September 8, 2008
Sep 08 01:04 Mark Olson, Part IV: Addressing a Crackpot Sep 08 02:36 What's the Big Deal? Sep 08 09:11 A Tale of Two Women Sep 08 10:31 Chris Kumpula's Mission Sep 08 14:15 Oil To Punge More? Sep 08 21:14 Panic-Stricken Liberals?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Mark Olson, Part IV: Addressing a Crackpot
It isn't often that I do this but a commenter said some things that need addressing point-by-point. Here's the first point that needs addressing:
First off, let me make the blanket statement that you have NOT been fair to Mark Olson in this whole debacle. This isn't about how ridiculous his supporters can be. This is about whether or not Mark Olson deserves to continue to serve the people of his district, this time in the State Senate.Mark Olson hasn't been fair. He's broken promises. He's committed crimes. (He pled guilty to one crime; he was convicted of another.) Furthermore, it is about his supporters because they've used threats and intimidation against Alison Krueger. I determine , not some crackpot, what content goes onto my blog .
As for whether or not Olson "deserves to continue to serve the people of his district", the answer is no. In a questionnaire given to the House candidates for HD-16B, Mark Olson said that he strongly agreed that an "elected official" should resign and lose their pension and benefits "upon conviction of felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude." On August 16, 2007, Mark Olson was convicted of Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death.
Why should anyone trust him if Mark Olson picks and chooses which promises he'll keep or which laws he'll ignore? That's extremely fair. PERIOD.
Here's the second point that needs direct addressing:
Second, I am curious as to whether or not YOU are a resident of SD-16 or if you are just some embattled republican who is angry that this chap DARE run for public office ever again, Please, in your next post, make that VERY clear and make it clear what your role is in this whole debate.I'm not a resident of SD-16. If I were, I would've doorknocked the district, without Alison Krueger's permission, for her. As for whether I'm "angry that this chap DARE run for public office ever again", the answer is no. I'm quite pissed, not just angry, that a dirtbag and convicted criminal dares run for office, especially after saying that he strongly agrees that the state Republican Party should Adopt "codes of conduct for all Minnesota elected officials that require resignation and loss of pension and benefits upon conviction of felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude."
Let me make this perfectly clear: Elected officials that say one thing, then do the opposite, especially on matters of integrity, should be immediately rejected by everyone. That's because integrity matters. That 90+ delegates said differently says that Mr. Olson isn't the only person who doesn't consider integrity an important character trait.
Third, regardless of how his supporters have conducted themselves, Mark Olson WAS convicted of a lesser charge and has...taken his ousting from the House GOP caucus in stride and made the best of the situation and continued to fight for the GOP and common sense values in the legislature.Integrity matters, except, it appears, to Mark Olson and the delegates to the SD-16 endorsing convention. The trouble with Olson is that he's taken his ousting from the House GOP caucus a bit too much in stride. It's like he didn't even notice the chastening he got.
This bit with Allison Krueger and the Senate GOP and Norm Coleman absolutely disgusts me. Mark Olson won the endorsement fair and square, no matter which way you try and frame it. Regardless of who has done what since, whatever allegations have been made, unless it is something Mark has done, it isn't news, so please stop pretending it is.1) I don't care that you're disgusted with the Senate GOP or Sen. Coleman. (2) I agree that Olson got enough delegates to win the endorsement. I haven't disputed that in any of my posts. My problem with his getting endorsed was his seeking the endorsement instead of retiring. Stepping aside and honoring his promise would've been an act of integrity. He failed that test miserably.
As for the assertion that "it isn't news" that Mark Olson's supporters used threats and intimidation against Alison Krueger, that's a laughable statement at best. Since when isn't it news when people attempt to intimidate people running for public office? If you asked thoughtful journalists if that was news, I'm betting that they'd speak with unanimity that it's news.
This SD-16 race should NOT be interfered with by hot shots in St. Paul, or bloggers with a vendetta.As a blogger, I've consistently written about corruption wherever it's found. I've written about corruption when I found it in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. I certainly wrote about the corruption machine named John Murtha. I've written about Mark Foley's acts of corruption. In fact, I won't stop writing about corruption.
The fact that I got this comment tells me that Mark Olson's supporters recognize that I have the potential of damaging their golden boy. That's flattering, actually.
I sincerely hope that SD-16 will re-elect Mark Olson. He is a humble, kind, fight-for-what's-right, TRUE conservative man.Lisa Fobbe will beat him like a drum if Olson wins the primary, thereby, hopefully, ending the career of a corrupt politician. Take that to the bank. If Olson wins the primary, the DFL will hit the airwaves and hit the streets with the information that I've laid out about Olson. In case you haven't noticed, corruption doesn't sell these days. Mark Olson is as corrupt as it gets. It's time for him to go.
More importantly, it's time that the people of SD-16 replaced the executive board. They should've intervened the minute he was convicted of a crime. They should've made clear that corruption, even by someone who 'votes right', isn't acceptable. Had he refused to get the message, they should've rejected him at the endorsing conventions. PERIOD.
If Mark's wife can forgive and move on, we should all follow suit.In this instance, moving on the right way is in eliminating this corrupt individual from public office.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 1:04 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 08-Sep-08 09:38 AM
Oh Hillary Clinton forgave Bill. I guess than we should forgive bill for trying to rig a lawsuit and for those people who read the lawsuit forgive him the disgust I had when I read a letter that Monica sent Bill which was in effect a blackmail letter. What kind of sick rational is that by this reader. He must be one of those 90 idiots who want to hand this Senate to the Democrats for at least two years.
As a person who obviously isn't in Minneapolis I urge every voter in Senate District 16 to show up and vote for Alison Krugger to clean up the Republican Party!
That's why we lost in 2006. In 2008 the Republicans are being attacked nationally because we're allowing Larry Craig to finish his term instead of forcing him to resing immediately. What does it say for Minnesota Republicans because we accept a man who did things far worse than Larry Craig!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
What's the Big Deal?
The NY Times is reporting that MSDNC has picked David Gregory to "anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night." Big deal:
After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.Instead of there being two hotheaded egotistical liberals on stage, they'll now have three. I don't think that's the definition of reform to most people. I guess that's MSDNC's definition. Perhaps that's why they're in the situation they're in.
The funniest quote from the article comes from MSDENC's President Phil Griffin:
"In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate," Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, "the bottom line is that we're experiencing incredible success."MSDNC consistently comes in last in the ratings. What sane person would characterize that as "experiencing incredible success"? That's spin that a Clintonista would admire. I'm certain that consistently finishing last wouldn't be characterized as "experiencing incredible success" elsewhere in the business community. I'm betting that the executives at NBC News consider it success, either.
In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of "Hardball," began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair's "SportsCenter"-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly anchor on election night, something that has never happened, MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.MSDNC can insist all it wants. The proof tells a different story. I'm finicky that way: I'll trust proof over everything else because talk is cheap.
It's easy to figure out what's happened if you pay attention to what just happened. This isn't a big deal. Thinking that David Gregory, one of the most partisan White House correspondents around, will control Chris Matthews, much less Keith Olbermann, is foolish. If MSDNC wants to be taken seriously, they should get serious commentators/analysts. Until then, they'll be treated with disdain.
They'll deserve being viewed as the laughingstock of the news industry.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 2:38 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 08-Sep-08 09:29 AM
I think what drove MSNBC over the top was during the convention Obermann waited until he was on camera alone and attacked the Republicans for disgustingly using 9-11 because they had played a tape of it and it had some bad pictures.
I guess Keith isn't aware that 9-11 was more significant in our history than the attack on Pearl Harbor. At least with Pearl Harbor it was a real military target. The targets for the trade center were civilians because that is what the terrorists do.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
A Tale of Two Women
I just finished reading two articles, one written by Tammy Bruce , the other by Michelle Cottle . To say that the difference in their perspectives is stark is understatement. Here's a telling sample of Ms. Cottle's column:
Of course, these days, the feminist mantle is claimed by pro-life conservatives and pro-choice progressives alike. Palin herself is a proud member of Feminists for Life. Feminism seems no longer to denote a particular set of values or ideological agenda; it is merely a label appropriated to proclaim that one is committed to the best interests of women, whatever one believes those to be. Thus far, there's no reason to doubt that Palin devoutly believes her hard-core conservatism is right for women. A McCain-Palin White House, however, would spell only trouble for women's rights.Ms. Cottle never explains why she thinks that a McCain-Palin administration "would spell only trouble for women's rights." She just says that it would. The 'feminist agenda' is the only thing that seems to matter with Ms. Cottle. I can't criticize Ms. Cottle's passion for her principles. I can just say that her reaction is a little panicked.
Compare that with the central point in Ms. Bruce's article:
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.With Ms. Bruce, it isn't all about the 'feminist agenda'. It's about a bigger picture. Ms. Bruce's pro choice credentials are indisputable to thinking people. That isn't what drives Ms. Bruce, though. It's apparent that liberty and maximizing options is the main thing for her.
It's apparent that these ladies come from two different schools of thought: Ms. Cottle belongs to the so-called Feminist Movement; Ms. Bruce is from the old-schooled Women's Liberation Movement. The Feminist Movement is centered on a specific political agenda. The Women's Liberation Movement is based more on liberty and choices than on a political agenda.
I'm betting that, at least in this election, liberty will trump ideology. Here's why that's important. A specific, narrow ideological perspective potentially limits freedom and mandates strict adherence. That's what's fueling the Left's criticism of Sarah Palin. Conversely, liberty tells women that they're accepted regardless of political ideology. Acceptance that's judgment-free is appealing. One might think of women's liberation as the libertarian movement for women.
The Democrats' insistence on ideological purity is what's causing this backlash. All people, whether man or woman, want to make their own decisions free of criticism. That's mankind's predisposition. Now that women see the difference in the two parties' perspective, don't be surprised if more women give the Republican Party serious consideration.
There's another problem Democrats will have to deal with. Democrats, like Sen. Obama, have talked the talk. Now that John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, real competition for the women's vote will start in earnest. The minute that the Democrats can't count on dominating that vote is the day that they start losing consistently.
The last thing that Democrats want to do is have to justify their policies.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 9:13 AM
No comments.
Chris Kumpula's Mission
Chris Kumpula has waged a month-long vendetta on behalf of Mark Olson. During that time, he's used every tool at his avail. Where I have a problem with Mr. Kumpula is when he makes unsubstantiated accusations. Here's one of his emails to Alison Krueger:
Alison,Mr. Kumpula says that Mark Olson's support for question D isn't a pledge. He's suggesting that it's just his answer to something on a questionnaire. Here's what question D is:
You are as manipulative as your dishonest in your whining that Mark Olson did not keep his "pledge." What you are referring to (supposedly a pledge) is actually a candidate questionnaire which all candidates seeking endorsement were given the opportunity to fill-out. Candidates indicated their level of support for platform planks and commented on their rankings. You, unlike Mark, decided not to fill-out this document to let folks know your positions on the issues that citizens care about. This document was NON-BINDING. It was NOT a pledge, and you know that full well. At least he had the guts and courtesy to fill it out.
You broke your pledge this weekend when your campaign- I repeat YOUR CAMPAIGN- sent out flyers for Alison Krueger for SD16 (paid for by you). What happened to not running? What about not openly campaigning?" Alsion, I don't think there are many people left in our district who would trust you to tell them the earth is round.
I especially appreciated this flyer since it painted you as a candidate with "integrity" who is "accessible." You don't answer calls, emails, mail, or even certified mail. Twice, TWICE, you, "Miss Accessible," rejected official mail form the HD16B MNGOP. Why wouldn't you even read it? Why complain in the papers about being barraged by attacks when you won't even receive them? Mark is at least accessible- too accessible. My word, he publishes his phone number too much- too much access with mark and zero access with you!
I have been continually stunned by your actions and those who support you. The illogical logic of Herwig, the disastrous decisions of Wergin, the endorsement of the meddling Senate Caucus, the flip-flopping sentiments of Senjem, the ignorant statements of Coleman, and the incompetent, weak response of Carey have been stunning to the core. There has been even more than that. I have never seen such an array of political blunders, deception, and malice as I have this last month. Your actions and theirs have been shameful.
I did not know you well at all when you started this campaign, but I have a very clear picture of who you are today. It has been my greatest displeasure to associate with you and deal with the mess you and others have made. I would trust Al Franken more than you if he said he was going to cut taxes, secure the borders, fight against abortion, or work for 2nd amendment rights- and we all know what a statement THAT is. I am thrilled I will no longer have a need to deal with your lies and the mess they have created after Tuesday.
Thanks for breaking your signed pledge.
D. Adopting codes of conduct for all Minnesota elected officials that require resignation and loss of pension and benefits upon conviction of felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude.Mark Olson signified that he strongly agreed with that principle . The problem for him is that he's a convicted criminal who phyically threatened his wife.
That isn't opinion. That's the court's finding of fact . The debate ends there .
While Mark Olson didn't sign a document saying that he'd abide by that principle, it isn't a stretch to think that one should live out their strongly held beliefs. Not following through on that says that that person isn't trustworthy. If Mr. Kumpula wants to stake his hat on the head of that pin, he's welcome to do so.
Then Mr. Kumpula says this:
You, unlike Mark, decided not to fill-out this document to let folks know your positions on the issues that citizens care about.I'll reject that accusation until I see documented proof that that's what happened.
I'd further suggest that filling the questionnaire out, then doing the opposite of his answer, isn't a plus for Mr. Olson.
Here's another Kumpala accusation:
You broke your pledge this weekend when your campaign- I repeat YOUR CAMPAIGN- sent out flyers for Alison Krueger for SD16 (paid for by you).Has Mr. Kumpula checked Mr. Krueger's campaign documents? Did Ms. Krueger's campaign documents show an expenditure for either printing these alleged lit pieces or the mailing of these alleged lit pieces? If he's got proof of that, then it's important that he show us this proof.
Twice, TWICE, you, "Miss Accessible," rejected official mail form the HD16B MNGOP.Imagine that. Ms. Krueger doesn't want to respond to a group of Olson cronies. I'm shocked, shocked to the core.
Let's show everyone what Mr. Kumpula's role has been the past month. This email says everything that needs be said:
Ok folks,This proves that Mr. Kumpula is nothing more than a Mark Olson apologist who thinks that Mark Olson can do no wrong because he votes the 'right way' . Mr. Kumpula hasn't realized that people demand that their elected officials be people of integrity . Mark Olson was covicted of a serious crime. Mark Olson told the BPOU that he strongly agreed that "elected officials" should resign immediately and lose their pension and benefits.
First, I would like someone to forward this to other SD16 leadership as usual. We have had a very successful few days in getting the issue of Mark Olson's Endorsement out into the open to talk about. Jason Lewis spent time on his show yesterday and today to help attack the Senate Caucus Republicans. We have successfully taken a page 7 blurb and turned it into front page news. We need to keep the pressure on and keep getting word out to folks in our district. We have about 3 weeks before a Sept. 9th primary. Until we receive official written confirmation from Alison Krueger that she will not run for the SD16 seat and also receive a written public endorsement from her for Mark Olson, we must assume that Krueger is still attempting to run in the primary. We need to keep pressure on her to do so and add pressure to the Republican State Senate Caucus and Norm Coleman to withdraw support for Krueger. I have drafted three letters attached in a single word file. They are addressed to Alison Krueger, the Senate Caucus Republicans, and Norm Coleman. I would like to see these signed by the persons listed. How we get these signatures is the thing I do not understand. Perhaps letters should be sent individually to signers to send to the appropriate recipients? Have Ron Carey, Mark Swanson, etc sign and fax them to us to deliver to Alison Krueger?
I want to use the authority of the entire GOP leadership to bat down the senate caucus and Norm Coleman. It would also help keep pressure on Alison to do what she needs to do. These letters, if signed by the appropriate persons, will have great weight. We would have the signatures of House, Senate, Congressional, and Statewide GOP authorities signing.
Mark Swanson said we in the GOP couldn't do anymore about Krueger and the Senate Caucus on Jason Lewis' show. Well, this is one more thing we can do. It's just very important we get out to the folks of SD16 to get them out there to vote for Mark. This letter may give us a big stick to help our candidates. We need to get these signatures.
-Chris
Instead of resigning, he chose to run for the SD-16 Senate seat in a special election.
That isn't what a man of integrity does. That's what a self-centered man who doesn't care about integrity does. If Mark Olson won't do the right thing by himself and retire, then I hope the voters of SD-16 throw him an involuntary retirement party this fall.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment 1 by Chris Kumpula at 08-Sep-08 06:18 PM
Surprised to hear someone was writing about my little blog.
-You agree with me then that it was NOT a pledge but merely a questionnaire which was designed to give delegates candidate information, yes? Your point? Alison claimed he signed some sort of pledge- you are not seriously suggesting this is one, are you? Ludicrous.
-Documented proof that Alison failed to fill-out the questionnaire? Haha! Very funny. No, I was there, along with many dozens of folks. She did not get it done. If she did, her comments would appear on the questionnaires distributed at the convention. She didn't fill it out, period. Want to see the documentation? Call ANYONE who attended- they probably still have a copy. I have a bunch if you like.
-Proof that the flyer's are from her campaign? Have you even seen the flyer? Haha!
-She rejected mail from the official BPOU executive Committee of her district. Maybe it was a campaign check. She was hiding under a rock so she can keep this "I'm not campaigning" crud going.
-Am I an Olson apologist? No, I don't think so. But I have been fighting like crazy to keep the MNGOP a party of LOCAL control, fighting to keep elites out of the district and off the grassroots. Everyone wanted to believe that Alison was honestly going to abide by the decision. That didn't happen. Mark Olson is the endorsed Republican.
Now, as far as my email, which I can only guess (chuckles) who sent it, I have not lied and backstabbed like this woman has. I have been working ragged to make sure folks know what really happened with this whole mess, know the truth. I want to make sure that folks don't get away with plastering an honest man who will continue to do a good job in the senate. The man is running because he believes the people want him to continue to fight for conservative values- for family, faith, and freedom. I know a lot of you don't get that, but some of you must be getting that picture by now.
You bet your buttons I am trying to get the truth out there and stop this mess from getting bigger. Congratulations on finally figuring out I support Mark Olson- what a magnanimous discovery... not.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-08 08:28 PM
Am I an Olson apologist? No, I don't think so.
Yeah you are. PERIOD.
But I have been fighting like crazy to keep the MNGOP a party of LOCAL control, fighting to keep elites out of the district and off the grassroots.
Your paranoia about elitists is hilarious. Mark Olson is the elitist. He says that he strongly agrees that elected officials who've been convicted of a "felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude" should resign immediately & lose their pension & benefits. EXCEPT WHEN IT INVOLVES HIM.
His supporters are peddling the trash that Alison was drunk when she showed up at the endorsing convention. The trouble with that is that I know some people at the convention, people who've told me directly that that's a pile of BS.
Mark Olson is the endorsed Republican.
Sadly, the delegates don't put a priority on integrity. They've been Olson apologists. If you want the Republican Party to be the minority for a generation, you're taking it in that direction. People care about integrity. Mark Olson's political career ended with the call to 9-1-1. It's just that he's refused to resign & retire.
I want to make sure that folks don't get away with plastering an honest man who will continue to do a good job in the senate.
Honest man? You're kidding, right? The guy's a dirtbag.
The thing that Olson's doing to the district is losing that seat. The minute the primary is over, the DFL will plaster houses with lit pieces with nothing more than Mark Olson's mug shot.
Mark Olson needed to step aside but his ego wouldn't allow him to. Now we're gonna lose the seat.
Like I said, the guy's the picture of egomaniac.
Oil To Punge More?
Scott Bleier, the man who predicted the mid-July peak, is predicting oil will trade in the $70-$80/bbl range . Whether he's right or not, I don't have the economic expertise to say yes or no but I'm not foolish enough to dismiss him outright. Here's what Mr. Bleier is saying:
"The commodity trade is over," Scott Bleier, founder of CreateCapital.com, declared on July 18 , a bold call that has proven directionally accurate to date.We'll see what effect the strengthening of the dollar will have, too.
On Monday, Bleier reiterated his view that speculation played an oversized role in the commodity rally, which peaked in mid-July.
But now, hedge funds are exiting the space (as detailed here ) as the short-term uptrends for oil, gold, copper, and other hard assets have broken and the "hot money" sees better opportunities elsewhere.
While "headline risk" remains for commodity prices, the "liquidation will continue" for another 12 to 18 months, Bleier says, predicting oil will hit $70 to $80 per barrel by mid-2009.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 08-Sep-08 03:55 PM
That might explain why OPEC is talking about trying to reduce production. They see this coming. The only way to keep the price up is to reduce supply. Obviously that is why we have to drill now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by anokacountyred at 08-Sep-08 06:50 PM
The strength of America's reslove in the Middle East and for victory in Irag continue to drive down the price of oil. As the surge continues to provide results the "war premium" will become smaller. The "Pelosi Premium" loonies will keep stalling until we pressure them into drilling more and "All of the Above" Republican solutions.
Panic-Stricken Liberals?
If you want to know how panicked Democrats are, you needn't look further than this post .Check out this rant:
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.First off, the Democrats don't have a "terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate." They've got Sen. Hopeandchange at the top of the ticket and Slow Joe 2.0 as his running mate. That's hardly the dynamic duo. Over on the SC Times Story Chat, I posted this comment:
I think some Democrats, not many by any means, are having buyer's remorse. I think that Democrats are wondering if Hillary wouldn't have been a better general election candidate.It didn't take long before a liberal commenter posted this:
More than you think.That kinda startled me, both because of how quick the reply came and in the disenchantment it represents. This ties into something else, too. Pundits keep talking about whether Gov. Palin will be able to pick off disenchanted Hillary women voters. The answer is yes but it's almost immaterial compared with other factors. Gov. Palin will appeal to suburban women who might be pro-choice but for whom that issue isn't the issue . An indicator that this is more than a phenomenon is how Kirsten Powers has defended Gov. Palin against the Left's most ruthless attacks and in Geraldine Ferraro's refusal to say who she'll vote for this November.
Although most of "us" tried to warn "them"... unfortunatly we couldn't compete with the obscure promise of "hope & change"... as well as the media's refusal to show Barry's negative side.
If the Ruthless Wing of the Democratic Party hadn't treated Gov. Palin this harshly, these women would likely have been firmly in the Democrats' camp. Instead, they're ambivalent at best. That doesn't bode well for Democrats.
The thing that confirmed that the left has lost it was this:
It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.Anytime liberals whine about the conservative media bias, it's proof that they're panicking. That's strong enough proof for me that I'd bet the proverbial ranch that they're panicking.
So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
This is what happens when you pick a neophyte like Sen. Obama insted of picking a candidate like a Kathleen Sebelius or another fresh-faced governor. Senators don't usually make great presidential candidates. It's interesting to note that the last senator who became president, JFK, was a war hero in his own right. He was a decisionmaker. When he was in the military, John McCain was a decisionmaker, too. Interesting, isn't it?
Here's the most revealing part of the post:
So what do we do?This is utterly laughable. The newspapers are dispatching reporters to Alaska to find the tiniest pebble against Sarah Palin but the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times can't be bothered to dig into Sen. Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko or William Ayers? The guy who posted this is right; we don't have a press in this nation. That's why serious people like Stanley Kurtz have to do the vetting.
1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game, the internet, as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch, all want profits and the candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.
Here in Minnesota, Lori Sturdevant is as reliably liberal as you'll find. When it became apparent that the DFL would endorse Al Franken, a proven disaster, Ms. Sturdevant asked why nobody had vetted Franken. I said then that a reporter who'd have access within the DFL, like Lori Sturdevant, should've been able to vet Al Franken rather quickly.
That's why the Agenda Media's bias against conservatives is actually hurting liberals. People find the Agenda Media's bias disgusting. Every time that the Agenda Media attacks Sarah Palin but says nothing about Sen. Obama's ties to terrorists, racists and fanatics, the backlash builds.
If Democrats' media allies want to pursue this strategy, they're welcome to do so. It just makes bloggers' jobs easier to find content.
Posted Monday, September 8, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 08-Sep-08 09:33 PM
Lets not forget one other thing. Democrats are delussional. Take this person.
The Republicans didn't have control of the Congress for the entire six years which this person claimed. The Democrats thank to the defection of Jim Jeffords in 2001 controlled the Senate from 2001-2003. Not to mention if we had control of the US Supreme Court there would've been a lot more rational and better decisions over the years. We wouldn't had the ridiculous need to keep going to the Supreme Court and losing on how to treat the terror prisoners. The appointments of Roberts and Alito have created four reliable conservative.
One reason why this election is so important a lot of us understand getting that important fifth vote appointed. An Obama presidency can seal the court 5-4 if not 6-3 for several years.
That's why the Democrats will lose is because they are delillusional. Part of the Democrats battle cry this year is people voted to approve the war. Excuse didn't half the Democrats including their last nominee vote to approve it?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
