counter statistics

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Response to Kersten's Column

A commenter asks:

hey eva, if u have any spare time to waste today id look forward to your thoughts on kersten's latest column in the strib about gay marriages leading to polygamy-i think thats how u spell it. lol.
jcb


Craig Westover briefly comments and Spotty does the fisking for me.

Peg Kaplan comments to Westover's blog:

I've addressed it myself, too, Craig. But it continues to annoy and sadden me that those against gay rights resort to arguments and defenses that I believe really are not relevant.

I see no "slippery slope" from gay marriage to polygamy. They are unrelated.

Perhaps, however, Kersten has to depend upon such argumentation because substantive reasons for denying gays the right to marriage and/or civil unions is so weak otherwise.
Peg


Dale Carpenter's excellent column, Gay Marriage and Polygamy is an excellent rebuttal to Kersten's argument.

I expect the next thing Kersten will bring up is bestiality.

A commenter to Spot's post says:

The funny thing is I watched "Big Love," and it is anything but sympathetic to polygamy. The women are obviously not happy with their lives, and even the husband seems overwhelmed.

I love when columnists critique what they haven't seen, because it shows they have preconcieved notions that are rarely borne out.
DiscordianStooge


That's a good point. I haven't seen "Big Love" so can't comment on it. Has Katherine Kersten seen it? Or did she just repeat what others have said about the program?

The commenter is correct that it's a waste of time to read and respond to Katherine Kersten. Several of us at Lloydletta believe that the strib chose Kersten to make conservatives look bad. They could have hired someone like Peg Kaplan or Craig Westover if they wanted to expose their readers to a more thoughtful conservative voice.

I'd challenge commenters to contribute some Katherine Kersten Haiku for this column.

Friday, March 17, 2006

Dean Johnson "Embellished" Conversation with Justice

Strib here.

'Mean-spirited group'

"I have no respect for professional clergy who conduct themselves in this manner," Johnson said Thursday night of the pastors who recorded his remarks.

Jeff Davis, leader of a group proposing the constitutional amendment, called Wednesday for Johnson to resign.

On Thursday night, Johnson dismissed the demand as "just another ploy by this mean-spirited group" to influence the Legislature.

Earlier Thursday in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Johnson said that he had met "some months ago" with an unnamed justice and that he'd had "a casual conversation."

In that conversation, Johnson said, "I asked one of the judges, 'What do you think about the Minnesota law regarding same-sex marriage, put in place in 1997?' The justice thought about it, said, 'I think the law is pretty good and probably something we're not going to take a look at.' And you know, kind of as a matter of fact, said, 'You know, we stand for election, too.' That was the extent of our conversation."


That is similar to my recollection of what Johnson said at Bethlehem Lutheran Church. He named the justice - former chief justice Kathleen Blatz. He also quoted her as saying "are you nuts, Dean, we stand for election too".

Ron and Mark from AM 1500 ripped on him big time yesterday about this on KSTP AM.

The strib's story also points out:

Marriage agenda

Groups advocating for the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage seemed less concerned Thursday with possible judicial or legislative improprieties than with simply advancing their proposal to a floor vote.

Chuck Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage, the group that released the tape Wednesday, said at a Thursday news conference that his group had collected petitions with the signatures of 81,000 Minnesotans who want the proposed amendment to appear on the November ballot.


It's clear that neither of the anti-gay activist groups are interested in the integrity of the courts. They are using Dean Johnson's self-inflicted wound to push their own agenda.

In an editorial the Strib calls for Dean Johnson to make more apologies:

Even if Johnson was only voicing his own inference from his acquaintance with several justices and a casual conversation with one of them, he was out of line. He called into question the impartiality of the court -- a serious blunder for which he apologized on Wednesday.

He also created an impression that was, at best, misleading to his audience -- a gathering of his fellow clergy in New London, Minn. Johnson, a Lutheran minister, owes his peers an apology. He owes one also to the thousands of Minnesotans who subsequently heard his words on tape.

His allies in the effort to keep a same-sex union ban out of the Constitution deserve to hear a mea culpa too. That effort is undercut when its Senate leader's veracity is in doubt.

But promoters of a constitutional ban on same-sex unions are overreaching when they accuse Johnson of tampering with the judicial process.

Nothing in Johnson's words in New London or any statements since, by Johnson or the justices, reveals such an attempt. Neither has Johnson's error in any way strengthened the case for permanently embedding discrimination into the state's legal foundation.

As journalists can attest, many politicians are given to speaking in a way that makes fact, speculation, inference and opinion difficult to parse.

After 30 years in public office, Johnson is fluent in that kind of rhetoric. But he used it inappropriately in New London, leaving an impression that stretched the truth.

As he should know better than most, confession and apology are good for the soul.


This is the money point of the strib editorial:

Neither has Johnson's error in any way strengthened the case for permanently embedding discrimination into the state's legal foundation.


Chuck Darrell, Jeff Davis and other anti-gay activists are trying to exploit this issue to push their anti-gay agenda. Dean Johnson deserves criticism on this one.

Also reported by the strib:

Promised fireworks on the Senate floor regarding the amendment never materialized Thursday. Proponents of the ban did not raise the issue on the floor and no senators referenced the flap over the tape.


From the Drama Queen:

MDE EXCLUSIVE: ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST SENATOR DEAN JOHNSON?
I have just been informed by an unimpeachable source at the state captiol that Republicans are strongly considering filing an ethics complaint against Senator Dean Johnson.

Check back for updates.
Tags: Dean Johnson

posted by Minnesota Democrats Exposed at 4:29 PM
1 Comments:

the party opposite said...

I will believe the ineffective and timid Senate GOP has the spine to do this the day before I believe a word Dean Johnson says.
4:42 PM


So the circus continues.

Dean Johnson "Embellished" Conversation with Justice

Strib here.

'Mean-spirited group'

"I have no respect for professional clergy who conduct themselves in this manner," Johnson said Thursday night of the pastors who recorded his remarks.

Jeff Davis, leader of a group proposing the constitutional amendment, called Wednesday for Johnson to resign.

On Thursday night, Johnson dismissed the demand as "just another ploy by this mean-spirited group" to influence the Legislature.

Earlier Thursday in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Johnson said that he had met "some months ago" with an unnamed justice and that he'd had "a casual conversation."

In that conversation, Johnson said, "I asked one of the judges, 'What do you think about the Minnesota law regarding same-sex marriage, put in place in 1997?' The justice thought about it, said, 'I think the law is pretty good and probably something we're not going to take a look at.' And you know, kind of as a matter of fact, said, 'You know, we stand for election, too.' That was the extent of our conversation."


That is similar to my recollection of what Johnson said at Bethlehem Lutheran Church. He named the justice - former chief justice Kathleen Blatz. He also quoted her as saying "are you nuts, Dean, we stand for election too".

Ron and Mark from AM 1500 ripped on him big time yesterday about this on KSTP AM.

The strib's story also points out:

Marriage agenda

Groups advocating for the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage seemed less concerned Thursday with possible judicial or legislative improprieties than with simply advancing their proposal to a floor vote.

Chuck Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage, the group that released the tape Wednesday, said at a Thursday news conference that his group had collected petitions with the signatures of 81,000 Minnesotans who want the proposed amendment to appear on the November ballot.


It's clear that neither of the anti-gay activist groups are interested in the integrity of the courts. They are using Dean Johnson's self-inflicted wound to push their own agenda.

In an editorial the Strib calls for Dean Johnson to make more apologies:

Even if Johnson was only voicing his own inference from his acquaintance with several justices and a casual conversation with one of them, he was out of line. He called into question the impartiality of the court -- a serious blunder for which he apologized on Wednesday.

He also created an impression that was, at best, misleading to his audience -- a gathering of his fellow clergy in New London, Minn. Johnson, a Lutheran minister, owes his peers an apology. He owes one also to the thousands of Minnesotans who subsequently heard his words on tape.

His allies in the effort to keep a same-sex union ban out of the Constitution deserve to hear a mea culpa too. That effort is undercut when its Senate leader's veracity is in doubt.

But promoters of a constitutional ban on same-sex unions are overreaching when they accuse Johnson of tampering with the judicial process.

Nothing in Johnson's words in New London or any statements since, by Johnson or the justices, reveals such an attempt. Neither has Johnson's error in any way strengthened the case for permanently embedding discrimination into the state's legal foundation.

As journalists can attest, many politicians are given to speaking in a way that makes fact, speculation, inference and opinion difficult to parse.

After 30 years in public office, Johnson is fluent in that kind of rhetoric. But he used it inappropriately in New London, leaving an impression that stretched the truth.

As he should know better than most, confession and apology are good for the soul.


This is the money point of the strib editorial:

Neither has Johnson's error in any way strengthened the case for permanently embedding discrimination into the state's legal foundation.


Chuck Darrell, Jeff Davis and other anti-gay activists are trying to exploit this issue to push their anti-gay agenda. Dean Johnson deserves criticism on this one.

Also reported by the strib:

Promised fireworks on the Senate floor regarding the amendment never materialized Thursday. Proponents of the ban did not raise the issue on the floor and no senators referenced the flap over the tape.


From the Drama Queen:

MDE EXCLUSIVE: ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST SENATOR DEAN JOHNSON?
I have just been informed by an unimpeachable source at the state captiol that Republicans are strongly considering filing an ethics complaint against Senator Dean Johnson.

Check back for updates.
Tags: Dean Johnson

posted by Minnesota Democrats Exposed at 4:29 PM
1 Comments:

the party opposite said...

I will believe the ineffective and timid Senate GOP has the spine to do this the day before I believe a word Dean Johnson says.
4:42 PM


So the circus continues.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

BREAKING NEWS - Outstate Voters Care About More Than the Bachmann Amendment!

The March 15th issue of the Grant County Herald reported on a recent town meeting held by Rep. Torrey Westrom. He is a 5th term Republican from District 11A, representing Elbow Lake and the surrounding area.

The representative and his constituents had what appeared to be a detailed discussion on the state budget, school funding, property taxes, unfunded mandates, and a gas tax.

A question was asked about the Bachmann amendment. The Representative, who strongly supports the measure, said passage was unlikely in the Senate. End of story.

And yet, Senator Wannabe Mark Kennedy, the Governor, and the state GOP office maintain that 'defending marriage' is the #1 issue on everybody's mind. Something isn't adding up.

Dan Hall from Midwest Chaplains Says 2006 Bachmann Amendment Rally is Not Political

Christian Chronicle, March 16, 2006:

Dan Hall, executive director of Midwest Chaplains explained that this year's rally will have a decidedly less political approach.

"This is a movement by the people, and as Christians it's time we stand up to those who want to politicize the laws that water down our principles and ideals," Hall said. The 2006 Marriage Rally at the State Capitol will not feature any political speakers and organizers are billing the event as a prayer rally.


Who is Dan Hall and Midwest Chaplains? The Rake published an excellent article explaining Hall's so-called "ministry". It's the same group that put out this prayer proclamation for the Bachmann amendment.

Dan Hall also plays a leading role in the Bachmann Amendment Horror Show.

A commenter points out that Jesus is against public prayer.

Jesus is against public prayer:

Matthew 6:5-6
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


Michele Bachmann obviously doesn't pay much attention to the bible except for Leviticus 18:20.

Meanwhile the Bachmann amendment groups are trying to use Dean Johnson's statements that he had talked to Supreme Court Judges about whether DOMA would be heard in the Minnesota courts to try to pressure him to hold a floor vote on this issue.

Craig Westover wrote an excellent column about this issue. Craig Westover splits with the Republican Party when they try to marginalize gays for political gain.

The West Central Tribune, also reported --

The organizations attacking him are "intent on disrupting the legislative session," Johnson said. "For me, just their behavior and attitude of discrimination and hate tells me I don't want to be a part of that, a part of that movement."

Although I disagree with Johnson's blanket personal characterization of those supporting the marriage amendment, I, too, do not want to be part of a movement that marginalizes people because of sexual orientation. Nor, however, can I abide a person that compromises the integrity of a friend to make a political point and then hides behind bushes of babble instead of clearing his friend's name.


This is from the GOP Newsline:

MNGOP Unveils New Website To Follow Progress Of DOMA Legislation

This week the Republican Party of Minnesota unveiled a web page devoted to tracking the progress of the Defense of Marriage Amendment legislation in the State Legislature.

The web page will have up-to-date legislative information, news, and contact information to find your legislators, and information about getting involved.

Click Here To Visit The Marriage Page


Isn't that just ducky?

Cross posted to Dump Michele Bachmann.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Anti-Gay Rally Will Be All About Prayer and Not Political

I read an article in the Minnesota Christian Chronicle that describes the upcoming Bachmann amendment rally. This year it will be about prayer - rather than overtly political. Rally organizers told the Minnesota Christian Chronicle that they won't be having political speakers at the rally.

The article does not seem to be online. It's worth while picking up that rag and reading their articles. Many of their articles are abridged versions of what has been already published by the Minnesota Family Council in Pro Family News.

According to the Minnesota Christian Chronicle OutFront will be following up with a People of Faith rally in support of gay equality two days after the Bachmann amendment rally.

There's more coverage of this sort of thing by the Christian Chronicle than our local gay publication Lavender which just doesn't do any reporting.

UPDATE: Here's Outfront's plug for the People of Faith Rally -

Speak Out Against the Amendment
People of Faith Rally at the Capitol next Thursday, March 23rd

With advocates for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit legal recognition of same-sex couples using religion as a weapon, it's vital that the voices of fair-minded people of faith are heard. On March 23rd, plan to join OutFront Minnesota, the Faith Family Fairness Alliance (FFFA), and hundreds of fair-minded people of faith at an interfaith rally at the Capitol from 7:30am - 9:00am.

Now is the time to invite fair-minded Minnesotans to stand up against the attempts to enshrine discrimination in our state's founding document. While we know that the majority of Minnesotans are opposed to discrimination against GLBT people, they are not actively working to stop the amendment. We also know that many Minnesotans who are religious feel that their faith inspires their commitment to working for social justice and equality. Please help spread the word about this interfaith rally by asking friends, family members and co-workers to join you at the Capitol that morning.

Also, encourage faith communities and individual faith leaders to say no to discrimination by signing the OutFront Minnesota/TogetherMinnesota! resolution against the proposed constitutional amendment. Click here to learn how to sign the resolution as a person of faith or to introduce it within your faith community.

Craig Westover's Column Raises a Firestorm

Craig Westover wrote an excellent column reporting on how Dean Johnson really stepped in it.

During a January meeting with Spicer-New London pastors, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, defended his view that because Minnesota has a "stringent" statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman, a Defense of Marriage Amendment is unnecessary. The gathered pastors, on the other hand, contended that court decisions overturning such laws in other states make the amendment necessary.

An honest disagreement, but this particular meeting is significant. On a digital recording, made by a pastor without Johnson's knowledge, Johnson says that although he could make "no guarantee," justices had told him the state Supreme Court would not hear a challenge to the marriage statute.

"Members of the Supreme Court, I know all of them. I've had a number of visits with them about our law. All of them, every one of them," Johnson said. He quoted (by name) a justice as saying "Dean, we all stand for election, too. We are not going to touch it (current law)." He generalized the response of other justices as: "Dean, we're not going to do this. We're not going to do this."


This got the strib to jump on the story.

I called Patricia Lopez when I read an earlier version of her story which followed up on Craig Westover's column criticizing majority leader Dean Johnson for claiming he had talked to Minnesota Supreme Court Judges.

She quoted me as "Eva Young, a DFL activist". I am NOT a DFL activist. I have been participating in Republican caucuses since 1998.

I've called Lopez and asked for a correction (to please correct the record that I am not a DFL activist). I will be following up with the Strib to make sure they do that.

This was the quote Lopez gave:

"Eva Young, a DFL activist who attended the December meeting at Bethlehem, said Johnson did say that Blatz had told him they would not hear the case, but "I didn't think about it at the time. Now that I think of it, that was a weird thing to say. On the other hand, people do have informal conversations. I think that's all this was."


I also told Pat Lopez that I had told Craig Westover about the Bethlehem Lutheran event about a month ago - and that Westover talks to Chuck Darrell regularly. I also said that it was interesting that the Pro-Family News article that Michael Brodkorb was talking about seems to be describing what Dean Johnson said in New London - and not what he said at Bethlehem. I just remember him discussing a conversation - which sounded pretty informal - that he'd had with Kathy Blatz. He didn't mention all of the judges. It's interesting that Pro Family News didn't cover this story until the March April issue for an event in December. I plan on asking Craig Westover if he told Chuck Darrell that Dean Johnson had made a similar statement at Bethlehem Lutheran Church. I think I may have commented about this on Craig's blog - and Chuck Darrell reads that blog. So the question is whether Pro Family News actually had a reporter at the December Bethlehem Lutheran Church event - and why they waited 3 months to report on it.

Lopez told me that Blatz has denied having that conversation with Dean Johnson.

Lopez said the Minnesota for Marriage is going to use this issue in advertising to try to get Dean Johnson to allow a floor vote on the marriage amendment. That's not the issue here. It is inappropriate for the Senate Majority leader to discuss an issue that is going to go before the court with a judge. The thing is - I can see how this could have happened - Dean Johnson and Katherine Blatz were good friends when they were legislators. I'm sure this has strained that friendship.

Chuck Darrell's comment is revealing:

Chuck Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage, said Johnson's remarks "compromised the dialogue, the openness about the marriage amendment. What he needs to do to rectify that is to simply allow the marriage amendment to come to the Senate floor for an open and honest debate."

Darrell would not comment on the possible role of the justices, saying only that "the justices don't have anything to do with getting the amendment to the floor."


Jeff Davis from Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage held a press conference:

Jeff Davis, of Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage, called for Johnson's resignation at a news conference on Wednesday, saying Johnson had "poisoned the debate on this issue," and "undermined the integrity of the Minnesota Supreme Court." Davis said he will launch a petition drive to remove Johnson from office.

Republican Party officials took a more tempered tone, but said Johnson needs to "come clean" on apparently contradictory statements.

"We'd really just like Dean Johnson to clear the air," said Mark Drake, communications director for the state Republican Party. "This apparently isn't the first time he's said he talked to justices about this. It's pretty confusing. Did he misspeak twice? This is very troubling."


Davis and Drake are playing good cop, bad cop....

Rep. Matt Entenza defends Dean Johnson.

House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, DFL-St. Paul, pointed out that because of a court case brought in 2002 by Republicans, judicial candidates can comment on legal issues, including those that might come before them. "Under the new rules for judges that the Republican Party won, judges can comment on cases, even before they come up," he said. "Ironically, because of this new standard, there appears to be no infraction by anyone."


They've discussed this issue on talk radio today both on Ron and Mark and Lambert and Janacek. Craig Westover comments:

Let's see -- I oppose the DOMA, I have written several columns on why a conservative ought to hold that same-sex marriage is a good thing, put myself at odds with friends, but you are peaked because I write against my own position on principle about a DFL legislator compromising the Supreme Court. The penance you would have me pay is write about some meaningless fringe group I never heard of?

Today on KXLT, Brian Lambert, instead of addressing the real issue of the integrity or lack thereof of the Court, dismissed my column as the work of an arch-conservative that supports the DOMA. Not only did he duck the serious question, but resorted to a personal attack that was not true (out of ignorance, NOT a lie). I do not support the amendment and I think recognizing same-sex marriage would be good for society.

The point is, while I and other conservatives are willing to look at same-sex marriage (and other issues) on a principled basis -- regardless of how we might personally feel about them -- and disagree with our party, you respond to a story that should motivate you to be concerned with the integrity of the Court or legislative leadership and respond with snarky partisanship.

That's why it's hard to take liberals seriously.
Craig Westover


Lambert clearly hasn't read Craig's work.

Both parties are hypocritical on this issue. Pat Lopez told me that Minnesota for Marriage is going to use this to try to pressure Dean Johnson into a floor vote.

As far as this characteristic being a liberal characteristic - this is a characteristic of partisans - on both sides. Look at how many Pawlenty Partisans started attacking David Strom when the Taxpayers League deservedly criticized Pawlenty for the health impact fee increase.

Craig's column is being used by the Republicans to push the marriage amendment. The Republican party sure doesn't print Craig's other columns or statements opposing the Bachmann amendment - for principled conservative reasons.

Craig also has a good and thoughtful post on the role of mainstream media editors. I happen to have higher standards for mainstream media than I do for blogs. I don't have the resources to do the investigative work that reporters at the Strib or Pioneer Press do. Craig also discusses some of the legs his column has gotten on Talk Radio.

UPDATE: The Strib has updated their story and removed the erroneous description DFL from my name. Thanks to Peter from Swanblog for the tip that the strib updated the story.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Michael Brodkorb on Rowley Watch: "It's not me"....

Yesterday I asked a question. From the comments:

wow...as if I don't have enough trouble already, you go and start more for me.
Michael B. Brodkorb 03.14.06 - 5:11 am | #

excume me-is that a yes or a no?
jcb 03.14.06 - 4:55 pm | #

That is a NO! To be honest Eva, this is just silly.
Michael B. Brodkorb

Eva: I have receive two emails about this today and that is two too many.

With all of the legal matters I am dealing with I now have to be concerned about this shit from you.

Just because you include a "?" in your posts doesn't give you the right to post this crap.

I'm sure you enjoy getting me upset, but sometimes you are just out of line.

Do you want me to send you the bill for the money it may cost me to defend myself against new charges of anonymous blogging?

You could have emailed me privately to ask if this was me.

But you decide to ask the question on your blog.
Michael B. Brodkorb


I've looked at other posts on Rowley watch. The opening post doesn't sound much like Brodkorb.

First and foremost, the intent of this site is not to slander Coleen Rowley or throw political mud. Rowley Watch will gladly facilitate in exposing residents of the 2nd District to Coleen Rowley's radical left-wing political agenda, but will not be following her campaign's example of throwing stuff at a wall until it sticks or doctoring photos. To put it another way, Rowley Watch hereby pledges to never doctor a Coleen Rowley photo to...oh, I don't know...show her alongside other accomplished "Time People of the Year" like Adolph Hitler (1938) or Joseph Stalin(1939)...That was the last cheap shot, I promise.

Second, Rowley Watch is not here to help re-elect John Kline or help Sharon Marko win the endorsement. If either one of these scenarios does play out, however, this blog will go into hibernation until Coleen Rowley decides it's time to run for office again. My one and only goal is to see Coleen Rowley exit the political arena...the sooner the better!


It's worth asking all 2nd district campaigns what their policy is regarding campaign staff anonoblogging or commenting on blogs.

Marriage Amendment is Pawlenty's Turd in the SOS Punchbowl

From the Rake blog.

It was amusing to hear Governor Pawlenty's State of the State message today start off with a discussion of turkey droppings and end with the biggest gobbler gunk of all: "And let's make sure that courts can't throw out our defense of marriage laws in Minnesota, like they have in other states. Let's define marriage in our Constitution as being between a man and a woman."

Aside from all the rhetoric about strengthening education, (when he allows tuition at the U to rise 50 percent during his tenure,) or health care, (when there are 77,000 fewer Minnesotans covered now than there were when he took office,) or holding the line on taxes (when local property taxes have had to take up the slack for the state's abrogation of its educational responsibilities,) the anti-gay marriage amendment was the true turd in the state's punch bowl.

Here's the truth on the anti gay marriage amendment: the Republicans want it on the ballot, not because they believe in it, but because it's what brings the one issue religious right-wingers to the polls. And when those people vote, we get a Republican majority that's beholden to them. And when that happens, we all get a good pranging, gay or not.


Spot points out Pawlenty more logic on abortion.

Midtopia points out that Tim Pawlenty and Mike Hatch are united in using the concern about privacy to close off legitimate public access to government records. It's rare that the Star Tribune's reader's representative writes something worth while in her column.

There's a reason for sunshine laws. Let's keep them.

Sponge at Minvolved points out:

One final thing, while you're sitting there pondering these questions, don’t forget who started the nonsense:

[screen shot of a message from Tim Pawlenty from the infamous cd]

Gay Marriage Three

Beware of those who can still smile while engaged in such buffoonery.


You can call Governor Tim Pawlenty at 651-296-3391 to give him an earful about this buffoonery.

Framing the Abortion Issue

Lost Ox has an excellent post on the topic.

Don't flinch. On the other hand, those social conservatives who are only wielding abortion for political gain will never be anything but hostile to us. For this reason, they must be isolated from the mainstream pro-lifers and then thoroughly discredited. They must be given an unflattering label of our choosing, and then we must hammer away until it sticks. Attacking them for their pro-life views will not work. Instead, they must be relentlessly attacked for not caring about solving the problem; doing so will isolate them from those pro-lifers we can persuade. The effect of this type of campaign is cumulative, and it can take years. Do not worry about appearing mean. Do not allow them to hide behind sound bites or religion. Do not be drawn into a dialog with them unless we can hurt them in doing so. And never miss a chance to strike a telling blow or to humiliate them in the eyes of the people they are trying to persuade. In short, play to win.


Governor Tim Pawlenty said on Almanac that he would want additional exceptions in a law like South Dakota's. He believes that abortion should be criminal except for the cases of rape and incest.

Personally I don't think "pro-life" is an accurate description for those who want to criminalize abortion. I think describing the views as favoring criminalizing abortion is much more accurate.

Personally I think the so-called MCCL should be challenged on the issue of Stem cell research and In Vitro Fertilization. If embryonic stem cell research should be illegal, so should in vitro fertilization.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Has the Drama Queen Michael Brodkorb Started Another Anonoblog?

That Rowley Watch blog sounds awfully familar.

UPDATE: Michael Brodkorb says he is not the blogger behind Rowley Watch. I've posted Michael's response here.

Brodkorb is still upset even though I gave him space on the blog to respond to the question.

DFL Rep Collin Peterson and GOP Rep. Mark Kennedy Rent Luxury Cars on the Taxpayer's dime

Pioneer Press:

Some members of Congress use their office budgets to lease Lexuses, Lincolns, Cadillacs, an Infiniti, even a BMW 530i, which one auto critic called "one of the world's best sport luxury sedans." The lease prices of some cars topped $1,000 a month.

A few, including Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., leased two cars on the taxpayers' dime; two lawmakers leased three.

Peterson leased a Chevrolet Equinox and a Dodge in 2005 for a total of $9,402.52.

The only other representatives from Minnesota or Wisconsin who were on the lease list were Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., who leased a Ford Explorer for $6,946.44, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who leased a Chevrolet for $3,150.

Part of Kennedy's decision to lease a vehicle, which he does for $578.87 a month, was the cost-savings — because of the large size of the Sixth District, it's cheaper than being reimbursed for using his own vehicle, said Anne Mason, the Republican's spokeswoman. And though it's a Ford Explorer, it uses E85 — "he's into alternative fuels and he wouldn't use anything but," Mason said.

Peterson could not be reached over the weekend for comment on this story.


That's Collin "no gays live in my district" Peterson for ya.

It's interesting that the Drama Queen missed the part in the story about Mark Kennedy also leasing a luxury vehicle. Peterson is more over the top on this one with two vehicles - but Mark Kennedy has something to answer for also.

Hunger for congressional perks is very bipartisan.

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.

Sad.
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
worker.

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.
AnybodyButEntenza


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.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

"Family Values" Advocate has Got a Rap Sheet

Claude Allen, Bush's anti-gay appointee to Health and Human Services recently resigned from his position for "personal reasons." Now we know more about the personal reasons.

From gay.com:

Allen has been under investigation since at least January for the alleged thefts on 25 occasions at Target and Hecht's stores, said police spokesman Lt. Eric Burnett.

Burnett said that Allen would buy items, take them to his car, then return to the store with his receipt. He would select the same items, then take them to the store return desk and show the receipt from the first purchase. Using that method, he would receive credit for the second items on his credit cards, Burnett said.

Allen was allegedly seen Jan. 2 at a Target in Gaithersburg, Md., taking items off the shelf that he then took to the return desk. He had a receipt for the merchandise, was given a refund and left.

The items he allegedly received fraudulent refunds for included clothing, a Bose theater system and stereo equipment. Some purchases were for as little as $2.50.


Hat tip: Pam Spaulding.

Matt Entenza: Draft-Dodger?

From a source with knowledge of this situation:

In 1982, MPIRG challenged what was known as the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that required proof of draft registration before receiving federal student financial aid. MPIRG represented three "John Doe" students who had not regisered for the draft as required by law but had applied for federal financial aid. They were never identified because in doing so, they would incriminate themselves as draft dodgers. It was commonly known that Matt Entenza was one of the three students. He attended Macalester at the time and was either on MPIRG's board, or would be later. MPIRG was joined by the ACLU. The case went to the US Supreme Court, and MPIRG lost.

The question is: Did Matt Entenza ever register for the draft as he was required to do by law at the time? Or does he remain a draft dodger who wants to be the state's top law-enforcement officer?

More on the lawsuit here and here.


Developing. . .

Mark Kennedy's Priorities: Passing the Federal Marriage Amendment More Important than National Security

Senate Candidate Mark Kennedy recently sent the following direct mail piece.

Mark Kennedy's warped priorities

"Protecting Traditional Marriage" is higher priority than "Supporting our troops and defeating terrorism".

John Uldrich offers a Republican alternative to Kennedy with better priorities. The Republican Party is trying to get him to run against Martin Sabo instead.

Why is Mark Kennedy afraid to face his Republican challengers? Kennedy will have no problems getting the Republican endorsement. But why is he interested in shutting off debate rather than letting the delegates decide?

DFL Associate Chair Donna Cassutt and GOP Chair Ron Carey Face Off on At Issue

Cassutt was poorly prepared when the subject got to gay marriage. She gave the standard answer that the issue was "divisive" and was "already settled". That's not a good argument. This allowed Ron Carey to define the issue - saying the Democrats are the party of gay marriage. Cassutt could have come back with pointing out that this was an effort to marginalize an unpopular minority for political gain, and point out that Republican leaders - such as Governor Pawlenty and Steve Sviggum - spoke at a rally where signs like this were prominent.



Donna Cassutt was the person who allowed the Drama Queen Michael Brodkorb to goad her into shutting down a valuable list that offered DFLers from around the state to share information and resources.

Frequent critic Schoolsout comments to this lack of leadership by the DFL "friends of the gay community" who are running for Attorney General and State Auditor:

This should come of no surprise to you....Entenza has no stomach for this issue.
schoolsout


I am still wondering who is more credible - Matt Entenza or Rebecca Otto.