December 31, 2006
Dec 31 12:16 Worst Political Person In Minnesota Politics? Dec 31 08:48 What Doesn't This Clown Understand? Dec 31 13:04 Ain't That Sweet??? Dec 31 17:40 Minnesota Football Coach Fired
Worst Political Person In Minnesota Politics?
Yesterday, Michael Broadkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed (MDE) and my good friend King Banaian of SCSUScholars went through their year end observations. The show's most hilarious segments were about Michael being named The "worst political person" in the state. Michael received that badge of honor from this lefty blog. When King & Michael started joking about the 'award', I decided to call in & join the fun.
I posed the question to them about why Noah Kunin & Tara McGuiness shouldn't share that honor? After all, Mr. Kunin is the hacker who needed 18 tries before gaining access to Scott Howell's password-protected website. After hacking into Howell's confidential website, Kunin passed the information to Tara McGuiness, who viewed a previously unreleased Kennedy ad.
My point is this: Michael is vilified for telling the truth about liberals & moonbats. Mr. Kunin didn't make the top 10 even though he's the subject of a full FBI investigation. This should tell you everything you need to know about moonbats' moral compass. It should tell you that they don't have one.
Before anyone says that this is about the 10 worst Republicans, I'd like to quote from the article itself:
With apologies to Keith Olbermann, I am going to embark on my own personal end of the year list of the "worst" persons in Minnesota Politics.I'd point out that it doesn't say Republicans. I'm sure that some liberals hate me for being a literalist but that's who I am. To them, I simply say "GET OVER IT!!!" I'd further point out that neither Hubert Humphrey or Paul Wellstone would tolerate criminal activity such as this regardless of the goal. They'd run Mr. Kunin out of politics by hauling them to jail. I'm certain that they'd do it without thinking about it, too.
When a writer thinks that a criminal shouldn't be part of the worst people in politics but a man who tells the truth does, something's seriously wrong. I'd submit that this writer should check himself in for a serious moral examination. It's one thing to be partisan; it's another to be so partisan that you excuse anything. Shame on Mr. Mindeman for such questionable judgment.
Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:16 PM
No comments.
What Doesn't This Clown Understand?
I decided to read the original blogpost announcing that MDE's Michael Broadkorb is the "worst" person in Minnesota Politics. I know that this story isn't new anymore but something was gnawing at me. What I found was one of the most factually inaccurate accumulations of information I've ever seen. Here's the first inaccuracy:
It has gotten so out of hand, that Mary Kiffmeyer invites Brodkorb to a transition meeting with newly elected Mark Ritchie....for purposes only apparent to Kiffmeyer herself.... but we know Brodkorb's agenda is to simply "hatchet" another Democrat.Anyone listening to yesterday's Final Word found out that Mary Kiffmeyer didn't invite Broadkorb. It might seem like a trivial detail but one of her staffers invited Michael.
Michael's explanation made it rather apparent why he was invited.
Mark Ritchie ran a slash & burn campaign, going so far as calling Ms. Kiffmeyer "the most partisan Secretary of State in Minnesota history", a storyline echoed by every DFL activist. Kiffmeyer's people simply wanted someone there to make sure that Ritchie didn't try pulling any stunts after the meeting. They didn't want him marching out of the meeting & saying that Ms. Kiffmeyer was being a partisan. Anyone reading Michael's post on the meeting knows that it was scheduled to last an hour but that it lasted only 18 minutes. They'd also have read that Michael thought Ritchie looked "unprepared" for the meeting. It isn't unreasonable to think that Ritchie wasn't there for a serious transition meeting but to make some harsh accusations against her.
I'd question why you'd schedule a meeting if it only lasts 18 minutes. You could handle that amount of information via faxes or emails.
Mr. Mindeman thinks of Michael's attendance as part of Michael's ongoing "hatchet job". There was a time when candidates were honorable enough to not need an observer. It's apparent that that point is lost on Mr. Mindeman. Instead, Michael is portrayed as the villain. It doesn't dawn on him that Mr. Ritchie is the villain. This brings me to the next fallacy:
But Brodkorb envisions himself as some kind of "investigative" reporter.... with little or no regard for both sides of the issue and even less for factual content.Mr. Mindeman's hyperpartisanship won't allow him to admit that Michael's digging into Matt Entenza's hiring of an opposition research company to spy on Mike Hatch is investigative reporting. Mr. Mindeman refuses to admit that Michael broke that story over a year before the Agenda Media picked it up.
Isn't it ironic that that's more investigative reporting than the Strib did on Democratic candidates during this entire election cycle?
Michael also broke the story exposing Denise Dittrich's scandal, whereby Dittrich used her legislative office to dramatically increase the value of property she owned next to the LRT line in downtown Minneapolis. Are we to think that Mindeman opposes exposing that type of corruption? Or just that Michael doesn't deserve credit for reporting it?
I'd further take issue with Mindeman's statement that Michael has "little or no regard for both sides of the issue and even less for factual content." Clearly, Mr. Mindeman is upset that Michael is only exposing Democratic corruption. Michael's reporting is the conservative counterbalance to the Strib being the DFL's investigative tool. Notice that Mr. Mindeman doesn't think that that's relevant in this discussion. His argument seems to suggest that there's more than one side to a scandal.
-
How many sides need to be presented to know that Dittrich abused her power?
- How many sides need to be presented to know that Mr. Ritchie was up to no good?
- How many sides need to be presented before we know that Matt Entenza is corrupt?
Blogs used to be a genuine discussion of events and positions; they admittedly have slanted points of view, but that's usually not hidden from the reader; they editorialize but don't pretend to be giving "hard" news....however, thanks to Brodkorb, blogs are rapidly becoming just another arm of political campaigns...Is Mr. Mindeman suggesting that Michael's agenda is hidden when he writes "they admittedly have slanted points of view, but that's usually not hidden from the reader"? I'd suggest that Mr. Mindeman take a look at the title of Michael's blog. It's called Minnesota Democrats Exposed. What does Mr. Mindeman find mysterious or sinister about Michael's reporting? What part of "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" doesn't Mr. Mindeman understand? Is Mr. Mindeman the only person who thinks that Michael's agenda is hidden? Surely, Mr. Mindeman can't be serious in thinking that Michael's agenda is hidden from anyone with a 4th grade education or higher.
I'd further suggest that the examples I've cited are hard news stories worthy of major media coverage. Does Mr. Mindeman want to argue that exposing Democrat's corruptions isn't newsworthy? I'd love having that debate with him.
When all the dust settles, it's apparent that Mr. Mindeman is the political hatchet man, not Michael. The biggest difference between Michael & Mr. Mindeman is that Michael has a genuine following of thinking people...
Let's remember that this doesn't even include Michael's reporting the Noah Kunin/Tara McGuinness scandal. More on that in an upcoming post.
UPDATE: Welcome MDE readers!!! I've posted something on who I think should be named the Worst Person in Minnesota Politics. I think any rational person would agree with me, not Mr. Mindeman.
Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:20 PM
No comments.
Ain't That Sweet???
Michigan's hyperpartisan representative John Conyers has admitted that he "possibly violating House rules by requiring his official staff to perform campaign-related work, according to a statement quietly released by the House ethics committee late Friday evening", according to this Hill Magazine article.
The top Republican and Democratic members on the ethics panel, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Howard Berman (D-CA), said in a statement that Conyers acknowledged a "lack of clarity" in communicating what was expected of his official staff and that he accepted responsibility for his actions.Regardless of the "additional, significant steps" taken, this is proof of the Democrats' own culture of corruption. It smacks me as hypocritical if further steps aren't taken by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Whether she realized it or not, she set the bar by bypassing Alcee Hastings because he was impeached by a Democratic House and convicted by a Democratic Senate. How can Conyers chair the House Judiciary Committee in light of his admitting his unethical behavior?
"[Conyers] agreed to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff," they stated. "We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement."
I'd further suggest that the Ethics Committee's work isn't finished, contrary to their statement saying that "We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement." Issuing a public statement and putting in place some undisclosed "additional, significant steps" isn't nearly good enough. This behavior isn't nothing. Instead, it's rather disturbing. Conyers' actions were deliberate and they were repetitious in nature.
This is an early test of Ms. Pelosi's veracity, too. She's already letting John Murtha, one of CREW's most corrupt Washington politicians chair the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. If she's willing to let a corrupt person like John Conyers chair one of the most powerful House committees, how can we take her seriously when she says that she'll run the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history? That a nice soundbite but it isn't based in reality, at least based on the facts I've presented thus far.
The finding by the ethics panel could spark debate, and perhaps eclipse, the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority's plans to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers' standing to chair the Judiciary Committee.Ms. Pelosi isn't the only person on the hot seat over this issue. If the editors at the Washington Post, the NY Times and the LA Times don't give this serious coverage, then we'll have additional proof that these media outlets aren't serious about reporting important facts about Democratic corruption. This wouldn't be shocking but it is more ammunition that the major media outlets aren't serious, reliable news-gathering outlets.
A spokesman for Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Conyers will remain chairman of the Judiciary Committee.The Hill is a respected Capitol Hill magazine. They generally employ trustworthy reporters. Let's see how the 'Big Three' newspapers react to the Hill's article. Let's see if they take Ms. Pelosi to task for keeping Conyers as Judiciary Committee Chairman. Let's see if the major media outlets will start questioning Pelosi's ability to lead. Let's see if they start questioning her judgment. Based on the decisions she's made thus far, it's safe to say that she's a walking disaster for the Democratic Party. She's giving Republicans a ton of ammunition to campaign on already and she hasn't even been sworn in yet.
The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers' aides alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state
campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.
It's obvious that Conyers knowingly and repeatedly violated House ethics guidelines. I don't see why a slap on the wrist is in order for such a willing disregard for the House ethics rules. What's more alarming is that Conyers is the clown that's all bent out of shape over President Bush's infamous Sixteen Words, claiming that that sentence, combined with the Downing Street Memos, constitute grounds for impeachment.
Let's also remember this bit of Conyers history:
Working with Conyers , the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).
In other words, John Conyers has a history of caving into his Muslim constituents by attempting to gut the USA Patriot Act. That official statement was made prior to the Democratic National Convention in July, 2004. If you think that's ancient history, think again:
Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for "prejudice and ignorance." CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.Part of this legislation is to make racial profiling illegal, thereby gutting the USA Patriot Act.
Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:04 PM
No comments.
Minnesota Football Coach Fired
No, I'm not talking about Brad Childress. I'm talking about Glen Mason. Here's what the Strib's Chip Scroggins is reporting:
One year after signing a five-year contract, Gophers football coach Glen Mason was fired Sunday. The move comes after Mason's 10th season and two days after the Gophers blew a 31-point lead against Texas Tech in a 44-41 loss in the Insight Bowl. It was the largest collapse in bowl game history.Mason's firing is a complete surprise to me. Frankly, this firing totally blindsided me. I don't know if Minnesota AD Joel Maturi has a plan at this juncture. Frankly, I'm not confident in Maturi's decision-making abilities, especially after seeing him fumble the Dan Monson travesty. If I were Bob Bruininks, I'd fire Maturi & start from scratch.
Glen Mason fielded some fun teams but they never got over the hump. His defenses were porous & his offenses were panicky at all the wrong times. On the plus side, Mason did recruit some awfully talented runners, including the Patriots' Laurence Maroney and the Cowboys' Marion Barber III.
While the running game was the positive Mason trademark, fourth quarter collapses were the negative downside. Avid Gophers' fans were heartbroken when the Gophers squandered a big halftime lead against Michigan in 2003. That Gopher team lost 38-35 because they gave up 31 points in the fourth quarter. Remember that this was a game where the Gophers running game was hitting on all cylinders, ripping a talented Michigan defense for 424 yards rushing in just 53 carries, an 8 yard per carry average.
This past Friday night, Mason's Gophers ran up a 35-7 halftime lead, only to lose 44-41 in overtime, giving up 24 fourth quarter points. A veteran team with a senior QB and a talented pair of running backs shouldn't lose after getting that big of a lead.
In my opinion, it's time to clean house within the Gophers' athletic department. Mason isn't a bad coach but his teams definitely underachieved based on the talent he had.
Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment 1 by MariesTwoCents at 02-Jan-07 05:26 PM
Off topic here but Happy New Year to you and yours!!!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-07 07:23 PM
Thanks Marie. Happy New Year Yourself.
