Not one of my better Coleman mocks, but a link from Shot in the Dark always gives me a springing step.

2 words, George Latimer. How soon they forget. St. Paul could easily return to the ghost town of Democrats past.

Here's my favorite line of Nick's: "My parents had even more children than they had friends..."
Somehow I believe that.

You all are as disingenuious as the wind. Had Kelly run against a Republican, you'd have said he was an incompetent, immoral liberal.

You're peeved that they tossed Kelly because he was stupid... well, people have that right. The feeling was that he no longer represented his constituancy, and the Bush endorsement reflected it. Put whatever clothes on it you like, but Ryan and Mitch are just echo-chamber buddies.

PB

PB,

Hasn't anyone ever told you - phrases that start with "You are..." are usually wrong, and almost always bad form?

I don't have time to exhaustively refute every point, so let me just answer concisely:
No,
nope and irrelevant
no, my neighbors are stupid,
no, and you've missed enough points to put the Bears in the super bowl,
and finally,
Gosh, Ryan and I agree. That must be a bad thing.

PB, you got us. Mitch and I exchange talking points via e-mail each morning. Sometimes Mitch faxes them to me, but usually it's e-mail.

"You're peeved that they tossed Kelly because he was stupid"

Actually, I don't really care that much, being that I live in Rochester, so the St. Paul mayoral race may as well have taken place on Mars. I mostly just enjoy mocking Nick Coleman.

Mitch,

Once again.. you state something is irrelevent without actually proving your point.. I suppose that's supposed to mean something, but it doesn't.

As for missing points.. I think you cornered that market a LONG time ago. You failed to say anything even remotely intelligent in your response here.

Try to actually speak to the point... the point being that Kelly was foolish and suffered for it. Chris Coleman didn't make Kelly foolish, and his campaign wasn't primarily responsible for people voting against Kelly. The people of St. Paul were, and you're offended by them, as is the point of Ryan's post - to which you agreed. So by that without a huge stretch of logic so that you can actually follow it, what you are REALLY doing here is not criticizing Coleman, but just like you all did with those who voted for Clinton, you are angry with the citizen's of St. Paul for voting their concience, for voting in a way you don't like. It's a reflection of your underlying intollerance. And just and FYI - tollerating intollerance is not tollerance, it's hypocrisy, so please don't ask me or anyone else to simply accept your contempt for the voters of St.Paul. You want to call St.Paul citizens stupid for not voting the way you tell them, then have the guts to call them stupid for outing a Mayor who they believed no longer was in touch with them, and appear to be the extremis that you are. Please try to actually present information.

I suppose my response could have been, to follow your typical example..

1. No, and dumb
2. No
3. Not germaine
4. $#!$
5. Nonsense
6. Nonsense x 2
7. You're a poopey head
8. I don't know anything worth saying so I'll just say irrelevant

If that's what passes as debate or intelligent conversation in your world or blog, well I guess that explains the vapidness, but I thought you were capable of more.

Ryan,

You can care about Kelly being repudiated without living in St. Paul, saying that not living in St. Paul proves you don't care is, on it's face, in question since you commented. You could care because it reflected a repudiation of Bush, you could care because you don't like what it portends for the future.. who know's.. but your residence is hardly a restriction on thought, or are you really a proponent of identity politics?

PB

And Mitch...

in an attempt to try to get you to understand a simple point..

The issue was not about whether you and Ryan agreed, as I suspect you know, it was that by simply repeating views from your own political mold, you self-substantiate without ever hearing or even caring about views from any other part of the spectrum. It gives both self-congratulations to you and the impression that your views are widely held. Further, it makes it appear that there is substantiation for your position, when in fact it is merely the regurgitation of similar minded people repeating what you've already said. That's why I said ECHO CHAMBER Mitch, not agreement. You might want to follow the point, or more correctly, since I really do think you understood it the first time, you might try not LYING to your readers about what my point was.

Just a thought.

By the way, if you want respectful treatment, try really hard to provide it. I treated Ryan, Chrisss and... (damn I forgot) with respect, I treated you with respect until you ceased treating me with it... you demeaned me, set the tone, and consequently get the treatment you provide.

PB

Once again.. you state something is irrelevent without actually proving your point..
Posted by pb at November 11, 2005 10:14 AM

You're peeved that they tossed Kelly because he was stupid...
Posted by pb at November 11, 2005 07:18 AM

Actually not irelevent. The liberals in St.Paul equate principal with stupidity. When Kelly did what he thought was right, (whether it was or not is the true irellevent issue), the liberals in St.Paul crucify him for not following the party line. When it comes to "echo chambers" the DFL has a patent.

"You can care about Kelly being repudiated without living in St. Paul, saying that not living in St. Paul proves you don't care is, on it's face, in question since you commented."

PB, I understand that you like to comment just to hear yourself type, but if you're going to attempt to repudiate me, at least read my comment first, that being: Actually, I don't really care that MUCH. . .

I hardly said I didn't care at ALL, or that I was restricted from caring in any way. I'm just not that interested in dedicating too much neural activity to parsing "what it all means" for an election that. . . wait for it. . . has about as much impact on me as a water pistol.

At most, I'm mildly annoyed, if that.

Seriously, PB, sometimes, when you comment, I think of Edna Mose from "The Incredibles," when she says, "You talk to much, dear. . . *gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble*"

Ryan,

Sorry that you appear annoyed at my post...but let me explain the nuance.

Saying you don't care MUCH implies that you are little concerned. Yes, I extended that to saying that you mean you don't care.. but the splitting of hairs of not much to not at all, it's pretty close to the same thing. Regardless, my point was that the fact you don't live in St. Paul is hardly relevant to whether you care, little, not much, or not at all. The point was that you presented a reason for not (much) caring that was specious. Getting huffy about the difference between a little and not at all is frankly, a little silly and misrepresents the point. Sorry though for any offense, you are right, I said not at all. I offer the correction that saying you don't MUCH care because you don't live in St. Paul is in question. It represents your concern about a race as essentially idenity based, when in fact it can be based on your personal investment in Bush- which you may very well be highly concerned about. Your comment belies your lack or little concern. Again, sorry for offending your sensibilities by mistating little as none.

As for impact of the election.. we'll see, I'm not like the Democrats who claim this is some national repudiation, but claiming it has little or no impact is also an overstatement. Bush's credibility is essentially spent, and in many respects he continues to lack traction because his basic political strategy, attack, does not work when he is seen as being in power with the ability to act unilaterally. In short, attack all you want, but it doesn't excuse your own failures... that is part of the "impact" of this election, Bush is seen as a lost cause, and justifiably, by the majority of his own party. Whether you agree or care (much) doesn't make it different, just like talking about how the people of St. Paul are stupid for repudiating a politician who openly embraces a philosophy they disagree with doesn't make you right.

As for an abundance of words.. yep, I don't refrain from using facts and actual arguments, rather than simply insults, bigotted comments, and snide sidelong vapid quips. I'm not saying you do Ryan, actualy, I appreciate the civility, (outside of the gobble comment), but it IS the paradigm the vast majority of commenters follow here.

Perhaps if they took the time to speak to the issues, the facts, rather than labeling anyone who doesn't agree either as a: a. coward b. unemployed c. public or union lackee/employee etc.. things would be able to be discussed to a conclusion that means something.

It would benefit the right (and left) to understand there are valid points, and reasonable people, who reasonably and justifiably disagree with them. I understand that is PRECISELY against the tactics Rove suggests be followed, specifically that you should only attack, not ever engage in real discourse, demean your opposition, refuse to discuss topics other than those you like using sound bites that simplistically reflect the issue. That approach has resulted in a radical departure from both reasoned discussion, decency (which supposedly Bush embraced), and most importantly, progress on real policy. Instead all we have is bitterness, ugliness and indecency. I thought for a time Mitch was willing to discuss things civily, but he isn't, that's clear. He is just another Rove devotee.. ugly insults, refusal to actually discuss things outside his very short list of views, and incivility.

If discussing complex things rationally takes time (clearly it does), and people are offended, or choose to not take time, then they bely their supposed interest in understanding and working for solutions to complex problems.

I won't stop posting complex comments to simplistically presented issues if they are, in fact, complex. I won't stop refuting the echo-chamber because some of the readers here deserve to hear something outside the closed-circuit of opinion normally presented by the right, and, unlike Mitch, I will try to respond to the multiple misrepresentations stated by Mitch with actual facts, or satire, or pointing out hypocrisy of it all, or even all three.

If that means you don't like it, won't read it, whatever... well, your loss, you might actually learn something, but at a minimum, you might actually benefit by considering opinions that would lead you to understand non-conservatives have decently held, reasoned opinions.

PB

Since PB did not like the way the last presidential election turned out, in order to be consistent he must be angry with the citizens of the US for voting their conscience, thinks them stupid, holds them in contempt, etc.
Really, PB, you've should quit thinking of 'voters' as a collective. Clinton never got more than 49.2% of the popular vote. How could he have been the choice of the American voters when he couldn't get more than half the people to vote for him?

PB wrote: "The people of St. Paul were, and you're offended by them, as is the point of Ryan's post - to which you agreed. So by that without a huge stretch of logic so that you can actually follow it, what you are REALLY doing here is not criticizing Coleman, but just like you all did with those who voted for Clinton, you are angry with the citizen's of St. Paul for voting their concience, for voting in a way you don't like. It's a reflection of your underlying intollerance. And just and FYI - tollerating intollerance is not tollerance, it's hypocrisy, so please don't ask me or anyone else to simply accept your contempt for the voters of St.Paul. You want to call St.Paul citizens stupid for not voting the way you tell them, then have the guts to call them stupid for outing a Mayor who they believed no longer was in touch with them, and appear to be the extremis that you are."

I wasn't annoyed by your comment, PB. I was saying I was mildly annoyed, if that, about St. Paul voters choosing a mayor based, not on any platform per se, but based on visceral hatred for the president. I mean, come on. I almost envision St. Paul voters casting their ballots and then shaking an angry fist in the general direction of Washington D.C. I'm sure the Bush administration was just on the edge of their seats waiting to see if a Democrat beat out a. . . Democrat.

If that's the voter logic in St. Paul, then. . . wow. Apparently, Coleman could have ran on a platform promising a 500 percent property tax increase and the removal of the pinkie fingers of all St. Paul males over 12, and people still would have voted him in because of a grip -n- grin between Kelly and Bush.

Ryan,

You may be right that Coleman could have been pretty outrageous and still one. I think it would have taken something like a 500% property tax increase, but candidly, outside of the Bush endorsement, Coleman and Kelly aren't that far apart ideologically, which sort of implies that the angst expressed by the right over Kelly's ouster is misplaced, you're getting a similarity. It also says maybe the real issue WAS Bush, and only Bush, and the upset expressed by the Right, or the comments by the left, both saying it should have been or was about more than Bush, are false.

Either way, if true that Kelly and Coleman are pretty similar, it then means the voters aren't stupid, they simply got rid of the guy who they had reason to fear might shift AWAY from past practices because he endorses someone perceived as being so antithetical to their core beliefs.

PB

Like I said before: Mean-spirited and vindictive as Hell.

Talking so much... yet nothing to say. ;)
Focus, focus, focus.

Badda..

Here's a focus for you.. you are too afraid to debate actual points... focus on saying something, anything at all, meaningful ;).

Is that succinct enough for you?

PB

Does anyone else scroll right past long posts because you know they are from PB?

And this is brilliant (remember so many others are "stupid): You may be right that Coleman could have been pretty outrageous and still one.

Won, PB, won.

Boy oh boy....is St. Paul and its inhabitants/voters are going to get screwed big time with taxes on all funtions and properties and incomes for the next four years when you got the Coleman-Benanav gang in charge....Mitch...sell the house...move the the 'burbs where will can wall out the DFL scum and let them die with their city.

St. Paulites now are as stupid as the f*cks that live in Minneapolis, now and will deserve all the taxation and crime they receive from the loving hands of the DFL...the nearest thing to a marxist-leninist party on the continent.