Legislative happenings: Ortman backs gun bill; Hoppe late in filing campaign finance reports again

A couple of notes on some happenings at the State Capitol:

  • State Senator Julianne Ortman has signed on as an author on S.F. 235, which is being carried by Democratic State Sen. Ron Latz.  The bill would change the definition of “crimes of violence” to include additional domestic violence offenses as well as the illegal possession of a firearm, essentially increasing the penalties for illegal possession of a firearm and making it illegal for those convicted of those domestic violence crimes to own firearms.  Additionally, the bill equalizes penalties for those who aid and abet illegal firearm possession with those who possess the weapon. Another change would subject juveniles to being charged as an adult the second time they are caught in illegal possession of a firearm.  Finally, the bill bans possession of ammunition by those who are legally prohibited from owning a weapon and makes some changes that makes it harder for the mentally ill to possess firearms.  The bill is backed by the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.
  • Rep. Joe Hoppe

    Rep. Joe Hoppe

    State Representative Joe Hoppe has completed the trifecta for 2012, but this isn’t an accomplishment to be lauded.  Hoppe’s year-end campaign finance report, due January 31, is late.  This means that Hoppe, currently serving his sixth term in the House, missed the filing deadlines for all three of his 2012 campaign finance reports.  His pre-primary report, due July 30, was filed on August 3 and his pre-general election report, due October 29, was filed on November 15.  Certainly, a veteran legislator like Hoppe should know better.

Advertisements

40 Responses to “Legislative happenings: Ortman backs gun bill; Hoppe late in filing campaign finance reports again”

  1. How many other representatives were late in filing?

    • My quick look through the filings turns up five other legislators who haven’t filed: Rep. Tom Huntley, Sen. Sean Nienow, Sen. Branden Petersen, Rep. Leon Lillie, and Rep. Joe Mullery.

      • SO we have 3 DFL’ers and 3 GOP’ers late on filing. Is this atypical? Is it even a big deal? Why the feigned outrage over just one? Is it just because they don’t represent the area?

        Does this happen because Joe has been unopposed so campaigning isn’t really on his radar, perhaps?

        • Not sure if the numbers are atypical, but it’s certainly unusual to be chronically late on your campaign finance reports. Certainly someone who’s been there over a decade ought to understand by now when such filings are due. There’s no feigned outrage, here. It’s just curious, that’s all (not to mention a violation of the law).

          • How about the DFL’er who’s in his 11th term? I guess he doesn’t spike your curiousity? Seems he’d know even better. Have you ever talked to Joe? Maybe ask him why?

            • I don’t approve of any legislator filing their reports late. That said, I don’t have the time to watchdog all 201 legislators, so I focus on the local ones. There are many fine Duluth-based bloggers you could contact regarding Mr. Huntley’s late filing.

              • I didn’t know any of them were seeking your approval. Seems like more bash the GOP at any cost to me. Drew would not approve.

                • If Sean had omitted mentioning the DFL reps who had also failed to turn in the paperwork, then you might have a fair point. However, this does tend to be a local blog, and he did post the names of all those involved, and even encouraged public discussion for all in that category on the local level.

                  And he did start off the piece with significant coverage of a legislative effort by Sen. Ortman, which was in a positive light. So the whole idea of claiming persecution doesn’t make sense in that regard, unless you don’t consider Ortman to be a valid Republican; is that your claim, Mr. Brunette? If not, then trying to play the victim card makes no rational sense.

                  • So Joe’s piece wasn’t meant to paint the man in a negative light over something that happens all of the time, and is about as noteworthy as how many bugs he kills when he mows his grass.

                    • Responsible reporting of campaign financing is part of the law (and looking at the minutes of the various Campaign Finance board meetings, it’s something you see from support groups, but not that often from campaigns, with some noted exceptions). It’s not like there was a call for any action beyond the fines, just passing on the information, and beyond that there is a fair point in that a veteran campaigner should be able to manage those deadlines.

                      If Sean had claimed that there was something to hide, or some other nefarious purpose, then you’d be closer to having something. As it is, it’s just reporting something that (unfortunately) most people don’t take the time to follow up on. Given the first half of the piece, however, it’s pretty hard to argue that this was a smear article against the GOP. That is just illogical and silly.

                    • It just seems like the nit picking crap he did with Ernie last year. I and most could care less about this garbage. What we want is good legislation, not hand wringing over every nickel some campaign spends. We just waste more money in the end. Lame.

                    • So responsible campaign behavior and financial reporting does not matter to you? Strange message to be sending… yes, this is a small issue, but it’s also how we maintain oversight on government to keep it in check.

                      And again, there is the irony in taking a piece with positive coverage of a GOP legislator’s efforts, and only spinning the negative. Amazingly self-destructive to the party.

                    • What’s the positive again?

                    • Since the two were lumoed together, and Sean is always knocking the GOP, I guess I just assumed he was against the senator’s participation on this bill. He didn’t really say one way or the other how he felt about it, unless I missed something.

                    • I didn’t give a opinion either way about it in the post. (My opinion, in fact, is that it seems to be a pretty good bill.)

                      It says much about you, though, that you assume everything I do is anti-GOP/pro-DFL, when just in the past few weeks I have criticized the largest revenue-raiser in the DFL governor’s budget, criticized over-regulation of employment licensing, and called for greater use of using evidence-based metrics to evaluate spending on state programs, among other things.

                      You’re far to anxious to take every statement and every issue and cram it into a “my team vs. your team” scenario. The reality is that nobody’s team has all the answers, and we need to take the best of everyone’s ideas to make this state work. Sure, you’ll probably prefer more ideas from the right column, and I’ll probably prefer more ideas from the left column, but that doesn’t mean that well-intentioned folks can’t come to some common-sense agreements that give both sides some of what they want and make the state a better place overall.

                      The continued insistence on total victory that we hear from folks on both sides of our political conversation isn’t productive and isn’t realistic. It needs to end for the sake of society as a whole. Too many critical problems have been allowed to fester for too long because we have leaders who aren’t willing to do the hard work and make the tough decisions.

                    • relax… I’m just jabbing ya a little.

                      Drew was off the deep end again, making wild baseless assumptions as usual.

                      You had no commentary on the first paragraph, but he deecided you put a positive spin on some that you didn’t.

                      There are quite a few in my circles that don’t like her support of this bill. Me, I’m ambivalent about it. Having read it, it doesn’t seem like much change really. I think having ammunition without a gun seems like a stupid reason to arrest someone. It is a legal product and is difficult to use without a gun. Seems like an opportunity for more problems than solutions. I can tell you I’ve found 22 cartridges in used cars that weren’t mine. That part of the bill seems kinda silly.

                      I get that this is based on a local issue we had and not the pistol shootings at Sandy Hook and the Obama rage against gun ownership. The timing makes it seem like it’s tied to that, but I don’t believe it is.

                      The part where if you are found guilty of a violent crime in your past making you inelligible might need to be looked at more carefully as well. Some domestic disputes get blown out of proportion, (I know of several), and not allowing the dude to go hunting ever again is a bit absurd.

                      It’s not the worst bill, but my fear is that it’s still a bit knee jerk, and we have more important things to worry about at the state, like keeping taxes low. If we’re going to have jerk reactions to every crisis, perhaps we start with the biggest which is unchecked government spending.

                    • “You had no commentary on the first paragraph, but he deecided you put a positive spin on some that you didn’t.”

                      First off, spell check… (just a friendly jab).

                      Second, the coverage of her legislative involvement was focused on her actions, which showed her having a presence in the debate, which is positive. To which you responded with “Seems like more bash the GOP at any cost to me” to the article as a whole. Those were your words, Mr. Brunette; given the context, they made no sense, and they still don’t.

                      So it’s not a situation of going “off the deep end again, making wild baseless assumptions as usual.” It’s quoting your words. If you can’t be responsible for the things you say, then maybe you shouldn’t say anything at all. (And that’s before all of the other points Sean brought up with your past assumptions; I noticed you glossed over those).

                    • No spell check option here and I don’t have time for cut and paste and all that.

                      And you don’t get it and won’t so what’s the point. I’m talking about him making a mountain out of molehill regarding Joe Hoppe. My comments had nothing to do with Ortman and the bill because he merely stated it had occurred and didn’t offer any commentary, therefore, there was no bashing of Ortman. Are we clear? For once? For crying out loud, you have to be the biggest nit-picking obtuse goof ball I’ve ever dealt with. Bar. None.

                    • At this point, you’ve written more about how you don’t like what I posted about Hoppe than what I actually wrote about Hoppe. You’re the one making a mountain out of this, John, not me.

                    • As far as the substantive points… on the ammunition, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, Mr. Brunette brings up a good point, that without a gun the ammo really has no purpose. On the other hand, we wouldn’t want someone barred from gun ownership stockpiling ammunition, with the intent of stealing or illegally acquiring a gun once they are sufficiently prepped to do catastrophic harm.

                      As for the domestic assault provision, to me that makes sense. Having worked as a transporter and worker with the juvenile court system, and as an adviser to a college’s sexual assault task force, I’m acutely aware of how difficult these types of crimes are to get reported and prosecuted. Additionally, the presence of a gun in an abusive home grossly and dramatically increases the risk (12 times more likely to result in death, according to the American Judges Association report). Now if you want to offer options for reinstatement once certain conditions are met, then that could be reasonable, depending on the degree of the initial assault.

                    • Mr. Brunette, I pointed it out because you twisted an observation into a reason to play the victim card again, and it made no sense. Yes, a veteran and successful legislator should know the filing requirements and deadlines. That was all that was said, and somehow that got twisted around into a persecution complex. No one is out to get you or your friends, but if that’s your response to any question or criticism, then it makes it hard to have a serious conversation. Especially when Ortman gets some additional coverage for her efforts; in the modern age, neutral coverage is positive coverage in that it gets someone’s name out to others. That was my point.

                      “Seems like more bash the GOP at any cost to me.” Your words. If you don’t like where that road takes you, then stop going down it.

                    • See Sean vs Leidiger and adjust. Thanks.

                    • So, given that you have frequently accused others (particularly Mr. Olsen) of inappropriately targeting Mr. Leidiger without cause, then I guess you’re acknowledging the fact that you do the same thing yourself? Otherwise, your statement there makes no sense.

                      At least Sean has a factual basis for his inquiries, even if I disagree with his conclusions at times (which I’ve said on this forum). Yours tend to leave the realm of substance and go into personal attack (“drunky”, “moron”, “illiterate”, etc.). Strange idea, trying to play the victim card after being the one who launches the attacks on a personal level.

                      If you haven’t figured it out yet, you’re not getting a free pass on such tactics anymore. In all fairness, if you had someone come in saying the same garbage about the GOP leadership, I’d say the same. And I’ve said the same when I don’t understand the line of inquiry into Mr. Leidiger on this forum. Public discourse needs to be more than the lowest denominator; the problem is when both sides let such nonsense pass, and it becomes part of a perceived reality. So I’ll toss the ball back into your court: we can end this thread and keep the personal attacks out, and move into substance. Or not. The choice is up to you, Mr. Brunette.

                      —–

                      So in this discussion, if we set aside the initial reaction, there were some points of substance. You offered critiques on the prohibition on possession of ammunition, and while your argument does make sense, there’s also something to be said for the restriction. After all, if someone had a history of drug possession and distribution and we see them gathering the ingredients of a meth lab, we would want to intervene. Same with someone who maliciously hacks into a secure network. So I can see the logic there, if the language is crafted appropriately.

                      As for the issue with domestic assault, I stated my concerns above. The presence of a firearm in an abusive situation increases the likelihood of death to a severe degree. So for those who have actually been convicted, it seems like a reasonable restriction. However, I can see the argument for future evaluation and reinstatement of gun access before the court, depending on circumstances, which would acknowledge your concerns.

                    • Given Sean’s disdain for certain representation, and his desire to paint Ernie in such a bad light, and knowing that he now has Hoppe as his representative, and posted similar garbage that started him sniffing around in Ernie’s life, I think it’s not necessarily a leap to think he might be going down the same road with Rep. Hoppe.

                      I’m not sure why he’s never sniffed through Ortman’s trash. [Inappropriate comment deleted. — SO] I know it’s a trivial matter, and Joe had no campaign to speak of since he ran unopposed. My guess is that it slipped his mind to file. Or perhaps it did, and then he thought he’d better make sure there’s not some issue with his paperwork, because if there’s one little thing wrong with it, someone, ahem, will be all over it, not matter how trivial, in an attempt to see punishment levied, whether harm as done or not.

                      We’ve seen this before, in case you missed it.

                      Either way, I’m not the victim, so I can’t play the victim card as you suggest, so please, grow up and make a valid point next time. Anyone who follows this site can easily understand how I would go there on the Hoppe thing. If not, then they really haven’t been paying attention, and should probably shut the front door.

                    • Let’s set the record straight here, again.

                      1.) Everything I’ve ever posted on Rep. Leidiger has been a matter of public record.

                      2.) I had nothing to do with Rep. Leidiger being punished over the speeding ticket issue, other than publicizing the fact that Leidiger had used his campaign finance funds inappropriately.

                      3.) There’s a reason that Rep. Hoppe and Sen. Ortman have received different sorts of scrutiny. It’s because they haven’t engaged in the sort of behavior that Rep. Leidiger has. They didn’t invite Bradlee Dean to give the invocation in the Legislature. They haven’t (other than Hoppe’s late filings) broken campaign finance laws. They haven’t complained about government spending on one hand while being in the midst of defaulting on a government-guaranteed loan for their business. They didn’t go to a senior citizens center and make a scene at a voter ID forum. They actually have produced some useful legislation during their time in office. They treat their constituents with respect, even the ones they disagree with. The difference in behavior is stark.

                    • You can’t say I didn’t try to turn this completely to a discussion on substance, Mr. Brunette.

                      Setting aside the whole Leidiger thing, the piece on Mr. Hoppe wasn’t anywhere near as accusatory as to solicit that type of defensive reaction you delivered. In all reality, the nine words at the end are a rather weak admonishment, just like most campaign finance laws, for that matter. It’s an honest point though, nothing more. The overreaction does more to accentuate the issue than the initial piece, which seems like a poor defense strategy to me.

                      As for the victim card… perhaps the better phrase in this case would be “victim class.” Nobody was attacking the GOP, yet somehow that’s where your conversation went. You’ve accused me of the same, Mr. Brunette, even when I agree with you on something. I’ve started sharing these posts with my friends, including a fairly staunch neo-con who keeps trying to win me back to the GOP (he has provided some really good books on conservative thought, to his credit), and he just shakes his head in frustration. My point: no one’s out to get you, and disagreeing with a point doesn’t make it an attack on your well-being or the GOP.

                      So can we get to actual substance, and set aside the fairy tales and distractions?

                    • Do you imagine someone in the GOP gives a crap about what I say on here? Other than to laugh once in a while? C’mon. Share it with the damn Prez if you want. I could care less. Maybe the goof ball might learn something. I doubt it. He seems as obtuse as you are when it comes to differing views. Obama is no different then anything I’ve done on here, nor is Dayton for that matter. Each of them insult their constituents on a regular basis, so let’s not pretend this is some unpreceidented nonsense going on here.

                      Even Sean with his reckless exagerations of Ernie’s issues has gone beyond insulting. So we can stop pretending those things didn’t happen. there was far more than what you mention for being critical in this post, which I’m not going to dredge up again.

                      You wanna talk about the gun control bill. I will. I’ll even do so politely, because I have some thoughts on it as I shared. Maybe make a new thread, because I’m done driving traffic to Hoppe’s late report, which maybe was your goal in lumping the two items together for all I know.

                      But when you go after someone on my team, I will be loyal and I will fight back. Laying down for liberals is getting us nowhere. We just cleaned out a bunch of RINO’s and the last we need to is to go back to that fiasco that brings us right back to major government growth.

                      Evenone talks a good game and about balance, but we are so unbalanced at th exec levels right now as to make the comment laughable. Dayton lies to our faces, and insults the people who provide the most revenue. As does Obama. These aren’t just Republicans he they are insulting. Many are Democrats as well. In fact, many blue dogs find them both to be abhorent and irresponsible, in their words, theirs actions, and most importantly their goals. Blue dogs get that this growth is unsustainable. We need more of them.

                      Share that with whomever you choose. Share anything I’ve said that you want. I’m just another citizen who has an opinion, just like you do. Your’s are just lousy :).

                    • First off, there’s your opening comment of “Do you imagine someone in the GOP gives a crap about what I say on here?”

                      My words were “My point: no one’s out to get you, and disagreeing with a point doesn’t make it an attack on your well-being or the GOP.” I did point out to you that many, even Republicans, consider your conduct ridiculous, and that’s true, because it is. You still dodged the key issue: there was no attack on the GOP. None, at all. In fact, your response does more damage than the initial piece, to the party and your friends. In that regard, you failed your cause miserably.

                      Where do I get that from? Well, let us take a look at two case studies. First, the situation with Mr. Leidiger’s ticket. Believe it or not, right now I really don’t care about the actual events; that matter has been settled and resolved, and never was something that kept me up at night. However, in looking back, Mr. Leidiger’s statements on the issue are fairly easy to follow. Yes, funds were used inappropriately, and initially there was an attempt to defend the expense as proper, but after that it was an admission and determination of penalty. Some will focus on the initial error, and the lack of awareness, and up to a point that makes sense, but it’s done.

                      Your defense lacked some of the same clarity, but was very civil in it’s initial tone. First you offered the idea that it was just paid from the wrong checkbook (2/27/12); then came the first accusation of hyper-partisan conspiracies; then it was fine because he was funding his campaign (2/29/12), so it was just his money anyway; then it was a minor error that was already fixed (3/1/12); then it was legal, just misfiled in the paperwork (3/1/12, 9:00 p.m.) and then later came the conspiracy theories again (it’s great having a record that can be referenced in times like these). Up to that point, to your credit, you were fairly civil in defense of a colleague; not long after, it went downhill, and has continued downward since. Both sides will blame each other, so I think we can say that horse is dead However, the personal attacks that crept into your rhetoric is most unfortunate, because your initial defense was fairly reasonable, even allowing for differences in opinion on the severity of the matter. It was the defense of a friend.

                      Now let us compare that to this highly inconsequential observation of Mr. Hoppe’s filings offered in this forum. Yes, after being late two times one would hope that a candidate would get tired of paying the fines, but beyond that there wasn’t much condemnation in the initial piece, just a phrase or two. Yet according to you, “because I’m done driving traffic to Hoppe’s late report, which maybe was your goal in lumping the two items together for all I know.” First off, by that logic the Star Tribune regularly orchestrates conspiracies by placing bad news next to stories about certain people. In fact, so does every newspaper, every news program, every news site… everybody’s out to get you… Either that, or the need to see enemies behind every corner and every word has warped the perceptions of reality. That’s a far more likely answer, so please, let’s get away from that. It is a delusion, nothing more.

                      But let’s examine this paranoia for a second, and humor the insanity. It’s an odd claim, given that the information can be found in the reports and records; it’s public record, open for anyone who can use Google. What makes this pretense even more bizarre is this: if you thought the idea was a deliberate attempt to malign a reputation, then why further the damage by behaving the way you have? Instead of sticking to matters of substance, or even a graceful defense of Mr. Hoppe’s accomplishments, you offered slander and attacks, and even a post that had to be censored. If others do come to the article and read your words about “when you go after someone on my team, I will be loyal and I will fight back”, they will unfortunately associate your “team” with such tactics. They will associate it with someone who, in a rash statement, said he wants to hit people when they say something he doesn’t like (“I want to punch him right in his stoned, dopey face.”). Someone who looks down on the “voting morons.” Your colleagues deserved a better defense than this. Your friends don’t need any enemies, Mr. Brunette; being represented by such conduct is harm enough. It is a regression from your previous standards and goals on their behalf.

                      Furthermore, you spend one paragraph talking about cleaning out the impure RINO’s from the party, and then in the next paragraph try to portray yourself as aligned with the Blue Dogs. As they say: that dog don’t hunt, Mr. Brunette. You can’t give an argument for ideological purity in one paragraph, and then try to sell yourself as working with self-declared Dems, even conservative ones, in the next.

                      We have real issues in this country, that need real, spirited discussion. And yet when the chance to do so was offered, you went right back to the negative. For someone who is so worried about the perception of party and compatriots, you sure offer a lot of negative material on their supposed behalf. The vast majority of the representatives of the BPOU don’t behave this way; even when they present a perspective that I would oppose, for the most part they usually do so honorably. They don’t need such nonsense on their doorstep; none of us do.

                    • Drew. You clearly will never understand the depths Sean has gone to derail Mr. Leidiger, with zero effect I might add. Don’t pretend you can anlyze the situation when you obviously have no clue what is going on there. Most don’t.

                      So, yes, when Sean switched his gears to focus on his new Rep, naturally, and with great reason, one can assume he’s heading down the same path, making a big deal out of nothing.

                      To focus your attention on the speeding ticket, is probably about as far off of the mark as you can get. Again, when you read Sean vs. Leidiger, and I mean all of it, you just might see where the concern lies. Sean has a history of making very big deals of matters of little or no concern and trying to blow them out of proportion. If you don’t understand that, you have little chance of understanding where I’m coming from, which it is very clear at this point that you do not, and likely never will.

                      Notice how you like to bring up my past posts, but somehow the refuse to look at Sean’s regarding Ernie. Perhaps you can step back, and look at who is really trying as hard as he can to damage someone objectively. So far, I see no indication that you can, which makes your hiugh and mighty rants nothing more than continued partisan nonsense, which you claim to dislike. All while using the very same tactic.

                    • Mr. Brunette, you missed the core of my reply, which is unfortunate, and only feeds into the point that you are looking for someone to argue with, often in a demeaning manner, rather than to actually promote open debate and represent your causes in a positive manner.

                      I read through all of the posts in this forum on Mr. Leidiger’s conduct, and the comments therein; all of them. I did that again last night, before writing my reply. If you had actually digested my full post, you would have seen that I recognized your initial effort in the thread I referenced as a generally respectful opposition to the initial post; in fact, my words were “your initial defense was fairly reasonable, even allowing for differences in opinion on the severity of the matter. It was the defense of a friend.” From that, however, you twisted it once again to some partisan persecution fantasy, which is an outright lie, a grotesque and deliberate misrepresentation of my comments.

                      You conveniently ignored my rejection of criticizing Mr. Leidiger’s contributions to Minnesota for Marriage as “a bridge too far”, or the other times I’ve questioned the need for some of the inquiries. So when you say “Notice how you like to bring up my past posts, but somehow the refuse to look at Sean’s regarding Ernie”, that isn’t true. It never has been, and if you were looking to get others to see and share your perspective on that, you would have acknowledged this. Instead, even after I defend Mr. Leidiger or question a post on this forum, you attack me, claiming “you have little chance of understanding where I’m coming from, which it is very clear at this point that you do not, and likely never will.” So even when I agree with you on this, you launch an attack? Even when I take your “side”, you need to demean and degrade? What do you think that does, other than poorly represent Mr. Leidiger and your other colleagues, and drive people into a more negative perception of the whole situation? Again, let’s repeat that: your tactics do tangible harm to your friends and causes by driving potential allies away. If your goal is a genuine advocacy and defense of your issues and comrades, then you are failing them miserably.

                      That was clearly illustrated in this post and thread. There was no attack on the party, and barely any commentary or admonishment to the representative in question. Additionally, there was free coverage of the legislative efforts of a GOP state senator. There was no rational explanation for the direction of your comments or the manner in which they were presented. At best, you jumped the gun; at worst, you took what should have been a positive and threw it away.

                      Furthermore, you insist on trying to pigeonhole me into some “partisan” fabrication, a false construct you seem hell-bent on offering. If you recall, good sir, you were the first one to question my intelligence, integrity, voter rights, patriotism, and pretty much my entire existence, without cause, just because I presented a different point of view. It’s strange to read the words of key party leaders, both elected and from the general public, as they try to leave such tactics behind. Dick Morris had some interesting comments quoted in the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340160/i-ll-be-back-jillian-kay-melchior) about the need to make the GOP viable within its core beliefs, but without the antagonism. Bobby Jindal’s remarks were even more to the point: “We must stop being the stupid party. I’m serious. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults… We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” Those are the exact ideas I’ve suggested to you, Mr. Brunette (particularly on the “intelligence of voters” part); it is most unfortunate that you choose to continue on a path that will undermine the strength of the party. On that point, you have only yourself to blame.

                      It’s not the partisanship that is most repulsive… genuine partisan advocacy can be invigorating when coupled with rational and respectful conduct. The best man at my wedding (and my oldest friend) and I regularly have debates far longer than this, without the degradation and insinuations. The issue is when the “other” side becomes a target of blind rage, someone you want to hit, when scare tactics take over reason and integrity. My pointing that out isn’t partisan; it’s common sense. Given the direction and goals of the party after this last election, I’m pretty sure many Republicans would agree.

                    • See, you still have no, zero, zip, nada a freaking clue of why I see Sean in this light. And apparently, YOU NEVER WILL!

                      Just like you made the absurd assumptions back on the voter ID that I was stating someone was faking an illness, which was about as backward as you could take what was said. ANd yeet you still cling to it as gospel, but this again, is your misunderstanding, not mine.

                      Sean LOVES to bash things GOP. It’s just a fact. If you ever manage to pull off the rose colored glasses, you might notice. Certainly a majority of people who read this blog understand that. That you do not is telling of just how partisan you really are. SO please, take your own advice. Stop insulting me with your misunderstandings, and your lack of comprehension of even the simplest posts. You look like a fool.

                    • I oppose things that I think are bad ideas or represent bad behavior. I support things that I think are good ideas or represent good behavior. What I don’t do is change my opinion on an issue because of who supports it. A good idea doesn’t become a bad idea because a Republican picks up the cause, and vice versa.

                      Rep. Mary Franson, for instance, holds pretty much the same positions as Rep. Leidiger on the issues and has become a favorite target of many folks for some of her more strident positions and quotes. But, guess what? She’s got a good bill that I hope becomes law.

                      https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0293.0.html&session=ls88

                      I’d like nothing more than for Leidiger to put up some good, common-sense bills and work on getting them through. If he does, I’ll be more than happy to compliment him on those efforts. The folks of Central and Western Carver County deserve to have effective representation at the Capitol. So far, though, he hasn’t had the most ambitious legislative agenda this session.

                      https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/status_result.php?body=House&search=basic&session=0882013&location=House&bill=&bill_type=bill&rev_number=&keyword_type=all&keyword=&author1%5B%5D=41425&author%5B%5D=41476&submit_author=GO&titleword=

                    • I’m not even sure what conversation you’re responding to, but it’s not the one in the realm of reality, based on my post above. Your response is nonsense, based in fiction, supported through abrasive tactics, absent of any integrity. Once again, you are fabricating a conflict where none exists, to avoid ownership of your reprehensible comments and tactics. It hurts the party and anyone associated with your comments, and is a disservice to us all.

                      First off… I’m not Sean. He has stated why he enquires into Mr. Leidiger, and at times I agree with some of his questions, and at times I don’t (both the story “Roomin’ with the Rep” and the recent piece on Mr. Leidiger’s donations to Minnesota for Marriage were a stretch too far in their premise, in my opinion). So taking out whatever frustration lies between the two of you is a poor excuse for your behavior towards me and the public at large. If you do this with everyone, you will malign everyone needlessly, and through association hurt the standing of those you claim to be protecting. That’s a horrible way to stand up for your friends.

                      As for your ill-conceived remark during the voter ID discussion, trying to cast that as my misinterpretation is a convenient revisionist version of your remarks, wholly devoid of reality or any responsibility on your part. After all, it was Jennifer Wilson who responded on 8/31/2012: “And don’t cast aspersions on my mother. Talk about asinine remarks. Don’t even want to dignify your comment about her faking her disabilities– that’s just sick and reprehensible.” In looking at your original comment, there is a possibility you did not realize how that remark would appear, and I could sympathize if the rest of the discussion was more civil. In fact, you did make a brief attempt to deny that implication later that day and place things in a better frame for discussion, only to turn back to it in a negative fashion later on. As the facts mounted against you, Mr. Brunette, your unsightly aggression became far more prevalent, and any attempt to undo the harm of your statement was erased. Many who saw that remark and your subsequent statements questioned the need for such behavior. So once again, in a debate on substance your tactics and rhetoric did damage to your cause. That is your own fault; no one makes you say those things. So own up to them, and stop trying to blame everyone else for your conduct.

                      And I noticed that you still didn’t address the core of my statement above:

                      “There was no attack on the party, and barely any commentary or admonishment to the representative in question. Additionally, there was free coverage of the legislative efforts of a GOP state senator. There was no rational explanation for the direction of your comments or the manner in which they were presented. At best, you jumped the gun; at worst, you took what should have been a positive and threw it away.”

                      That is completely accurate. Regardless of what you thought the intent was, there was no reason to set your hair on fire over this article. There is no reason to say you want to hit people for saying something you disagree with. By doing so, you did far more harm to your colleagues and your cause then would ever have come their way. In doing so, you trade them in for the ability to “get loud” and manufacture anger, where there was none. Now if someone runs a Google search, they get to read your disparaging remarks and conspiracy theories. In every way, your conduct is a greater liability to the party than the articles that appear here. They deserve better than that; we all do.

                      Beyond that, what I said above is true: “So even when I agree with you on this, you launch an attack? Even when I take your ‘side’, you need to demean and degrade?” Mr. Brunette, do you realize how silly that makes you look, that you are attacking someone who was siding with you? I’m going to call you on that ridiculous proposition, because discussions and debates shouldn’t be decided by who can yell the loudest. It is beneath us all.

                    • What a complete waste of time… seriously. Seek medical assistance. Dayton can hook you up.

                    • Mr. Brunette, you are the one who admitted to having violent impulses towards others on this forum, and who seems to be plagued with visions not supported by reality. In that regard, you are the one in need of help, although in this case a simple dose of self-control would probably suffice, if you would ever accept it.

                    • Oh really? Now I’m violent. Get a grip, will ya?

                    • Grammar correction of the above post (a comma can make a difference):

                      Mr. Brunette, you are the one who admitted, on this forum, to having violent impulses towards others, and who seems to be plagued with visions not supported by reality. In that regard, you are the one in need of help, although in this case a simple dose of self-control would probably suffice, if you would ever accept it.

                    • I didn’t say you actually carried out any of these impulses, Mr. Brunette… but you were the one who said that you wanted to hit someone for the comments they said. Even when we disagree the most, I would not wish harm upon you, good sir.

                      So if participating in political debates leads to such anger, then maybe a dose of self-control would be in your best interests.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Legislative gun bills: sound and fury signifying little? | Brick City Blog - February 8, 2013

    […] Latz/Lesch bill (also supported by Sen. Julianne Ortman) expanding the crime of violence definition and modifying criminal penalties for illegal firearm […]

  2. Ortman withdraws authorship of S.F. 235 | Brick City Blog - February 19, 2013

    […] Senator Julianne Ortman has removed herself as an author on DFL State Senator Ron Latz’s S.F. 235 that would change the definition of “crimes of violence” to include additional domestic […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: