I suppose mentioning that your examples are different because Dayton wasn't running for office in 2003, and Flynn didn't give that in a sermon but in a letter to the paper wouldn't get me very far with your audience,would it?

I'm sorry, I meant to say, "would it, you funk superstar?"

Mr. Berg, as an example of revising (editing) an article to clarify points within it, your piece is extremely bad work. The main points of the article were the expungement, Fine’s (unstated) rationale for the delay in the expungement (if the arrest was an emotional issue, why the long delay?), and the readily inferred link between the expungement and his political ambitions. The “he said, she said” material provided background on the arrest related to the expungement.

The material about Fine having primary custody and Wexler’s apparent problems with managing anger can only be deemed important to someone who thought the article’s primary purpose was to make Fine look good. Your changes would make the article more about Fine’s marital problems and Wexler’s emotional problems than politics; those problems might be of interest to Fine’s and Wexler’s friends, but would be irrelevant to anyone interested only in Fine the politician. For depth re Wexler’s emotional states of mind, the article would have needed quotes from professionals and Wexler’s associates, versus quotes from Fine, excerpts from court proceedings, etc.

In short, you apparently wanted a different article. If you want a complimentary profile of Fine, you could do one yourself, but I doubt you’d be able to sell it to any commercial publication. The tone that Fine took in calling for a retraction of the Star Tribune article could make doing the profile difficult, though. Wexler isn’t the only one with anger management problems, apparently.

Note that I worked for Sprint Corp. for nine-plus years, abstracting newspaper articles and editing the abstracts for use in an in-house newsletter.

SRS

I know that the usual Republican defense and these rare instances is to point out how frequently and publicly Democrats do the same or worse. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were absolutely famous for the number of times they delivered "the word" from the pulpits on a Sunday morning. I think that the double standard is so obvious that it is not even worth pointing out anymore.

What I would very much prefer is to have some church (and it will have to be one that hosts Republicans, as Democrats feel free to use churches for their own politicking) stand up to one of these challenges and get a court to agree that freedom of speech and freedom of religion may not be compromised by the IRS! The federal government has no business telling pastors what they can or cannot say from their own pulpits, or even who may say it.

Synsidar,

The facts about the child's ongoing custody were, in fact, incidental to the story - which is why I kept it separate.

But your rather long response dodged the key question, and my main point; the failure to specify that Fine was never convicted is a fatal failing in the original story. You dodge it, I suspect, because you have no answer.

Yes, I wanted a different article - one that stated *all* the relevant facts! The *fact* that Fine was never convicted was omitted from both the article and your response - a failing that makes both fatally flawed.

"Note that I worked for Sprint Corp. for nine-plus years, abstracting newspaper articles and editing the abstracts for use in an in-house newsletter."

I bow before the vast breadth of your journalistic background.

J.Ewing, you said, "The federal government has no business telling pastors what they can or cannot say from their own pulpits, or even who may say it."

Nobody is saying they can not, if they do they lose their tax exempt status.

"I suppose mentioning that your examples are different because Dayton wasn't running for office in 2003"

Riiiiiight. No political motivation at all.

", and Flynn didn't give that in a sermon but in a letter to the paper"

No matter. It was using his ecclesiastical post for a political agenda. Which is fine, as far as it goes - I don't think there should be restrictions - but you know as well as I do that the media and the left wet their pants over *any* Christian having, expressing, and working toward *any* political agenda. For them to ignore Dayton and Flynn doing exactly the same thing is...telling.

" wouldn't get me very far with your audience,would it?"

Have George Soros send us a check. We'll listen.

Synsidar,

I am glad I am not the only ADHD commenter on blogs. I sure am embarrassed when it happens to me, though.

Troy

Mitch,

Thank you for writing on this clearly partisan hachet job. Michele Bachmann has previously spoken at LWCC and no outrage before? What do you think of the video running on youtube.com ? Thanks. Ron

Michele Bachmann has previously spoken at LWCC and no outrage before?

Really?!?

And could you supply dates and transcripts please?

Ron,

I'm not outraged that Bachmann spoke at LWCC. I support the First Amendment - and I think that churches can be as political as they want to be. I happen not to enjoy worshipping at heavily-politicized churches (right OR left).

Doug,

She spoke there at least once last winter. No, I will not supply any dates or transcripts; I went to LWCC, and saw that she was scheduled to appear the following week. You can do your own research.

Mitch said,

"No, I will not supply any dates or transcripts; I went to LWCC, and saw that she was scheduled to appear the following week. You can do your own research."

Gosh. Maybe I should have mentioned I was being sarchastic.

Besides, there's so much yummy stuff in the transcripts from her last Evangeli-Con performance piece, I doubt I could handle any more...

What is the definition of 'sarchastic'?

Is it mean "implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing" in a "a deep cleft in the surface of a planet"?

What is the definition of 'sarchastic'?

Is it "implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing" in a "a deep cleft in the surface of a planet"?

"Yummy"?

Did you learn english by reading Oliver Willis?

SPeaking of transcripts - anyone want to take a run through Bill Clinton's and Algore's various "sermons" in southern black and liberal white churches from 1992 to 2000?

The issue is what the Pastor said in Church plain and simple, and current law prohibits such speech. And the situation looks worse today considering the pastor lied about voting for bachmann, b/c he can't vote for her since he doesn't live in the district.

So mitch, do you also believe that all non-profits should be able to promote political candidates?

"The issue is what the Pastor said in Church plain and simple, and current law prohibits such speech."

Then it's time to send the IRS after every single church Bill Clinton campaigned in!

" And the situation looks worse today considering the pastor lied about voting for bachmann, b/c he can't vote for her since he doesn't live in the district."

I don't know (or care) what Mac Hammond said - if he did or just would vote for Bachmann (I would vote for her, if I lived in the Sixth too) - but for the love of pete, how would that make it "worse"? What are you talking about - legally? There are no legal consequences to saying one voted for someone that one could not have, unless you can put them in a polling booth outside their precinct of residence on election night (which is pretty much a Democrat thing).

Ethically? Leave that to Mac's congregation, sure, but that is hardly an issue (not to say the Strib won't try to make it into one...)

"So mitch, do you also believe that all non-profits should be able to promote political candidates?"

I'm frankly ambivalent. I'd generally rather they didn't (I don't like churches that dwell on politics, left OR right), but I could name a slew of non-profits on boths sides of the aisle that are utterly partisan, with no real ramifications. Enforcement of these laws is capricious and largely agenda-driven; why go after Mac Hammond but not Paul Wagonmon?

"I don't know (or care) what Mac Hammond said - if he did or just would vote for Bachmann (I would vote for her, if I lived in the Sixth too) - but for the love of pete, how would that make it "worse"? What are you talking about - legally?"

His repeated lies about what he did and said indicate he knew he was breaking the law. The IRS prohibits churches from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate."

"Enforcement of these laws is capricious and largely agenda-driven;"

Republican supporters do a great job of painting themselves as David. But you know you control the executive & legislative branches, and a majority of governorships. So tell me mitch, whose agenda is being pushed?