Insurgency In Saint Paul
By Mitch Berg
I’m going to the Highland Park Community Council meeting this evening, at the Highland Community Center, to watch as the new, GOP-led board starts digging into…
…well, we don’t know what. It could be years of mismanagement. It could be (and there are indications of this) the result of a staffer who just wasn’t much for paperwork (I’m the last one to cast the first stone on that count).
The meeting is at 7PM this evening at the Highland Community Center, which is in the Highland Park Library building.
But most importantly – if Republicans ever going to make a difference in Saint Paul, it’ll be by changing things from the grass roots on up. The victory in Highland was a good, long-overdue start. And not just tonight, but at your ‘hood’s community council elections.
Commenter Fresch Fisch noted on Monday:
This is the spark that needs the fuel folks. If you live in St. Paul, no matter which neighborhood, you must be there. If you are a blogger, you must be there to compensate for the “under-reporting” the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, Villager, and Avenues newspapers will give this story. If you are just a Republican, we need your help, SHOW UP AND GIVE US A SHOW OF SUPPORT! If you ever want Saint Paul Republicans to be competitive, well, here’s your chance. This is where it starts folks, at the grass roots level.
This is an exciting time in Saint Paul GOP circles. Oh, we have nowhere to go but up, it’s true – but with new leadership and an upset victory under our belts, it’s high time we started climbing.
Hope you can join us there.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I thought you lived in Mac/Groveland. Why would you go to a Highland park neighborhood meeting?
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Midway.
Because I want to.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
So when is your next Midway neighborhood meeting? I’d be interested in inviting all of my Democratic friends from the northern suburbs to come and inject ourselves in your neighborhoods concerns.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Doug:
I think there is a meeting over there tonight at 7:05PM. Here’s the address:
1771 Energy Park Dr, St Paul, MN
Please come early though, it is sometimes hard to find a seat.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I’d be interested in inviting all of my Democratic friends from the northern suburbs to come and inject ourselves in your neighborhoods concerns.
Yeah, lotsa luck getting all those north ‘burb poms to come into the Midway. They’d wet their pants in fear.
Doug – seriously – what problem do you have with open meetings? Especially open meetings that are every bit as concerned with city business as with district business?
Do you actually understand the issue, here?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Doug would probably come to the meeting and claim to be the president. Blog commenters would have to point out that he’s not.
Assuming the reek of burned french fries and grill cleaner didn’t give him away.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Mitch said,
“Do you actually understand the issue, here?”
Yes Mitch. I believe I do.
For years, the same core group of people has been active in the council. These people are local business owners and residents and there are no blatant partisan issues that they have had to deal with. One day, a group of partisan Republicans who have never been particularly active in the council show up in force and wind up getting two intensely partisan people elected to the board.
Personally, I find the entire concept of a taxpayer funded neighborhood council silly but regardless, the core group of folks who have been active on the council for years are seeing and worrying that at the heart of this – what did you call it? Oh yeah, – insurgency, is an agenda that is focused on the interests of the Republican party, not the neighborhood.
When you attend their meetings in the future Mitch are you really going to be interested in planning block parties and coordinating national night out events?
But hey, knock yourself out. After a few months the spectacle will wear off and it will be back to essentially the same core group that’s been involved for years – that’s as long as they don’t get frustrated with partisan bickering and carpetbaggers from Midway interjecting themselves into the council.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Doug:
If the council is so silly, in your opinion, I wonder how exactly will these “block parties” and “national night out events” be ‘corrupted’ to serve the “interests of the Republican party”? Do you worry needlessly?
How have the two board members shown themselves to be “intensely partisan”? Perhaps because they declared their political affiliation at all? Or is it that they dared to look at the books? How “intensely partisan” will they be allowed to be, Doug, when the same neighborhood people are going to be there, as you say, to keep an eye on them? Do you honestly think the “carpetbaggers” will scare them away?
You seem to use the word ‘partisan’ like it was a dirty word, but then act in a very partisan manner yourself. Do you really think being a “partisan” is a bad thing? If so, don’t you think you should set a better example for us all? If not, well, what’s your point?
May 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Troy said,
“How “intensely partisan” will they be allowed to be, Doug, when the same neighborhood people are going to be there, as you say, to keep an eye on them?”
Where did I say the same people are going to be there to “keep an eye on them” Troy? Don’t put words in my mouth. What I said is that Mitch’s insurgency fever will wear off and participation will wane back to where it was a year ago.
“How have the two board members shown themselves to be “intensely partisan”?”
I’ll quote Bill Poulos.
“We’re following the model of every other successful political organization. You start from the grass roots and work your way up,”
The is a neighborhood organization, not a political farm league. Poulos will serve and then attempt to move up to the next level politically. His motivation is advancement in party politics, not the development of the neighborhood.
“how exactly will these “block parties” and “national night out events” be ‘corrupted’ to serve the “interests of the Republican party”?”
They won’t but the concern is that party politics, not neighborhood development is at play here. I believe Poulos has two years to prove me wrong.
It’s pretty simple Troy. There are two issues here. The first is guys like Mitch involving themselves in the affairs of other neighborhood councils. Can he do it? Sure but I question Mitch’s motives. I doubt Mitch is sincerely interested in the day to day functions of the Highland Park council. I doubt Mitch is sincereley interested in Highland Park business development. I believe his interest is exclusively in feeding the machine. Second, there is the issue of Poulos and Dietz using their election to the board to drive their political ambitions. If that is the case which remains to be seen, it is a disservice to the neighborhood.
Again, I don’t live in the neighborhood so I don’t really care but what I see potentially happening is people putting their politics ahead of service to the community.
“You seem to use the word ‘partisan’ like it was a dirty word”
It is when partisanship and “us versus them” agendas get in the way of doing what’s best for a community. This should be pretty obvious when guys like Mitch start throwing out terms like “insurgency” to describe a Republican activist getting elected to a neighborhood council.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:25 am
The is a neighborhood organization, not a political farm league.
Do you live in Saint Paul?
I’m guessing “no”, since you show absolutely no understanding of how things work here.
Neighborhood councils are both. Anyone who thinks – or tries to tell you – otherwise is a pollyanna or a liar.
I doubt Mitch is sincerely interested in the day to day functions of the Highland Park council.
You are a rocket scientist! But I am interested in the council system in a larger sense. Are you saying that that’s not fair game? That councils, singly and as an institution, don’t need to know that people are watching ’em?
The events at the HDC should lead you to an answer.
It is when partisanship and “us versus them” agendas get in the way of doing what’s best for a community.
Let’s take your statement at face value (and ignore, for now, the reality – that the DFL does exactly that, but since St Paul is nearly a one-party city it’s not been an issue), that what’s going on is “partisanship”.
So what?
Being “partisan” means that you – or your group – believe they have a better way to do things, a vision they’d like to enact. The DFL has been using DCs as a vehicle to help enact their (PARTISAN!!!) vision since the system started.
So, Doug – you believe that “Partisanship (that doesn’t need to say its name, because everyone belongs to the same party) for me, but not for thee” is OK, apparently?
This should be pretty obvious when guys like Mitch start throwing out terms like “insurgency” to describe a Republican activist getting elected to a neighborhood council.
Oh, yeah, genius. Don’t anyone dare have fun with this! Treat neighborhood politics like some kind of religious rite.
Fiber, Doug. You need fiber.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Doug said:
“Where did I say the same people are going to be there to “keep an eye on them” Troy? Don’t put words in my mouth.”
Sorry Doug. I assumed they could at least do that, even if they had no way to resist the “intensely partisan” onslaught. Did you think I set the bar too high? Do you assume the “same core group that’s been involved for years” is going to stare at the wall and drool instead? I don’t. I assume they will try to do what they have always done, but they may have to compromise with “intensely partisan” political opponents. And balance the books more regularly.
It is simple Doug. You are whining about too non-issues you say you don’t care about. Par for the course.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Troy said,
“It is simple Doug. You are whining about too non-issues you say you don’t care about. Par for the course.”
I said I don’t live in the neighborhood so I don’t care about the issues as they relate specifically to Highland Park. I do however care about the issues otherwise I wouldn’t have commented.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Doug said “I do however care about the issues otherwise I wouldn’t have commented.”
But I don’t think that’s true. 😉
May 26th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I said I don’t live in the neighborhood so I don’t care about the issues as they relate specifically to Highland Park. I do however care about the issues otherwise I wouldn’t have commented.
In other words, even though it’s not your community, you have every right to sound off on the subject. Which was what I did, and was exactly why you threw a hissy-fit at me in the first place!
When liberals do it, it’s concern. When conservatives do it, it’s partisanship. Right?
I see how it works.
Well, I think most of us do.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Mitch whined,
“In other words, even though it’s not your community, you have every right to sound off on the subject. Which was what I did, and was exactly why you threw a hissy-fit at me in the first place!”
Where did I say you didn’t have the right to “sound off on the subject”?
In fact Mitchelle, I said to your buddy Troy regarding you attending Highland Park council meetings, “Can he do it? Sure.”
I also said regarding attending the meetings, “hey, knock yourself out”. If you really feel the need to involve yourself in the affairs of other neighborhoods, go for it. The upside is that when the more complacent residents hear that interlopers are showing up and interjecting political biases in decisions that affect their direct neighborhood, you’ll see more locals getting involved.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Doug said:
“The upside is that when the more complacent residents hear that interlopers are showing up and interjecting political biases in decisions that affect their direct neighborhood, you’ll see more locals getting involved.”
So…what was the problem again? 🙂
May 27th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Dog snivelled like a beeyotch:
“Can he do it? Sure.”
Thanks. Mighty big of you.
interjecting political biases in decisions
Lapdog: you really are nothing but a talkingpointbot, are you?
Just because all of the existing biases are in agreement doesn’t mean there’s no bias. The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.
For those of you like Doug and Lori Sturdevant who pine for the days when there WAS only one bias in public life, that might mean having to defend your status quo once in a while.
In which case you are doomed, as a group and, judging by your performance here, Doug, personally as well.
May 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Mitch whined as usual,
“Lapdog: you really are nothing but a talkingpointbot, are you?”“interlopers are showing up and interjecting political biases in decisions that affect their direct neighborhood”.
You dishonestly quote only a portion of what I said, changing the context of what I am saying and then give a little sermon. “The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.”
That’s a lovely little perjorative statement and coming on the heals of the Iraq war supplemental funding veto, it’s also hysterically funny – in an ironic sort of way.
You’re not interested in compromise. You’re interested in defeating democrats. That’s your agenda and as we’ve learned over the course of the last 7 years, the ends always justify the means.
May 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Lapdog,
Before I dispose of the rest of your comment, tell me – what is the difference between you showing up (for whatever reason, under whatever guise) at a poll to be an “observer” or whatever you were trying to be (and let’s take your word for it for now and assume you weren’t trying to be the Barney Fife you came across as in the original exchange), and my showing up at a HDC meeting?
A huge one, of course. I’m there to deal with an issue that is important in my city. You were there, by all accounts, at the behest of George Soros to create hysteria and try to erode confidence in the electoral system (which is apparently only at risk when Republicans are winning).
As to the rest of your whiny little squall of written diarrhea:
You dishonestly quote only a portion of what I said
Rubbish, Doug. Your entire point in all of these threads has been to sniff condescendingly at my involvement in my city’s politics.
That’s a lovely little perjorative [sic] statement and coming on the heals [sic] of the Iraq war supplemental funding veto, it’s also hysterically funny – in an ironic sort of way.
Oh, go drink yourself into a whining stupor, Doug. That is a right reserved to the executive, one that those who voted for him expected him to exercise from the very beginning. Don’t like it? You have three options: elect a Democrat president (or enough Democrat legislators to override the veto), repeal the executive veto, or overthrow the government as a whole.
You’re not interested in compromise.
As usual, Doug, your clairvoyance fails you, although to be fair the headache you no doubt have from all of your snivelling and pouting has clouded what’d normally pass for your “reasoning”.
To “compromise”, by definition, there needs to be a difference of opinion. In any negotiation where I differ from someone, I state the best case I can, and try to “win” as much for my side of things as I can.
To the likes of Doug The Sniveling Whiner and Lori Sturdevant, “compromise” seems to mean “I get my way, you shut up”, or “one for you, nineteen for me”, or “let’s all compromise and do things my way and shut the hell up”.
You’re interested in defeating democrats.
Wow. You ARE a genius.
That’s your agenda and as we’ve learned over the course of the last 7 years, the ends always justify the means.
It makes a cutesy sound bite, but at the end of the day it’s as vacuous as the rest of your “reasoning”.
Come back when you’re ready with a rational case.
May 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Reading your argument, Doug, I think you are interested in defeating democrats. One pointless and unpersuasive argument at a time. 🙁
May 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Well, to be fair to Doug, I’m not sure that he HAS an “argument”, per se. I think he’s acting the way a lot of Democrats are in this state; they’re used to getting their way on everything; like spoiled kids who are finally told “no, you’re going to have to earn it” for the first time, they don’t know what to do except throw tantrums about how
unwilling to compromisemean you are.May 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Mitch said,
“what is the difference between you showing up…”
The difference was that I didn’t wander over to another precinct and stick my nose in their business.
“To “compromise”, by definition, there needs to be a difference of opinion. In any negotiation where I differ from someone, I state the best case I can, and try to “win” as much for my side of things as I can.”
In the entire time I’ve come here, I’ve never once seen you concede a point, even when you’ve gotten your ass handed to you on a platter – and there have been many many times.
The funny part is your line, To the likes of Doug The Sniveling Whiner and Lori Sturdevant, “compromise” seems to mean “I get my way, you shut up”, or “one for you, nineteen for me”, or “let’s all compromise and do things my way and shut the hell up”.
You have no idea how much this describes you.
May 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Baby Dougie Whinypants Snivelled like a whiny little byatch with a snotty nose:
The difference was that I didn’t wander over to another precinct and stick my nose in their business.
Yeah, Doug, I got that, and you keep saying that, but where is it written that it’s not my business, or that I have no business being there?
You are operating from a fatally faulty assumption.
In the entire time I’ve come here, I’ve never once seen you concede a point,
Brilliant deduction, Einstein! Notify the fucking media, genius!
I’m not here to abase myself before the philistines! I’m here to state my point, in a way that I want to!
AND, Doug, you’re wrong. In the past week, I’ve written at least two posts about exactly that – compromising. Conceding points. Learning from those I disagree with.
So in other words, not only are you a whiner who subjects other people to constraints you abjure yourself, you have either no reading comprehension, or a very self-serving blind spot.
even when you’ve gotten your ass handed to you on a platter – and there have been many many times.
If it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead.
DUH, Doug. I swing for the fence. I don’t always connect.
But it’s for DAMN sure you’ve never “handed” me anything!
The funny part is your line, To the likes of Doug The Sniveling Whiner and Lori Sturdevant, “compromise” seems to mean “I get my way, you shut up”, or “one for you, nineteen for me”, or “let’s all compromise and do things my way and shut the hell up”.You have no idea how much this describes you.
OF COURSE IT DESCRIBES ME! I said as much, a few comments back!
I am NOT here to compromise on this blog, at least not about politics! I AM HERE TO SAY WHAT I BELIEVE, and sometimes evangelize for it!
Compromise is the output of a negotiation! In this blog, I AM NOT NEGOTIATING! This blog is a conduit for my personal views, not a bargaining table.
And it’s irrelevant, Doug, because of all the people who’ve contested my points, there’ve been some – Fulcrum, Dave66, even the late RickDFL – who’ve stated useful, rational arguments to which I even conceded a point or two. You, Doug, have never come close.
And I doubt you have that in you.
See? I compromised!
May 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Mitch said,
“And I doubt you have that in you.”
That’s funny. I’ve documented on numerous occasions where you’ve set up weak strawmen and basked in your own delusional self-grandeur when you skillfully knocked them down – a Berg favorite I might add… I’ve documented incidents where you’ve taken selective elements of another persons post and changed the context to suit your argument and I’ve documented dozens of incidents where you were guilty of the committing the same offenses that you blast others for.
I’ve even pointed out your rather bizarre inconsistencies driven by ideological myopia such as stating that;
The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.
Followed by;
“That is a right reserved to the executive, one that those who voted for him expected him to exercise from the very beginning. Don’t like it? You have three options: elect a Democrat president (or enough Democrat legislators to override the veto), repeal the executive veto, or overthrow the government as a whole.”
I’m sure you see no inconsistencies there but then again ideological zealots rarely see themselves through clean lenses.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Doug said:
“I’ve even pointed out your rather bizarre inconsistencies driven by ideological myopia such as stating that;…
…Followed by;…
..I’m sure you see no inconsistencies there but then again ideological zealots rarely see themselves through clean lenses”
That, Doug, is a long winded way of stating “I cannot understand the difference between the goal and the process of politics”.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
What Troy said. The goal of politics is for everyone to state their case (which I do) and then reach a peaceful compromise (which I also do, although this blog is not the vehicle for that). The veto is a constitutional check and balance, which is countered by winning elections. If you can’t see the difference, then please stop commenting on this subject, since rational discussion will be
even moreimpossiblethan usual.Oh, and…:
I’ve documented incidents where you’ve taken selective elements of another persons post
No, you’ve
snivelled like a beeyotchobjected to it when it didn’t serve your ends.This blog doesn’t exist to serve you, Doug.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Nonsense Troy.
Mitch offers a platitude about how politics is supposed to work but when offered an anecdote where his side disregards the process that Mitch himself alludes to, he responds with, Yeah well, the President doesn’t have to play that game.
Here it is;
”That is a right reserved to the executive, one that those who voted for him expected him to exercise from the very beginning.”
Then goes on to slam me with this;
“To the likes of Doug The Sniveling Whiner and Lori Sturdevant, “compromise” seems to mean “I get my way, you shut up”, or “one for you, nineteen for me”, or “let’s all compromise and do things my way and shut the hell up”.”
So apparently the “I get my way, you shut up” is an asset if you have an (R) after your name, but if you have a (D), you’re suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Classic Berg…
Notice of course his point about the “executive” not having to share his toys in the sandbox is preceded by a weird personal attack out of left field;
“Oh, go drink yourself into a whining stupor, Doug.”
I don’t drink and what Mitch interprets as whining is actually giggling at Mitch’s spittle flecked uppercase screaming at me.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
How much did Bush give prior to the legislation even getting to his desk? How hard in working out a compromise did Mr. Bush work other than saying no withdrawal and no domestic spending attached – period?
I was not refering to the veto.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Doug,
Mitch offers a platitude about how politics is supposed to work but when offered an anecdote where his side disregards the process that Mitch himself alludes to, he responds with, Yeah well, the President doesn’t have to play that game.
Are you being contrarian for the fun of it, or are you really this dim?
“my side” isn’t “disregarding” any process; Bush and Pawlenty are using it, the way it was designed to be used! It has nothing to do with “sharing toys in the sandbox”.
As to the “slam” and the “weird personal attack”, Doug, they were responses to your kicking things off by referring to “whining” in the first place. If you can’t take having your chain yanked (and people like you rarely can), don’t dish it out; it all pretty well bounces off of me. Apparently you have an issue with it.
Now, let’s get back to the actual discussion; what part of the process did “my side” “disregard”?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am
How much did Bush give prior to the legislation even getting to his desk? How hard in working out a compromise did Mr. Bush work other than saying no withdrawal and no domestic spending attached – period?
Who cares? It doesn’t matter. Bush is spending his political capital on something that is a key part of the agenda on which he was elected. Whether he’s right or he’s wrong, that’s what he gets to do. He has one bargaining chip in fashioning a “compromise” while outnumbered in Congress – the veto.
You can whinge all you want about “compromise”, but those are the immutable facts. It’s incumbent on his opposition to either:
Doug, your big problem seems to be that there’s no deux ex machina force that impels people against their will (and against the agenda on which they were elected) to compromise with you while you give up nothing.
That, and force the President to ignore his own constitutional prerogatives.
Criminy, wise up and learn how negotiation (not to mention our government) works.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Oh, and by the way, Doug? If you find “personal attacks” “weird”, stop doing them.
You’ve called me a liar; I’ve banned people for that before, since it is never, ever, true; in your case, I’ve figured that you are your own best refutation. In any case, you’re badly advised to snivel about “personal attacks” until you change your own style.
Or, er, “compromise”.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Mitch said,
“Oh, and by the way, Doug? If you find “personal attacks” “weird”, stop doing them.”
Huh? I don’t find personal attacks weird. I found that particular personal attack weird. And for the record, I’m not bothered by personal attacks. If I were, I wouldn’t come here. I just thought that comment was strange in a bi-polar episode kinda way.
As for your point about compromise, you do understand that the entire concept of a compromise is contingent upon both sides making concessions? That is after all the textbook definition. Remember Mitch, it was you that stated; “The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.”
You also said,
“He has one bargaining chip in fashioning a “compromise” while outnumbered in Congress – the veto.”
Refusing to make concessions while wielding the power of a veto is not fashioning a “compromise” yet you keep repeating that like you think that it is. You’re not interested in compromise and you won’t do it. That’s great but don’t toss the word around and falsely imply that you are willing to work with the other side when you’re not.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:50 am
So, Doug, it is all one sides fault when a “compromise” can’t be reached?
If you offered me an “Golden Delicious” apple for my car, but showed you were willing to go as high as a whole bushel of them or a another kind of apple entirely, I would still not be interested in that particular “compromise”. I don’t like apples that much.
Sometimes compromise is just not possible. Do you understand that?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:47 am
As for your point about compromise, you do understand that the entire concept of a compromise is contingent upon both sides making concessions?
No, Doug. I don’t understand that. I need a genius like you to explain to to me.
But do it reaalllly slowwwwwwwlllly, OK?
That is after all the textbook definition. Remember Mitch, it was you that stated; “The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.”
Yeah, Doug, but your idea of “compromise” seems to be the same as that of Lori Sturdevant; the GOP gives up everything, the DFL gives up nothing.
Refusing to make concessions while wielding the power of a veto is not fashioning a “compromise” yet you keep repeating that like you think that it is.
No, I don’t. It is his main tool in forcing a compromise.
You’re not interested in compromise and you won’t do it. That’s great but don’t toss the word around and falsely imply that you are willing to work with the other side when you’re not.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re raving now.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Again Mitch, you said, “The whole POINT of “politics” is for all the “biases” to meet and hash out a compromise.”
The Democrats have made huge concessions nationally with the Iraq supplemental spending vote and locally to the Governor and yet you sound like a whiny little girl when you say crap like,
“your idea of “compromise” seems to be the same as that of Lori Sturdevant; the GOP gives up everything, the DFL gives up nothing.”
Again, you seem oblivious to the fact that what you accuse Democrats of doing is exactly what the GOP does.