28 thoughts on “That Elusive Discussion”

1. Thanks for covering this issue.

   I believe it is reprehensible for any elected official, of any party, to avoid serious, civil public discussion of the issues.

   A consideration that must be made though, is to what extent an official has already made their views known. Thus, it would be much more understandable for an official who has already extensively discussed issues, to pass up further discussion of them than one who had failed to put forth anything more than boilerplate platitudes.

   Also, please note you are repeating a mistake. Gavin never posted Representative Paulsen’s address on his blog. He posted links to other public sites, speculating that if the house at the address listed there belonged to Representative Paulsen, it would be 2.2 miles from his own house. As you have noted, Representative Paulsen lists his address on his own site, so Gavin might have instead provided a link there.

2. Being honest about bias isn’t sufficient and you know it. What is sufficient is working to counter-act such bias as best you can, and you do nothing. I wouldn’t waste my breath on someone who was going to openly distort, misrepresent, and lie about my comments either, whether they admitted they were distorting or not.

   Your behavior is reminiscent of an adict who, comparing himself to others says, “Hey, I’ve got NOOOO problem, at least I admit I’m an adict – those other guys, they admit it, but they are soooo stupid, they actually try to fight against their adiction to , while I, well I know I can’t beat it, so I don’t try.”

3. Did anyone else double check the name on peevish’s comment? I thought “this has to be Peevishly”. 😉

4. In case you missed it, that was Peev being “unbiased.”

5. Again with the swift change of subjects (from a guy with four fingers pointing back at himself).

   Really, Peev… that ain’t a bad one, but the Dire Straights have a number of even better songs.

6. “Bias admission just isn’t sufficient!”
   Bellows Peev, who we all know is omniscient.
   “You’re an addict!” he cries,
   Yet his outrage belies
   His comment addiction, at which he’s more than proficient.

7. Badda,

   Against my better judgement, I’ll reply. My comment was entirely on point- though obviously given Mitch’s penchance for delving off into minutae – I’ll reserve my right to do so as well – but the point was, why should anyone reply, Paulson or otherwise, to people they know to be openly biased. Mitch’s phumpering aside, he advocates an approach for which he deserves scorn, ridicule and to be ignored.

   Paulsen can do as he pleases – he has no requirement to reply to smear-boaters, none whatsoever. If you can’t put two and two together that bias begets dismissal – too bad for you, and apparently for Mitch too. He created his mess – if he doesn’t like sleeping in it, tough beans. The larger context is ALSO instructive though, Berg insists his approach is identical to others – in that all have bias, he’s just more honest. That’s a load of crap, and he ought to know it. Eric Black (as I recall) laid it out for him pretty well, in that we all understand we have biases, but some of us work to act against them, to STILL do a good job of evaluating both sides of the equation. Mitch, instead, embraces flawed data, flawed logic, and says it’s not his fault, he (or others like him) shouldn’t be held accountable (by Paulson for example) – for his conduct. Well, my reaction is, yes you should, you decided to be this hateful, no one has to slit their own throat responding to your churlish e-mails. It’s easier and frankly smarter, to treat you as if you don’t exist, because, bluntly, you won’t deal fairly, so why deal with you at all?

8. A hypothetical question can of course resemble reality–indeed, the purpose of a hypothetical question is to allow clear discussion of an underlying principle without regard to the actual personalities involved in a real-world dispute. So again I ask you, Mitch–if I were your longtime DFL state rep now running for Congress, would you consider it ethical for me to refuse to acknowledge that you are my constituent? Would it be ethical for me to instruct my staffers never to reply to you, even when you direct unimpeachably fair, above-board questions to me? I find this behavior appalling–and would find it no less so were the state representative in question a Democrat.

   Thanks Far East Indy. Paulsen cannot justify his refusal to answer questions by saying he’s already done so. Take for example his refusal to answer my inquiry for his position concerning Darfur. He has none, does he?

   And frankly, were I the candidate and a blogger to ask me for info I’d already released, I would have the courtesy to have a staffer send the link to the blogger.

   Rep. Paulsen holds no public events and does not answer any questions from the non-fawning media. Bloggers–left, right and center–ought to find fault in Paulsen’s refusal to participate in democracy.

9. Please remember–my email to Paulsen wasn’t ‘smear-boating’ or churlish. It straightforwardly asked for Paulsen’s position on Darfur. Take a look for yourself:

   http://www.flickr.com/photos/67654706@N00/2504646083/sizes/o/

   Do you find this email highly offensive or super-ideological?

   I don’t.

10. Gavin,
    Don’t expect Peev to actually look at the evidence… he’ll simply make outrageous claims that others are hateful and extremist.

    He won’t ever look for the evidence. It’s easier.

    Peev:
    “Mitch’s phumpering aside, he advocates an approach for which he deserves scorn, ridicule and to be ignored.”

    I’ll quote “Caddyshack” to you, Peev…

    Judge Smails: “Well… we’re waiting!”

11. Peevish is a riot. I had the same “bais” arguement with a liberal friend of mine and he refused to admit the MSM was extremely biased to the left. Then after I send a mountain of articles and surveys that proved most reporters and news agencies leaned far to the left, he then just said, “Wll, duh, everyone is biased!” You can’t win this argument with a liberal. They just won’t ever admit they are wrong.

    As for Paulsen, I sent him an e-mail asking him his poistion on environment regulation and energy. I never heard back from him, and because of that I won’t directly support his campaign.

    JS

12. Peev, you are such a babe in the woods.
    Here’s Black’s take on liberal bias in journalism: http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1969
    He admits that the vast majority of journalists are liberals. He also states:

    Selective perception is a powerful and unhelpful force in human nature. Liberal reporters perceive the world differently than conservative reporters do. This is bound to come across in their work in some way.

    Followed by:

    But they try to rise above their biases and they generally make considerable progress – generally a heckuva lot more than is selectively perceived by their critics, who often make no effort to rise above their biases.

    Taken in whole he seems to be saying that liberal bias is real, but that those who critique this liberal bias are more biased than journalists. At least some of the time.
    He never states that he does a ‘good job of evaluating both sides of the equation’. He says he tries to do this and that he has been trained to use undescribed techniques to do so.
    Obviously you misremebered what Black wrote in such a way that it supported your position — as near I can figure out what it is. You were biased in your description of what Black wrote on minmon.

13. Gavin,

    My two cents – I wouldn’t take the approach that you have on this. But I don’t know that there’s any stated rules or even etiquette on how to proceed. I can only surmise that Paulsen doesn’t want to deal with you for the same reason that Betty McCollum doesn’t want to deal with conservative bloggers in her district – it’s difficult to see the upside in engaging you on this issue. You deal with it your way, Mitch deals with it his way. If you continue to ramp up the pressure, perhaps he’ll respond. We’ll see.

    Peev scolds Mitch as follows:

    What is sufficient is working to counter-act such bias as best you can, and you do nothing.

    Goodness. This is Mitch’s personal blog. He can run it any way he damn well pleases. Stop being such a compliance officer/knob.

14. Goodness. This is Mitch’s personal blog. He can run it any way he damn well pleases. Stop being such a compliance officer/knob.

    We’ve been trying to knock that concept into Peev’s wobbly head for ages now. He somehow thinks Mitch’s blog should conform to Peev’s version of reality, such as it is. It’s sort of perplexing (to say nothing of completely disturbing) to basically read comment after comment that say, in effect: “Stop thinking the way you think! Stop having thoughts I disagree with! Your personal blog does not conform with my worldview! Now, I’ll write several meandering paragraphs saying the same thing, with only slight variations.”

    Mitch’s patience with Peev is nothing short of extraordinary. If Peev was haunting my blog, telling me not to write about bodily functions, I’d be editing his comments for comedic/mocking effect, if not deleting them outright.

    In conclusion: Peev sucks donkey sac.

15. If Peev was haunting my blog, telling me not to write about bodily functions, I’d be editing his comments for comedic/mocking effect, if not deleting them outright.

    I would too, Yoss. And your conclusion is probably too kind.

16. Yoss as Peev:
    “Stop thinking the way you think! Stop having thoughts I disagree with! Your personal blog does not conform with my worldview!”

    Well… he is a compliance officer after all. 😉

17. I’m currently trying to decipher
    Mitch’s penchance for delving off into minutae
    What is this “penchance” you have Mitch? Is it some new delving utensil? And what exactly is (are?) minutae? If this is an attempt to pluralize minutia it is superfluous as well as redundant. It does however sound like a Hell of a blog name:
    Penchance for Minutae
    Eschewing literacy and flogging logic since 2008

18. Kermit,
    Peev started LONG before 2008… and you know it. 😉

19. Kermit, as much as I hate to steal a great idea:

    http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/

20. What is sufficient is working to counter-act such bias as best you can, and you do nothing

    Sorry, but that’s completely wrong.

    My bias comes from my point of view. I’m not going to “counter-act” my point of view; I write about things from the perspective of a principled conservative. Period.

21. So again I ask you, Mitch–if I were your longtime DFL state rep now running for Congress, would you consider it ethical for me to refuse to acknowledge that you are my constituent?

    I’d be put off, certainly. I’d prefer that you answer me – and I’d certainly raise a stink about it. As, indeed, I am in re Thune, BettyMac, Keith and A-Klo.

    Would it be ethical for me to instruct my staffers never to reply to you, even when you direct unimpeachably fair, above-board questions to me?

    I’m not sure that it’s an ethical issue. And when I say “I’m not sure”, it’s because I really don’t know what the cast-in-concrete ethical answer is. I do know that I respect Ellen Anderson for answering my questions (and have written as much on my blog many times in the past six years), and throw many a brickbat at Alice “The Phantom” Hausman (to say nothing of Thune, BettyMac and A-Klo) for their reticence. Are the four of them being “unethical”, or “cowardly”, or “pragmatic”, or just plain lazy? I don’t know. I relate the facts, and let people decide for themselves.

    I find this behavior appalling–and would find it no less so were the state representative in question a Democrat.

    In a perfect – or even relatively decent – world, I’d think it good form to answer constituent questions.

    Rep. Paulsen holds no public events and does not answer any questions from the non-fawning media.

    Where “non-fawning” = “not in the bag against Republicans in general”. Look, I’m not entirely sure that the approach of only dealing with conservative media, such as it is, is a wise one – but I do know that Republican candidates have ample reason to keep the Strib, WCCO and Almanac (and to a much lesser extent MPR) at arm’s length.

    Bloggers–left, right and center–ought to find fault in Paulsen’s refusal to participate in democracy.

    Well, let’s not get crazy, here. He’s running for office, as opposed to driving a tank up the steps of the Capitol; he’s certainly “participating in democracy”. He’s ignoring you, for fair reasons or foul; it’s a blow to Gavin Sullivan, Constituent and (it must be added) leftyblogger, not to democracy itself. How this reflects on Mr. Paulsen is another question.

22. Well, let’s not get crazy, here.

    That ship has sailed Mitch.

23. You have my blessing, Yoss. Love the cat, BTW.

24. Politicians are not required under their oath of office to respond to all, or any percentage of constituants. What is more, they are not required to respond in a certain manner or within a certain time frame. Not only that, the staff of politicians (or other public servants) are required to respond and act as directed by the politician (within the boundaries of the law, of course).

    If you think he’s doing something wrong or gaulling, simply vote against him, support the opposition, or run for office yourself.

    THAT is participating in democracy. (Actually, that’s participating in a representational republic… and so much the better, as mob rule sucks ass.)

25. Come on Mitch. You can’t be serious expecting A-Klob to answer you. She’s gotta be way too busy fullfilling that campaign promise of lowering my gas prices. Just think how high they would be without her in office. I know that’s what she would tell you……if she weren’t too busy.

26. Hey, where can I get my very own Gavin Sullivan, Mitch? This “how dare you delete my comment on your blog and allow bloggers I don’t like to post here” is frickin’ hilarious. I want one for Christmas . . .

    “It straightforwardly asked for Paulsen’s position on Darfur” I dunno- almost sounds like a PRC/Khartoum troll-wannabe – ask your local politician about their “position” on Darfur, then stalk them when you don’t get a satisfactory answer in order to discredit the Save Darfur Coalition. With friends like these…

    And yeah, Keith Ellison never responded to my personal e-mail to him (I thanked him for attending a local Tibetan celebration of the Dalai Lama’s Congressional Gold Medal), either, but he did send me a prepared reply when I signed one of those Save Darfur petitions.

27. Gavin only refers to one question he asked about Darfur. What you don’t hear is prior to that he emailed Paulen every day for a month or so with one question. Here is my address, are you my representative. That is after he alerted Paulsen by harassing him at conservative events that he was a hostile blogger.

    Gavin did not ask a relative campaign question until after he had blasted Paulsen on his blog and harrassed his campaign with this inane question. It is the stupid question which elicited a response from Paulsen at the SD42B District convention where Paulsen refused to comment to Gavin in person because Pausen said ” Gavin was insincere”. At this same event, Gavin was removed from the convention floor and eventually kicked out of the building altogether.

    I agree that a reasonable debate on how candidates should respond to bloggers as they do media they consider legitimate is in order. However, to use Gavin Sullivan as any example of a typical biased blogger is absurd. Gavin has gone over the edge and is giving us all a bad name.

    I took Gavin’s challenge on is blog that Aswin Madia would never act like Paulsen and not respond to questions. One of Gavin’s commenters claimed that Madia responds to questions within one day. I have emailed the Madia campaign on four separate occasions since May 19th, no response yet. I am in the 3rd Congressional District and a possible voter for Madia. I have nothing against Madia or his campaign and this exercise is only done to prove the blinded bias of Gavin Sullivan in regards to Paulsen.

28. Here’s an example of Madia avoiding a question

    Madia was asked to clarify his stand on the pending U.S.-India nuclear deal. He admitted he has “avoided taking a political stance” on the issue, to focus more on taxes, Iraq and other issues to avoid giving a strategic advantage to his opponents.

    From

    http://jackofalltradesblog.com/2008/04/05/madia-raises-money-in-california/

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.