counter statistics

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Norm Coleman Piles on Mark Olson; Mark Olson Supporters Lash Back

Dave Mindeman at MNPACT suggests that Michael Brodkorb posted as he did on Mark Olson in order to keep the issue of Al Franken's writings alive as a campaign issue. On Michael Brodkorb's blog:

Chris Kumpula Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 am
I find this blog posting concerning Olson’s endorsement for the SD16 seat to be a bit odd, not to mention many of the absurd replies already posted here. Mark Olson won a hefty 2 to 1 victory at the August 7th convention. His endorsement was the decision of the delegates and alternates at that convention, and no one else’s. He enjoyed very strong and encouraging support.

These continued attacks on Olson’s family issues from so long ago are most unfortunate. I think most couples go through tough times where both partners need to work hard to fix things that aren’t working. Those who don’t work at it will likely get divorced. It is certainly bad enough when it happens to us privately, but to have it made so public and have both your names dragged by a liberal-biased media through the mud would be too terrible for me to imagine. Mark and Heidi Olson have survived a great challenge to their faith and to their marriage. They have worked hard to put things back together and reconcile themselves with each other and God. I find that admirable, especially when so many viciously encouraged a bitter divorce.
What’s more, his entire case has been grossly mischaracterized by the main-line liberal media and evidently continued by blogs such as yours. The law in these “domestic assault” cases seems very much to ensure bitter confrontation and divorce. Mark Olson was lied to and mistreated by a system which currently seeks to shred families to ribbons in court proceedings designed to do just that. As was noted, Olson was acquitted of charges to inflict death or even harm to a charge of “intent to cause fear.” My understanding is that it was intent to cause fear in double jeopardy (I’ll find out) which if challenged and brought to higher courts would no-doubt be thrown-out. Olson decided not to pursue such a course. I cannot speak as to his motivations, but the shear cost of clearing his name would have been great and the restoration of his marriage was at the top of the list of priorities.
I found it interesting how the State Party (specifically the House caucus folks) threw him under the bus way before a verdict was ever found. He was and has continued to be neglected by the party (perhaps that will now change since he is endorsed) when there was little reason to do so save that it looked bad. The lack of party support may have had more to do with Olson’s refusal to march lock-step with the party “high command.” I think they had had it with one of the most conservative and competent public servants in the entire state. One thing is for certain: he is in no way the “establishment candidate.” The GOP St Paul folks no doubt dreaded to hear that he won the endorsement. They don’t seem to be too terribly fond of conservatives you know.

Mark Olson has the support of all conservatives and citizens who want to see less corruption of the system and more focus on the issues. His family issues should have never been brought to court, and he should have been acquitted of all charges. He reconciled his marriage. He apologized humbly to his district, party, and citizens. He did all of this while being constantly painted in malice as an abusive wife beater. He is no such thing. Instead, he is a man of gentle humility, patience, and servanthood, dedicated to God and his family above all. There is no better representative a district could ask for, and a great many are thrilled that he will now be going to the senate to bat for them and the issues we all care about so much.
I am surprised so many are still hung-up on what should no longer be an issue. Mark Olson is ready to run, Heidi supports him 110%, and he is as qualified as possible to do the job. If you are concerned about having him punished for the distraction the issues created, I can assure you his situation has caused more than enough pain as is. The deceptive people working his case through the legal system, the state party, and the media are as much to blame for the distraction as Mark Olson himself. This man deserves a second chance, and the people of SD16 seem to be enthusiastic to give him that chance. What better candidate could we ask for to fill Betsy Wergin’s vacant seat in SD16?



Andrew Mathews Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
In response to Drew Emmer:

I am one of those who helped put on the endorsing convention, and Drew Emmer is not correct with some of his claims. Sen. Wergin never asked to speak to the convention (I verified this with another BPOU leader), and I’m not even sure that she was a delegate. We did not single out Sen. Wergin and shun her. We did not decide that Mark Olson was a politically correct candidate and push him over everybody at the convention. Mark did not ask a single person to be a delegate on his behalf to “save his political hide”. In fact, Mark WAS a delegate, and he chose to yield his seat and not vote for himself at the convention.

The Kiffmeyers, the Wergins, and the Kruegers were all pushing to endorse Alison Krueger. Since she still lost by a 2-to-1 margin, it was clearly the will of the convention to have Mark Olson as our candidate.

If the Republicans would listen to the truth instead of being swayed by the media who was out to stomp all over Olson, they would know that most of his situation has been twisted out of context, and they would be willing to get behind him and help him get elected.

quintin reece Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I find it interesting that people like drew emmer post half truths knowingly , he was there, and should know better. I am actually glad toread who these camilians are. We in this district know our people better than those elites who think that we are a bunch of hicks who need them to tell us what we should do . No that’s the democrat party. They are unable to articulate what they believe because they don’t have a set of beliefs and have to be told (talking points) what to say at the right time. We have strong beliefs and are able to articulate not only what we believe but why. For example we believe that drilling for our own oil means we can put more oil into the supply side of the economy therefore bringing the price of gas down because of a basic principle of supply a d demand(which teachers won’t teach their students because they want to keep them stupid so they can be controlled), secondly If we drill here in the USA ( the best country in the world) we can be sure our supplies will not be blown up, thus providing a more secure supply. And 3rdly the oil supply is not running out! The other side gives the argument that regardless what you know about this issue all you need to know is that we (”ugly Americans”) need to get off using oil because it is bad for the enviroment and for people so we want the price to go up a lot so that people start changing their behaviour by riding bicycles, buses or light rail. So one philosophy says we need to go backwards to the stoneage ( china and India went from bicyles to cars and SUVs ) and the other philosophy (mine) believe in God, freemarkets, representative government and in the American people. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

0 comments: