« ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IN ENDORSEMENT STATEMENT, KLOBUCHAR COMPARES OBAMA TO HHH | Home | MDE EXCLUSIVE: MOMS PAINT DISTURBING PICTURE OF BONOFF’S HANDLING OF SENSITIVE LEGISLATION #2 »
MDE EXCLUSIVE: MOMS PAINT DISTURBING PICTURE OF BONOFF’S HANDLING OF SENSITIVE LEGISLATION
By Michael Brodkorb | March 31, 2008
When former U.S. Senate candidate Mike Ciresi endorsed State Senator Terri Bonoff's campaign for Congress last week, one of the reasons he cited for endorsing Bonoff was that "[w]e need serious leaders in Washington who are willing and able to reach across party lines to make progress for people." There are two women living in the 3rd CD that strongly disagree with Ciresi's statement. In fact, they think Bonoff missed "a golden opportunity" to show that she can reach across party lines to get things done.
Late last week, I spent a couple of hours interviewing Elizabeth Levang and Sandy Maclean, two women who have very strong opinions about the job Terri Bonoff is doing in the Minnesota Senate. Currently serving in the Minnesota Senate since 2006, Bonoff is also one of the two main DFL candidates trying to replace Congressman Jim Ramstad, who announced his retirement last year.
While very composed during my interview, both Levang and Maclean were clearly very hurt and angry at how they were treated by Bonoff. As the interview went on, I felt more and more compelled to tell their story.
Levang and Maclean both worked with Bonoff on the Grieving Parents Act, legislation that would require a mother to be notified of "burial and cremation options in the case of a miscarriage." From the beginning, this bill had bi-partisan support. Bonoff was the original chief-author of the legislation in the Minnesota Senate, while Representative Brod, a Republican, was the chief-author in the Minnesota House.
The working relationship between Levang and Maclean is bi-partisan. Levang is a supporter of Senator Barack Obaman's presidential campaign, having attended her DFL precinct caucus meeting last month. Maclean is a proud and lifelong Republican
In my interview, Levang and Maclean had harsh words about Bonoff's handling of this legislation. They claim Bonoff "mismanaged" the Grieving Parents Act in the Minnesota Senate, they feel Bonoff misled them about outside groups being concerned about the phantom language changes in the bill and that Bonoff being focused on her congressional campaign, delayed legislative activity in the Minnesota Senate.
Levang said "we don't want to say liar liar pants on fire, but there's a lot of inconsistencies here. [Bonoff] stretches the truth to fit her own scenario."
Maclean's criticism goes even further. She claims Bonoff specifically told her in a phone coversation that she "didn't really know this congressional seat would be coming available" and that she'd "been very busy with the campaign." Maclean said Bonoff coldly told her that "your bill is no longer a priority for me."
Translation: I'm too busy running for Congress to worry about my job as a state senator or your legislation.
I sent an e-mail to both Bonoff's legislative office and her campaign office requesting an interview with Bonoff or her designee about the allegations from Levang and Maclean. While I did receive a response from Bonoff's congressional campaign with more information about this issue, I didn't receive a comment before this story was published. I appreciate Bonoff's congressional campaign returning my first e-mail and I will publish any response I received from Bonoff's official or campaign office responding to the specific allegations.
I had written one very large post detailing the information provided by Levang and Maclean in my interview, but I have since decided to break the story up into three separate posts. Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed later today for at least two additional updates to this post.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 69 Comments »
69 Responses to “MDE EXCLUSIVE: MOMS PAINT DISTURBING PICTURE OF BONOFF’S HANDLING OF SENSITIVE LEGISLATION”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:23 PM
What is Ashwin Madia afraid of that he is now sending Elizabeth LeVang and Sandy Maclean to this site? Does the fact that Mike Ciresi endorsed Bonoff frighten him that much? Or is Erik Paulsen afraid Bonoff might be the one to run against him and is trying very hard to push people into supporting Madia?
If these women are truly concerned then go to http://www.terribonoff.com and see she has the support of these organizations:
* EMILY’s List (Read their press release)
* National Women’s Political Caucus
* Minnesota Women’s Political Caucus
* WomenWinning (Read their press release)
* Women’s Campaign Forum
As well, she’s supported by Planned Parenthood who has called her one of the most effective legislators for women there is.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:32 PM
“What is Ashwin Madia afraid of that he is now sending Elizabeth LeVang and Sandy Maclean to this site?
You got proof of that, or is that just a gratuitous smear?
“Does the fact that Mike Ciresi endorsed Bonoff frighten him that much?”
Yeah, “right.” Ciresi is stuck in fourth in a three-person race when he drops out, and Captain Madia would be afraid of that??!?
“Or is Erik Paulsen afraid Bonoff …”
The Hustler isn’t afraid of smearin’ anyone.
Apparently, neither are you.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:34 PM
How can Ash Madia make these women do anything? Only Terri Bonoff would know of these women. They are personally angry with Terri Bonoff. Neither has endorsed Ash Madia.
You should spit out the kool aid before posting.
All women should be concerned over Bonoff. These organizations only support women. It would be a little disingenuous to expect Ash Madia (or Jim Hovland) to have been supported by any of them.
Also, Emily’s List is a simple questionnaire. She should be able to fill out a questionnaire.
What have they done for her, though? Let’s see….nothing. I don’t count 1 email from Emily’s List as support. Maybe it’s just me.
Do you know what she did do about their personal legislation that she agreed to carry? After her massive losses in the latest SD conventions she quietly took her name off and turned it over to a GOP legislator with a 100% rating by MCCL. So much for really seriously caring about these ladies and their personal tragedies. It always has been about Terri Bonoff.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:40 PM
TwoPutt, this is maybe the first post in a year where you haven’t put your obnoxious “ol’ smokescreen” bit. Thanks.
Three-part series on this? Are the second and third pieces going to have “BREAKING!!!” on them?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Interesting race. The guy with no political experience against the woman with no good political experience.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:50 PM
MON,
Pretty much sums it up. I’m all for giving someone with no experience and better judgment a chance over someone with proven poor judgment.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Dude – you know I got the inspiration from what you consider “obnoxious” from The Professor, doncha?
Of course, Boy Blunder only re-inforced it, when he said this….
” See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
March 31st, 2008 at 1:59 PM
great scoop, MDE.
This story will be very damaging for T. Bonoff.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Sad for these 2 constituents that they didn’t get the legislation they wanted passed, once it turned into potential pro-life fodder. Nonetheless, Bonoff is a huge friend to women. Planned Parenthood’s Connie Perpich and Tim Stanley in a letter made public said, “Few individual legislators have ever made such a huge impact on the lives of women, especially in their very first year of public office.”
March 31st, 2008 at 2:10 PM
3Ddem,
The only problem is…..it’s just that. It’s a letter pushing her candidacy. There isn’t anything to back it up. This was the highlight of her women’s issues…..and she’s spun it 7 ways to Sunday. Now…because it is very inconvenient, she’s turned it over to the MCCL to control. So much for her most recent spin.
Please, enlighten everyone. Precisely how is Terri Bonoff a great friend to women? I’ve yet to hear of anything she has done other than get someone to write a letter saying she is.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Is that why Bonoff scratched her name off the bill? Because she didn’t want to risk her pro-choice endorsements?
What a pathetic coward this woman is.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 PM
That’s my reading of it. She said last year when asked about it that she felt sympathy for these women – one of whom she said was a friend of hers. Then when confronted about the bill and the anti-choice implications she was carrying it so she could control it. That was the spin as of 3 weeks ago. Then, she removed her name and turned it over to Betsy Wergin (R-CD6 area with 100% MCCL voting record). Seems like she’s not standing on principal but standing on mush. You can’t have it all ways. Either you agree with them and will stand by them or you don’t. Apparently she did but doesn’t now.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:19 PM
West Metro Dem
You sound like a very angry person. have you considered counseling? This kind of negative energy can create real health problems. Do you have personal issues? What exactly is your grievance about? It appears to me this is much bigger than this particular issue that you wish spun!
I might suggest you channel your energy in a more positive direction.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:21 PM
No counseling needed, Jack. Just the truth from your candidate – or maybe you don’t need the truth. I don’t like spinning from any candidate.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I’ve read the bill.
What are the anti-choice implications?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Empty rhetoric, desperation from Madia or Paulsen, not sure which.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Here’s the official summary of the bill
“”Grieving Parents Act”; requiring hospitals, clinics and medical facilities
having custody of a fetus following a miscarriage to provide written
notification to the mother of the right to arrange for the burial or cremation
of the fetus; providing for election of disposition; specifying certain duties
of the commissioner of health relating to notification and election forms
(je)”
It gives the mother a choice.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that the pro-choice crowd would be opposed to this bill?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Not the reason, MON. This is already reality in hospitals – without the law. It’s the personhood implications of the age of the fetus that is being argued in Ohio and Colorado that is the slippery slope. Parents already have the right to bury their miscarried fetuses – without this law.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Frankly, this was an issue for Sen. Bonoff months before Ash Madia or Jim Hovland entered the race. This has nothing to do with their candidacies at all.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:38 PM
“personhood implications”?
Doesn’t the mother have the right to bury her unborn child no matter what age?
The Senate version of the bill doesn’t address any fetus age requirements.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:47 PM
What are your issues West Metro Dem? I believe Bonoff’s bill was about giving women rights. It is also my understanding that “the pro-choice crowd” was neutral on this bill. It is really unfortunate that instead of doing what is right for human dignity that some people will try to manipulate the reality of the situation for political gain.
Bonoff is a very compassionate Senator and that is why she is so highly liked at the State Capital.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Then Jack, why did Bonoff have her name taken off of this bill?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:52 PM
MON, Yes, the parent does have that right – without this legislation. It originally attempted to push personhood back to 20 weeks.
My issues, Jack? You are wrong about the “pro-choice crowd” not having issues with this. Planned Parenthood was neutral on this as it is not their issue. NARAL Pro-Choice was stonewalled for 3 weeks by Sen. Bonoff’s office when attempting to discuss this legislation with her. I am not attempting to use this for political gain. I have no political gain to earn with it. It’s her spinning.
Let’s see…..last year it was: she was carrying it because she believed in it (as these ladies have attested). This was born out by the Mankato Free Press article that she is quoted as “being proud” to carry it and will push it through as soon as the session starts. Then, she was confronted about the stonewalling of the lobbyist from NARAL Pro-Choice and she was going to remove her name from it. Then she was going to carry it so that no one else would be able to bring it to the floor. Now she has removed her name and handed it directly over to the MCCL. And, you’re okay with these spinning stories?
March 31st, 2008 at 2:55 PM
It doesn’t say anything about “personhood” in either the senate version or the house version.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:58 PM
It is essentially the same legislation that Ohio and Colorado have used to push the personhood issue in their state supreme court.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:58 PM
So what is your personal gripe with Senator Bonoff? Are you a lobbyist that got the door slammed in her/his face?
You seem to exert a lot of energy going after Bonoff. I might wonder what your real issue is.
Maybe you asked for a favor and didn’t get it. Now you are kissing up to Madia hoping to get a job so you don’t have to be blogging all day?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Jack,
Why did Bonoff remove her name from the bill?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Too cute, Jack. 1) Not a lobbyist. 2) Hate spin. 3) Have total flexibility since I own my own business to work on my own hours. 4) Not kissing up to anyone. Anywhere. 5) Don’t want any favors from anyone.
Issues with Bonoff? She’s told so many spins to this issue since it was raised early last fall that the truth wouldn’t be recognizable. Honesty and integrity isn’t too much to ask in a congressperson.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Bonoff is a very compassionate Senator and that is why she is so highly liked at the State Capital.
Are you a staffer of hers? Or wait…..Terri…..is that you Terri….
March 31st, 2008 at 3:24 PM
[...] « MDE EXCLUSIVE: MOMS PAINT DISTURBING PICTURE OF BONOFF’S HANDLING OF SENSITIVE LEGISLATION | Home [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Please note my updated post.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:30 PM
So, what you are saying is, Bonoff took up a cause to support two grieving mothers. Republicants attached verbage that changed it from a bill with good intentions to a bill that was little more than an MCCL wedge issue that no longer served the interest of said grieving mothers.
And now Republicants are bragging about their ability to turn a good bill into a bad bill.
Wow! It’s a wonder y’all can get anyone elected with strategery like this.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:34 PM
West Metro Dem
Is your in-home business selling Amway? and that is why you have so much spare time on your hands. Really! Just did a google and found this site. No wonder Ciresi endorsed Bonoff with the clowns who support Madia. Although I am not sure if you are a Madia person or just want Madia for your man Paulsen. Which is it? Are you a republican or democrat? It isn’t easy to tell by your posts.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Actually Bonoff carried the senate bill with Laura Brod (MCCL approved) carrying it in the house. She changed her mind about the bill when it became no longer expedient for her. I could understand it if she believed in it, carried it and didn’t apologize. It’s the constant changing of her message and the spin that’s wrong. If you agree with something on principal and stand on it, I don’t have to agree. I don’t like the constant spinning of the story.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I know about this bill since I have followed it since last March. This bill was read on March 12, 2008 and sent to committee. It has been sitting there ever since. No other senator has attached their name to it, and the language never changed. (as Bonoff’s communication person now states over at MnPublius-sorry but language changes are recorded and it didn’t happen)
Bonoff held off Naral-Prochoice Minnesota’s lobbyist for 3 weeks while she authored and read this bill. She has in fact spun 6 or 7 stories about this bill.
The Midwest funding pac was told that Bonoff would “never make this mistake again”.
I know of many people who have withdrawn their support from Emily’s List because of their endorsement. While they have not withdrawn their endorsement, they have also done NOTHING for Bonoff except let her send a cut and paste email endorsement the night before the last conventions and put their write-up on the campaign website.
As the survivor of one of these miscarriages, I am here to tell you that every hospital and clinic in this state already informs a mother of her rights, and even sends her to the appropriate organization to arrange for burial if that is her choice. This has never been an issue!
This bill has been a millstone around Bonoff’s neck, and that is why she quietly withdrew her name from it in Mid-March.
I think Bonoff thought this was her big chance to become the chief author of something and it backfired. WMD is right– no integrity and no honesty.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Jack, Long time Dem. Anti-Bonoff after the last 6 months of tracking this issue. Pro-Madia (and formerly pro-Hovland) because when asked, they both understood the implications of this potential legislation.
Not selling Amway….just not working today.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Republicants attached verbage that changed
Terri’s original version of the bill is still in the Senate committee. No changes, no ammendments.
It just doesn’t have her name on it anymore.
Anybody know the real reason why?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:44 PM
WMD is right– no integrity and no honesty.
And from this debacle, not too bright either.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:47 PM
All of Terri’s spin has given me no choice but to support the real pro-choice candidate in this race- Ashwin Madia. (since Jim Hovland dropped out)
March 31st, 2008 at 3:54 PM
WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction:
You know as I do more research (googling this) on this whole post it really upsets me that the people on here are trying to capitalize on the loss of others. Unfortunately when people like Bonoff try to do the right thing with women and families who are grieving with their loss, anti-choice people interfere and try to make it work to their advantage.
Reminds me of the Partial Birth Abortion issue. I was telling my evangelical brother the truth about PB abortions and how the so-called right to lifers do not tell people that these abortions are done when the fetus is so severely deformed there is no chance of life. Most often in times when the baby has developed no brain. The baby’s death is just a matter of time and the health of the mother is at stake. But instead of allowing the mother to deliver the baby and allow it to die with grace, she is forced to have a P.B. abortion so the baby comes out dead and no life saving techniques are required. If we really cared for life we would not use the sensitive issue of the loss of a child to further ones political aspirations.
Here we have either or both Madia and Paulsen trying to make an issue about something Bonoff did which was genuinely compassionate and changed the wording of her bill so as to make it risk a woman’s right to choose. Shame on all of you for posting this crap!
And as to the claim that all doctors and health care providers notify families of their rights is just plain non-sense. One person’s experience is just that. My sister has had miscarriages and she had no such notification!
March 31st, 2008 at 3:57 PM
changed the wording of her bill
When was the wording of her bill changed?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Leave Madia and Paulsen and formerly Hovland out of this. This issue was directly with Bonoff prior to her decision to run for Congress and has continued because of her spinning. You are trying to insert people into this who have had absolutely NOTHING to do with it other than answer questions put to them. The fact that they understood the implications has nothing to do with the fact that Bonoff couldn’t.
Shame on you for trying to obfuscate the issue. Minnesota law already allows for what this legislation was allegedly trying to do. I have had several miscarriages and I understand this issue deeply. Don’t play it like you’re the compassionate one.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Why can’t Jack answer a simple question?
Why did Bonoff remover her name from this bill?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Contact the Bonoff office and I am sure they can tell you! Which I am sure you will not do because you already know. You people must think everyone is as naive as you are. Everyone knows language gets changed all the time. That is how they kill good bills or add crap.
For people who spend all day blogging on political blogs, you don’t know much about politics.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Jack,
This issue has been in discussion within women’s groups for months. Your googling won’t give you any of the background. Trust me. Bonoff didn’t understand the implications of this legislation and instead of admitting it, has spun and spun and spun.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I know how the ammendment process works, and her bill has not been ammended since she introduced it.
Again, Jack, why did Bonoff remove her name from this bill?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:08 PM
And you know so much, Jack?
The bill has not been amended since introduce in the senate. The tracking on the bill shows that. She removed her name because it was politically expedient to do so. She has been dealing with this issue since last year and has not given a credible answer yet – just spin. Interesting how her supporters can’t answer, just blame and get angry.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:11 PM
“Here we have either or both Madia and Paulsen trying to make an issue …”
Yeah, “right.”
What we have here is you trying to make Madia the issue to deflect attention away from Terri.
And it ain’t gonna work. Terri should either stand up for what she introduced, or admit she made a mistake and move on.
Americans are very forgiving people, but we don’t like wafflers.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:16 PM
I can honestly say I had problems with this bill long before Madia or Hovland entered the congressional race. That bill was introduced on March 12, and Hovland and Madia did anot enter the congressional race until October.
While I might have disagreed with the intent of this bill, I have been angered and insulted by Bonoff’s spin. She has changed her story multiple times, and so have her loyal supporters.
To try and claim that this is a Madia campaign plot is a stretch! Terri did this to herself.
If she had really believed in this bill she would have had only one position, and would have asked the chair of the Health and Humans Services committee to bring it up for consideration in committee. She buried it when it was questioned by pro-choice Naral Minnesota. She had control of the fate of that bill until she turned it over to a pro-life MCCL legislator quietly this month.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Again, I have to wonder why Madia and or Paulsen are so afraid of Terri Bonoff? Is the Mike Ciresi endorsement worrying everyone so much they have to create news?
The bill was changed and taken over by a Republican. Is there anything else that needs to be said. Maybe you people could find a dead horse to beat up on next!
March 31st, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Jack, better luck next time you go googling. You obviously aren’t tracking here.
No one is afraid of Bonoff. Ciresi terrifying anyone?
You need a program to catch up.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:34 PM
The bill was changed
Again, you make this statement without any knowledge of what was changed or how.
Here is it’s history
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF1739&ssn=0&y=2007
When did it get changed?
What changed that caused Terri to abandon it?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:34 PM
More research on Bonoff -
Bonoff Voted To Protect Family Planning Funding:
Bonoff Voted in Favor of Legislation Requiring Hospitals to Provide Emergency Contraception to Sex Assault Victims:
Bonoff Voted in Favor of Legislation Allowing Registered Nurses to Dispense Oral Contraceptives at Clinics:
Bonoff Supported Legislation Requiring Comprehensive Sex Education:
March 31st, 2008 at 4:36 PM
So did most Dems…..your comments, Jack, that you just happened to find this site by googling are funny.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Jack/Terri sockpuppet
Nice try.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Looking up some info on Ciresi, interested in maybe getting a job at his firm…. Met him a few times at events and he is a great guy. He supports Bonoff so I am guessing there was something wrong with Madia’s performance at RKMC. It must be an embarrassment.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Ciresi runs a large legal firm with a large foundation that donates much money. He leads a well-balance life and has a lot of choices.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:17 PM
It was pretty crafty of Senator Bonoff to drag her feet on this bill and drop it at the most politically opportune time! When she peddled out for whatever reason, there was too little time for Senator Wergin to pick-up the bill and get a hearing before deadline. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!
March 31st, 2008 at 10:10 PM
So why would a Reepublican blog want to have a bunch of dems fight this one out? You all know Bonoff is pro choice. Do you think the owner of this blog would rather see Paulsen face newbie Madia than Bonoff? Or maybe he wants to watch the whole dfl cd3 implode on itself and the Republicans will keep control of the seat. Hope you’re all having fun helping to assure Republican control of the seat because that’s what you’ll get with this thread on this site. Brilliant.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Kudos to West Metro Dem for being very interesting to read in this forum. In reviewing your posts you typically put forth fact based arguments and do it with a sense of civility reminiscent of Hubert H. Humphrey. I for one appreciate your polite discourse and respect your contributions here. Thanks for being an example of a democrat worthy of respect. As you can see it’s hard to take many of your nincompoop brethren seriously.
I still think Terri Bonoff presents a weaker opponent for Erik Paulsen. Therefore, as a partisan I would prefer to see Bonoff be your candidate. Terri is a really really really nice person. But it will take a lot more than nice to gain the confidence of the 3rd CD. Paulsen’s bona fides are impeccable. Stack up all three candidates and the order of preference for most 3rd CDers is Paulsen, Madia, Hovland, Bonoff.
Lighten up on Terri Bonoff. It’s hard to run for Congress. It’s especially hard to run for Congress in your first term in the State Senate.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:21 AM
“Paulsen’s bona fides are impeccable. “
Yeah, “right”.
Drew, the guy came out of the box, on the day he announced his candidacy for congress, and claimed to be a moderate in the tradition of Frenzel and Ramstad.
Even more laughable, is his press release of the event, which claimed, and I quote:
“Paulsen launches this bid after years of working in bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to get results in the business world and in the Minnesota legislature.”
Erik Paulsen, former Majority Leader, “bipartisan”??!?
There goes his credibility!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Perhaps it would be interesting if the two moms who painted the disturbing pictures also had husbands [dads] who also painted disturbing pictures.
And if the siblings of the two moms [dads] who painted disturbing pictures, all agreed with the moms who painted disturbing pictures.
“Moms” and “Dads” and “siblings” paint disturbing pictures might be one potential title.
“Dads paint disturbing pictures” might be another potential title.
MBB paints to portray Democrats in the usual way, is probably true.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:56 AM
[...] This is the third installment of a three-part post about an interview I did with Elizabeth Lavang and Sandy Maclean about State Senator Terri Bonoff's handling the Grieving Parents Act in the Minnesota Senate. Click on the links to read the first and second post. [...]
April 1st, 2008 at 1:36 PM
The third installment isn’t any better than the first two.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 AM
How many of the lefty posters get paid to post on here?
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Not me, but you can send it my way if you want!
Bet Jack collects on a weekly basis, looks like the Bonoff payroll!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Drew,
I have no idea how many or if any posters get paid to post here or on another site.
I do not get paid to post here or on any other site.
The weather outside is getting nicer, and I do have a multitude of other things that I can be doing.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:25 PM
[...] Sandy Maclean and Elizabeth Levang will be guest of the program starting at 3:30 p.m. to talk about their work with State Senator Terri Bonoff on the Grieving Parents Act. [...]
April 7th, 2008 at 4:51 PM
[...] King and I also spoke with Sandy Maclean and Elizabeth Levang starting at 3:30 p.m. about their work with State Senator Terri Bonoff on the Grieving Parents Act. [...]