« WHO WILL OBAMA PICK TO BE HIS VP? | Home | MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “FRANKEN’S ANGRY RHETORIC WOULD HURT MINNESOTA VETERANS” »
LAWSUITS FILED BY DFL OVER TV ADS ABOUT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT DISMISSED – AGAIN; JUDGE RULES STATEMENT MADE ABOUT FRANKEN “NOT FALSE”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 19, 2008
The Office of Administrative Hearings has dismissed both complaints filed by the Minnesota DFL over television and newspaper ads discussing the Employee Free Choice Act. Last month, similar complaints were also dismissed.
The bad news for Team Franken and their allies in the liberal blogosphere is that Judge Barbara L. Nielsen ruled that statements made in the ads about Franken supporting the eliminating of a secret ballot were “not false.”
From the Order of Dismissal:
“The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards. Because Mr. Franken supports the EFCA, the statement, ‘Franken says eliminate the secret ballot for workers,’ is not false.” Source: Order of Dismissal, August 18, 2009
This is an embarrassing political setback for Team Franken as their research director, Matthew Fuehrmeyer, provided testimony in the lawsuit.
I hope the bloggers that wrote posts about the DFL lawsuits will publish updates that the lawsuits were dismissed once again.
In a post discussing the DFL’s lawsuit (the language used in the post all but guaranteed a legal victory by the DFL), Team Franken’s embedded blogger at MN Publius, Aaron Landry, wrote “Minnesotans do not deserve this kind of foul dishonesty.â€Â I agree and the Minnesota DFL should apologize
Topics: Uncategorized | 57 Comments »
57 Responses to “LAWSUITS FILED BY DFL OVER TV ADS ABOUT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT DISMISSED – AGAIN; JUDGE RULES STATEMENT MADE ABOUT FRANKEN “NOT FALSE””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ouch…Norm Coleman FTW!
August 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
!BAM..Right in Porn-O-Rama’s Kisser!
I hope this gets put right into a new campaign ad that gets played every hour.
This decision illustrates perfectly the tactics of deceit that the Democrat party relies on.
BTW, “PlymouthDem”?
Suck it, moonbat.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Listen….can you hear it?
(Bam!…this did not happen…bam!…this did not happen…bam!..this….bam!….did…bam!..not…bam!…happen)
That’s the sound of Aaron Landry beating his skull against the wall to get the ugly truth out of there!
HAHAHAHAhahahaha!
August 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I love how you overlook the statement in the opinion that:
“While the statement may be misleading by not explaining that workers will still be able to vote
secretly in other circumstances, it is not factually false. As such, it does not come within
the purview of Section 211B.06.”
And that the statement “may be misleading and it certainly is incomplete.”
At the end of the day, the judge is merely concluding that Minnesota law allows campaign to mislead all they want, so long as they don’t recklessly state a falsehood. Since there is at least one instance (a majority of people don’t want a secret ballot and want to unionize) where there is no secret ballot, it’s not technically false to say that it eliminates the ballot. It’s just incomplete and misleading to not state all of the facts.
If it stands, it’s a pretty unfortunate decision for Minnesota politics.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“BTW, “PlymouthDemâ€?
Suck it, moonbat.”
Why? The opinion describes the statute and amendment precisely how I’ve described it. 50%+1 then no secret ballot. Any other circumstance, secret ballot. I continue to stand by the fact that that does not mean it’s eliminated.
Even the Court says the ads are “misleading” and “incomplete.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the ad.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
As always, Michael is the king of parsing statements to make them seem favorable for his clients.
The VERY NEXT LINE after the snippet he posted:
It may be misleading and it certainly is
incomplete, but it is not false within the meaning of § 211B.06.
And it goes on to say:
Section 211B.06 does not regulate unfavorable deductions,inferences, unfair characterizations or misleading remarks.
So, the ALJ has ruled that the republican party, while slimy, managed to slime its way up to the line without technically crossing it.
The ruling also brought to light that Michal’s radio co-host was allegedly behind one of the print ads, and the creators of that ad apparently used a fake address, as none of those responsible were able to be reached when the court tried to reach them at the address listed in the ad.
Why would someone so proud of their position have to be so cautious to make sure no one finds out who they truly are?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
WHY
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
DOES
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
Porn-O-Rama Frankin
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
HATE
The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.
DEMOCRACY?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I understand the EFCA. I stand by my words.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“Team Franken’s embedded blogger at MN Publius, Aaron Landry, …”
Well, if you say so, Michael.
After all, if there’s anyone that understands exactly what an “embedded blogger” is, it would be you.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.”
So who’s been lying all along about EFCA? That would be Team Frankenstein, the DFL, the unions, and the usual group of lib bloggers and commenters.
Nice going, you’ve attained a new low of failure.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“I hope this gets put right into a new campaign ad that gets played every hour.”
This is far more likely to be the focus of a Franken ad than a Coleman ad. Franken can say “a judge has said the ad is misleading and incomplete … here’s the rest of the facts.”
What’s Coleman going to say? A judge said it was technically true. (ignore that the judge said it was misleading and incomplete”
August 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“So who’s been lying all along about EFCA? That would be Team Frankenstein, the DFL, the unions, and the usual group of lib bloggers and commenters.”
Have you even been paying attention to the debate? No one has claimed that if there is 50% + 1 that there would still be a secret ballot. DFLers have argued (and as the judge concluded) that workers can access a secret ballot even under EFCA in any situation where there isn’t 50% + 1. Adding a new path to unionization does not eliminate the previous path.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
No, the claim has been that Coleman is lying when he says EFCA eliminates the secret ballot.
But, it does eliminate the secret ballot when there is 50%+1, as the judge concluded.
So therefore, Coleman wasn’t lying. The DFL and it’s gaggle of sychophants never claimed that the secret ballot WAS elimated in certain circumstances but remained intact in others. They claimed that Coleman lied by saying the secret ballot was eliminated at all.
End of story. You don’t get to rewrite history guy.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“You don’t get to rewrite history guy.”
Apparently, that’s something only republiCons get to do.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Cheeto boy is McDonalds embedded bloater.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“I understand the EFCA. I stand by my words.”
Of course you do, Aaron…that’s what tools are for.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“No, the claim has been that Coleman is lying when he says EFCA eliminates the secret ballot.
But, it does eliminate the secret ballot when there is 50%+1, as the judge concluded.
So therefore, Coleman wasn’t lying. The DFL and it’s gaggle of sychophants never claimed that the secret ballot WAS elimated in certain circumstances but remained intact in others. They claimed that Coleman lied by saying the secret ballot was eliminated at all.
End of story. You don’t get to rewrite history guy.”
The republican argument is so stupid. You say it’s eliminated. Franken says no it’s not for all of the reasons the statement “it’s eliminated” is incomplete. Something can’t be eliminated if it’s not gone. Where do any of the GOP ads ever make the qualification of “when 50%+1 vote publicly for a union?” They don’t.
As I’ve always argued, I’m fine with the ad saying “if 50% + 1 of your co-workers want a union and are willing to say so publicly, you don’t get a secret ballot.” But, it’s incorrect (or, at best MISLEADING AND INCOMPLETE) to simply say Franken supports eliminating the secret ballot PERIOD.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Democrat mouthpieces remind me of the five year old standing there with a cookie in his hand, solemn look on his face, saying to the angry parent, “Cookie? What cookie?”
Tell us, moonbats. Do you find all of this repeated lying very draining, or have do you receive endurance training in the fever swamp?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
This is how the secret ballot is eliminated. The union goes to every employee to sign the card check. A handful of employees decline to sign the card check but 50%+1 of employees decide to sign it. The employees automatically unionize then. Now, for those employees that declined to sign the card check, the never had an option of “choosing” a secret ballot vote. Plus, the union now knows how they feel about unionizing. Privacy is gone AND they couldn’t “choose” to vote on unioning through secret ballot. THAT is how it is elimintated.
You try to make it sound like each employee has an easy choice between a card check and a secret ballot. The reality is that it won’t play out like that. Just because the letter of the law technically says the secret ballot is still in place under certain circumstances, does not mean that employees have a simple choice between card check and secret ballot. The employees could unionize easily and automatically without the minority of employees having their voice heard through secret ballot if thats the method they prefer.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Tell me, Scrotee – did ya celebrate, when ya made the top 10?
August 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Bowhuntdude,
Your entire post concedes that that the “elimination” of the secret ballot is conditioned on an event. You can’t claim that that means it’s ELIMINATED without the context of condition.
For example:
It is illegal to drink beer if you are under 21. Would you just say “it’s illegal to drink beer, PERIOD?” Of course not. You need to include the condition.
That’s why this judge is saying the ads are “misleading” and “incomplete.” Tell the whole story and democrats wouldn’t have a problem with the ads.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
And you just conceded that it is eliminated under a condition. So the DFL’s claim that Coleman was lying is false. Just as the judge concluded.
Thanks.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“And you just conceded that it is eliminated under a condition. So the DFL’s claim that Coleman was lying is false. Just as the judge concluded.”
Sigh.
Fine, you people are hopeless. You’ve at least convinced me of that.
If you are going to rely on the judge’s language, you at least must accept the fact that the judge said it was “misleading” and “incomplete.”
August 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
It wasn’t any more misleading than claims by the DFL and the labor groups that it wasn’t eliminated.
Both sides could do a better job of explaining it, I’ll give you that.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“If you are going to rely on the judge’s language..”
As opposed to what…swallowing the lie you’re selling?
You Democrat drones are Un-****ing-be-leive-able.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Al Franken supports ensuring workers choose unions via the same pressure the citizens of Zimbabwe “chose” Robert Mugabe for president.
Mugabe Yes!
August 19th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
What do Robert Mugabe, Al Franken, Union thugs and DFLers have against voting rights?
August 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Your entire post concedes that that the “elimination†of the secret ballot is conditioned on an event.’
Exactly, and that event is ripe for intimidation and coercion.
You can’t say that some union guy / girl coming up to you and saying “here sign this” while standing over you and then grilling you when you don’t want to is a good way to organize a union.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The shoe fits on both feet when it comes to intimidation. Republicans aren’t afraid of the EFCA because they suddenly have a heart-felt concern for workers, workers rights, or free choice.
They fear the EFCA because it makes unionization easier.
At the end of this day, we simply know that republicans are willing to tell half-truths and mislead in order to forward their cause. I don’t really care about the EFCA so much as I do that the ads clearly mislead (and, in my opinion, are just wrong).
August 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The EFCA doesn’t make unionizing easier, more than it makes unionizing the only choice. Those who don’t vote to create a union get hurt. I should know, as a union boss tried to shatter my knee. That’s why I will never join a union. I value my life more than to be under the thumb of some violent Democrat.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Abraxia, I imagine those union bosses can get pretty testy when their free lunch (union dues) is threatened. Hope you are ok.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“At the end of this day, we simply know that Democrats are willing to tell half-truths and mislead in order to forward their cause.”
Well isn’t that just the entire case of the lying, dishonest and lazy DFL.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“They fear the EFCA because it makes unionization easier.”
That’s just a bald-faced lie. The only thing EFCA accomplishes is to make it easier and irreversible for union thugs to intimidate workers to sign cards.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
And the only thing the card check would do is take away a corporation’s right to have their own thugs intimidate workers into not asking for a secret ballot.
The act would take the power from employers and give it to the workers.
If Norm wants to run as Pro-Wal Mart/Anti-worker this fall, I am sure each of the other candidates would be fine with that. I just wish he would have the stones to say it in public.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“And the only thing the card check would do is take away a corporation’s right to have their own thugs intimidate workers into not asking for a secret ballot.”
This is among the dumbest things Leroy has bleated.
First, if its a secret ballot, there’s no intimidation. Second, how is not asking employees for a secret ballot possibly intimidation.
Ooooooooooo.
The act makes it easier and irreversible for union turds to intimidate workers into publicly signing their coercion cards. Nothing more.
If Al Franken wants to run as the pro Robert Mugabe, anti-voter rights candidate this fall, I’[m sure each of the other candidates would be fine with that. I just wish he would have the stones to say it in public.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
norm has said he is against the card check proposal. i don’t know how you could ask for anything more direct unless you do not understand the meaning of the word “against”.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
PlymouthDem, Leroy, TwoPutt,
I do hope that your workplace has a few “organizers” show up, and note that “you have nice car, it would be bad if anything happened to it” or maybe show up at your house and remark “cute kids” and “pretty wife” and then hand you a card. Then you will know why card-signing is evil.
And then maybe you would get a clue.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
PlymouthDem, Leroy, TwoPutt,
I do hope that your workplace has a few “organizers” show up, and note that “you have nice car, it would be bad if anything happened to it” or maybe show up at your house and remark “cute kids” and “pretty wife” and then hand you a card. Then you will know why card-signing is evil.
And then maybe you would get a clue.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
MO — Pd, Leroy and TwoPutt ARE the “organizers.”
August 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
If unions are so great, how come do only 13% of workers belong to a union, down from 35% in the 1950s? It looks like once again Democrats are trying to establish by other means what they cannot achieve in the ballot box.
Moreover, I think the law about political ads is prima facie unconstitutional. Political speech has the highest constitutional protections and I do not believe it’s the place of a court to tell people which political speech they are entitled to. Shame on the DFL for trying to silence and intimidate their opponents.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
“It looks like once again Democrats are trying to establish by other means what they cannot achieve in the ballot box.”
How true. And through EFCA, they’re going so far as to eliminate the ballot box all together.
Through EFCA, Democrats voice their opposition to voting rights for workers. Through this sham law suit, Democrats voiced their opposition to free speech.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:45 am
“If unions are so great, how come do only 13% of workers belong to a union, down from 35% in the 1950s?’
What a stupid (cheney)in’ moron you are. And you’re the base, which is but one reason why the GOP Small Tent Party is headed for Permanent Minority Status.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Say Cheeto boy?
You gonna be holding Franken’s belt loop out at the fair? I really hope so.
Tell you what. I’ll bring 50 lbs. of fried cheese curds for you to party with…howz zat, blob o’ goo?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Tommy try answering a question instead of resorting to name calling.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am
PDem,
Lets try this line of questions again to see if I have this process straight.
Card Check goes something like this. Union sends me a card in the mail or hands me one in person.
Do I have this part right?
I can check the card or decline to check the card.
Do I have this part right?
The Union knows if I checked the card or declined.
Do I have this part right?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Because, dipstick, in the 1950’s America actually MADE stuff. You know, stuff that was labeled “Made In The USA”?
But republiCons seemed to think America would do better if American cotton was turned into T-Shirts in China, rather than North Carolina.
Go to a store, any store, and when you’re looking for whateverthe(cheney) you want to buy, try to buy the one that was “Made In America”.
Go ahead.
I was just given a “Cannon AFB” hat – purchased in the PX.
It was made in CHINA. At a PX, they’re selling “made in china” hats.
You should wake the (cheney) up, pal.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“But republiCons seemed to think America would do better if American cotton was turned into T-Shirts in China, rather than North Carolina.”
Oh, so it was a consecutive string of Republican administrations and Republican domination of both houses of Congress that ran the country from 1935 to 1990?
I must have missed something. Oh wait, no you’re wrong as usual, and too fucking retarded to know that it’s socialist liberals who sent this country into a goddam tailspin in the 20th Century.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“Go to a store, any store, and when you’re looking for whateverthe(cheney) you want to buy, try to buy the one that was “Made In Americaâ€.”
That’s why Cheeto boy demands that his triple Whoppers be made with 100% USA beef, and he only buys Cheeto brand cheese snacks.
Cheeto boy keep a lot of American workers busy every day..right, blob o’ flesh?
“You should wake the (cheney) up, pal.”
That’s what Cheeto boy’s mom says every morning when she delivers his happy meals.
Hahahhaa!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Tommy wants to know why t-shirts are made in China? It’s because socialists, unions and Democrats priced U.S. labor out of the market.
Nobody can afford to buy a $90 t-shirt. The textile manufacturers that went under or left the country did so with unions riding their backs into the grave.
Take a look at Detroit for a modern day example of the same phenomenon.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Chestnut hates commies, but has no problem buyin’ stuff made by commies that used to be made by Americans.
Which explains how (cheney)in’ out of touch with reality rightwingnuts are.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Two Putt,
It’s funny because there are unions for hotel workers, restaurant workers, grocery store employees, and a myriad of other employment sectors. Moreover, not every manufacturer is unionized. But every government sector is unionized. If it wasn’t for government jobs, unions would probably be down to 5 or 6% of the workforce.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
That’s not funny, Chris – that’s sad. Do you think a two-classed society is desireable?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am
For Tommy “two gut” Johnson, a “two-classed society” means those that can order the triple Whopper and those who have to stick with the $Dollar menu….right, two gut?
What he doesn’t realize is that it costs the same to buy his 50 value meals every day as it does 10 regular people to buy normal meal each.
Fat and stupid is no way to go through life, two gut. Drop that bag o’ cheetos and take a walk, boy.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Tommy, we already have a two class society in some regards.
We have a productive class, and we have liberals.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Go with that, Chestnut – that makes reality easier for you to ignore.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Fat and stupid is no way to go through life, two gut. Drop that bag o’ cheetos and take a walk, boy.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Two Putt,
Are you saying that non-union employees are second class citizens??? If you’re saying that unions provide higher wages for workers, that can’t be true either since only 13% of the workforce is unionized. If your statement were true, then 87% of the workforce would be making less than 13% of the workforce.