« NEWSPAPER: SENATORS WAITING FOR POGEMILLER TO BECOME POGEMILLER | Home | I’ll HAVE A GREAT STORY TO POST… »
OPEN THREAD
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 20, 2006
I'll be in meetings for the rest of the day. It's a great time for another open thread.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 19 Comments »
December 20th, 2006 at 1:29 PM
Iran is now a nuclear power. What will Amy Klobuchar say about that?
December 20th, 2006 at 2:06 PM
I’m sorry Gary, did Amy run on the Iran appeasement platform last year?
Maybe you should ask Norm Coleman about that since he was one of the strongest supporters in 2002 of getting our military tied up and bogged down in Iraq, which was not pursuing nuclear weapons.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Anonymous — If you don’t know what you’re talking about, remain silent.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:21 PM
Gary, Amy will probably tow the line of her dad’s paper, and her party… and continue to deny that Iran is even a problem. Heck, she may even go along and blame Israel for the whole mess.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:58 PM
Do you think Rochelle Olson would consent to an interview with me about the genesis of her relationship with Congressman-elect Ellison?
Now that Amy Alexander has been forbidden by Judge Lind from talking to me (or anyone in the media or blogosphere for that matter) about anything having to do with Ellison (until after the 2008 election) I think I need to take another approach.
Amy won’t violate the judges order no matter how ridiculous it is. Just like she never violated the restraining order Ellison slapped on her in the first place after she developed a spine in dealing with him.
What would I ask Rochelle? Wow, where would I start? Did she know that her supervising editor requested an exclusive with Amy and then never bothered to follow up with Amy? Did Rochelle ever see the extensive notes I forwarded to the Strib and my offer to be helpful? Did the fact that I am a republican somehow reduce the value of the story? Did Rochelle ever consider having a conversation with me about the allegations I published or Amy’s subsequent article? Would a republican candidate have been treated the same way? Why did Rochelle go to Amy’s house uninvited for an interview when she had been asked to be left alone by Amy and her attorney? etc, etc.
I would like to know why so many questions went unanswered in the press regarding the saga of Keith. I want to know why no one took me up on the suggestion of a polygraph test (for Amy, Mesa and Keith)to set the record straight so we all could move on with an understanding of the truth.
Lefties assume my involvement in publishing allegations about Congressman-elect Ellison’s alleged abusive extramarital affair with Alexander was politically motivated. If the story had been about a republican and my party in concert with the media refused to vet the facts I would have printed the same type of expose’.
My first call was to Keith. It went unanswered like almost all of these questions.
My motive was to set the story straight for a single Mom who had been treated poorly. Her story has now been told and her name has been cleansed of the ick.
Ellison and the DFL had an opportunity to set the record straight and free Keith from the bonds of his less than perfect history. They chose the path of denial at all cost expecting the barnacles to be forgotten over the next two years.
The simple solution was to drop the restraining order against Amy and apologize for being a dink. That was apparently beyond his capacity. Without the protection of the courts he wasn’t willing to amend his past.
I pray that he turns out to be one hell of a congressman. I hope he represents his district and our state well. I sincerely wish him and his family the very best this, uh, solstice. The darkest day of our year will soon be behind us. Hopefully Ellison’s foolishness is all behind us, too.
Do you think Rochelle Olson would consent to an interview with me about the genesis of her relationship with Congressman-elect Ellison?
December 20th, 2006 at 4:18 PM
I think you know the answer Drew. It is, because to be black and/or Muslim and liberal is to be shielded from any and all scrutiny. Only one thing mattered to 5th CD’s establishment — that they elect a black man, at any cost.
Tammy Lee lost because she’s white. And she looked a little conservative.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:42 PM
To the point of comments 1 and 2, Amy Klobuchar actually answered that question publicly in early June, twice. Once on Almanac and once at the DFL state convention in Rochester, she was asked if she believed that the United States should consider using nuclear weapons against a possible nuclear threat in Iran. In both cases she replied, “We shouldn’t take it off the table.”
You can hear the Rochester Q + A by going to http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/06/09/conventionrecap/ and clicking the link at the bottom.
Personally, I think her answer was horrible, since I really like people and don’t want them all to get fried in a nuclear exchange. But it should actually please the folks on the rightwing side of the spectrum, I would guess. I have noticed that conservatives often feel more manly when threatening nuclear war.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:59 PM
My guess — and that’s all any of us can do at this point — is that Iran’s bluffing.
MA just suffered an electoral beating and is pounding his chest now for domestic political reasons.
Of course, just in case, we could invade right now.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:05 PM
Actually, there’s no point in even getting in these stupid arguments anymore. Your guys lost this year — big time. I’m just going to step back and laugh at how pathetic you must feel and how that is channeled in to these pathetic statements.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Chris said: “My guess — and that’s all any of us can do at this point — is that Iran’s bluffing.”
Yeah – I’m sure that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking when he said “peace is at hand” after he met with Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain probably throught Hitler was bluffing too when he took the Sudetenland.
I never get how you lefty’s refuse to look at REAL history – not the revisionist crap that is spewing through the school system and academia. “Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it.” Sorry thing is – it’s hard to repeat history in a nuclear war where there are no winners just losers.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:43 PM
Chris said: “My guess — and that’s all any of us can do at this point — is that Iran’s bluffing.â€
No link, but there is a famous quote by a death camp survivor. Someone asked him what is the one thing he learned from the Holacaust. He said that “when someone says he wants to kill you, believe him”. I think we should take that advice for the modern day Nazi’s of Iran. When they say they want to destroy Israel, American and Britian, we should not call them liars.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:07 PM
To the blogmaster: Would you consider changing the color of your page? Black looks weird and makes it harder to read.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Charley, how “manly” is Amy Klobuchar?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:32 AM
i’m not saying iran isn’t a threat (probably #3 behind a destabilized middle east and al qaida and tied with n.korea) and i’m not saying i’m an policy expert. that said, MA is certainly exagerating and probably for the benefit of his base which is probably feeling a little dispondent after their losses in the recent local elections.
-there have been no tests to demostrate a working bomb, and from what i’ve read he has enough fuel for 0-2 bombs
-he has only terrorists as delivery systems for what is likely a very large and cumbersome design
i’m not calling him a liar, i’m calling him a politician. i’m more afraid of what he’s doing to destabilize iraq right now.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:42 AM
paulp. Yes. Iraq would have problems anyway, but Iran and Syria are doing everything they can to make sure a democratic Iraq fails.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:14 AM
The left has shown repeatedly that they fail to grasp the gravity of foreign affairs. The esteemed moron Jimmie Carter let the Shaw fall. I was on an aircraft carrier in the mediteranian at the time, (good times). Then Clinton gave Kim Jong Il nuclear technology on the “promiss” he wouldn’t use it for evil, I guess he had his fingers crossed. And now we have the peace at all cost crowd willing to disbelieve the president of Iran, and the host of Islamic terrorists groups when the scream for the distruction of the western civilization and pray the entire planet come under shari’a law.
But, what the hell do I know?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:15 PM
The right has shown repeatedly that they fail to grasp reality in general. Rather than fight terrorists where the terrorists are, they choose to invade countries that have nothing to do with the threat of terrorism and then make up lies to fit the story.
Then Bush goes and calls North Korea and Iran an “axis of evil” and suddenly they both get hostile and start saying they’re developing nuclear weapons.
Now we have the war with or without a proper reason crowd prancing around paranoid as hell accusing anyone with different opinions than them of being terrorists and/or anti-Americans all while we lose the war on an emotion (terror?).
But hey, what the hell do I know? I guess I should be getting more of my news from fair and balanced Fox News.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:33 PM
dave- we’re not doing much to make sure it succeeds.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 AM
#17 “Bush goes and calls North Korea and Iran an “axis of evil†and suddenly they both get hostile and start saying they’re developing nuclear weapons”
As opposed to secretly developing them?
Bryan I think you are one of the dull witted George Will is referring to when he argues against Time’s person of the year