Sometimes the kolacky is just kolacky.

I merged them.

“In both case of Rybak and the case of Coleman, the CFB ruled that each had in fact spent money running for Governor.”

True.

“You’ve spent the past several weeks claiming that neither one was doing that.”

The board disagreed with me on some points, agreed on others. The board, for example, found that Coleman did not need to file for a campaign committee, as I argued. The board did find Coleman’s expenses in attending gubernatorial forums were campaign expenses, a reasonable holding.

As for Rybak, the CFB latched onto the poll finding that specific questions asked made him a candidate for governor. I think that ruling is questionable, but that’s the call the board made and so that establishes the precedent going forward.

Rybak, who isn’t the sharpest knife in the box anyway, will have to learn to frame his questions more carefully next time, in the unlikely event there is a next time for the rather hapless mayor of Minneapolis.

In both case of Rybak and the case of Coleman, the CFB ruled that each had in fact spent money running for Governor. You’ve spent the past several weeks claiming that neither one was doing that.

Your were wrong on both counts Hiram. No split verdict.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by lukehellier: MDE Has YouTube Video of FOX9 Story about @MayorRTRybak Running for Governor with Comment from @mbrodkorb http://trunc.it/34png...

Hiram, that post was 24 days ago. Of the 14 comments on that thread, 8 of them were yours!

You did not recall, my ass.

On a more general note, I truly hope that the phrase “man up” does not enter the lexicon of commonly used political phrases.

“The Rybak case was decided on the survey issue, something I had not previously known about, and something I don’t believe was discussed on this board.”

Right here Hiram … http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/10/12/mn-gop-media-advisory-time-for-rybak-to-come-clean-on-26500-in-polling-expenditures/

You were the first to respond. Man up Hiram, quit being such a puss.

Coleman’s case was always stronger. Going around the state, talking to people, isn’t running for the governor, and I don’t think it’s in the public interest for the board to hold that it is. It really isn’t good policy to require any given politician, Republican or Democrat, to make filings just because he happens to talk with somebody about statewide issues, and the case with regard to Coleman was never much more than that. The gubernatorial forum issue was a bit more difficult, but the board seems to have ruled that appearing at that kind of event can be part of a campaign for governor, without the guy making an appearance actually be a candidate for governor. That seems inconsistent to me, but that’s the law of the case now.

The Rybak case was decided on the survey issue, something I had not previously known about, and something I don’t believe was discussed on this board. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. If the board is correct in their description of the survey, I would have no problem in agreeing with their decision.

Above is the link. To loosely quote Churchill, “I have on occasion found it necessary to eat my words, and I have always found them a tasty dish.”

As for the issues we have discussed on this board, I would say the board’s decision today is a split verdict, basically Coleman wins and Rybak loses.

Critical to the board’s decision with respect to Rybak was the statewide survey conducted on his behalf, which wasn’t limited to mayoral issues and seemed to relate, the board held to gubernatorial issues.

As for Coleman, the board ruled in his favor on the campaign committee issue but held expenses to attend gubernatorial forums must be reported, a not unreasonable finding in my view.

Viewed as a whole, I think the implicit message the Campaign Finance Board is sending to Sutton et al., is that the whole thing was a very small tempest in a very large teacup.

Boy, did RT ever make you look like a jackass for defending him.