Last Sunday night, Wellstone Action (as usual) held a post-election round up; the turnout was great as they packed the Parkway Theatre in South Minneapolis. Rather than a round-up, though, this year it morphed into a series of speeches to rally the faithful. And it felt good; going in the slits on the ol’ TwoPutter’s wrists were still scabbing over; at the end, the scabs were heaing.
Mark Dayton started the speechtacular off; followed by Al Franken, Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, Jim Hightower (dressed appropriately in Texan garb complete with what had to be at least a 50 gallon hat), down through newly elected State Rep Rena Moran.
All told a progressive/populist story, all told of stories that didn’t get told – all talked of how the messaging didn’t get out. Because it’s a good message; Senator Franken decimated the “government can’t creat jobs!” TeaBagger argument. Just killed it. But, if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, did it make a sound?
Afterwards, I asked a lot of attendees what they were walking away with; virtually all were talking about a re-dedication to “getting the messaging out.” When asked how to do just that, they all talked about door-knocking, phone banking, one-on-one conversations, yada yada yada to tell the progressive story. None seemed to see that that’s all good and well; (indeed, the story can’t be told without it); but that and that alone simply isn’t enough.
No one seemed to realize how the GOP has taken technology and social media by storm to propagate the “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama was born in Kenya” and “Get your gov’t hands off my Medicare” and “Norm Coleman was robbed” and “Mark Ritchie rigged the last one for Al and is going to do it again for Mark Dayton ” and…. well, Gentle Readers, you should get the point.
Here’s my point: in the seven days since the election, everyone seems to be talking about the fact that there is a messaging problem; no one seems to be talking about how to fix the messaging distribution infrastructure so the message gets out.
I’ll be very clear: the GOP looks at social media as a tool; on our side, social media is looked at as a social disease.
Hey – everyone knows social media is NOT the end-all; NOT the be-all. Social Media is simply a link in the chain.
It’s a link the GOP is exploiting, because from my vantage point, it’s the progressive’s weakest link.
There’s a problem here, Gentle Readers, and it needs to be fixed.
(cross posted from MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)
In 2003, Al Franken wrote LIES And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
In my copy, in the chapter titled “Who Created the Tone?” Al wrote:
“(T)urning the public arena into a wasteland of personal destruction takes an entire army of like-minded ideologues hell-bent on shredding the already tattered standards of decency that once permitted a reasonable discourse on matters of import.
The left, sadly, has no such army. Our attack dogs are a scrawny, underfed pack of mutts that spend half the time chasing their own tails and sniffing each other’s butt. The right, by contrast, appears to have a well-oiled puppy mill for pit bulls, bred to kill and trained to go for the jugular. Or the balls.” (from LIES And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)
Al wrote that in 2003. Who can tell me what – if anything – has changed in the last 7 years?
(cross posted from Mn Progressive Project; comments welcome there)
The July 2009 edition of Democratic Visions begins its month long run on Comcast Channel 16 tonight, Sunday July 12 at 9 pm in Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Edina and Richfield. The program also can be seen on Wednesdays at 5:30 p.m.
Each of July’s segments are also posted on our Democratic Visions YouTube Channel. The Al Franken segment is a shortened version of a video Jeff Strate produced last year but now includes exclusive footage of Al’s victory rally on July 1 in St. Paul. That footage was lensed by yours truly, the ol’ TwoPutter.
First up, below the fold, is the Steve Kelley segment, followed by Minnetonka Council Member Amber Greves’ segment, with Jeff’s Al Franken segment finishing out the show.
It’s a good show – so watch tonight if you can, or go get some popcorn and watch right now!
(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)
Incredible. At the same time Norm Coleman played the “gracious concession” act, the State Republican Party showed their true colors with their official press release:
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman-elect Tony Sutton today issued the following statement regarding the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in the U.S. Senate race.
“Today’s ruling wrongly disenfranchised thousands of Minnesotans who deserve to have their votes counted. Alongside Senator Coleman, the Republican Party of Minnesota has fought to make sure every vote counts and all voters are treated fairly and uniformly. As we move forward, our deeply flawed election system must be dramatically improved to ensure our state’s elections are fair, accurate and reliable.” (Republican Party of Minnesota)
In other words, “Norm wuz robbed.”
Classless.
That’s the way the state GOP Party was under former Chairman Ron Carey; that’s the way it will remain under new Chairman Tony Sutton.
(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)
ThinkProgress.org got the recording of Princess SparklePony on The Moonie Times’ radio “show”:
What Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive said, BEFORE she said she was gonna break the law, is worth repeating. Here’s the transcript:
(0:25) I come from Minnesota. We’re still in a recount with our Senate race between Senator Norm Coleman and the challenger, Al Franken. Senator Coleman won the race on Election Day but that was challenged repeatedly over and over with what we feel may be fraudulent votes and very concerned about what goes forward.
“fradulent votes”, eh? That’s what you “think”, Michele?
Why, just the other day (June 1st, to be exact) Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Christopher Dietzen said he saw “no evidence or fraud or misconduct.” And Justice Dietzen said that in court.
That same day, in that same court, another Minnesota Supreme Court Justice asked Norm Coleman’s attorney, Joe Friedberg, very pointedly if their were any instances of fraud. Norm Coleman’s attorney – NORM COLEMAN’S ATTORNEY – answered emphatically “absolutely not” and added that there was no fraud of any kind; election, voter or otherwise.
But, hey – today’s GOP playbook is ignore the debunking and repeat, Repeat, and REPEAT the debunked stuff over and Over and OVER, as Bachmann just did: the “fraudulent vote (debunked) theory.”
In the rightwingworld, Norm “Smokescreen” Coleman “wuz robbed.” That’s their story, and they’re stickin’ to it.
(crossposted from MnProgressiveProject)
FRANKEN’S SPOKESWOMAN CLAIMS THE FRANKENS NEVER RECEIVED THE NOTICES FROM THE WORKERS’ COMP BOARD
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 6, 2008
“McIntosh said the Frankens never received the nearly one dozen notices that New York officials had sent them since April 2005.
‘Had they gotten the notices, you know they would have paid them,’ McIntosh said. ‘The Republicans were going to jump on this eventually, so it wouldn’t have been politically expedient [for the Frankens] to wait for that to happen.’
Franken, Nelson-Pallmeyer and Ciresi are vying for the DFL Party endorsement to challenge Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. The insurance dispute was first reported Tuesday on the Minnesota Democrats Exposed website, run by Republican blogger Michael Brodkorb.” Source: Star Tribune, March 6, 2008
Click here for the complete story.
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Topics: Uncategorized |
13 Responses to “FRANKEN’S SPOKESWOMAN CLAIMS THE FRANKENS NEVER RECEIVED THE NOTICES FROM THE WORKERS’ COMP BOARD”
el presidente Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Does Franken’s SPOKEwoman, as you put it, work in a bicycle shop?
Michael B. Brodkorb Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Nice catch, the post has been corrected. Thanks.
el presidente Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
What about the other one?
TwoPuttTommy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
***“Other campaigns have been cited and fined for failing to provide workers’ comp coverage, including that of Third District Rep. Jim Ramstad, Second District Rep. John Kline, and Sixth District Rep. Mark Kennedy, all Republicans, and gubernatorial candidates Roger Moe, a DFLer, and Tim Penny of the Independence Party.“***
Say, Michael?
Didn’t you work for Little Markie?
Were YOU covered??!?
el presidente Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
You’ll be able to locate the other SPOKEwoman’s twin in the title at: March 6, 2008, 10:31 a.m.
Michael B. Brodkorb Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
TPT: I was a part-time consultant during Kennedy’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. I believe the article is referring to Kennedy’s campaigns for the House.
TwoPuttTommy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Say, Michael?
Which campaigns were they referring to, for Kline?
How ’bout Rammers?
Probably federal, doncha think?
Michael B. Brodkorb Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I’m not sure. I would suggest you contact the reporter.
TwoPuttTommy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Michael, just outa curiosity:
Do you remember any campaigns that Kline and Ramstad ran, that weren’t for federal office?
Eighteen threads on the worker’s comp deal, and the only thing we now know is that Kennedy, Kline, Rammer, and Franken all got something in common?
Michael – you should really be proud….
Michael B. Brodkorb Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
TPT: Ramstad was a state senator before he ran for congress.
TwoPuttTommy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
So, Michael – just when DID Ramstad get in trouble with “worker’s comp” – state office, or federal?
Michael B. Brodkorb Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
TPT: As I wrote before, I have no idea. If you have questions, please contact the reporter.
TwoPuttTommy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Well, Michael – at least you’re admitting, you’re no definitive source….
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I’d like to share the commentary of Jim Bootz, concerning the recent Candidate Endorsements by the DFL Veterans Caucus, to fellow members of the Caucus.
From Jim Bootz, Chair of the DFL Veterans Caucus:
***
I had mentioned earlier that I was going to comment on the choices that were made on our three early endorsements, and I think I’ve finally got time to do it.
There probably isn’t much that needs to be said about the endorsements of Sarvi and Madia. I think we all agree that they’re great choices. The first was unanimous and the second was nearly that.
There was a bit less of a consensus on the endorsement of a Senate candidate, though it wasn’t really close. I’d just like to make a few points about the reasoning behind my vote. Any and all of you are welcome to do the same.
As far as the criteria that we use to endorse a candidate on behalf of the Veterans Caucus, probably the most concise way of wording it is to ask just one question: “Who would best serve the interests of veterans, active military, and their families?” That’s the one area that should be of equal importance to all caucus members. As individuals, we have other issues that we feel are important, possibly even more important than veterans issues. But, we shouldn’t be taking those into consideration in the decision to endorse. If we do, we’re not serving the caucus anymore, we’re serving ourselves. Most likely there are some Vets Caucus members who consider themselves pro-choice and some who consider themselves pro-life. But, if we start bringing those biases into the equation, then we’ll be trying to turn the Veterans Caucus into the “Pro-Choice Veterans Caucus” or the “Pro-Life Veterans Caucus”. And, we’re neither.
If anyone has read even a few of the letters to the editor that I’ve managed to get printed in the Star-Tribune, there should be no doubt about where I stand on the Iraq War, and it’s a position that I’ve held from the very start. But, nowhere in the founding or the intent or the mission statement of the DFL Veterans Caucus was there any mention of it being a vehicle for an anti-war message. It’s as simple as this: the Vets Caucus has a pro-veteran agenda, not an anti-war agenda. There are plenty of good pro-veteran and pro-troop arguments to be made against Bush’s war. But, I’d have to ask this about the candidate: Is his stance against the war one of many ways that he supports veterans, or is support for veterans just one of the many facets of his overall anti-war stance? In other words, where is his primary focus?
And, then ask, not only “Where is that focus now?” but “Where has that focus been in the past?” One Senate candidate has been speaking publicly on behalf of veterans and active duty service members for several years. The same candidate has made several trips to visit with the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and made a learning experience out of it. Again, that same candidate has used his books, editorials, speaking engagements, and a nationwide talk radio show to inform the public about inadequate body armor and vehicle armor, new technologies that have made it possible to provide life-saving helmet liners to the troops, and the many ways in which veterans have been getting short-changed on the benefits they were promised as compensation for their service. Only that one candidate created a veterans group in his campaign, inviting the public to its kick-off rally and a commemoration of Veterans Day. The same candidate held veterans’ listening sessions around the state to educate himself and his campaign staff about the issues. That candidate was one of only two who said he will try to get on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee if he’s elected. Nobody is guaranteed their choice of committee assignments, but that is his first choice. And, finally, only that one candidate invited the DFL Veterans Caucus to set up a table at his summer picnic and raise funds for the caucus. With his encouragement and help from campaign volunteers, the caucus left that night with $735 in donations. Any of the candidates could have done that. Only one of them thought to do it.
Veterans are a high priority with Al Franken. They’re not an afterthought. They’re not a group to pander to. I like all four of the Senate candidates, but I don’t see how someone could even begin to compare the other three with Al when it’s a question of who would best serve the interests of veterans, active service members, and their families.
Again, I welcome your comments. I don’t mean for this to be a contest. It’s just my way of explaining my rationale. I want to make sure that, if anyone is feeling that there was something unfair about the process, they at least have the information about Franken that I was looking at when I made my decision.
Thanks,
Jim
***
