It Just Occurred To Me…
By Mitch Berg
…that while everyone knows Mary Franson (GOP HD8B) supports the Marriage Amendment…
…that her opponent, retired school teacher and endorsed DFL challenger for the seat Bob Cunniff, hasn’t made his opinion on this bill public yet. His website and facebook page are silent on the subject.
Just in the interest of free inquiry, it might be good for people to ask Mr. Cunniff what he thinks about this intensely fractious issue.
(Or try to. His campaign website includes no way of contacting the campaign or the candidate, other than the ‘Volunteer!” page. You might have to persevere a bit).
If you get an answer, by all means leave a note in the comments.
UPDATE: Welp, here’;s a real profile in courage (via commenter Jay McCue):
He winds up and gives that issue a 55-yard kick down the road. “It’s up to the voters”. Right, that’s correct. But how do you stand on it?
October 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
The Pioneer Public TV debate between Rep. Franson and Bob Cunniff is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIoylbEGcXA
His answer to the question is a non-answer and pretty wishy-washy, particularly given the DFL’s vehemently strong stance against the amendment.
October 3rd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Oh, sorry. Forgot to mention that his answer is at the 15:44 mark.
October 4th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
McCue? I’m not a pool ball! 🙂
October 4th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Anyway, the reason for his silence and non-answers is because he’s trying to appeal to an area that supports the marriage amendment by a huge margin while not running directly afoul of the DFL’s official position.
October 4th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Mary Franson is a divorced hypocrite that’s been accused of having a boyfriend while still married and cheating on her husband. At least Cuniff respects the commitment he made to his wife many years ago. Clearly Franson’s vows and commitment meant nothing when she made them. Why should we listen to anything she has to say about marriage?
October 4th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
I’m just wondering why the two comments preceding mine were moderated and released immediately, yet here it is more than one hour and you’ve yet to post mine?
October 5th, 2012 at 6:49 am
“I’m just wondering why the two comments preceding mine were moderated and released immediately, yet here it is more than one hour and you’ve yet to post mine?”
Because everyone’s first post is moderated, and this blog has manual moderation, and I don’t sit on the blog 24/7 moderating comments. I was busy until 10 last night, and then went straight to bed without writing anything.
And you might wish I’d left your comment un-moderated by the time I’m done.
October 5th, 2012 at 6:57 am
“Anyone”,
Mary Franson is a divorced hypocrite that’s been accused of having a boyfriend while still married and cheating on her husband.
And that accusation has been debunked by none other than that noted conservative tool Sally Jo Sorenson.
The “accusation”, as I recall, was nothing but a cowardly blog post by Eric Austin (repeated Mike McFeely, a gutless hack talk show host who playing probably two levels above his weight working in Fargo), with a couple of sources he never revealed. The charge has no weight.
Clearly Franson’s vows and commitment meant nothing when she made them.
People get divorced for many reasons, most of them having nothing to do with their commitment to what marriage should be. If someone’s spouse cheated on them, or beat them up, or was a terminal alcoholic who spent the baby’s food money on vodka, they were supposed to stay married? Even the Bible allows a couple of grounds for divorce.
Why should we listen to anything she has to say about marriage?
That’s called a Tu Quoque Ad Hominem. It’s a logical fallacy – “Because you’ve been inconsistent on this issue, your argument is wrong!”. It’s illogical and it’s just plain dumb.
This is one of the Marriage Amendment’s opponents’ dumbest arguments. And the fact that you delivered it anonymously, using an “accusation”, only shows you are not too bright in re logic, and coward to boot.
October 5th, 2012 at 10:22 am
By the way – you’re really Aaron Ley, aren’t you?
October 5th, 2012 at 11:48 am
“By the way – you’re really Aaron Ley, aren’t you?”
That’s my guess. If not him, then it’s one of the small handful of other morbidly obsessed stalkers Rep. Franson has.
October 5th, 2012 at 11:53 am
“Mary Franson is a divorced hypocrite that’s been accused of having a boyfriend while still married and cheating on her husband. At least Cuniff respects the commitment he made to his wife many years ago. Clearly Franson’s vows and commitment meant nothing when she made them. Why should we listen to anything she has to say about marriage?”
Can you imagine if the roles were reversed on all sides of this? What if Cunniff were divorced and Rep. Franson’s supporters were bringing the issue up? The DFLers like our stalker friend here would be up in arms and having a field day! They’d say it’s none of our business and that it doesn’t have any relevance to the position he’s running for. So tell me, Aaron or whoever you are, who’s the true hypocrite here? Republicans don’t attack Democrat candidates regarding their marital status, so why do you attack a Republican like Rep. Franson regarding her’s? I think you’d better take a good, long look in the nearest mirror and see that accusing finger pointing back at yourself.
October 5th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Honestly, “anyonebutmary,” if you don’t know the details surrounding Rep. Franson’s marital status, then SHUT. THE. HELL. UP!!!
October 5th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Sorry fellas, as much as you would like it to be the boogeyman Aaron Ley, I’m up to my ears in work and can’t spar with you about Mary’s personal life.
October 5th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Aaron,
Thanks for stopping by my humble blog.
It’s not you? OK. Then either…
a) It’s someone associated with you, or
b) it’s still you.
I mean, voila; here you are, hours after I call an anonymous sock puppet “Aaron Ley”, in the comment section of a several-day-old post on an obscure blog with virtually no readership in the greater Alexandria or Metro Fargo area.
Unless, surely, there’s another explanation. You randomly happened by, perhaps?
October 5th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
By the way, Aaron and/or ABM: what is Cuniff’s position on the Amendment, again?
October 5th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
As a long time resident of Alexandria, a devoted husband, and a voter that usually leans Republican, I find it hard to understand why you’re focusing on this issue. To me, it appears Mr. Cunniff says right off the bat, that he believes in a marriage between a man and a woman. That seems like a sufficient answer to the question. Furthermore, I find Ms. Franson’s response one harder to align myself with. My wife and I have been happily married for many years. What difference is it to me if gay people want to get married too? I really want to support Mary in this election but her stance on this particular issue just rubs me the wrong way. What if one of her little boys turns out gay? Is she going to tell them she fought to make sure they couldn’t marry their partner? I’m not telling you all that you’re not entitled to your opinions but this ain’t the 1950’s anymore. In this day and age, I think it best we be more accepting of others. After all, Matthew 7:1 instructs us not to judge for we will in the same way, be judged in turn. I will pray about this issue, and I plan to vote No on the Amendment. I will also now pray for you and for Ms. Franson, in the hopes that you find we have more important things to worry about in our country, and even in our today.
October 5th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Oops, that was meant to say “our area today” at the end there. By the way, I can’t speak for Mr. Ley, but I found this from it being shared on Ms. Franson’s Facebook page last night.
October 5th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“Sorry fellas, as much as you would like it to be the boogeyman Aaron Ley, I’m up to my ears in work and can’t spar with you about Mary’s personal life.”
Hey, Aaron. Interesting that you showed up “in the flesh” to defend yourself once your name popped up. Obviously someone alerted you or you alerted yourself — you guys are well-known for using sock puppets. Either you are “anyonebutmary” or you know who it is.
October 5th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Sorry Sherlock, I was at a Dist 42 fundraiser in NoDak at the time the post was posted. A sock puppet DM’d me and asked if it was me writing. Hence, my response. Finally, who would I be to talk about Marys failed marriages? My mother is on her third marriage, my father on his fourth.
October 5th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
“I found this from it being shared on Ms. Franson’s Facebook page last night.”
Not that I doubt you, but… um… I can’t seem to find where that was shared.
October 5th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“Sorry Sherlock, I was at a Dist 42 fundraiser in NoDak at the time the post was posted.”
iPhones exist…
“A sock puppet DM’d me and asked if it was me writing. Hence, my response.”
Uh-huh. How’s that “Animals4Cunniff” account working out for you?
“Finally, who would I be to talk about Marys failed marriages? My mother is on her third marriage, my father on his fourth.”
Neither you or your mom is for the MN marriage amendment, which is the point of bringing up Rep. Franson’s personal life.
October 5th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
“To me, it appears Mr. Cunniff says right off the bat, that he believes in a marriage between a man and a woman.”
Which, if you think about it, is an odd phrasing. He doesn’t say he believes marriage to be only between a man and a woman. He believes “in a marriage between a man and a woman.” It’s strange wording. What exactly does it mean? Doesn’t everyone — even those fighting for gay “marriage” — believe in a marriage between a man and a woman?
“That seems like a sufficient answer to the question.”
Not really. He doesn’t really say anything about where he stands on the amendment. You realize why, don’t you? It’s because the DFL utterly opposes the amendment — so much so that they’ve put it in their party platform.
“Furthermore, I find Ms. Franson’s response one harder to align myself with.”
How so? Because she wasn’t wishy-washy and actually came out in support of the amendment that will cement current Minnesota law?
“My wife and I have been happily married for many years. What difference is it to me if gay people want to get married too?”
Because where gay “marriage” has been enacted in this country, people’s free speech and religious rights are being violated as we speak. That’s because the truth behind the fight for gay “marriage” is that it’s actually not about gays getting married, but about forcing people to accept their behavior as normal and silence any and all opposition.
“I really want to support Mary in this election but her stance on this particular issue just rubs me the wrong way.”
What a strange thing to say. As this is an amendment being left up to the state’s voters, Rep. Franson’s and Bob Cunniff’s opinions on the issue are really not that important. It’s about the same as one saying people should eat at Burger King and the other says they should eat at McDonald’s.
“What if one of her little boys turns out gay? Is she going to tell them she fought to make sure they couldn’t marry their partner?”
“What if” questions are really very meaningless and bringing up her boys is really very underhanded. Let’s leave her personal life out of this, okay?
“I’m not telling you all that you’re not entitled to your opinions but this ain’t the 1950′s anymore. In this day and age, I think it best we be more accepting of others. After all, Matthew 7:1 instructs us not to judge for we will in the same way, be judged in turn.”
You need to read beyond a single verse taken out of context.
October 5th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Mr. McHue, may I ask what connection you have to Ms. Franson’s campaign? I ask because I find your language here to be quite defensive. Anyone can deconstruct a statement but it seems as though your reaction to everything posted herein has offended you personally. As previously mentioned, you’re entitled to your own opinion but you respond in an almost condescending verbiage, as if you’re truly perturbed about this issue. Who are you to judge how anyone else feels and what they determine who they vote for on? Have you considered the possibility that this is a bigger deal to you, Mr. Berg, and the Franson campaign than it is to Mr. Cunniff? I find it peculiar that you dissected most of my comment (as well as every other comment) and conveniently left out the fact that we have more important issues to worry about these days. I guess to you, we don’t. You’ve reassured me that my doubts in today’s Conservative base were not unsubstantiated. I was questioning my vote for Ms. Franson before but if your feedback here is any indication of what the current GOP represent in Douglas County, than I can no longer say I’m unsure. I’d rather support what appears to be the more rational, and tolerant candidate. My prayers are with you and yours, and I hope you’ll find peace, and learn to love others with open arms. God bless.
October 6th, 2012 at 7:05 am
Mr. Johnson,
As a long time resident of Alexandria, a devoted husband, and a voter that usually leans Republican, I find it hard to understand why you’re focusing on this issue.
I’m not sure you’re clear on what Issue I”m focusing on.
I’m focusing on the double standard the left has when dealing with female conservatives.
As I’ve written many times, I’m ambivalent about the Amendment.
To me, it appears Mr. Cunniff says right off the bat, that he believes in a marriage between a man and a woman.
Nope. He believes in his marriage. Which is nice – good for him and the missus – but he doesn’t answer the question on same-sex marriage or the Amendment. It’s a dodge.
Furthermore, I find Ms. Franson’s response one harder to align myself with. My wife and I have been happily married for many years. What difference is it to me if gay people want to get married too?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion – but as you say, it’s not the most important issue out there.
I really want to support Mary in this election but her stance on this particular issue just rubs me the wrong way. What if one of her little boys turns out gay? Is she going to tell them she fought to make sure they couldn’t marry their partner?
That’s their business. And it’s irrelevant; the question is, “Does Cuniff support the Amendment, or not?”
After all, Matthew 7:1 instructs us not to judge for we will in the same way, be judged in turn.
The key being “in the same way be judged in turn”. For someone who opposes gay marriage on religious grounds, being judged for following what they believe to be their religion’s teachings isn’t really a big problem.
I will pray about this issue, and I plan to vote No on the Amendment. I will also now pray for you and for Ms. Franson, in the hopes that you find we have more important things to worry about in our country, and even in our today.
Prayers are always welcome, but in this instance, I’ll ask you to reserve them for cancer patients or our soldiers…
…because in this case, I’m not “worried” about this issue (and while I can’t speak for Rep. Franson, I doubt she is either).
No, Mr. Johnson, asking Mr. Cunniff isn’t consuming any time or worry. We get to do that, in any case.
The issue, truly, is about the browbeating and bullying that conservative women come in for. And I figure that given how much ire Cunniff’s supporters are trying to whip up against Rep. Franson (for an issue that was voted on over a year ago) it might be useful for voters to know Cunniff’s stance – since it’s apparently so important to them.
It’s not a big reach, is it?
October 6th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Since Mr. McHue hasn’t answered, I’ll take a stab at it:
Mr. McHue, may I ask what connection you have to Ms. Franson’s campaign? I ask because I find your language here to be quite defensive.
He answered your statements.
Anyone can deconstruct a statement but it seems as though your reaction to everything posted herein has offended you personally.
Just a word of advice: I’ve found online mind-reading to be fairly inaccurate, and in any case unrewarding, and best avoided.
As previously mentioned, you’re entitled to your own opinion but you respond in an almost condescending verbiage, as if you’re truly perturbed about this issue.
Mr. Johnson, poking at your perception of someone tone in an online comment is also a fairly unrewarding diversion. Print is a terrible vehicle for figuring out peoples’ tone (and I do study this sort of thing for a living). You might well focus on what Mr. McHue said, and not how you think he said it.
Especially given your next statement:
Who are you to judge how anyone else feels [!!! – Ed]
Have you considered the possibility that this is a bigger deal to you, Mr. Berg, and the Franson campaign than it is to Mr. Cunniff?
As I’ve said – the Amendment isn’t that big a deal to me.
The hypocrisy of the left – especially statewide – is. The left really piles on female conservatives. I’ve been spending a lot of time writing about the race in 8B because it’s a classic example; the cockroaches of the left are out in force in this race, and they need to have a light shone on them.
Mr. Cunniff seems to be a nice guy. I don’t know much about Alex politics, but I actually drove through the town for the first time in my life last month, and sa w probably 20 Franson signs for every Cunniff sign. While signs don’t vote, it seems Cunniff is running a low-key campaign in a conservative town.
What I DO know is that the left’s been rolling out the sleaze, whether with Mr. Cunniff’s connivance or not. The least of this has been Aaron Ley tweeting as “Animals4Cunniff” – inept, amateurish stuff. More serious was the whisper campaign run by leftybloggers (especially the gutless coward Eric Austen) which has tried to tie anonymous rumors about Rep. Franson’s personal life to the Amendment, and which even some of the less-depraved liberal bloggers condemned.
Not before they got picked up by a Fargo “talk show host”, the really painful-to-listen-to Mike McFeely, in what has to be the most onanistic display of bullying I’ve ever seen in Minnesota politics. The City Pages, too. This is a very typical pattern whenever conservative women get traction; the left tries not to defeat them, but destroy them. And that – not Mr. Cunniff’s real beliefs about the Amendment – are why I’m writing.
But since Cunniff has benefitted – a little, anyway – from this gutless, onanistic campaign against the Amendment via Rep. Franson, it seems perfectly legit to ask the candidate what his stance is on the issue.
I find it peculiar that you dissected most of my comment (as well as every other comment) and conveniently left out the fact that we have more important issues to worry about these days. I guess to you, we don’t.
Just a little friendly advice, Mr. Johnson? The whole “In writing about A and B, you conveniently left out C through Z” thing is poor rhetoric and worse logic. This discussion thread is about Mr. Cunniff’s stance on the Amendment, specifically because his allies are trying to make such hay over Rep. Franson/s stance. As for every other possible topic under the sun, I urge you to read all ten years of this blog’s output. If there’s a subject, I’ve probably covered it.
Which means I don’t have to cover it in every single comment in my comment section.
You’ve reassured me that my doubts in today’s Conservative base were not unsubstantiated.
And you, in turn, have reinforced my belief that you aren’t a Republican, or less still a conservative, at all. You are hitting all the same talking points a “seminar caller” does in talk radio; “I am a lifelong GOPer, but because of this discussion, I’ll be voting straight ticket DFL!”.
My prayers are with you and yours, and I hope you’ll find peace, and learn to love others with open arms. God bless.
Well, thanks for the prayers – but don’t you think it’s juuuuust a tad arrogant to assume I don’t love and accept others?
Addendum: I guarantee I’ve put my ass on the line – physically – against anti-gay bigotry more than you have. It’s a long story. But keep your stereotypes to yourself, thanks.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:57 am
I guess that’s it then. You seem to have me all figured out, don’t you Mr. Berg? Obviously when I make assumptions about the feel of a comment, I’m just using poor rhetoric and bad logic however, you and Mr. McHue seem to be credible experts. You asked people to comment and then you tear their every word apart. What relevance does this tirade about left-wing sleaze have to my opinion on the matter? And then you have the audacity to question my allegiance to the GOP? I said I typically lean Republican and I will in this election too. I just won’t cast a vote for Ms. Franson with extreme divisiveness like I’m seeing above representing her. Although I haven’t seen a lot of what you claim liberals are doing to destroy Ms. Franson, I hardly think it warrants your kind of behavior either.
My point is that you seem to be under the impression you’re doing a justice to the base by firing back at these “sock puppets” with charisma and skill, when really it just seems like arrogance and anger. It’s attitudes like yours that alienate Republican voters, and you need to know that. I find your reasoning for justification to go after Mr. Cunniff in this matter to be petty and frivolous. It seems as though you only want something to attack Mr. Cunniff on because of bitterness you feel about the public gaffes by Ms. Franson that the left has used to tarnish her name on.
If you’ve been around as long as I have and are as experienced as you claim to be Mr. Berg, then you surely can admit that Ms. Franson has made some bolder-than-average statements and that not all of the publicity that resulted was completely undeserved. That however, seems to be your angle. Mary has received and abundance of unwarranted negative attention and now leverage is needed to bring some upon her opponent. Why else would you be saying it’s not a big issue in this race, but you absolutely must know Mr.Cunniff’s stance on it.
I suggest you act like mature adults and move on. This kind of divisive politics is pitiful and you and Mr. McHue should be ashamed of yourselves. I think it a far better use of your time to highlight Ms. Franson’s positive attributes in this race, than to dig for her opponent’s potential negative ones. Have some dignity and try to do some good in this whole political gamut, lest you do more harm for your candidate than good as you have here. If we want to avoid future gridlocks, we need representation of reason and compromise. All your rant here has done was show even more so that Ms. Franson is not that Representative.
Last but not least, I’m insulted that you would discard my prayers with an almost spiteful sounding response. I will pray for our soldiers. I will pray for our ill, our weak and our elderly. I will also continue to pray for you gentlemen as it appears some guidance would bode well for you in these times.
October 6th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
“Mr. McHue, may I ask what connection you have to Ms. Franson’s campaign? I ask because I find your language here to be quite defensive.”
I have a sign in my yard and I occasionally talk to her. Frankly I find your inference of anything else insulting.
October 6th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
“Mr. Johnson” (heh heh),
I guess that’s it then. You seem to have me all figured out, don’t you Mr. Berg?
Two answers to that.
Obviously when I make assumptions about the feel of a comment, I’m just using poor rhetoric and bad logic however, you and Mr. McHue seem to be credible experts.
What’s that supposed to mean? If I’m wrong about something, then take a whack at my thesis, with logic or fact or…something! Saying “oh, you think YOU’re so cool” isn’t exactly a compelling argument. It’s just whiny.
Like someone we all know…
You asked people to comment and then you tear their every word apart.
I leave the comment section open for discussion. Discussion is two-way, no?
I mean, I joke that liberals in Minnesota are whiny little babies because they can’t debate like civilized people, because they never learn to – from elementary school through University, they may never encounter an “out” conservative, so why learn?
But you’re not a liberal, are you?
What relevance does this tirade about left-wing sleaze have to my opinion on the matter?
To try to set you straight on why I’m involved in the issue. You seemed to think I was involved because I’m a passionate supporter of the Marriage Amendment, when in fact it was because I”m a passionate attacker of sleazy people.
Like the kinds of weasels who run off to big-city talk show hosts with rumors that the hosts (and the sleazes) talk about with only one free hand on the phone, if you catch my drift.
And then you have the audacity to question my allegiance to the GOP? I said I typically lean Republican and I will in this election too.
Well, if I misapprehended you, I apologize. Some of what you wrote matched the outlines of the “seminar caller”, and I said so. No offense intended.
I said “If” I misapprehended you, of course. The more you write…
…well, we’ll come back to that.
I just won’t cast a vote for Ms. Franson with extreme divisiveness like I’m seeing above representing her.
With all due respect, I will suggest that the divisiveness is among her detractors.
Although I haven’t seen a lot of what you claim liberals are doing to destroy Ms. Franson, I hardly think it warrants your kind of behavior either.
“My kind of behavior?”
What “kind” of “behavior” are you talking about? Pointing things out when they’re wrong? Having a spirited and astringent, but civil, conversation?
Please set me straight here.
My point is that you seem to be under the impression you’re doing a justice to the base by firing back at these “sock puppets” with charisma and skill, when really it just seems like arrogance and anger.
You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s wrong, but you’re entitled to it.
It seems as though you only want something to attack Mr. Cunniff on because of bitterness you feel about the public gaffes by Ms. Franson that the left has used to tarnish her name on.
And now you’re just making things up, “Mr. Johnson”.
Heh heh heh.
If you’ve been around as long as I have and are as experienced as you claim to be Mr. Berg, then you surely can admit that Ms. Franson has made some bolder-than-average statements and that not all of the publicity that resulted was completely undeserved.
I live in St. Paul. Don’t really know, don’t really care.
That however, seems to be your angle.
Where did I say that?
Mary has received and abundance of unwarranted negative attention and now leverage is needed to bring some upon her opponent.
So say you.
But thanks for calling me – an obscure St. Paul blogger – “leverage”. Made my day. “Mr. Johnson”.
Why else would you be saying it’s not a big issue in this race, but you absolutely must know Mr.Cunniff’s stance on it.
Asked and answered.
I suggest you act like mature adults and move on.
This is my blog. I write about anything I want to. If you don’t like it, go write your own.
Or perhaps start a Twitter feed. Maybe call it “AnimalsAgainstFranson”.
D’oh! I can’t believe I said that. Because you’re “SJohnson”. Right?
Heh.
Last but not least, I’m insulted that you would discard my prayers with an almost spiteful sounding response.
I think I was more than clear in my response. I appreciate sincere prayer, and believe in it strongly.
Nice try, Aaron Ley.
Busted.
Why don’t you try having McFeely write next time. I don’t know his written “tells”; it might be a challenge.
You certainly aren’t.