Two Kickoff Events

Today I arrived late at the Ashwin Madia Campaign Kick-off event at Parker's Lake in Plymouth. 175 people had gathered earlier, I was told, for the morning's Madia rally. They were then sent out to door-knock in Plymouth. DFL activist/Vietnam vet John Wexler and I then headed out to door-knock for Madia. (Wexler did all of the talking; I hereby offer the equivalent door-knocking accompaniment to any other campaign, in the interest of fairness.)

It was beautiful and sunny as we walked around in the neighborhood near Medicine Lake, where we've been given a list of houses to visit. During our door-knocking, we meet a variety of citizens. Wexler has done this before and is good at getting a conversation going with the homeowners. Most seem receptive; we meet a man who tells us he wouldn't vote for a Republican if his name was Abraham Lincoln, another who doesn't want to hear a word from us because he hates all politicians, several people in the middle, who seem to think they should pay a bit of attention to politics. People are generally friendly and only that one crotchety, disaffected guy seems pissed off by our presence.

Later we return to Parker's Lake, where Madia people are assembling for a post-door-knocking potluck. It's good to see the several dozen activists who represent the backbone of the campaign organization.

**

This evening I attended the campaign kickoff party for David Dillon, held at the Metropolitan Ballroom in Keith Ellison's district. About 200 people attended. Most are either Dillon friends, business associates or MNIP activists. The lights are somewhat dim, a country/rock band plays, good food is included in the $25 entry fee [waived for scrounging bloggers], there is a cash bar. Ironic-hip Dillon flair is for sale: T-shirts that say Dillon Shirt, buttons that say Dillon Button, hats too.

[I met and blogged about Dillon in January.]

The Independence Party of Minnesota has not previously fielded a candidate for US Congress in CD3. Unlike previous elections, this year features a rock-solid pro-death-penalty, 100% antiabortion Rod Grams-style Republican facing a moderate, deficit-hawk Democrat. It would seem an exceptionally odd year for the MNIP to express interest in the seat, no?

After a set or two, Tim Penny takes the stage. (No individual in Minnesota deserves greater thanks for putting Tim Pawlenty in office than Tim Penny.) Penny praises the MNIP for finding great candidates such as David Dillon. [In reality, according to the candidate, Dillon found the MNIP--not the other way around.] Next Dean Barkley speaks. Barkley now admits he knew Arianna Huffington never had a chance when he worked on her behalf in California, but he insists he is now telling the truth when he says Dillon has a real chance of winning this CD3 seat.

The candidate then comes out to speak. Dillon is informal and friendly, telling us he's not going to give the 10-point plan. That said, the speech is surprisingly devoid of any meaningful rationale for the campaign. He harps on one foreign policy issue--the importance of preventing Iran from going nuclear--going so far as to implore the audience to get active in the movement to divest stock portfolios of Iran-related holdings.

Dillon evinces not the slightest familiarity with the positions of his opponents: He is completely unaware, apparently, that Madia speaks frequently and fervently about the deficit, for example. Dillon attacks the economic stimulus checks without apparent awareness that both of his opponents have long since voiced precisely the same position. He says that if Madia is elected, he'll have to do the bidding of the DFL and if Paulsen is elected, he'll have to bend to the whim of the MNGOP, without really explaining why this is the case. (Were I the first Democrat elected to a Congressional seat in fifty years, I'd feel rather strong license to say SIUYA to the party, if they were pressuring me to do something I opposed.)

Dillon completely sidesteps our primary foreign policy question. On domestic issues such as health care, he chides the major parties for their small-minded failure to 'agree to agree,' without even minimally grappling with the issue himself. Should Dillon have any desire to expand his base beyond friends, family, business associates and MNIP activists, he's going to need a lot more than this.

One might look out at the country today, observing our grave economic and foreign policy challenges and conclude 'this mess is thanks in equal parts to Democrats and Republicans--it's time for a new party.' That seems an unusual conclusion, but David Dillon believes it.

Security of Voting Systems

Ronald Rivest, Viterbi Professor of Computer Science, M.I.T.

This evening I attended a lecture at Carleton College, in Northfield: 'Security of Voting Systems,' by Ronald Rivest. About 100 people attended; it appeared to be a cross-section of techies and politicos, with emphasis on the former.

Rivest gave a PowerPoint presentation providing some introductory information on the history of voting and the intersection between technology and voting. He explained the many attributes of an ideal voting system, one which would be secure and easy for the unlettered and disabled to use without being cumbersome for others. You want a system that prevents people from voting more than once, you want machines that work when needed. You want integrity--by which he means that one's ballot can't be changed after being cast.

Rivest announces that we don't want a system which issues a receipt to the voter. Issuing a receipt to the voter [showing the votes cast, along with a unique number which the voter might later verify online to confirm her vote has been accurately counted]...seems like a great solution, no? But Rivest says this would benefit vote-buying and exacerbate voter intimidation [by spouses, significant others, employers, etc.]. Rivest spends a good deal of the lecture explaining an alternative system called Scantegrity which somehow allows online confirmation without benefiting ballot sales. (No, I don't quite get it.)

The professor notes that in Oregon, voting is done by mail. Rivest dismisses the Oregonian solution, saying that it enables vote-buying and intimidation. But the MIT professor doesn't provide evidence of any such problem, nor does he attempt to persuade us that Beaver Staters ought to dislike their voting system--which is in fact wildly popular there.

After the talk, I speak briefly with Rivest, making my point: It seems you're making this huge effort to frustrate vote-buying...but I'm not convinced that we really have a vote-buying problem here. Rivest amicably corrects me: The US has a long and rich history of vote-buying. Fair enough, I say, but it's just not a problem in USA-v2008. Rivest recommends I read Steal This Vote and I'll learn how serious this problem is, even now.

Someone mentions that anyone desiring a receipt--in order to get paid by a vote buyer--could simply use his cell phone camera to record his optical scan ballot, prior to submitting it. Rivest then says he wants cell phones banned in voting booths--clearly an unworkable suggestion. He hedges a bit.

I still think the Oregonians have a pretty good solution--that the problem of vote-buying and voter intimidation can be discouraged through a public awareness campaign and voter education. But if we want to stick with the system we now have, voters should be allowed to receive a web-verifiable paper receipt of their ballot. Vote-buying just isn't a big enough problem now, in this country, to justify doing otherwise.

Iraq Forum at EP City Hall

Sami Rasouli, Becky Lourey, Ashwin Madia

A Progressives on the Prairie event was held this evening at the Heritage Room at Eden Prairie City Hall. Several dozen liberal activists mingled before the event started. (Due to a scheduling conflict, I could only stay for the beginning of the presentation itself.)

Three prominent speakers took part: Former State Sen. Becky Lourey, Ashwin Madia and Sami Rasouli, an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Lourey and Rasouli socialized with attendees before the presentation; Ashwin Madia arrived just before the main event formally started.

Rasouli once ran Sinbad's restaurant in Minneapolis. I chat with him as he is arranging unframed Iraqi oil paintings on a table. With prices from $100-$200, the paintings are for sale to help raise funds for Rasouli's Muslim Peacemaker Team, he says. In a brief conversation with the friendly and talkative Rasouli, I learn that

*Abbas Mehdi [prominent local Iraqi-American scholar] supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003; Mehdi was never employed by the current government of Iraq. [Mehdi told me otherwise, I mention to Rasouli.]

*Ahmed Chalabi receives $350,000 a month in payment from Israel. ['How do we know this?' I inquire.] Chalabi visited Israel recently, 'to attend a human rights conference.' [QED]

*Israel is deeply involved in the current governance of Iraq. [At this point the velocity of Rasouli's claims was making it difficult for me to request back-up info.]

*83% of the oil now being drilled in Iraq is controlled by US oil companies.

*Rasouli likens the United States' role in Iraq to a rapist.

*The situation in Iraq has worsened (become more violent) as a result of the surge.

*Many Americans unfairly question Rasouli's patriotism. [Evidence?] Gary Eichten promised to give Rasouli a full hour on MPR's Midday but cut him off after 15 minutes. [Now Rasouli knows how Joan of Arc felt.]

*80% of the Iraqi media is in the pay of the CIA.

In short, much of the stuff Rasouli says has a certain whiff of the apocryphal. Indeed, I wouldn't accept his claims without finding some corroborating evidence, kind-hearted though their author may be.

I was only able to hear Becky Lourey's introduction. From the side she interrupts and amplifies on some of the praise contained therein; there aren't many people who can do that and make you like them more; she is a charmer. Lourey opposed DFL-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch in the 2006 primary.

I've heard Ash speak on Iraq on many occasions; his position is without doubt far different from Rasouli's, though as candidate Madia I'm guessing he'll give the audience what they want. Alas, I don't get to hear Madia this evening.

**

Paulsenologists take note: Mitch Berg took up my Paulsen critique today. While gently calling into question my sanity on [merely!] one point, the big man's response to my overall viewpoint was reasonably sympathetic. Cool!

Can Paulsen Get Away With It?

In recent weeks, I've been putting forward a quite simple critique of Erik Paulsen, drawing attention to the Republican candidate's refusal to respond to questions. In articulating this critique, I thought conservatives would likely be receptive to my perspective. I mean, I'm simply arguing a state representative should treat his constituents with civility, and that a candidate for high federal office ought to answer questions put to him by a journalist.

A hypothetical: Let's say I'm your longtime DFL state representative and I'm the endorsed DFL candidate for US Congress in CD3. Let's say you're a conservative blogger who resides near me, in the same legislative district. You start emailing questions; I don't reply. You include my staffers' email addresses; you still don't get any reply. You find that whether you ask a policy question or you simply ask me to confirm biographical data, I refuse any interaction with you whatsoever. Eventually, you corner me in a public setting and ask me why I won't answer your emails; I tell you I refuse to respond because I believe you're insincere.

You recall that one of your recent emails to me simply asked for my position on Darfur, Sudan. Do you think it likely that I have actual reason to believe that your concern about Darfur is phony? Clearly, my stated concern about your 'lack of sincerity' is itself insincere.

I'm not the one who injected sincerity into the discussion. Indeed, in political conversation attacking motives--as Paulsen routinely does--is generally viewed as being very sleazy. In Paulsen's defense, at least we know that he doesn't sincerely believe what he's saying.

(If Paulsen sincerely believed that his unilateral, unaccountable evaluation of others' sincerity ought to carry such import, we'd certainly want to ask him if, for the remainder of his political career, others ought to feel similarly free to refuse to answer any question he puts on the table if in their view he is being insincere.)

Getting back to our hypothetical: In my lengthy legislative career, I've compiled a voting record which reveals quite strident, categorical thinking on a number of issues. As a blogger, you'd like me to explain my record. I clearly have no legal obligation to reply to you, but what if it becomes known that I am refusing to answer many unimpeachably fair questions you're sending me? Might you be able to embarrass me into participating in the democratic process?

Could my stonewalling strategy bite me in the ass, in other words? Conceivably, but you have to remember the media landscape in which we are living. The Eden Prairie News is generally in the business of thank-you-boss 'journalism'. Esme Murphy exemplifies the proud cluelessness of local television news reporting on this congressional race. And there don't seem to be many bloggers willing to raise a ruckus. The Star Tribune could possibly express concern about my odd manner--for a candidate for high federal office--of refusing to take part in the political process, but the Strib is timid. In short, as a polity, here in CD3, we're quite unvigilent. We're easy game for a politician whose refusal to answer fair questions constitutes utter contempt for the democratic process.

Having successfully drawn attention to Erik Paulsen's utter contempt for the democratic process, a number of righty bloggers have taken note; a number have begun attempting some rudimentary response. The standard modern-day Republican tactic, when responding to critical thinking, is to attack the standing of the critic. If they can provide some compelling negative information about the critic, then they don't need to respond to the criticism. Two righties have recently attempted character attacks on me, so as to deflect attention from my criticism of Erik Paulsen.

In order to justify refusing to respond to my critique of Erik Paulsen, Master of None suggested that I am a creepy stalker. (He refused to allow me to leave a comment on his blog responding to his moronic accusation, so I counterattacked here.) Before suggesting that someone is a stalker, I generally like to be able to cite at least one instance of stalking, but lacking any such instance didn't prevent Master of None from lunging against me. Master of None justified calling me a stalker because I showed that Erik Paulsen's address and my address are quite near each other. Master of None argued that to publish Erik Paulsen's address constitutes stalking Erik Paulsen. Quite odd, no? I mean, I absolutely don't advocate any impolite behavior toward Erik Paulsen--never have, never will. In addition, Paulsen himself provides his home address and home telephone number on his website. So any suggestion that I have provided readers with information Paulsen would prefer to remain private is ludicrous. Next?

An anonymous commenter recently sought to defend Erik Paulsen's stonewalling. The commenter takes Paulsen at his word--that Rep. Paulsen is refusing to respond to my questions because he believes me to be insincere. The commenter even defends Paulsen's refusal to explain his lengthy, highly categorical record on abortion because, in the commenter's view, my sincerity is insufficiently pristine. Again: If Paulsen certifies that for the remainder of his political career, anyone to whom he directs any question should feel free to refuse to respond if, in their view Paulsen is not being 100% sincere, then we'll know we ought to take Paulsen's new-found sincerity obsession seriously. Until then, answer the question, Erik.

Paulsen has made clear his desire to run a silent majoritarian campaign. It is a test of our democratic commitment, whether we allow him to get away with this scam. Bloggers and citizens should be peppering Rep. Paulsen with fair, above-board questions on the issues. (If, contrary to expectations, he responds honestly and begins engaging with the democratic process, great.)

Thomley and Kang meet with supporters in Maple Plain

SD33 Dems, meeting in Maple Plain

(State Rep candidates Nick Thomley and Kim Kang as seated, at left.)

This evening I'd planned on heading out to Maple Plain to attend a Nick Thomley event. Like Ashwin Madia, Nick graduated from Osseo High School and served our country in the USMC. (He's younger than Ash; their paths didn't cross at OHS.) Nick Thomley (who has already won the DFL endorsement) is running for state representative in 33A, challenging GOP incumbent Steve Smith. Kim Kang (watch this space), a more recent entrant, is seeking the DFL endorsement for 33B, which is an open seat, as incumbent John Berns isn't seeking reelection. The group met this evening to discuss the upcoming campaigns and explore strategy.

On the way out to Maple Plain, I stopped briefly at the new CD3 DFL HQ in Wayzata. The office was quite empty; the Terri Bonoff had been removed from the marquee out front. Various Madia for Congress posters adorned the windows, along with a few John Benson placards. I suggested a name which might be painted onto the marquee, but the CD3 DFL field organizer would hear none of it, this being a general-use CD3 DFL facility.

This would be a great opportunity for some former Bonoff supporters to insist Ashwin's name gets painted on there, no?

**

Barking Back:

Dave said...

You have now called Paulsen "void of charisma" "sleazy" "low brow" and "arrogant" to name a few. You supported Ashwin Madia in your party's primary race. How does this line up with your contention that you are a journalist? If Paulsen telling you that you are insincere is a personal attack then how would you classify your name-calling toward Paulsen? When you name-call, support an opposition candidate and at the same time vaunt yourself as a journalist, how do you expect to be treated like any other constituent?

Thanks Dave. Please remember that the unflattering descriptions you've listed above came long after Erik Paulsen had blacklisted me. I initially approached him with complete politeness and have assured Paulsen I would be delighted to let bygones be bygones and reinitiate civil relations at any time of his choosing.

If you're running for high federal office and you hold virtually no public events and provide constituents no opportunity to ask questions of you, then you deserve to be pilloried. Imagine if Erik Paulsen was a blogger and I was his longtime state rep, now running for US Congress, and I refused any interaction with him--even refusing to acknowledge him as my constituent. Imagine if I were running for US Congress and took no questions from the public, held no public events and refused any interaction whatsoever with the non-fawning media. In such a situation, Erik Paulsen would be entirely within his rights to call me every epithet he might think up. Indeed, it would be his civic obligation to lay into me morning, noon and night. Were Paulsen to support my opponent, this would in no way justify my refusal to treat him just as I would any other citizen.

Paulsen's illogical personal attack on me has vastly greater consequence than my entirely rational counterattack upon him.

Please recall also that Paulsen's McCarthyite decision to blacklist me effectively denies me representation in the Minnesota state house. My hurling well-deserved abuse upon Paulsen does not in any way prevent him from exercising his citizenship. Paulsen's candidacy, to date, represents a loathsome assault on our most hallowed principles of democracy. Our sacred honor requires us to transport his candidacy into the dust bin.

One can engage in a quasijournalistic avocation while putting forward one's opinions. I make no claim for infallibility; sometimes I get things wrong. But very much unlike Erik Paulsen, I engage with my critics; indeed, I warmly invite their comments and questions. I am delighted that conservatives and Republicans read this blog, in addition to my home field crowd. Let me provide an example from something I posted last year, concerning Congressman Ramstad's website:

As someone who has sought several times to oppose Ramstad, I've long noted several key sentences on the website:

"Jim Ramstad has a long history of civic and community involvement. He currently serves as a board member of Minnesota D.A.R.E., Lake Country Food Bank and the Violence Against Women Coalition." In other words, Rep Ramstad claims to maintain a serious on-going commitment to community involvement—and as proof of this, he lists three things he does, outside of his day-to-day job, for our community—so let me repeat the sentence which, up until just a few days ago, had long appeared on the Ramstad.org website: "He currently serves as a board member of Minnesota D.A.R.E., Lake Country Food Bank and the Violence Against Women Coalition."

I contacted Minnesota D.A.R.E. and asked them many times—and they haven't been able to name a single D.A.R.E. board meeting which Rep. Ramstad has attended in the past year, or any other time, for that matter. Ditto the Lake Country Food Bank. When I called the Lake Country Food Bank three or four times, I asked who is on their board of directors, and nobody named Jim Ramstad. So perhaps he at one time participated in some of these boards, though it is a mystery to me how someone with no expertise in running a food bank could contribute, or indeed could conceivably be needed, to sit on the board of a tiny Minneapolis food bank. What do you think I learned concerning Jim's claimed participation on the board of the Violence Against Women Coalition? Well, I couldn't find any such organization on the web or in the phone book, so I contacted two major players in the Hennepin County anti-domestic violence arena, and learned that there is no such thing as the Violence Against Women Coalition, or at least these two prominent experts had never heard of it. I emailed Rep Ramstad, and he refused to comment…he would not even tell me if he was telling the truth. Imagine if one of our present aspiring members of Congress listed three easily-disproven claims of present-day, ongoing civic involvement on his or her website—once the falsehood of these statements was revealed, that candidate's integrity would be in shreds. But the local media generally and the Star Tribune in particular have established such a pattern of servility toward Ramstad that they never bothered looking into any of these claims. In October, 2007, when I repeatedly emailed Ramstad asking for him to confirm the three claims, he refused to answer. But he finally took action on 10/31/07—by removing the claims from his website. (I have a copy should anyone wish to view the earlier claims.) So he still refused to acknowledge the falsehoods, or offer any explanation for how they ended up on his website. He refused to put forward any apology, and he refused to even acknowledge my polite emails. I told him that in my view the resolution he put forward—the removal of the false claims from his website--was in itself dishonorable. No comment from the congressman.

In other words, readers of this blog are aware of a quite surprising fact, concerning Congressman Ramstad, which has never been published by any other outlet: For a very long time, Jim Ramstad publicly put forward several false claims on his website. When pressed on their dubiousness, he refused to defend the claims--and one of the claims appears to be a straight-out-of-thin-air lie. You didn't learn that information from the Eden Prairie News, nor did you learn it from the Star Tribune. You learned it here.

CD3 Central Committee; Franken Exit Talk Premature

Observed outside of Northfield, MN, recently

This evening I attended the first 45 minutes of the CD3 Executive Committee meeting. About 75 people attended. Here's a quick sweep around the room, showing the usual attendees--DFL luminaries, senate district chairs and delegates to the state convention. It was announced that the CD3 DFL now has a permanent office, occupying the office space where Bonoff for Congress once stood, at 15704 Wayzata Blvd--Tel: 952-473-0399.

**

Chris Truscott has called for Al Franken to drop out, as has the Blue Man. And I slammed Franken recently too. But when Hal and Chris acknowledge vulnerabilities in the Al Franken candidacy, they ought to describe a scenario in which the prospects for unseating Norm Coleman are improved by Franken dropping out. Do they really believe that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer could lead a more successful charge? Franken already has the committed delegates lined up; if he still wants the DFL endorsement, it remains his to lose. So long as Franken stays in the race, it's difficult to see how JNP can wrest it from him just a few weeks from now. And Franken sincerely believes, imho, that even now he stands a better chance of unseating Coleman than does JNP.

A lot can change between now and November. Jesse Ventura or Dean Barkley will be running on the MNIP ticket, but Ventura's popularity has dimmed considerably in recent years, while Barkley never established any serious political base with the electorate. However Barack Obama does nationally, he could well clobber John McCain in Minnesota. Our horror at Franken's mention of heretofore unknown-to-Minnesota, New York-based sexual depravities might well have faded a good deal come November. Barring a voluntary Franken withdrawal, another Democrat is unlikely to get the endorsement, without running in the primary. JNP wouldn't do so; Mike Ciresi conceivably could. Perhaps Franken might get over the hump.

Paulsen to Civil Dialog: Nyet

Erik Paulsen (right) on Feb. 22, 2008

I've now asked a number of Minnesota candidates for federal office for their views on the situation in Darfur, Sudan--including candidates endorsed by the DFL, Republican and Independence parties. Precisely one candidate has refused to respond: Erik Paulsen. If you're a Republican reading this, I'd like to ask a favor of you: Please see if you can elicit a reply from Paulsen on Darfur. Here's how I phrased it.

**

Steve Sarvi has now sounded off on Darfur:

There are a lot of people discussing if this is indeed genocide or not. Regardless of the terminology, we should be stepping in at some level to stop it. The fact that we are not points to the fact that we pick and choose based upon our national interests, not in the interests of humanity. We should be forming coalitions with other nations to force an end to the violence and starvation. This is harder to do because of our standing in the world. We sit more or less idly by as this situation spins out of control and thousands of people die. Despite our tarnished moral authority in the eyes of the world, this is a place we can begin to repair the image of America and we should be applying pressure and resources to that end.

Church Excursion: Wooddale Baptist

I attended the high-toned Baptist Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie yesterday. It's a top-of-the-line facility and has started eight daughter churches. One can choose the contemporary or traditional service; I chose the latter. While observing the service I found the wall-mounted cameras a bit eerie; the entire service I attended can be viewed online. The service was led by Pastor Leith Anderson, a national leader among evangelicals.

About 350 people attended, with a red-robed choir numbering over fifty. The choir was quite good, though when they perform Here's One one notes the oddity that such a large choir--performing a negro spiritual--didn't appear to include a single African American. Like Grace Church, Wooddale claims the bible is inerrant. (The bible doesn't condemn slavery, while acknowledging the existence of the practice, and prescribes stoning as punishment for a dozen offences, among them, being raped and not screaming sufficiently loudly.) But who knows what the people in the pews believe; perhaps they steer clear of the crazier orthodoxies of their leadership.

The traditional service at Wooddale is a complex production involving numerous participants. It is not traditional at all, departing radically from church services of decades ago in numerous respects. The delusion of changelessness is a self-deception shared by both Grace and Wooddale, a lie adherents think pleases god.

A speaker--Kristen Moquist--is introduced. Moquist is here to tell us of her 'faith journey,' a wooden suburban ultranormality tale catapulted [ostensibly, out-of-normality] into life-death drama when hubby and she give birth to severely premature twins. Moquist relates how benevolent Jesus spared her little girls. Crediting the Prince of Peace with the girls' survival would be made more coherent were the congregation assured He would have been blamed had they perished. The girls' survival quite obviously had much more to do with the investment our society has made--with plenty of non-religious support--in medical technology than any intervention from above. The girls' father seems to agree with me, here repeatedly crediting Children's Hospital, without even a kind word for the good shepherd. Moquist's transparently moronic interpretation of her own life story has clearly been encouraged and endorsed by Leith Anderson, a fact which should give pause to anyone holding him in esteem.

The sermon is of interest, as Anderson is a rhetorician of some skill, deliberately provoking a rather intense anxiety in his flock when lengthily, intensively calling attention to his view that many who believe they're going to heaven won't. (The service began with a prayer in which the leader, speaking on behalf of all of us, apologized to god for our various acts of selfishness and insincerity over the past week.) So Anderson was massaging the same anxiety nerve, with the standard coherence-destroying twist: We're supposed to get right with god and behave selflessly as Jesus wants us to, so that we get into heaven, but without regard to the prize/damnation which awaits us should we fail. So during our church experience at Wooddale, the church leaders are constantly holding a carrot in front of us and then hiding it, and assuming that our respect for them remains undiminished throughout.

The cleric wears a business suit illustrating his identification with the business executive. Various visual aids are projected onto the screens during the service, a skit involving an infantile man adds another anti-traditional touch. There is a pseudo-academic veneer to Anderson's affectedly screechy treacle. Interesting, isn't it, that our society has chosen to provide such massive subsidies to these organizations?

Ashwin Madia on Darfur

Ashwin Madia, campaigning in Eden Prairie

January, 2008

Recently I asked Ashwin Madia and Erik Paulsen for their positions on Darfur. Erik Paulsen--disgracefully--would not even acknowledge my email. Ashwin Madia answered the question:

With 400,000 people killed and nearly 3 million displaced persons, there is no longer a debate that genocide was committed in the Darfur region of Sudan and that the ongoing humanitarian crisis requires a global response. In 2008, there has been measured progress towards peace, including the U.N. Security Council's authorization of 26,000 peacekeeping troops through the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), with the U.S. paying 25 percent of the costs of the mission. This force is a good improvement over its predecessor, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS).

The U.S. should continue to train and equip UNAMID forces in order to ensure they have the full operational capabilities to carry out their mission. However, there are signs that more vigorous multilateral efforts are required to to restore peace and stability to the Darfur region. Just this May, more than 200 people died in a rebel attack in the suburbs of Sudan's capital, Khartoum. In retaliation, the Sudanese government killed nearly a dozen Darfuri civilians and bombed several villages. This circular violence is exactly what the UNAMID forces must prevent. The Bush administration must insist that the Sudanese government and its proxies, the Janjaweed militias, refrain from attacks on civilians and let the UNAMID force do its job. We can accomplish this through additional diplomatic pressure on China, which buys 60 percent of Sudan's oil and sell weapons to that country.

Two Madia Events; Blogger Responds to Erik Paulsen's Attack

Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Ashwin Madia

I attended two Madia for Congress events yesterday--a press conference at the state capitol and a fund-raiser at the home of Sal and Mia Mendoza in Edina. Now that the CD3 DFL leadership, Brian Melendez and the DCCC's Rep. Christopher Van Hollen are 110% on-board with Ashwin's campaign, the Madia organization has tightened up considerably. Ashwin rolled out an entirely new presentation at the Mendoza house party. He connected well with his audience and gave evidence of having his finger on the pulse of the campaign; an impressive, reassuring performance. This campaign is for real.

**

Blogger Responds to Baseless Paulsen Attack

On April 1, 2008, I started emailing Erik Paulsen with a few questions on political issues. He refused to respond, so I addressed an innocuous question to him: I provided Paulsen with my address and asked him who my state representative is. I had an objective: I wanted to initiate a dialogue with Paulsen so that I could learn what he stands for. Paulsen doesn't want any such dialogue to occur, so he refuses to answer any question from me. Furthermore, he has directed his staff not to reply to any inquiry coming from me.

I find it astounding that my own state representative has, for reasons undisclosed, blacklisted me. Paulsen's pettiness on this point cannot be overstated.

To bring this to a wider audience, I linked to published, publicly-available information which demonstrated that Paulsen and I are neighbors. If you are clever enough to know of an online telephone directory and Mapquest, you can quite easily verify that Erik Paulsen and Gavin Sullivan do not reside far from each other. You can easily verify the name of my state representative. With Zillow, you can easily get information about someone's house. None of this is secret information.

This point has not been lost on righty bloggers, one of whom has attempted--lamely--to respond. Rather than encouraging Paulsen to step up to the plate and start participating in the democratic process, the blogger has elected to try his hand at character assassination: He's calling me a stalker [and worse]. Like Paulsen, he does not bother buttressing his accusation with anything so cumbersome as evidence.

Since the blogger does not even allege any instance of stalking, there's not much for me to rebut. Of course I defend my right to link to publicly-available, relevant information.

Erik Paulsen blacklisted me long before I published the links mentioned. I confronted Erik Paulsen at the 42B GOP Endorsing Convention, politely asking Rep. Paulsen why he refused to answer my emails. He provided one reason only: He said he refuses to reply to my emails because he believes that I am insincere.

If you politely emailed your state representative with straightforward, in-bounds questions and that person refused to reply to you, you would have legitimate cause for feeling outraged. If you asked your state representative for his position on global warming and he was so bold as to justify his refusal to respond by attacking your character, ethics codes applying to the conduct of public officials ought to kick in. Perhaps they don't; they should. Or perhaps the representative's political party ought to provide an ombudsman who can receive and act on ethics complaints against the party's elected officials. In the absence of such a system, I emailed a request to file a formal ethics complaint against Erik Paulsen to the CD3 GOP Executive Committee on April 10, 2008. I await their reply.

A Note on Insincerity:

Paulsen believes that before he responds to my inquiry concerning his position on Darfur, he needs to conduct a lengthy sincerity-inquisition on me. (He assumes all flattering commentary directed at him to be 100% sincere.) I hold the conventional journalistic viewpoint: The journalist's sincerity is irrelevant. Either the issue merits a response or it doesn't. Erik Paulsen does not believe that genocide quite rises to his lofty pay grade. I think he's wrong, and until he provides an answer, I will continue to responsibly pursue this 100% legitimate line of inquiry.

Let's say I was your state representative and I was running for US Congress. You email me a number of policy questions. I use that well-known stalking tool--Google--and learn that you are a blogger whose opinions I don't share. In such a situation, do you think it conceivable that I might not want to reply to you?

Why might I not want to reply to you? Because I want to maintain control of my political messaging. So in our hypothetical, I view you as a pest and you view yourself as a friend of democracy, and you continue sending me emails. I continue to refuse to reply; you think up a question which a reasonable person would consider the ethical obligation of a Minnesota state representative to answer: You start asking me who your state representative is. I persist in stonewalling; you repeatedly publish updates on your efforts to get a reply. In response, I feel frustrated, embarrassed and angry--but I still don't want to reply, since that would require clarifying my many murky political positions. (I believe that keeping my views murky helps my political prospects.)

Hence, Erik Paulsen's feigned sincerity concern. Ditto Jack of All Trades. Desirous of a campaign based solely on empty sound-bites, Paulsen and his blogging valet have elected to personally attack me. It's not going to work, Erik!

Barb Davis White challenges Keith Ellison

Barb Davis White and rumpled blogger

at The Local, yesterday

In Minnesota's Third Congressional District, the Republican candidate doesn't announce upcoming public appearances, he refuses to clarify his stances on issues and justifies his conduct by issuing dogmatic, evidence-free personal attacks on bloggers.

What a contrast with the Republican congressional candidate in the adjacent Fifth Congressional District! Barb Davis White is challenging incumbent Keith Ellison. I noticed that White had announced a fund-raiser, so I emailed her campaign asking if I could attend. White for Congress immediately notified me that I was welcome to attend. So I went to The Local yesterday where I was warmly greeted by Minneapolis Republicans. About two dozen people attended the fund-raiser, though I was early and was told more would likely be arriving later. A band of White for Congress supporting rockers performed.

Barb Davis White is a grandmother of three and a pastor serving the down-and-out in Minneapolis. She told me she has dedicated her life to getting the drug- and alcohol-addicted to sobriety with the aid of Jesus.

The candidate was extremely friendly and willing to answer any question I could come up with.

I asked her about three issues:

On abortion: Rev. White is 100% pro-life and believes having an abortion to be morally equivalent to blowing your neighbor's head off with a shotgun. Should a rape or incest victim be legally barred from having an abortion? White launches into an anecdote about such a victim who carried the pregnancy to term and gave the child up for adoption, illustrating her position that fetus = human being and that fact is not changed when a fetus is the product of rape or incest.

On Iraq: White wants to get out of Iraq 'in five minutes.' I note that her position is in contrast with John McCain's, to which White readily assents--and even rolls her eyes a bit at the mention of the Arizona senator's name. (White much preferred Mitt Romney, she says.) She wants to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and get America out. 'So on Iraq's future, you take the same position as Rep. Ellison, right?,' I asked. White argues that unlike Ellison, she opposes cutting and running. She's clearly a lot closer to Ellison's position than she is to McCain's.

On Darfur: White believes that genocide is occurring in Sudan. She's travelled to Africa and believes that with better US involvement in Africa, we could put a stop to genocide. As a member of Congress, White promises to personally lead a delegation to Sudan to negotiate an end to the genocide. She is convinced that by our mere presence there, we can get the attention of Sudan's brutal government and bring the genocide to a speedy halt, without going to the United Nations and without dispatching the Marines.

While I take issue with Rev. White on the abortion question, I found much to admire in both the candidate and the campaign, and very strongly recommend that my neighbor Erik Paulsen considers Barb Davis White's example of civility and honesty. What a stark contrast!

A Few Responses to Readers

An anonymous commenter said...
I don't see it as some kind of civic injustice for Paulsen to view you as insincere, especially toward him. No offense intended.

I do.

When you run for high federal office, the public ought to require you to describe your biography and views in some detail. I don't know Erik Paulsen; I've never had a serious conversation with him. He makes extremely few public appearances and when he does so he does not respond to critics.

We are now engaged in a serious social endeavor--selecting our next congressional representative. As a participant in this process, whenever possible I attend events and speak with participants at all levels. On most days, I publish observations concerning the CD3 race for congress on this blog. In participating in this open, public process, I make mistakes. I don't see into the future (a point I occasionally need to be reminded of). So in blogging we need accountability, as a means of rationally correcting for this writer's error-proneness. When I publish a sentence which you believe to be objectionable, it is very important that you have a means of notifying me--and other readers--of your views. To facilitate the open exchange of ideas here, I even welcome anonymous commenting.

Accountability makes sense for bloggers and journalists. Accountability also ought to apply to candidates.

Our selection process (for choosing CD3's next congressional representative) may appear anarchic; in fact we interact within a rules-based system. A fundamental precept governing the social interaction among gentlepeople is that we ought not attack the motivations of others--certainly not without considerable reticence. When I disagree with another participant in this process, attacking that person's sincerity is something I really want to avoid.

Erik Paulsen rejects this bedrock ethical intuition; he thinks stonewalling and issuing dogmatic, unaccountable personal attacks is just fine--as has been evidenced by his attack on my ostensible insincerity. In response, I have tried to persuade readers not to react with indifference to Paulsen's ungentlemanly conduct. It is my hope that astute observers will accept my argument--that Erik Paulsen's assertion that he has special insights into the motivations of others is a repulsive claim, with important implications on his fitness for office.

Twice Blessed said...
Your amazement of the role of men in the church leads me to believe that you have not attended a Catholic Church or a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. Both believe strongly that priests (men) are the clergy and leaders of the church. This is not a "new" idea.

Religion is not meant to sway with the times and adhere to the same type of feminist movement that has gotten out society into so much trouble. As a conservative woman, I relish my role in the church as a parishioner and don't pretend that I need to be involved as clergy.

In fact, I didn't express any amazement at all, concerning the gender apartheid governing Grace Church. Learning of it simply confirmed my hunch--that Grace is a reactionary megachurch. I take issue with your view that the Catholic Church 'believes strongly' in an all-male priesthood. Were the question put to a vote among US Catholics, I am confident the priesthood would no longer include its current Y chromosome requirement. Twice Blessed has expressed no desire to be involved in her church as clergy--fine. But that's not an argument against allowing a qualified female candidate from donning the dog collar, is it?

Dillon Doesn't Duck

Independence Party Candidate David Dillon

Not long ago I asked Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer about genocide--about what the US government ought to do when we reach a consensus that genocide is occurring in a country. My question was both general and specific, and JNP answered that he would not use the word genocide to describe the situation in Darfur, Sudan, and that he is not calling for any US military action there. Indeed, he would never call for unilateral US intervention in a country even were the purpose solely to prevent ongoing genocide. By way of explanation, JNP said that if we're right that genocide is occurring, we ought to be able to assemble a genuinely multinational coalition to intervene. (If we're not able to assemble such a coalition, that means we're wrong in our perception that a genocide is happening.)

In my mind reading, JNP would feel the greatest reluctance to advocate on behalf of a multinational intervention--even in the case of known, documented, ongoing genocide. He sees an inherent yucky imperialism in the assumption that our viewpoint (on whether genocide is occurring in some far-off country) ought to carry preponderant weight. That's because JNP believes that US foreign policy has caused enormous harm in numerous countries. Based on this insight, JNP believes that he can help a lot in the Senate simply by stopping harmful US foreign policies--that's how JNP sees himself doing mighty benefit on behalf of global justice. JNP isn't very interested in the Darfur, Sudan situation because it doesn't fit into his default stop-the-USA-from-pillaging-the-Third-World frame.

Don't get me wrong--I like Jack. He got the yes-no question on Iraq right; I got it wrong. Having just read Tim Weiner's indispensable Legacy of Ashes, I agree that the US has behaved miserably with nauseating frequency. Our government's clandestine service has too often operated without accountability, making a mockery of our democracy.

In the CD3 race for US Congress, I have attempted to put issues on the table so that meaningful debate can begin occurring among the candidates. On May 9, 2008, I emailed our CD3 congressional candidates, asking them:

The CIA's website says that ongoing genocide is occurring in Darfur, Sudan. In your view, should Americans use the term genocide to describe the Sudanese government's ongoing actions in Darfur? What would you propose the United States do, if anything, with regard to the situation in Darfur?

I've emailed Erik Paulsen on numerous occasions, asking for his positions on a number of issues. When I confronted the GOP candidate in a public setting, he explained that he wouldn't respond to my questions because he finds me insincere. [Fancy that!] So before Paulsen will answer someone's question, he engages in a sincerity-testing process whose methodology is pristine in its opacity and completely beyond accountability. (This aspect of Paulsen's haughty approach to democracy ought to be troubling even to Republicans, of course.)

When I ask Paulsen to explain his position on genocide, we can safely assume he has formulated some opinion on this subject. Furthermore, I conjecture that Paulsen accepts that the public has a reasonable curiosity concerning his views on how the US ought to react when it perceives genocide to be occurring in a country. So a person with a printing press has asked Paulsen a question the candidate himself acknowledges to be legitimate and fair, but he won't provide an answer because to do so would reward insincerity, an evil Paulsen seeks to diminish globally. (The Paulsen Doctrine: End insincerity; then and only then tackle genocide.)

That irritation aside, David Dillon has now responded to my Darfur inquiry: Here is his verbatim response:

Clearly the government of the Sudan has engaged in genocide and would be willing to continue to do so today if they were able. At the moment, military realities on the ground are such that rebel troops have just staged (probably not sustainable) raids in the capital of Sudan, Khartoum. Policy commentary on the Sudan should both account for local and historical complexities and be part of a larger integrated policy to free the world of such unspeakable horrors.

Local realities include:

*North South / Arab African Civil War
*Proxy War with Chad
*Territorial Expanses nearly the size of Europe
*Poverty and Infrastructure Levels unknown in the Western World
*Dictatorships both in surrounding countries and in local history

Sudan is the poster child for international inaction and a demonstration of the cost of the George Bush administration’s dramatic loss of moral influence in the world. The current administration has blunted the one good tool the United States had to lead a multi national effort to prevent the genocide in Sudan. Unilateral military intervention in Sudan is both unthinkable from a limits of US power perspective and, at least for the moment, it is hard to argue a greater humanitarian tragedy in Sudan than what is occurring with the butchery in the Congo, Sudan’s neighbor to the south where rape and torture have become routine weapons of war both for insurgent militias and government troops.

France is backing the government of Chad and asking for international support in its effort. The dictators of Chad have done little to suggest they are the good guys in all of this save support the rebels in Sudan who both fight to prevent genocide and to prevail in a civil war. All this while China supports the genocidal government of Sudan with opportunistic trade relations.

The next president of the United States should lead an international effort among free nations to sanction trade with those countries who support the world’s worst regimes. This should be done in concert with a long-term policy to use economic, diplomatic and, importantly, individual citizen initiatives to rid the world of its last dictators by 2020. With regard to suffering from dictatorships the people of Iraq, Burma, North Korea and Sudan all have had something in common.

Valley of Dry Bones Day

R.T. Rybak ought not hang, an email flurry has corrected me; sorry for allowing my dogmatic wont to kick in. Hizzoner's conduct still seems pretty weird to me; when I view the video confrontation, I observe Rybak to be lying when he says he is only approaching his vehicle to retrieve some items. But others find his on-screen explanation plausible; if there's doubt, I shouldn't have called for his head.

Grace Church, Eden Prairie

In my April 9, 2008 post, I referred to Eden Prairie's Grace Church as a reactionary megachurch. Clark Crebar, a pastor at Grace, politely emailed me after coming across my post. Crebar has offered to spring for lunch in an attempt to set me straight about his church. He also suggested I attend a Sunday service at the church. I did so today.

Grace Church is non-denominational. It's huge, inside and out. The church seats 4,000; today about one-third of the seats were occupied.

Stylistically Grace is sort of low-brow 'hip' contemporary.

A fourteen-member team of musicians was on stage. Gigantic screens up front beam the on-stage visuals back to the cheap seats; the entire experience is quite televisual. The seats are comfortable and pleasantly spaced. The relentlessly upbeat loud rock music reappears frequently throughout the service. The lyrics are shown on the screens, the supreme being is serially flattered as indescribable, uncontainable, all-powerful, unchangeable. A song actually includes the sentence (somewhat unsubtle, to my ear) You are amazing God.

A truckload of baby stuff is piled at stage left; a speaker from New Life Family Services is introduced and speaks, thanking the congregation for the babyware; New Life is apparently an abortion prevention group. A number of people speak; an elder gives a finance report: We're down $810,619 for 2008; bummer. We are asked to pray fervently for divine advice on our contributions.

During the various prayers there is much neck-bending and squinting. The pianist provides tinkling accompaniment as this person or that offers a prayer.

Grace is run by a Council of Elders. To be an elder at Grace is to attain a high social position. An eldership is open only to men. After today's service, I chatted briefly with Rick Nelson, Grace's Chairman of Elders. Nelson explains that Grace members believe the bible to be inerrant and complete; Nelson says that the bible instructs churches to be led by men. He tells me that people gathering at Grace reject evolution and take literally the bible's account of creation. I try some antireligious, pro-evolution ripostes with Nelson who proves to be a challenging convert.

Grace favors a subordinate role for women. When your Council of Elders is all male, my sociological expectation is to expect gender-subordination echoes elsewhere. For example, when I visit the rest room, I notice the women's room advertises a diaper changing station; the men's room has no such convenience. And the service is conducted primarily by men, all of whom offer fervent thanks to the mothers present (as today is Mother's Day).

Grace is now between senior pastors. A visiting cleric/academician, John S. Feinberg, was introduced for the sermon. Feinberg informs us that our passage today is Ezekiel 37: 1-14: The Valley of Dry Bones. Feinberg speaks at considerable length about the passage, which he says foretells Israel's eventual rebirth and the rekindling of spiritual life there, but he says it is unknown when this might take place and that the prophecy remains unfulfilled today. After the service I speak with Feinberg, who, I learn, is not an uncritical supporter of Israel, as I somewhat feared, hearing his talk.

People go to church for all kinds of reasons; at least half of those in attendance likely had little say in their church-choosing process. When I apply a pejorative adjective to Grace I'm in no way hammering individual adherents there. But I think that my reactionary megachurch characterization of it was fair.

In Praise of Michael Brodkorb

In investigating and publicizing DFL US Senate candidate Al Franken's accounting woes, Michael Brodkorb deserves praise.

DFLers cannot shirk their responsibility now--to take a hardheaded, unsentimental look at their front-running candidate. Al Franken spent years planning for this race. He was quite negligent in failing to make sure that any accounting problems had been cleared up before declaring as a candidate for US Senate. His irresponsibility in failing to ensure that his accounting record was in pristine condition has badly damaged his political viability.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is aware of Franken's accounting problem but refuses to make hay with it. DFLers praise JNP for his squeaky-clean refusal to go anywhere near this issue; I think we'd be better off were JNP to behave conventionally, and use the cudgel handed to him. DFL activists and bloggers have retaliated against the Franken tax charges by lashing out at Michael Brodkorb, Ron Carey or Norm Coleman. This is head-in-the-sand stupidity.

It is time we seriously assess our alternatives: JNP and Mike Ciresi [who, I assume, might still be persuaded to make a go of it]. The stakes are too high not to move forward with both eyes open. State convention delegates were selected before the gravity of the current charges were widely known. They should consider themselves released from their obligation to support the candidate preferred by their subcaucuses.

Oh, and: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak ought to resign immediately.

Talk Titans Meet in Brooklyn Park

Michael Medved and Ed Schultz

AM1280 The Patriot and AM950 Air America Minnesota held a debate this evening between Ed Schultz and Michael Medved at the Northland Inn in Brooklyn Park. The audience of hundreds favored the right-wing station and talker. Matt Entenza and Mitch Berg [photo] light-handedly moderated the event. It was a raucous interchange with many one-liners and zingers exchanged and free of surprises for anyone familiar with the top-ten-rated talk show hosts.

Former Congressman Bill Luther was in attendence. He told me he thought Madia's prospects look good, and that Madia's performance in the endorsement contest impressed him. (Luther subcaucused for Madia at the SD42 DFL Convention.)

A letter to Jenifer Loon

[Note: Jenifer Loon is the endorsed Republican candidate for state representative in 42B, where I live. The seat has been held for 14 years by Erik Paulsen.]

Hello Jenifer Loon,

I'm a blogger and heard you speak at the GOP 42B convention. Congratulations on receiving the GOP endorsement.

At that convention, both you and your challenger sounded off on the abortion issue. In my blogging, I've gone to considerable length to try to understand what legislative change prolife legislators would be happy with, were their position to carry the day. In speaking with Rep. Steve Smith, I asked if he would consider it a step forward were abortion simply added to our state's existing homicide statute--so that a person voluntarily performing and abortion could then be charged with first degree murder. Rep. Smith assented, saying that such a legal change would represent a step forward for our state.

The position you voiced at the GOP 42B convention was somewhat different from the '100% prolife' position: You said you favored allowing abortion only in cases of rape and incest. And so I was wondering if you could elaborate on your position, because it would seem to suggest an acknowledgment that you do not equate abortion with homicide. Prolife Across America believes that Embryos are Babies, but you don't, in other words--please correct me if I'm wrong. But if you believed the fetus set in motion as a result of a rape or an act of incest to be a baby, you could not logically take the position you do. So it is entirely fair to state that Jenifer Loon does not agree with people such as Rep. Steve Smith, in their belief that embryo = baby and abortion = homicide. Right? If not, might you elaborate?

At the GOP 42B convention, you also mentioned your strong opposition to gay marriage. Why do you oppose equal marriage rights for gay citizens? What is your position on the rights of gay people in other areas, besides marriage? Are you committed to the equal participation and treatment of gay citizens? If elected, will you treat gay constituents any differently than you treat other constituents? The Eden Prairie News reported that you are a member of Prairie Lutheran Church, which is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The ELCA will issue a Social Statement on Sexuality at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly; some ELCA members want this document to make clear that your Church accepts gays in ministerial positions and will treat gay adherents equally, right down to the performance of weddings at ELCA tabernacles. Were such a pro-equality position to be taken by your very own ELCA in 2009, might this change your own opposition to equality in the civil recognition of gay marriages?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

**

This was cool:

Interpretando la actitud de Paulsen como arrogante y antidemocrática, a Sullivan se le ocurrió grabarse a sí mismo explicando toda esa historia mientras, como se puede ver en el vídeo, señalaba directamente al candidato, que estaba a sus espaldas. Ése fue el detonante del malestar de los republicanos, que decidieron expulsar al reportero del acto mientras éste preguntaba en vano si ése era un comportamiento democrático.

Campaign Doldrums Proceed Mercilessly

Ashwin liveblogged at DailyKos today. And he's got a real campaign manager now. Thanks to MNCR for bringing both of these to my attention. MN Publius takes Erik Paulsen to task for resisting efforts to raise the minimum wage.

I paid a visit to Paulsen for Congress HQ today. The spacious office appeared empty, but upon walking in I encountered a campaign worker--Field Director John-Paul Yates. 'If I want to ask questions about the Paulsen campaign, am I in the right place?' I asked. The not unfriendly Yates addressed me by name and said I ought to direct all questions to Paulsen for Congress communications czar (and Political Director) Anne Mason, who is out-of-town at the moment, he noted.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on Darfur

The Bloomington Human Rights Commission showed The Devil Came on Horseback the other day. When leaving, I mentioned to a friend that the film suggested it was obvious we have a moral obligation to intervene in Sudan; I felt reluctant about doing so. 'But once you agree that genocide is occurring somewhere, you're obligated to intervene. And if others aren't willing to join the US in intervening, then we're obligated to go in alone.' Um...let me think.

**

State Delegate Sten Hakanson held a party for Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer yesterday at Sten's Stillwater home. Around ten guests were in attendance. (The uncamera-shy appear above.)

Numerous issues were discussed, the hosts were gracious, all had a good time.

While there, I asked Jack, 'If we believe genocide is happening in some country such as Sudan, what are we then obligated to do?'

JNP is not persuaded that genocide has occurred in Sudan; he would not use the word genocide to describe what has been happening in Darfur. JNP would never intervene unilaterally; even if Americans--including Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer--believed genocide was occurring somewhere, since our inability to get international cooperation and support would prove that our belief was wrong.

If the international community agreed genocide was occurring in some country, Jack would prefer the UN or the African Union (in the present case) intervene. As senator, Jack would not call for military action in Sudan, based on what he knows now.

I wondered to the candidate...if he wants to win, perhaps he had considered calling attention to Al Franken's tax woes? The candidate would hear none of it. Indeed, it appeared my intimation--that an upright man could even entertain such a course of action--offended. But if Franken gets the nod and his tax irregularities sink him in the general election, few will then be praising JNP's unwillingness to raise the matter now.

The Backstory on That Video Clip

Today I was contacted by Michael McIntee of TheUptake.org and Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed concerning my 42B video clip, now available on Youtube. Many viewing the clip don't quite know what to make of it. Here's my explanation:

I'm a blogger whose main focus has been the race for US Congress in Minnesota's Third Congressional District. So I spent months following the DFL congressional candidates around. I had open access to numerous candidate events during the DFL endorsement competition. I participate in the DFL Party.

As of April 12, we have our two major party candidates for US Congress in CD3. Erik Paulsen, the Republican candidate, is the longtime state rep for 42B, where I have lived for more than a decade. Ashwin Madia is the DFL candidate.

So I want to blog on the Madia-Paulsen race. Some time ago I started sending Erik Paulsen and his staff a daily email. At first I addressed substantive political issues--abortion and global warming, just to get a discussion started. But upon learning of Paulsen's total refusal to respond to my inquiries, I tried to author the most innocuous possible question--one that he couldn't imaginably refuse to answer: I would provide him my address and ask Paulsen Who is my state representative?

I've been sending him this question every day for three weeks now, and he hasn't replied once. Nor has his staff, all of whom are well aware of my emails.

To blog on this race, I need some access to each campaign. It simply does not [okay, shouldn't] interest me to engage in a six month soliloquy. I'm going to need to communicate with Team Paulsen. Trouble is, Erik Paulsen opposes the concept of dialogue among political adversaries, sad to say. So I'm trying to persuade him of the value of bipartisanship.

Erik Paulsen knows I'm a Democrat, so he and his staff refuse any contact with me. Paulsen is a veteran pol; he has made a cold calculation that a no contact policy toward the fearsome Gavin Sullivan is the safest bet.

I think Paulsen has made a silly miscalculation. If this were 2000, Paulsen could likely get away with his stonewalling policy. But social networking has advanced mightily since then; I am now trying to apply pressure upon Paulsen to engage in dialogue and explain his views--to participate in democracy, in other words.

Paulsen almost never appears in public; he makes it extremely difficult for any critic to engage in dialogue with him. The night before last a friend reminded me that the 42B GOP was holding its endorsing convention at Eden Prairie Senior High School, so I went there. At the credentialing table on the way in, I explained that I was a blogger and wanted to observe the convention, and was--somewhat to my surprise--allowed in. No particular rules were brought to my attention; I had every intention of behaving politely and believe that I did, given the circumstances.

During a break at the 42B Convention, when people were socializing, I confronted Paulsen on the convention floor, shaking his hand and saying hello. I then asked him when I could expect a reply to my emails. He was aware of my emails, he said, but he won't reply because they are insincere. And he turned away just as a number of Republicans shepherded me off of the convention floor.

After that, I looked for an opportunity to confront Paulsen again, were he to walk off of the convention floor. (Were your state representative so astoundingly arrogant he refused to answer when you asked him--every day for three weeks--'Who is my state representative?' I believe you'd have every right to be pissed off.)(So I had a right to pretend to be pissed off.) Unfortunately, the mouse was quite aware of the cat in the building, so I couldn't find an easy opportunity to give Paulsen an earful. Late in the convention, however, an idea occurred to me: Use the video-capture feature on my trusty Panasonic Lumix to film myself standing in front of Paulsen, informing viewers that Paulsen is so unbelievably arrogant he refuses to respond when a constituent asks him Who is my state representative?

So Paulsen was thinking he could stonewall me into non-existence and I was thinking I could embarrass him into engaging in democratic dialogue.

Angie Erhard, a well-known local Republican, saw me expressing an idea she wanted to stamp out, so she lunged for my camera, clutching it. I grabbed it back from her and then tried to continue filming while being shoved toward the door by sergeant-at-arms Jim Nelson.

It seems odd that the Republicans threw me out of their convention because they didn't like an idea I was expressing to my own camera, off of the convention floor, without disrupting the proceedings in any way.

Had Michael Brodkorb at the CD3 DFL Convention on April 12 pointed his own camera at himself and said, 'Ashwin Madia is a rat fink' or somesuch, do you really think DFLers would have lunged for his camera and pushed him out the door? It would seem a bit childish, no?