Something I missed in the crush of events this past week: the north and south banks of the Mississippi are connected again:

Image is from the MNDoT webcam.

You don’t want to drive on it yet, naturally – but last Wednesday, the contractors did the final pour to connect the main segments of the northbound span.

The southbound span should be getting connected any day now. Expect an angry column from Nick Coleman blaming Governor Pawlenty for the delay.

When you earn your living by trying to explain things to other people, one of the first lessons you learn is “try to use language your subject can understand – language that is accessible to the person you’re trying to expain to”.

I try to apply this lesson to the rest of my life.

Molly “Is It White In Here” Priesmeyer seems to have drawn the “real estate” beat for the Minnesoros Monitor “Independent”.  This despite the fact that her understanding of key real estate concepts like “equity” seems to be just a tad suspect…

…but that’s OK.  We’re all about the teaching today.

In a piece that came out in the  Monitor “Independent” last week, she wrote about Governor Pawlenty’s  veto of the Floyd Olson-style  foreclosure moratorium (emphasis added):

But the homeowners suffering with subprime or negative amortization loans are offered no recourse — including a simple deferment period that still required payments — because, according to Gov. Pawlenty, helping homeowners renegotiate loan terms would make credit more difficult to obtain.

Ms. Priesmeyer states that as if she finds it implausible – which brings up two possibilities:

1. She is actively trying to disinform the Monitor “Independent” reader,
2. She doesn’t know any better.

You know good ol’ pollyanna Mitch; I’ll assume it’s really #2.

So I’ll try to explain this concept – the notion of unintended consequences of government action – in a language Molly Priesmeyer might understand.

“So, like, remember when you lent your totally cute feedbag purse to Ashley, your roommate from Saint Olaf/Macalester/Carlton/wherever it was you did your undergrad?  The documentary filmmaker and telemarketer? And on Monday when you wanted it back, she said she didn’t, like, have it with her?”

“And you gave her another week, because the purse is, like, totally cute, but then you like needed it?  And you met her at “Drink” and like asked her, and she totally said she’d bring it to Chino on Monday?”

“And then on Monday, she totally flaked, and said she’d have it for you on Friday?  And you’re like “Byatch, I need my purse?”, but you totally gave her til Friday?”

“And on Friday, you met her, and of course she flaked again.  And you were totally pissed.  But Ashley had brought Justin, this guy from St. Thomas that she buys X from, and he was like totally cute wearing Roc-A-Wear, which is normally kinda  poser on a white boy, but Justin was kinda hot in that bad-boy kind of way…”

“…anyway, Justin said that Ashley would bring the purse back when she could, and quit bugging her or he’d, like, totally slash it up.”

“So like, totally, how likely are you to ever lend Ashley anything again?”

“Like, doyy”.

A guy’s gotta try.

Since the GOP nomination’s been wrapped up for almost three months, now, the question “Who’ll Mac pick for VP” has been gurgling about the place.

Governor Pawlenty, of course, has been a key contender for a long, long time; young, great approval, decent if not invincible record of success as governor and legislator, conservative enough to not spark a rebellion in the provinces, and he supported Mac when it wasn’t cool to be in the McCain camp.

But as Gary Miller at TvM notes in reversing his own prediction:

The problem is that the GOP has a a dearth of talent in both our gubernatorial and congressional ranks. I couldn’t help but read this Redstate roundtable on possible veep choices and feel discouraged — much like those who participated in the discussion.  The most likely choices all have significant electoral or ideological shortcomings…

Which takes out Sanford, I think, as well.  South is out in the GOP.

Miller:

My reptilian brain stem has been working on finding someone who meets the following seemingly impossible criteria: 1) palatable (if not exciting) to conservatives; 2) satisfactory name recognition; 3) geographic advantages; 4) able to reaffirm McCain’s maverick creds; 5) able to assume the presidency should tragedy strike; 6) not necessarily currently in politics.

Allow me to offer the name of MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough.

Hm.

Hmmmmm.

I had not thought about this:

Scarborough boasts a rock-solid lifetime ACU rating of 95.  Even so, he does not shrink from criticizing Republicans when events warrant so he would help brandish the McCain maverick brand.  He does not harken from, or have any association with, the unpopular Bush Administration or current congressional GOP leadership as he left the House to spend more time with his children in early 2001.  His name recognition is not off the charts but would still probably exceed that of many of the other contenders.

OK.  The affirmative case is there.  The most important thing for GeeEmInEm to do is not blow the case with a complete howler…:

He is obviously telegenic and well-spoken.

Ooof-da.  There ya go.

Now, I’ll cop to the fact that I watch very little cable news and almost no cable talk shows.  But the times I”ve seen Scarborough I wasn’t especially impressed with the “speaking” bit.  I’ll allow that I could be wrong.

Someone convince me.

Miller also noted:

Meanwhile, two of the more exciting prospects, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, are long on vision but short on experience.

Compared to Obama and Clinton?

I’ll admit I’ve gotten a bit more excited about Jindal lately.  I think his pluses far outweigh his minuses: Young, solidly conservative without the “paleo”, “neo” or “doctrinaire” labels, ethnic, in-but-not-of the south…

…and Catholic.  Michael Medved noted at dinner the other night that Catholics whom make under six digits – a fair chunk of the “Reagan Republican” coalition of 28 years ago – will likely be the swingiest of the swing votes in this election.

Somebody convince me.

A few weeks ago, when the Legislature overrode Governor Pawlenty’s veto of the Transit Subsidy “Transportation” Taxpayer Gougefest Bill, we were subjected to an endless, nauseating, hypocritical run of up-sucking from the DFLMedia/Sorosphere about the eight RINOS who betrayed the governor and their party when it came time to try to save the veto – especially Ron Erhard (“R”, district 41B). 

Brad Carlson noticed something I missed

see, according to Democrats, a GOP member is to receive much adulation for “doing the right thing” by “voting their conscience.” However, Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba (D-Long Prairie) was not afforded that same courtesy by her seemingly lovestruck party. Did you notice Rep. Otremba didn’t dare uphold her initial “no” vote on the bill? Had she and John Lesch (D-St Paul) maintained their respective “no” votes when it came to the veto override, then the Governor’s action would have been upheld, resulting in killing the bill. Somehow I get the feeling that the DFL wouldn’t have been as complimentary towards two members of their own party for “voting their conscience.”

Silly Brad.  Mavericks are only good when they stymie the GOP.

…if any were needed, that liberals must be kept away from the machinery of power, since they just don’t know what they’re doing; Jeff Fecke over at Sorosmania the MinMon (and I swear, this is not satire) covers Governor Pawlenty’s tax cut proposal (emphasis added):

Saying that “The economy in our country is under great strain,” Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed a sales tax cut of 1/8 percent on Friday as part of his supplemental budget proposal.

The move is something of a surprise, as the state faces a $935 million shortfall in the state’s biennial budget.

The move is a surprise – if you’ve been under a rock since 1980 (or at least if George Soros is paying to pretend you’ve been under one).
For the rest of us? Not so much.

Last week, the Minnesota GOP acted against the six House “Republicans” who voted with the Tics to override Governor Pawlenty’s veto of the “Transportation” Bill.  The House GOP Caucus stripped the six of their committee leadership positions and other party-assigned perks; movements to unseat them proceeded from the bottom up as well, with Kathy Tingelstad losing her endorsement last week, other endorsements very much in jeopardy, and with Keith Downey running a very credible campaign against Rino Ron Erhardt in Edina (which, although I don’t endorse candidates because, well, I’m just a guy with a blog, I heartily urge every Republican in District 41A to get out and support Downey at this Saturday’s convention).  

The DFLSorosMedia reacted predictably; they lauded the RINO Six as “courageous“, they insulted the intelligence of those who disagreed, they pondered “Why Are Republicans So Close-Minded?”

For acting – y’know – like a political party.

That is, actually, just background for this next bit. Ponder the DFLSorosMedia’s love of “diversity of thought” as you read this account of a moderate DFLer and long-time DFL delegate’s dissent from party orthodoxy – on abortion and the war. 

And only on abortion and the war.

And wait to see when you’ll see the DFLSorosMedia demanding “open-mindedness” from the Tics.

And wait.

And wait.

Governor Pawlenty vetoes the Mass Transit Subsidy Act “Transportation Bill“.

Republicans, consider yourself on notice. Screw the governor on this, and the regional alt-media will be on you like lobbyists on a Gold Card.

And we forget nothing.

Over at True North, Gary Gross writes:

This sets up an override showdown that’s likely to start Monday. The House DFL did tons of armtwisting yesterday but still couldn’t gather the 90 votes needed to override Gov. Pawlenty’s promised veto. I’m higly doubtful that they’ll be able to get the extra vote needed to override in the House.

As usual, Steve Murphy, this blogger’s best ‘Senate friend’, provided this quote:

Sen. Steve Murphy, the Red Wing DFLer who authored the bill, said the package creates jobs, fixes bridges with structural problems and provides funding for road safety.

“This is serious business,” said Murphy, DFL-Red Wing. “Lives are at stake, and in greater Minnesota hundreds of lives are at stake.”

When Al Gore left the national stage, I worried that there’d be a dearth of liberal hyperbole. At the time, I didn’t know that Steve Murphy existed. It’s obvious that Sen. Murphy more than adequately makes up for Algore’s hyperbolic rants. His quote insinuates that the GOP alternative bill wouldn’t address the needs that the DFL bill does. That’s arrogance in the first degree. It’s also wildly inaccurate.

Watch for them to claim the bill woulda prevented the crash in Cottonwood, next.

Andy Aplikowski gets the scoop of the week, over at RezFor and True North.

The DFL plying Republicans to try to get them to override another gubernatorial tax-bill veto:

I followed a tip this evening down to Monte Carlo in downtown Minneapolis. I was told that Republican Reps. Bud Heidgerken (R) 13A & Dean Urdahl (R) 18B had dinner date with Democrat Speaker of the House Margaret Kelliher. I had earlier hinted at some detective work for the evening over at True North and lo and behold, my source was correct. There was a 3rd man who was there who I think I recognized as a possible legislator, but I am not sure, it could have been an aide, although he arrived between Urdahl & Heidgerken and when Kelliher got there.

Dinner at 7:30PM ….. well truth be told, Kelliher was a little behind time and arrived at 7:44, the boys were early.

Monte Carlo is a rather fancy establishment and the meeting was in one of the private rooms in the rear of the restaurant out of sight. My girlfriend came along on the outing. We had a meal and desert. Our tab with tip was just over $100 with 2 drinks per. No doubt the combined per diems for Bud, Dean, and Maggie were more than enough to cover their cost.

No word on whether Andy’s girlfriend paid the tab – although with this kind of scoop, hell, I’d have paid for ’em both.

I digress. Andy continues:

While we were waiting for them to arrive, I got an email from someone at the Capitol.

Andy –

Not sure who gave you your info, but here is some more accurate people to list on who is thinking of overriding the Governor.

1) Remove Abeler. He isn’t doing it. You can call his office and find out.
2) Add the following people to your list. Again, if you call/email any of them and ask, I believe each refuses to sign the veto pledge.
– Neil Peterson
– Pat Garafalo
– Larry Howes
– Mike Beard
– Dennis Ozment C
all /email anyone of them and they should confirm this unless they’ve changed their mind.

I can do one better on calling and asking if they have signed it, and let my readers know that as of 5 PM only 5 of the 49 Republicans have signed the Veto Protection Pledge and there was reported (to me) to be no Caucus pressure to do so. Also in regards to Abler, the person close to him I spoke with earlier was unable to confirm if they would support the override if the Metro Wide sales tax was removed, which was his main sticking point of initial support.

All kidding aside, great work, Andy.

And if you are a conservative in a district represented by a Republican, you need to get on the phone today and light a fire under their butts. Call, Twist arms. Put the pressure on.

For all the lumps Governor Pawlenty takes from conservatives for one stance or another (mostly wrongly, I think), in this case he’s doing what we conservatives demanded of him six years ago.

It’s time for actual conservatives to step up and cover his back with the legislature as best we can. Call. Email. Hell, storm into their offices in a fury, for all I care – but get the word across.

And as to you, in the GOP caucus? Get with the program! If you want to become a third party in this state, just keep on betraying conservative principle!

The inner cities have their issues. If you’re in Minnesota and reading this, you know about them; you’ve either fled them, are paying for them via your taxes, or are – like me – living among them.

Minneapolis and Saint Paul are taxed half to death; Minneapolis’ crime rate has fallen from brutally-high to merely ridiculously-high, with a murder rate higher than New York, Boston, LA, San Francisco.  Higher, indeed, – ironically, given how Minneapolis’ political, academic and media elites sniff at them – than Mobile, Omaha (twice as high!), Tampa, Jacksonville, higher in fact than all of the major cities in Texas but one (and only slightly off Houston’s pace).  Only marginally lower than Chicago. (Saint Paul’s is quite low by major-city standards – 60% lower than Minneapolis – a testament to Saint Paul’s excellent police department, strong neighborhoods, and at least a couple of relatively sane administrations).

The cities are addicts; their drug is money. Nearly four decades ago, the “Minnesota Miracle” enacted the idea of “Local Government Aid”, which as the DFL’s stranglehold on the inner cities accelerated turned into an eternal subsidy of DFL inner-city policy by the parts of the state that actually pay their way. Governor Pawlenty’s cuts in LGA acted the same way as cutting off the heroin acts on a jonesing junkie; the addict went crazy. The body couldn’t get along without the drug; the drug had incorporated itself into the body’s chemistry. City governments had been providing “services” far beyond what their eroding tax based could provide, even as their left-leftward-moving policies drove more and more of the tax base out of the cities themselves. When LGA cuts forced cities to pass the “service” costs directly to their own tax bases, and the cities were forced to pay their own bills – well, you’ve read the headlines and the op-ed pages, right?

And yet, election after election, the DFL stranglehold over the inner city not only deepens, but gets more and more radical; Greens now have a solid foothold in Minneapolis; Saint Paul’s “Gang of Four” ultra-liberal councilpeople is now a Gang of Five. Policies that were madness thirty years ago are commonplaces today.

How did it get this way?

90% of politics is local. And the DFL understood this from the very beginning, and over the past fifty years has extended its reach into every corner of life in the Cities.

Is there hope?

More tomorrow.

Sue Jeffers is not amused by T-Paw’s slip to the left:

OK Governor Pawlenty, we know you have jumped on the green band wagon. We got it.

 

We knew it with E-85, we knew it at the Governor’s Convention, we knew it with the Renewable Energy Bill, and we knew it with the Global Warming Mitigation Act. We heard you say loud and clear that global warming is “a huge and defining issue of our time.” We got it.

And it’s not just idle political chatter:

The cost to anyone who uses energy will be staggering.Conveniently ignoring the fact that there is nothing Minnesota could reasonably do which would noticeably impact the climate. In fact there is no proof that these proposals will affect global warming, positive or negative, even if every state in the nation, and every country in the world, adopted them.

I acknowledge that perfect is the enemy of good enough.  As a conservative, I’m keenly aware that politics is about crafting the most advantageous compromise you can manage.  Stomping ones’ feet and threatening to take your toys and go home if you can’t get a perfectly-conservative-enough candidate is a sign of immaturity, at least when it comes to making your politics matter in the real world. 

Still, our role is to push the conversation to the right.  And there’s a fair case to be made that TPaw needs that push. 

And Sue is pushing.

So Governor, hear this Conservative loud and clear: the defining moment will be when you find your backbone and lead and govern using conservative principles instead of supporting yet another invented liberal crisis. It would be much more effective if on your trip to the Arctic you would scope out the terrain and figure out the best spot to put the drilling rigs.

Strommie’s not thrilled either.

I’m amusing myself at the moment by pondering this question: How would Lori Sturdevant describe a leader among conservatives, one who was unswerving in his devotion to conservative first principles and in their forwarding in the Legislature?  Someone like, say, Michele Bachmann or Phil Krinkie were, when they were in the State Senate?  Or like Marty Seifert is today?  I’m guessing words like “divisive” and “extremist” would pop up.

Just a hunch.

Naturally – being a DFL hack in all but name – Sturdevant can be expected to provide the same treatement to their opposite numbers in the DFL – if you’re in opposite world. 

So she shows, in yesterday’s column featuring my “represenative”, Alice “The Phantom” Hausman:

When state Rep. Alice Hausman of St. Paul rises to speak on the House floor, I’ve noticed, chatter quiets and paper rustling stops. 

If the chatterers and rustlers live in District 66B, they’re probably amazed to see that she actually exists.  Hausmann is not known for returning phone calls, or for that matter being seen around the district, unless there’s a photo op.   

The groundswell is growing; Minnesotans don’t want the DFL to hijack last week’s tragedy to ram through a shopping list of their pork projects.

57% of Minnesotans aren’t buying it.  I’ve heard some lefties respond to this poll “of course people oppose a new tax; you need to ask them what the tax is for!”   Perhaps – but then, I suspect nobody will ask the citizens of this state what they really want out of a “special session”, either;

Leo “Psychmeister” Pusatieri issues the call (I add the emphases):

There appears to be a substantial number of Republican lawmakers who are seeing the call for raising the state gas tax to be what it is– an opportunistic ploy by DFL lawmakers to ramrod a political agenda by exploiting a tragedy that had absolutely nothing to do with either the presence of or absence of a tax increase. While they certainly see the need to prioritize and ensure the safety of bridges and other infrastructure, they are likewise acknowledging that the answer lies not in an additional burden on Minnesota taxpayers, but rather on a good, old-fashioned prioritization of allocation of resources.

The bottom line is that neither a special session nor a tax increase is required to prevent what happened on the I-35 W bridge from happening elsewhere.

A phone call or email (Pawlenty@state.mn.us) to Governor Pawlenty’s office will go a long way toward ensuring that the solution to the bridge and infrastructure issue is a prudent, effective measure, rather than a knee-jerk tax-and-spend reaction.

There’s your links.  Get on it.

Leo also points us to essential posts on the subject from:

• Strom: “I see a backlash coming, a la Wellstone Memorial”
• Gross:  “this poll clearly indicates that people want to see a solution-oriented legislature. They want to drive across safe bridges. This isn’t a poll that says we can afford inaction. This is a great opportunity for Gov. Pawlenty and the House GOP leadership to show Minnesotans their common sense approach to solving problems.”
• Aplikowski:  “it is almost like the people who support the currently elected crop in St. Paul (and lash out at those of us who disagree with and question their authority) are completely out of touch with the reality of Minnesotans.”
• Gary Miller: “Raising taxes would be nothing short of admitting complicity in the 35W tragedy.  How this fact is lost of the Governor, who has left the door open to a gas tax increase, defies credulity”
• Michael Brodkorb: “Of the 38% that support a gas tax increase, 47% think it should be raised less than 5 cents.”

Read ’em all.

But call or email the governor first.

…that failed Air America host-ette Randee Rhodez took the same pro-forma shot at Governor Pawlenty that every single other liberal pundit, activist and media figure (and instant civil engineer) has taken this past few days…:

What you’re watching, should have the chyron underneath, instead of it saying Governor Tim Pawlenty, or news conference on bridge collapse, or recovery or whatever, you know what it should say underneath there? ‘Your tax cuts at work!’ That’s what it should say.

…as I am to hear that she’s still on the air at all.

Who knew?

My pal and neighbor, Flash at Centrisity, notes the part of Minnesota’s response to the Bridge Collapse that we’d all like to focus on:

Minnesotans have shown their true colors with displays heroism and unconditional support. Through this tragedy we will rediscover the pride we have in our fellow citizens.

What he said; except that there’s no “re”-discovering.  Minnesotans have much to be proud of, especially during crises. 

Not all of us, of course.  After a couple of contentious sessions in which Governor Pawlenty held the line on the DFL’s demand for more tax money, one might expect this disaster to bring out the ugly side of someone.

And indeed it has.  A Saint Paul DFL operative blames the Governor and all Republicans for the disaster (in a Saint Paul politics email discussion forum; I won’t link it or list his name, for reasons that I think might be obvious):

You can all scream at me for being the first to throw stones, but here is
what I know this bridge was inspected in May of 2006 and found to have cracks in the supports. It was placed on the watch category. One only can wonder if it should have been put on the critical list. It had been listed as having fatigue details from as long as 2001 and by 2006 they were able to take pictures of the fatigue cracks.

Governor NO MORE TAXES AND LET THE RABBLE DIE was just on the tube claiming that the bridge was given a “clean bill of health.’ He knows that what he was saying is as full of crap as he is.

This is the result of Minnesota not raising the gas tax in years.

The Governor has now directly killed people by his policies.

Pretty stupid?  Of course.

Worse, in its own way, was my “represenative”, DFLer Alice Hausman.  Girders hadn’t finished falling into the river, and the blazing truck was still on fire, last night when she went on WCCO Radio and hinted – without really coming out and saying it – at basically the same thing. 

The bodies were barely cold, and some (by no means all) DFLers were ready to blame the Governor and the MNGOP.

The NTSB has barely gotten their luggage unpacked.  The engineers are months away from having an answer.  I’m no engineer, but the simultaneous collapse of nearly 2,000 feet of bridge just might be a sign of a major design flaw, as opposed to a deteriorated girder failing.

In any case, I don’t recall Governor Pawlenty making any bones about the fact that he’d rather spend money on roads (and bridges) than on boondoggles like the Ventura Trolley and the Central Corridor. 

Wow.  Imagine how many bridges we could fix if we could get that billion dollars back that we spent on the Ventura Trolley…

Anyway; no more politics for now. 

It’s been a week since I and my readers noted several instances of the the Minnesota Monitor’s Jeff Fecke publishing quotes of statements uttered during interviews he did not attend, and which would seem, in several cases, to have been taken from Associated Press wire copy.  These quotes were made without attribution.  When questioned, he changed his copy (but still failed to attribute the quotes), made one fairly incriminating statement…:

 Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of. 

…and then clammed up, refusing to answer any questions about the issue.

The Monitor’s “Code of Ethics” states that “citizen journalists” should:

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.

Fecke arguably misrepresented himself, by stating the quotations in such a way as to imply he had access to public figures like Senator Coleman, Governor Pawlenty, MNGOP chair Ron Carey and others.

   * Never plagiarize.

As noted in my series, a number statements appeared as direct quotes under Fecke’s byline that were practically identical to copy that appeared in the Associated Press.  King Banaian noted (with emphasis added):

While Mitch and Michael were discussing the issue of plagiarism at Minnesota Monitor, Michael called to ask whether the use of a quote from a published source met my definition of plagiarism. Pointing to the above definition, what I could say was that if a student here did what Mr. Fecke at MinMon did on a paper turned in to me, I would call it plagiarism. Use of the adverb “reportedly” would not suffice — I would have written in red in the margin, “reported where? Give source.”

Ironically, the “Code of Ethics” also calls upon the “Citizen Journalist” to…

  * Expose unethical practices among each other and wherever they are found to maintain professional standards.

  * Keep the same high standards to which they hold others.

The “Code” then goes on to…:

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong. :

…which has certainly occurred, here, although perhaps not in the way the Monitor intended…

…and then, to:

   * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

The Monitor‘s only response to this issue, off-line, has been an extended series of “no comment” non-responses. 

Which, when you consider that among their “code”‘s most-succinct points is that the “citizen journalist” is to…:

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

This, the Monitor has not made the most token effort to do. 

What is a defender of intellectual property and justice to do?

This is Part III of a three part series.  Part I appeared last Wednesday, and Part II was published last Friday.   

———-

Here’s the story, so far. 

In Part I, we noted that Jeff Fecke, when pressed about the attribution of a quote from MNGOP chair Ron Carey, in a story in this article about the various parties’ responses to the idea of changing the date of the Minnesota Primary, begged off.  We noted that he changed his story – changing the attribution of a quote by chairman Carey only when pressed in the comment section by Michael Brodkorb, my Northern Alliance colleague and publisher of Minnesota Demcrats Exposed, and one of Minnesota’s more notorious gadflies. 

I noted that among bloggers who aspire to credibility, it is at the very least poor form to change key mistakes – like attributions of quotes – without informing the readers. 

In Part II, I showed the reader that while Fecke, in his original piece, wrote the quotation from Ron Carey in such a manner as to indicate that he’d gotten the quote directly from the GOP chairman, that Michael Brodkorb noted in the original post’s comment section – and I independently confirmed with the MNGOP’s Mark Drake, who handles all press relations for Carey – that Fecke was never present at the interview from which this story was generated. 

I also showed a similar quote, from a May 17 piece in which Coleman threw Alberto Gonzalez under the bus, in which Fecke presented a quote from Coleman with no other attribution, in a tone that suggested Fecke had had access to the Senator.  I showed, via a source familiar with the story, that the quote took place in a phone interview at which Fecke (and the rest of the Minnesota Monitor’s staff) was not present. 

So what we have so far is a bit of bad blogging etiquette – failing to inform users that one has made corrections germane to the central facts of a story – and a slightly more serious offense, sloppy attribution.  To translate – since Fecke wasn’t present at either interview, then neither Carey nor Senator Coleman “said” anything to Fecke.  The quotes had to have come from another source.

Fecke, of course, has been called on this: as we noted, Brodkorb asked:

You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a ’90 percent probability’ of a change…”

Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?

Fecke responded:

 Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of. 

Since this is a rather important issue, I asked Fecke myself, in two separate emails last Wednesday and Friday, where those two quotes came from.  Excerpted from Friday’s email (the question differed from Wednesday’s only in the occasional conjunction):

1) To what source to you attribute the Ron Carey “90%
probability” quote?  Was it from an interview, a
statement from the Carey office, or some other source
(and if so, where?)2) To what source to you attribute the Mark Ritchie
quote in the same piece?  Again – direct interview,
statement, or a different source?3) On May 17, 2007, you published a piece
(http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1800)
on Senator Coleman‘s statement on Attorney General
Gonzalez.  The quote read “”’I don’t have confidence
in Gonzales,’ Coleman said, adding, ‘I would hope that
the attorney general understands that the department
is suffering right now, and he does the right thing,
and that is allows the president to provide new
leadership.’” To what source do you attribute this
quote – an interview, a statement, or another source? 

Questioned about this via email, Fecke had no comment.

So the question remains; from where did the quotes come?

———-

Remember; in his original story, Fecke wrote:

While the state has not officially moved the caucus date, both DFL and Minnesota GOP leaders have indicated support for the switch, with GOP chair Ron Carey reportedly saying there is a “90 percent probability” of a change, and the DFL already giving preliminary approval to the plan.

When I talked with Carey’s press handler Mark Drake, I asked him – since Fecke wasn’t present when Carey said the above, how could he have gotten the quote?

Drake replied that the only place he’d seen it in print was an AP story on the subject.

The West Central Tribune covered the story, listing its source as the Associated Press. 

Here’s a paragraph about Chairman Carey, commenting on the primary date:

I like to think Minnesotans have good common sense, so it will be a shame to not have Minnesota’s voice heard as we choose the nominees for both major parties,” said state Republican Party chairman Ron Carey.

Carey said there’s a “90 percent probability” the caucus date will be accelerated. His party’s executive committee intends to decide on the issue next month.

This same report – and quote – is repeated in several other news outlets:

• The Pioneer Press’ Bill Salisbury used the quote in this story.  The story notes that “The Associated Press contributed to this article”. 
• WCCO (Channel 4) has the same quote, in a story entirely credited to the Associated Press.
• The Sioux Falls Argus Leader has, essentially, the same story, credited entirely to Associated Press wire copy. 

So we’ve seen several instances of the “90 percent probability” quote that Fecke used in a manner to indicate that he’d heard the quote – indeed, that he equivocated about in his comment, saying “Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources” in his comment-section response to Michael Brodkorb’s direct question.

Maybe this, maybe that.  But where did the quote come from?

The only source I can find for this quote – the only source that any news outlet seems to have provided, indeed, for this quote, and the only place other than the Minnesota Monitor where Ron Carey’s press handler Mark Drake has seen the quote other than Jeff Fecke’s story – is in a report from the Associated Press, furnished to its subscribers.

———-

You can find a website for everything, these days.

I took a trip out to Plagiarism.com, your one-stop source for everything related to…well, we need go no further, need we?

Plagiarism:  1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of nother) as one’s own
2. to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

The only source anyone can find for the Carey quote is the AP story on the subject. 

The AP is fairly stringent about requiring subscribers to attribute or credit the service for the material it supplies.  In none of Fecke’s stories is any wire service credited.

Which is irrelevant, since, when questioned by email, Monitor editor Robin Marty confirmed that the Monitor is not a subscriber to the Associated Press wire service. 

———-

“So what, Berg?  It’s three lousy words!  Anyone can make a mistake!”

Indeed, anyone can.  Bobbling ones’ attribution is, indeed, a rookie flub in journalism, albeit a rookie flub that can get a new reporter unceremoniously fired.  And tacking a “reportedly” on after the fact (as Fecke admitted doing) when credit to the AP (and, on a blog or online news site, a link to the source) is called for, doesn’t really fix the problem; the Associated Press is, indeed, fairly clear about requiring attribution at the very least. 

But if it’s an isolated incident, what’s the problem?

True.  If it’s an isolated incident.

———-

Let’s go back to the May 17 piece in the Monitor, in which Fecke quoted Senator Coleman.  I’ve bolded a brief passage; it will be important later in the piece:

“I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,” Coleman said, adding, “I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.”

Where did the comment come from?

Here was Senator Coleman’s office’s printed statement, taken from the Senator’s website:

May 17th, 2007 – Washington, D.C. – The cloud of suspicion continues to hover over the Attorney General’s office surrounding the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. This political debate distracts from the important work that must be done at the Justice Department. I believe Attorney General Gonzales is unable to provide the type of leadership needed to effectively run the Department The Department needs new leadership. Sadly, the reputation of Minnesota’s former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger has been dragged into this situation. Tom is a first-class prosecutor and Minnesota is grateful for his service. I consider him to be a good friend and an outstanding public servant. I have spoken to Tom many times, and he has assured me that he left of his own accord. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that he was ever targeted for possible dismissal.

So Fecke’s quote never occurs in Coleman’s printed public statement.  Where did it come from?

WCCO-TV covered the story; I’ve bolded a passage, again for emphasis:

“’I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,’ Coleman told reporters on a conference call. ‘I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.’”

The story is credited to the Associated Press.  Note that the quote – attributed to a conference call with the Senator – is identical to the quote in Fecke’s piece – except that Fecke’s piece excises (noted the bolded text in the quotes) any reference to the phone conference at which the quote was originally uttered. 

The Strib carried the story:  Brady Averill, attributing the report to a conference call (and crediting wire services in the story’s footnote) wrote:

“I don’t have confidence in Gonzales,” Coleman said in a conference call. “I would hope that the attorney general understands that the department is suffering right now, and he does the right thing, and that is allows the president to provide new leadership.”

The LATimes covered the story, with the same quote and attribution.

The quote took place in a conference call.  Sources familiar with the conference call confirm  that Fecke wasn’t present at the conference call.  The only difference between Fecke’s story and the AP-sourced copy? 

Fecke removed “Coleman told reporters on a conference call”, and replaced it with “Coleman said, adding”. 

How is one to interpret this, other than to make it appear Fecke is trying to make it look like he was present for the statement?

I’m open to explanations.

———-

On May 31, Fecke wrote a piece about Governor Pawlenty’s veto of a tax bill.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a tax bill Wednesday night over language that would have required the state to take inflation into account when preparing a budget, as it had before 2002.

“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldn’t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” said Pawlenty.

Note the attribution: “…said Pawlenty”.  There is no link to any other source, implying that Pawlenty “said” this to Fecke, or to an audience of which Fecke was a member. 

From the Governor’s website, in a release dated the day before Fecke’s piece:

In his veto letter regarding the tax bill, Governor Pawlenty said there were many positive items in the bill, but that legislative leaders were aware of his opposition to including a measure that would automatically incorporate inflation into the budget forecasting process.“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldn’t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” Governor Pawlenty said. “When complaints come about provisions lost as a result of this veto, I would encourage people to contact DFL leaders who chose to keep controversial policy language in rather than passing a clean bill.”  

The quote – presented in bold in both instances – features identical wording and punctuation.  Several organizations released this story, verbatim – noting prominently that it was a news release from the governor’s office.  Larry Schumacher of the St. Cloud Times filed a piece that carried the quote verbatim – in a story that credits the Associated Press. Fecke’s piece included no such attribution

———-

In November, 2006, Eric Black – then with the Strib, now ironically with the Minnesota Monitor – wrote in Strib’s “The Big Question” blog (calling the piece an “Online version of a story that appeared in shorter form in the Nov. 2, 2006 Star Tribune”) quoting then-candidate, now Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

Rentablogger Jeff Fecke yet again bobbles his “facts”. 

In the midst of an exceedingly obtuse whack at Governor Pawlenty, Fecke – who may be the most fact-challenged “journalist” in Minnesota today – writes about Luke Hellier.  Hellier is a conservative Republican whom Pawlenty has nominated for one of the student spots on the MNSCU Board of Trustees.

Fecke:

Now, I don’t think anyone would begrudge Pawlenty picking a highly qualified conservative over a highly qualified liberal.  Pawlenty is, in fact, a Republican.  But it takes a certain Cheney-like genius to pass over a highly qualified Republican for an unqualified conservative zealot, and that’s exactly what Pawlenty appears ready to do.  Pawlenty is evidently planning to bypass the MSUSA-endorsed candidates for Luke Hellier, who has not, to date, set foot in a MnSCU classroom.  He has, however, served as political director for Michele Bachmann and interned with Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

What Fecke doesn’t deem fit to tell the readership is that the MNSCU Students Association endorsement is neither a requirement nor, for that matter, mentioned in the Open Appointment process.  King Banaian – an SCSU professor who interviewed Hellier and Adam Weigold, another candidate for the board on NARN III last weekend – relates:

Using the Open Appointments process meant he filled out a form. He reports that last week, he was interviewed for the position. Nothing on that form indicated to him that he should speak to MSUSA for screening, nor did anyone from the governor’s office when they interviewed him.

As to the part that the leftybloggers are hopping up and down and cackling like poo-flinging monkeys about – that Hellier supposedly “isn’t a student” – King actually went to the trouble of reading the Minnesota Statute:

 when the statute says (136F.02) that “Three members must be students who are enrolled at least half time in a degree, diploma, or certificate program or have graduated from an institution governed by the board within one year of the date of appointment.” (emphasis added), it clearly contemplates the applicant pool to include a student entering school. Nobody disputes this. And this would appear to be the case: The entering student would be a graduate student coming to a MnSCU school. We do not offer doctorates (yet) and master’s programs typically take two years. So it’s most likely that if grad students are contemplated to join the board, they would most likely join it at the very beginning of their enrollment in a program. Without the provision I italicized, it is unlikely that graduate students could gain the 4-year student seat on the MnSCU board.

Yet the system by which MSUSA announces the process it uses is exclusionary to those who would enter a program a few months after the announcement of a vacancy. It puts candidates like Luke at a disadvantage to insiders within MSUSA and the seven campus student governments.

If you think that’s fair — that there should be preference for current over incoming students, even if the incoming student has experience in student government from a non-MnSCU school — you’re welcome to argue that point. Please indicate how you read that into current Minnesota statute.

Those, of course, are the parts that the leftyblogs – especially Fecke and his “editors” at MNMon – don’t see fit to tell their readers; Hellier’s application is within the letter and spriit of the law, and that the MNSCU Student Association’s endorsement is really meaningless.

Why is MNMon afraid of the truth?

Brodkorb attacks Fecke’s other “point” – that Pawlenty “favors” Hellier in the first place:

One thing I don’t endorse is the misleading, dishonest, and downright nasty attacks Hellier has faced in the liberal blogosphere.  

For example:  

“A controversy regarding the appointment of a new student representative to the Board of Trustees for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is resulting in strong criticism of a candidate reportedly favored for consideration by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, June 22, 2007

Reported by who?  Who is reporting that Hellier is favored? Governor Pawlenty hasn’t announced his decision yet and I haven’t been able to find a direct or indirect quote where Governor Pawlenty said Hellier is his favored pick.  

I’ll repeat my question: Reported by who? Who is reporting that Hellier is the favorite as Minnesota Monitor reported. 

Is this just another rambling by one of the most inaccurate and sloppy bloggers in Minnesota, Jeff Fecke?  

One is bidden to wonder. 

I don’t go to MNMon for truth or accuracy, much.  My only real question is, what does Eric Black think about the people he shares a masthead with?

UPDATE:  For the same “coverage” you get on MNMon but with a depressing dose of undermedicated twitchiness, try Cucking Stool’s fevered recitation of the same talking points; same fact-challenged drivel, more self-adulatory incoherence.

In other words, just another day in the fever swamp.

Matt Abe at Scholar’s Notebook notes a couple of GOP-sponsored bills that might just be a step in the right direction:

A pair of bills with bipartisan support (HF 2007 and SF 1768), including Senate authors Sen. David Hann (R-Eden Prairie) and Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove) and a raft of DFL authors in the House, would withdraw Minnesota from the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Although such a move would also cause Minnesota to lose federal education funding, it would also allow the state’s schools to emerge from a variety of federal mandates, many of which are unfunded or underfunded, which would free up money currently being spent to comply with these mandates. The state would actually save money and regain more control over its schools by withdrawing from NCLB!

This is one of those areas where in the past I’ve bit my tongue around some of my fellow Republicans who’ve been interested in “education” issues; NCLB tries to put lipstick on a pig, trying to bring principles of accounting to providing “accountability” to education.  An admirable goal, perhaps, especially given the 13 billion we spend on education in Minnesota every year, but it only works if one picks the right measurements.  And standardized testing is not just the wrong measurement – but the current system, which essentially forces schools to “teach to the test”, is downright harmful to actually “educating” children. 

Abe continues:

Constitutionally, eduation is a state function that should be administered by the state and locally-elected school boards, not “regional” boards, the federal government, or the United Nations. The Legislature should pass this measure swiftly, and Governor Pawlenty should sign it into law this session. It would be a major victory for the local control of our schools.

And if there’s anything public schools need to survive, it’s more, not less, localism.

One thing about BlogTalkRadio – everyone seems to want to do their webcasts in the evening.

Contrarian that I am, I had to ask myself – why?

So, as an experiment, I’m going to try something else; a morning webcast. My current plan is to do something early in the AM, somewhere between 2-5 mornings a week (the time when I’m usually blogging anyway), where people can either tune in and listen live, and/or download and play it on their ‘pods during the day.

Current plan is to start tomorrow morning at 7AM (usually it will be 6AM); I’d like to talk about the City Pages’ hack job on Governor Pawlenty.

Tune in!

Actually, some modestly good news from the Capitol on the DFL’s proposed statewide smoking ban; thank goodness for outstate DFLers:

The momentum toward a statewide smoking ban was slowed on Wednesday in a key Senate committee. But the bill survived a crucial amendment that supporters say would have “gutted” the proposed legislation if it had passed.

By one vote, the Senate Business, Industry and Jobs Committee refused to pass an amendment that would have exempted bars that derive more than 50 percent of their sales from liquor from the ban. The committee faces another key vote on whether to allow bars to put in ventilation systems, a move that ban opponents say would effectively protect workers and others from the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Well, duh.  The ban isn’t about health.  It’s about social control.

Pushed by Iron Range DFLers, several amendments were introduced to either send the bill to more committees, effectively slowing its path to the floor, or to exempt some groups from the ban. One amendment, from Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, would allow workers who lose their jobs because of bar and restaurant closings to apply for training from the state’s dislocated worker program. Another, by Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, would study the economic impact of the loss of charitable gambling from banning smoking in bars and restaurants. Both will require stops in other committees. Both amendments passed.

I’m not going to kid you; as a lifelong nonsmoker (but for about four cigars a year), I don’t mind smoke-free bars.  As someone who used to work in bars, and come home reeking of smoke every work night for over three years, it’s a little refreshing…

…until I see how my bar-owner friends are suffering over the regulation of a voluntary activity.  The pros and cons of bans have been debated endlessly by people smarter than I at these sorts of things, and the cons have won everywhere but in the legislature.

A [committee] vote is expected Monday.

The bill would prohibit smoking in all public places in the state, including bars and restaurants. Supporters say it would eliminate a patchwork of smoking bans in counties and municipalities and provide a level playing field for businesses. It would exempt certain American Indian rituals, smoke shops, hotel rooms and scientific studies of smoking.

Depressing, sure.

This next part – that’s different.

Indian casinos would not be covered under the ban, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who said he supports a statewide ban, said on Wednesday that the state should consider approaching the tribes about participating if the proposal passes.

That part is just wrong.  I have never had a problem with giving Native Americans a monopoly on gambling; for all its problems, it’s a form of reparations that actually works (if sanity doesn’t prevail on  the whole “reparations to slaves” issue, I’d be all for compromising by legalizing marijuana and granting it as an exclusive franchise to documented descendants of slaves).  There’s a difference between alloting an exclusive, non-competitive (leaving the Mob out) market to a group, and giving a group a government-sanctioned advantage at something that everyone is involved in.

So we have to put our “confidence” in the outstate DFL contingent to reel in the lunacy of the DFL-controlled legislature, or for Governor Pawlenty to veto its dumber effluvia.

With much ado, the Governor is pushing a new education bill.

Like most all such bills, it’s another take on rearranging the deck chairs on the Lusitania. It’s the same tired mix of money, “accountability” and perks to the teachers union, with no addressing of the real problem;

Matt from North Star Liberty writes:

Rather than throwing more money at the schools or meddling in curriculum and finance decisions at Minnesota’s 339 “independent” school districts, the governor should take a fresh look at his own early childhood education initiative. According to the governor’s office, “the Governor’s early childhood scholarship program will provide each at-risk student up to $4000 to attend a certified kindergarten readiness program of the family’s choice.”

Hello, vouchers!

By allowing the money to follow the child, rather than the school, the state of Minnesota would put the kids first, as opposed to putting schools first.

That, in the end – whether you call it “vouchers” or “money following the child” – is the only thing that will save the notion of “public education”.

Finally, as the chief protector of his state’s sovereignty, Governor Pawlenty should wield the Tenth Amendment to leave the federal No Child Left Behind Act behind.

Exactly. Intended to enforce “accountability” on the part of schools, NCLB has made things worse – taken a mediocre system and added bureaucracy and, worse, an imperative for the teachers and their unions to game a system to preserve their own system. Protestations aside, public schools “teach to the test” in every way that matters – meaning they’re “educating” a generation of kids to hit the lowest common denominator.

I don’t think this governor is the one that’s going to pee on the real third rail of Minnesota politics – the state’s greatest sacred cow, the myth of our “great school system”.

More’s the pity.

The Strib is happy with Pawlenty’s tone at his inauguration:

As Pawlenty acknowledged, achieving shared government won’t be easy

I love that term; “shared government”.

You can bet that had Mike Hatch choked a few thousand more votes out last November, the “s” word would be nowhere to be found.

especially if it’s to achieve more than a too-easy, least-common-denominator result. But in the 2006 election, restive voters signaled an impatience with petty politics that gets in the way of quality-of-life gains.

Huh-what?

OK.  I suppose it’s possible that there are voters out there who are dumb enough to think that “funding government” equals “quality of life” – and that paying more to the State will make your life better.  But if the Strib editorial board thinks that November 7 was about “gridlock” in Saint Paul, it’d explain a lot of other things.

Pawlenty appeared yesterday to be reading the electorate accurately, and responding. If the Legislature does the same, a truly productive governing season could be dawning.

The three most terrible words in the life of any hard-working, schmuck taxpayer: “productive governing season”.

Oh, Governor Pawlenty; if you don’t run that veto pen red-hot, you and I are going to go ’round and ’round.

Rhetorically speaking.

Well, it looks like you did it. 

Unofficial estimates of the projected revenue surplus through June 2009 range up to $1.2 billion, a far cry from the $4.5 billion shortfall that greeted Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislators in 2003, a hole the state has been digging out of practically ever since.

That heavy lifting has now been completed. More than $1 billion in state treasury reserves have been rebuilt from zero.

Some of the pundits were saying it was going to take a decade or more to unfuzzle the Ventura Deficit – the deficit that happened after a decade of cha-cha spending, including the madness of turning surpluses into permanent entitlement spending.  When the recession of the early ’00s happened, it bit the government in the butt. 

So now it’s time to open the checkbook and satisfy pent-up demand for government spending or tax cuts, right?

Not so fast, say some of the state’s fiscal guardians.

“There’s obviously going to be some good news in the forecast,” said state Finance Commissioner Peggy Ingison, who is scheduled to issue the much-anticipated figures at 10:30 a.m. today. “But we need to be prudent financial managers and increase our reserves so we protect ourselves against the potential downturn that could be just around the corner.”

While that might seem prudent on its face, it’s wrong; the “reserve” is the mass of unnecessary spending that clogs the state budget. 

Governor Pawlenty; you need to move to give part of this surplus back to the people who paid it in.  It might be impossible with the spendaholics in control of the Legislature this session. 

All the more reason to try.

I did this two years ago (and on the air two weeks ago); people seemed to like it. Time for a reprise.

This bit isn’t aimed so much at the undecideds, or at those of you who are planning to vote DFL/Democrat. No, this is aimed at those of you who are Republicans who are thinking about staying home because of one imagined slight or another. I’ve talked with all of you over the past year. I’ve heard your complaints, in person, in this blog, and on the NARN show. Most of them are valid; Bush did spend too much; If John McCain and his urge to drag the party back to the seventies is gaining traction, then this party does have problems; I think Coleman and Kennedy were wrong to oppose ANWAR drilling and support ethanol subsidies; Harriet Miers was an incomprehensible choice for the SCOTUS; there should be no compromise on securing the border, if nothing else (the complaint that Michele Bachmann played excessively hardball in winning the CD6 GOP nomination is not valid, but that’s OK – I’ll work with you anyway).

But whatever you’re angry about, it doesn’t rise to the level of the consequences of your action (whether it’s staying home on election night, or voting for some inconsequential third party, or just hoping the GOP “learns a lesson” by getting ushered from power.

The consequences to Minnesota, the nation, the world, and yes, even the GOP are too great to risk this. Since 48% of this nation’s population doesn’t have the common sense to run Bemidji much less the world’s only remaining superpower and the world’s great rampart of democracy, it’s up to each of us to think bigger than Miers, Anwar, Ethanol or whatever.

The party, state, nation and world depend on you doing better than that

So I present 100 reasons to change your mind, starting locally, moving globally.

(more…)