[Speed Gibson,
Thursday October 26, 2006 at 1:39am]
No Surprises
The Minneapolis Star Tribune today published four U.S. House picks, Ellison, Wetterling, Peterson, and Oberstar. "Two incumbents, two newcomers" is their idea of balance, even if they are all Democrats. I think they got at least three of them wrong.
In endorsing Keith Ellison, the Star Tribune notes that the race "has turned into such a brawl of personal revelations and unseemly attacks that voters must be feeling starved for substance." They fail to note that they themselves are doing much of the brawling and withholding the substance that Powerline and others have published.
Out west, their pick of Colin Peterson is facing the "unusually articulate and well-researched" Mike Barrett. Why is it "unusual" for a Republican or any other challenger for a high office to be articulate? Or do the homework expected? It isn't of course; this is just a gentle swipe at the presumed lower average intelligence of Republicans. As Ann Coulter asks, why are conservative books always "surprise" best sellers? Speaking of articulate, the Star Tribune should check its own grammar in the sentence I quoted.
In the Eighth district, the Star Tribune claims that "[i]f the issue is a trade-off between jobs and environmental regulations, as Grams frames it, then [James] Oberstar has shown an admirable record of striking the right balance." Actually, no, the jobs are losing handily to the far left environmental votes of Oberstar who considers Minnesota "fly over" country. And how can you be considered "a champion" of this or "a master" of that when you miss over two-thirds of your committee meetings?
In endorsing Patty Wetterling, they claim that "voters who have taken a good, careful look will recognize that Wetterling is the real moderate here -- a compassionate but sensible voice for mainstream Minnesota values." To argue whether Wetterling is a moderate is pointless for lack of evidence one way or the other. Wetterling remains a one trick pony, unable to competently present, debate, or defend whatever views she might have. Even if she did, why believe her?
Patty Wetterling is running the most false and misleading ads in Minnesota. Despite media criticism as such, she continues to run them, perhaps because she has nothing else to say. Is lying to voters a mainstream Minnesota value? And personal slander? It is at the Star Tribune it would seem, judging by what they did to Alan Fine.
I won't quibble with Peterson vs Barrett. It looks like the Seventh district won't go too far wrong either way. But why endorse scofflaws, liars, and truants over those who do obey laws, speak plainly, and might actually might show up for work? Because they're Democrats.
In endorsing Keith Ellison, the Star Tribune notes that the race "has turned into such a brawl of personal revelations and unseemly attacks that voters must be feeling starved for substance." They fail to note that they themselves are doing much of the brawling and withholding the substance that Powerline and others have published.
Out west, their pick of Colin Peterson is facing the "unusually articulate and well-researched" Mike Barrett. Why is it "unusual" for a Republican or any other challenger for a high office to be articulate? Or do the homework expected? It isn't of course; this is just a gentle swipe at the presumed lower average intelligence of Republicans. As Ann Coulter asks, why are conservative books always "surprise" best sellers? Speaking of articulate, the Star Tribune should check its own grammar in the sentence I quoted.
In the Eighth district, the Star Tribune claims that "[i]f the issue is a trade-off between jobs and environmental regulations, as Grams frames it, then [James] Oberstar has shown an admirable record of striking the right balance." Actually, no, the jobs are losing handily to the far left environmental votes of Oberstar who considers Minnesota "fly over" country. And how can you be considered "a champion" of this or "a master" of that when you miss over two-thirds of your committee meetings?
In endorsing Patty Wetterling, they claim that "voters who have taken a good, careful look will recognize that Wetterling is the real moderate here -- a compassionate but sensible voice for mainstream Minnesota values." To argue whether Wetterling is a moderate is pointless for lack of evidence one way or the other. Wetterling remains a one trick pony, unable to competently present, debate, or defend whatever views she might have. Even if she did, why believe her?
Patty Wetterling is running the most false and misleading ads in Minnesota. Despite media criticism as such, she continues to run them, perhaps because she has nothing else to say. Is lying to voters a mainstream Minnesota value? And personal slander? It is at the Star Tribune it would seem, judging by what they did to Alan Fine.
I won't quibble with Peterson vs Barrett. It looks like the Seventh district won't go too far wrong either way. But why endorse scofflaws, liars, and truants over those who do obey laws, speak plainly, and might actually might show up for work? Because they're Democrats.