That sounds bizarre if Nick said this. Perhaps your little bird can go on the record. You were just criticizing the City Pages for using an anonymous source criticizing Bachmann.

Mitch,

This morning, he mentioned mockingly something about Bachmann "getting her heart broken in college", and it was obvious thathe was alluding to something that he said yesterday. That's all I got.

You said after your audiofisking that you'd love to see his ratings book. Have you? I'd be interested to know waht his numbers are (and compare that number to the number of links on the MOBroll).

LF

The City Pages' anonymous sources were giving opinions, basically taking shots at Bachmann's character; knowing their identies would be useful i assessing the credibility of the statements.

On the other hand, little bird is passing on an fact which (if true, which I believe it is) can be verified regardless of his identity.

It may sound bizarre, but it's very in character for Coleman's show.

I really don't understand the obssession of leftists with the sexual orientation of their "enemies"

Thanks (or more like "no thanks") to KAR I tuned into Nicky for the first time to hear his dribble. He specifically speculated Bachmann was a "LUG", he then went on to explain LUG as Lesbian Until Graduation. The show had technical problems so Nick and the sidekick had to "fill" and they continue to talk about Bachmann and the sidekick repeatedly used LUG. Finally, after 15 minutes, Nicky told him to knocked off.

Bill Hedrick-
I really don't understand the obsession of some righties with sexual orientation. (i.e. Bachmann)

It really is a two way street.

I believe that "the little bird" Mitch metions is me as we discussed this last night at Keegan's. SD63 has it exactly right and, yes Eva, it is quite bizarre. Nick is a bizarre man. He seems to like you, though.

This whole NC radio thing troubles me. I have long told myself that the writer "Nick Coleman" was a purely theoretical construct used by various editors as a place to purge themselves of the urge to explore the far reaches of non-sports cliche. The NC column was thus a convenient place to "get it out of their systems." Alas this helpful fiction is falling away brought down by NC's most recent radio incarnation. I have ignored him in the past; I can't ignore him any longer; I guess I better listen in.

Carson,

Other than opposing gay marriage and cricizing some glbt programs in the schools, I'm unaware of any "obsession" on Bachmann's part.

Mitch-
The way she handled he gay marriage bill last session shows how obsessed she was. Her dogged pursual in trying to pass that bill contributed greatly to the obstruction that occured within our legislature last session.

She just can't and won't let it go.

Yeah, them damn lawmakers have an annoying habit of trying to enact laws.

LF

Carson,

I think if you look at Michele's record on other stuff she "doggedly" pursues just about any legislation she gets on board with. That's her style. Now she's on board with this Horowitz clean up the college classroom campaign. If you happen to oppose her I'm sure it looks like she's obsessed with one particular issue.

"If you happen to oppose her I'm sure it looks like she's obsessed with one particular issue"

Maybe to the point where you start multiple blogs and write about it 24 hours a day.

ok, subtlety don't work. I am disgusted by the puerile hypocrisy of the left. They preach tolerance and accuse (sometimes rightly) the right of homophobia, until they find someone they really hate on the right and then they call them (or revel in the fact that) gay. This isn't limited to accusing Michelle Bachmann. Incidently what does it say about someone when they think accusing someone of being gay or having a gay experience in their past is a bad thing? The whole Gannon/Guckert thing for instance. The same people that would argue for legalized prostitution and proclaim their solidarity with the GLTB community, accuse him of being running a gay escort service. I see it all the time online, as much as I disrespect li'l Nicky, I didn't think he was a closet homophobe until now.

billhedrick-
"until they find someone they really hate on the right and then they call them (or revel in the fact that) gay".

Well, I must confess... I find it hilarious when someone, who has helped promote constitutional amendments against gay marriage, gets outed. Schadenfreude, if you will. I don't think it is right to attack someone based purely on their sexual preference... but I think it is perfectly fine to point out someone's hypocrisy regarding that subject matter. And in that sense... I have no pity for Gannon.

"The same people that would argue for legalized prostitution and proclaim their solidarity with the GLTB community, accuse him of being running a gay escort service." Since when did supporting the legalization of prostitution mean supporting illegal activity. I don't think it is wrong to condemn illegal activity, even if you might support it being legalized. Illegal is illegal.

But I will say that I don't believe homophobia is limited to conservatives. Many, many lefties are bigots. Coleman may or may not be, I really don't know.

But speaking of obsession: enough with the Coleman stuff. My god, how could anyone bear this much Nick Coleman. We get it... you MOBers hate him. Great. Please write about something else. Anything else. Who cares about Nick Coleman?

(I am sure you don't care at all what this lefty reader thinks... fine. And maybe your other readers feel differently, but my God... it seems like every time I visit I see a "I had a horrible cup of coffee today, and it reminded me of how horrible Coleman's radio show is" type post. *Please note sarcasm*)

And before anyone posts: "You just don't like the Coleman posts because you are a lefty"... If I went to a blog that EVERY SINGLE DAY (sometimes multiple times a day) wrote about the same person or thing I would get sick of it... no matter the political orientation.

I love Talking Points Memo... but I just can't take that much social security talk.

And after good week or two of Gannongate... I wished he would just finally go away. Yet... we still seem to keep talking about him.

Carson,

I actually gave up on fisking Coleman last fall, for a while. His radio "show" - and the constant venting of his personal animus toward the NARN, the MOB, and many of us as individuals - has given the conflict a new least on "life".

Also, it's like a fascinating experimental psych project - and my job involves a lot of x-psych, so it's not of casual interest to me. It's almost like a you have a spontaneously-forming group building a collaborative model of Coleman's predictable reactions to the stimuli of our varied criticisms; it's like testing responses in a lab rat, only better.

That said, I can see me and the rest of the NARN tiring of it, too, and being once again ready to hand the job over to the newer MOBsters who are interested. We have little left to prove; we're better writers, better broadcasters, many of us are better journalists, and if what he says on the air is any indication, better (small-l) liberals as well as better conservatives.

Swiftee seems to have picked up on a full time fisking Nick Coleman beat.....

Thanks Atomizer (where did you get that name?) for identifying yourself as Mitch's source on this point. If Nick did say this stuff it was pretty lame. I didn't hear that show, so it's hard to comment on something I haven't heard.

I suppose Mitch is referring to me here:

Nick - word to the wise. You gotta be careful about these things, or the Twin Cities' resident, uninvited guardian of all references to gayness will be on you like lunacy on Ventura...

...oh, wait. She's saying nothing, because Coleman is giving her the one thing she treasures more than justice for gays; publicity. A perusal of all of her (constantly-updated) websites shows no mention of this incident.

Gosh. There's a shock.

EY: I hadn't heard about this until I read the post on Mitch's blog. When I read this, I sent an email with the post to Nick Coleman requesting comment. I have not heard back from him. This is called fact checking, I believe.

Now I suppose I could put a post to the effect: MOBsters claim that Nick Coleman called Michele Bachmann a lesbian.... Or that he called her a LUG (Lesbian Until Graduation) - I'd never heard that term..... And link to Mitch's post..... I don't know the point of posting that sort of thing - it spreads that particular rumor - which I don't believe is true.

I forwarded something Mitch had posted on the non-e-democracy elist to some gay lists. It was saying something to the effect that the lesbians who got roughed up at Lucy's bar were probably asking for it because they were pretty violent. I can dig the post up - but the point there - is I was on that list, and I read the post. I thought it was over the top - so forwarded it to people who I thought might let Mitch know what they think. It was very similar to Mitch posting about the over the top statement by a labor leader about David Strom - and urging some comments going to the labor unions about that.

Carson,

I've praised Coleman when it looks like he's actually done some research and and presented a logical case backed up by facts. Most of the time I ignore his stuff, but when he writes an absolutely absurd mix of misinformation, half-truths and cherry-picked out-of-context quotes wrapped in a cloak of pure carping, I feel compelled to respond.

If someone on the right wrote like Coleman, you guys would be up in arms. Don't you dare deny it.

Coleman's radio comments: I'm inclined to think that the reason that Nick says what he does is because he thinks no one IS listening.

Eva,

You and your comments are welcome on my blog. However, I'm going to be honest; your capacity for self-justification has moved beyond comical to downright grating.

"EY: I hadn't heard about this until I read the post on Mitch's blog. When I read this, I sent an email with the post to Nick Coleman requesting comment. I have not heard back from him. This is called fact checking, I believe."

No, it's called asking someone to make a statement against interest.

I checked facts, Eva - two different people heard it.

"Now I suppose I could put a post to the effect: MOBsters claim that Nick Coleman called Michele Bachmann a lesbian.... Or that he called her a LUG (Lesbian Until Graduation) - I'd never heard that term..... And link to Mitch's post..... I don't know the point of posting that sort of thing - it spreads that particular rumor - which I don't believe is true"...

...because Coleman didn't answer an email with a statement against interest.

I'm spreading the *story* because Nick Coleman has told his Strib audience that bloggers aren't credible because we say any irresponsible thing we want, we have no fact-checking, and we are completely unaccountable. Over this past two years, we NAOB (and some of the MOB) bloggers have built a huge body of fact against Coleman; instances where he was grossly fact-challenged; instances where he's been completely irresponsible to the point of defamation; unaccountable to either editor or audience. In short, we're building the case that Nick Coleman is as bad as the most scurrilous blogger. And that most of us are, in fact better than him.

Did I say "building?"

"I forwarded something Mitch had posted on the non-e-democracy elist to some gay lists. It was saying something to the effect that the lesbians who got roughed up at Lucy's bar were probably asking for it because they were pretty violent"

That is a gross misrepresentation, Eva...

" I can dig the post up"...

...and no, I'm not interested in re-hashing it. I guarantee you that if I'm forced to, I'm going to make sure it's the last time.

" but the point there - is I was on that list, and I read the post. I thought it was over the top - so forwarded it to people who I thought might let Mitch know what they think."

And, again - and hopefully for the final time - you forwarded my *private* email, provided to the e-list with the understanding that it was not going to be given to marketers or circulated indiscriminately around the internet - to a bunch of lists to which I'd not subscribed, WITH THE INTENTION of causing them to mail-bomb me and my blog, while operating on forums to which I was not subscribed. I had no ability to represent my case to the DOZEN GAY LISTSERVERS you spammed my post onto, even if I had the apparently boundless time to devote to nitpicking others on the issues that you seem to (do you even HAVE a job? Kids?). By the way, I can only imagine the eyes that rolled on the various gay issues lists when you posted my email from an unrelated e-list, to boot; I imagine at least some of them considered it off-topic spam, too. Did I say spam? My daily spam count increased by two orders of magnitude as a direct result of your irresponsible action. Oh, and some of those lists must be serious gay jihadi groups; shall I repost some of the hate mail I got? Your sanctimony on this "issue" is really misplaced, Eva. I'm understating on purpose.

I am going to say this once, Eva, and then I'm going to pound a spike through the heart of this particular bit of history. This was something for which you should have been ostracized, declared persona non grata by e-listers and bloggers everywhere. I should have banned you from this blog, and made damn sure that every e-list member and blogger knew what an unethical, irrational zealot Eva Young is.

Did I say irrational? To wit:

"It was very similar to Mitch posting about the over the top statement by a labor leader about David Strom - and urging some comments going to the labor unions about that. "

No, Eva. To be "very similar", I'd have had to post Corporal Jensen's personal email or phone number to mailing lists of libertarian organizations, tax protest groups, the Taxpayers' League's distro list, and for good measure the Posse Comitatus' e-list. THAT would have been similar. What I DID was post his remarks, completely in context, from a PUBLICLY AVAILABLE publication, and link to the PUBLIC contact points for the MNSTA.

That you can't see the difference means you're either scraping real hard for equivalence, or you've completely departed the bounds of reason.

The worst part about this whole chinese firedrill, Eva, is not your unethical actions (water under the bridge) or your continued justification of it (you have to live with yourself, I don't), or even the way you've misrepresented me. The worst part is realizing the time I've devoted to this utterly cretinous "issue" over the last year and a half.

Back on topic here; Coleman's failure to state against interest that he defamed Bachmann is not proof that he didn't do it; asking him to do it isn't "Fact-checking".

It was not a private email when it was posted on a public list - the St Paul List. I generally assume that the emails people use to post to lists are the emails to which they want comments directed.

It's rather interesting that rather than attack the items on the DumpBachmann blog, you are attacking me personally.

Asking for comment is getting Nick's side of the story.

And if you want to ban me from your blog - go ahead. That is certainly your perogative.

"It was not a private email when it was posted on a public list - the St Paul List."

Eva, I'm going to ask you politely to get this through your apparently impermeable head: The post was public and I have no problem with it. MY EMAIL ADDRESS WAS PRIVATE. I provided it on the assumption that it would remain on the mailing list; I checked before subscribing to make sure the list itself was not harvestable by spambots.

Post? Public. Email address? Private.

That you are still having trouble with that distinction sort of sums up the problem, here.

" I generally assume that the emails people use to post to lists are the emails to which they want comments directed."

I'm starting to see why you've gotten banned from so many discussion groups, Eva. One expects comments - FROM THE LIST TO WHICH THEY SUBSCRIBED.

"It's rather interesting that rather than attack the items on the DumpBachmann blog, you are attacking me personally."

I'm attacking your blogging, your commenting and your ethics.

"Asking for comment is getting Nick's side of the story."

Hm.

NICK COLEMAN: "Let's see; the wingnut bloggers have brought down Rather, Jordan and Lott. They pinned Jim Boyd's ears back. I have a swarm of bloggers trolling the waters looking for any chum I leave about - and my constant insults are a pathetic attempt to cover the fact that they own my ass. I just said something stupid and indefensible on my "show", and Eva Young is asking if I said it. What should I do? Answer fully, immediately and completely? Or stay mum and hope it all goes away? Hmmmmmmmm. Tough one, that."

"And if you want to ban me from your blog - go ahead. That is certainly your perogative."

1) Prerogative.

2) Cut the drama.

I've posted about the MOBsters reports on Nick Coleman's statements about Michele Bachmann on DumpBachmann - so are you happy, now? I linked to you as the source.

As far as spambotting goes - I forwarded your message to a bunch of yahoogroups - and yahoogroups protects email addresses in their archives. It just gives the address in the format: So whoever@whatever.com is rendered: whoever@w...

If you want to express your opinion in a public forum - and the St Paul List is a public forum, you shouldn't be surprised if you get quoted.

Eva says "If you want to express your opinion in a public forum - and the St Paul List is a public forum, you shouldn't be surprised if you get quoted. "

I've been reading this thread for a while, and it seems fairly clear to me that Mitch had no objection to his post being quoted, but rather to having his email address circulated.

If little old me gets the point, Eva, then why the HELL haven't you?

So if it is true, Eva, does this mean you will have to have your nose surgically extracted from Nick Coleman's ass?

Dentists - Here are some featured sections that provide useful information for our Dentists. Please check back for frequent updates. - http://www.racefanfantasy.com/t3.php