this blog. Tear down DFLers to promote you Republican agenda.

StopTheEvaAgenda 03.12.06 - 10:31 pm | #

From: Dann Dobson
Date: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:07 pm
Subject: Lloydetta's attacks on Matt Entenza - what side is she on ?

I find Eva's attacks on Matt Entenza very strange.

Matt has constantly fought against the Republican backed Constiutional
Amendment to ban gay marriages. On the other hand. Entenza's opponent for
Attorney General, Representatve Jeff Johnson, has made a career of oppressing
the less fortunate in our society and is trying to ride discrimination of gays
into the Attorney General's Office.

It was Rep. Jeff Johnson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who
announced that he was taking the House Judiciary Committee to Grand Rapids to
hold a hearing on the same sex marriage ban, the same day that he announced that
he was going to run for attorney general...

So on one hand, Eva Young friencely attacks those who support bans on Gay
Marriage, yet in the Attorney General's race, she attacks the man who supports
her rights as a lesbian, while giving a pass on the reactionary Republican, Jeff
Johnson who would take away her rights.

Rep. Jeff Johnson also works for the union busting, anti-worker law firm,
Wessel & Pautsch.

Jeff Johnson in his website for attorney general says:

"Nationally-recognized speaker on employment law and harassment investigations;
gives dozens of seminars throughout the country every year.
Works as an employment attorney with Wessels & Pautsch, P.C. "
It makes Johnson sound like he's an advocate for the poor and downtrodden

However, if you go to Johnson's law firm's, Wessel & Pautsch's website, their home page says:
"Wessel & Pautsch's P.C.
Protecting Employers - Representing Employers in Labor and Employment
Matters." "Protecting Employers ......across the Nation with Offices Throughout
the Midwest"

Here are more quotes from Jeff Johnson's Law Firm's website:

"Labor union matters can be devastating to your business."
"Discrimination and wrongful termination charges can ruin a business. . . .We
defend employers who have been accused of and/or charged with a number of
offenses, including (but not limited to):
Discrimination claims (age, race, disability, gender, and others)
Sexual harassment claims
Whistleblower claims
EEOC, state and local anti-discrimination agency claims

Eva, whose side are you on?

A union busting, anti-workers rights, anti-gay, reactionary Republican Representative who would take away your rights as a gay woman or a progressive representative who
would protect your rights, but gee happens to be a Democrat?

Dann Dobson

Good questions Dann!!

You can see this at MN Politics Discuss
StopTheEvaAgenda 03.13.06 - 11:01 am | #

Another commenter responds:

STEA--Opposing Matt Entenza for attorney general doesn't necessarily put one in Jeff Johnson's camp. Do you think the 18-26 percent of DFL caucus attendees who DIDN'T vote for Entenza will be voting for Johnson? Not likely. They were simply expressing their disgust with Entenza as a DFLer--and wish there were another DFLer challenging him for the AG endorsement.

If Entenza was, in fact, one of the John Doe plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Solomon Amendment, he should have no problem admitting to that. Unless he's afraid that might jeopardize his support from veterans and law enfocement types. And we all know that when it comes to promoting Matt Entenza's political ambitions, nothing is below the Great Pretenza, including lying.

Let's see if he comes clean on that question before we ask if he registered for the draft once the lawsuit he reportedly was a part of was lost, as he was legally required to do at that time. Because he can prove that he registered--if he actually did.

Dan raises reasonable points that Jeff Johnson's law practice can be characterized as union-busting. The problem is while Matt Entenza claims to be the person who stands up for the little guy, that's not the way he has acted when managing employees at the house caucus.

Jeff Johnson is complicit in pushing to discriminate against gays in the constitution. I also don't agree with Johnson's focus on requiring schools and libraries to buy internet filters.

I've heard his stump speech though - and he doesn't focus on the gay marriage issue. He focuses on making the Attorney General's office more professional and less grandstanding in the press. I am one of those people (and there are many on both sides of the political aisle who have issues with Hatch on this) that thinks Hatch abused the power of his office when he tried to stack the Allina board with his hand picked selections.

My sources that criticize Matt Entenza are not Republicans. They are democrats who want an alternative to Entenza for Attorney General in the DFL.

It was a rural blog, Pollytick, not me, that pointed out that Matt Entenza was leaving Dean Johnson hanging out to dry on the marriage amendment. Gays do not need to hear about how much Matt Entenza is fighting this amendment at fundraisers geared towards the gay community. Gays need to hear Matt Entenza articulating clearly why this amendment is a bad idea in the press. Instead, Entenza says that there is "no caucus" position on the amendment when asked about it by the media. Sure some Democrats will vote against a principled caucus position, but having a caucus position shows leadership, having no caucus position encourages house DFLers to vote for the amendment - under the mistaken assumption that their gay supporters will vote for them no matter what.

Dean Johnson is showing real courage on this issue where it counts - by talking about why the amendment is a bad idea in his own district - where his opinion is in the minority.