Even though the Erik Paulsen campaign has sure smelled of racism, I’m not going to flat out say that Erik Paulsen is a racist. What I will say, however, is that Erik Paulsen didn’t have a problem not condemning a racist and a bigot.
An ethics complaint was brought by eight representatives against Representative Arlon Lindner after he suggested during a March 10, 2003 House floor speech that gays and lesbians were not persecuted during the Holocaust: “It’s just been recently that anyone’s come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted [during World War II] to this extent. There’s been a lot of rewriting of history.”
Lindner then spewed these disgusting remarks in justification (see video): “What I am trying to prevent is the holocaust of our children getting STDs, AIDS, and various other diseases… If you want to sit around and wait until America becomes another African continent, you do that, but I’m going to do something about it.”
The complaint was referred to the Ethics Committee where it died on a party-line tie vote.
On April 25, 2003, a resolution specifically stated that “Representative Lindner has to date refused to apologize or acknowledge any regret over the statements he has made.” The resolution declared that the House of Representatives “formally condemns the statements made by Representative Lindner.” The resolution instructed the Speaker of the House to remove Representative Lindner as Chairman of the Economic Development and Tourism Division for the remainder of the legislative session. Not a very nasty punishment, really. On a roll call vote, Erik Paulsen voted against the House resolution.
Even worse, during floor debate on the House resolution Paulsen defended Lindner’s comments. Paulsen decided to distribute handouts attacking democrats equating Lindner’s denial of certain aspects of the Holocaust to statements made by democrats regarding meetings between republican House members and african-american youth. Yeah.
Again, I’m not saying Erik Paulsen is a racist or a bigot, but what does it say when he won’t condemn those who are?
If faced with a similar situation in Washington, would Erik Paulsen play by the party line or would he condemn racist and bigoted comments?
Looks like Team Madia is trying to change the subject from this…
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/10/26/more-evidence-of-madia%E2%80%99s-postive-and-uplifting-campaign-2/
Mr. Brodkorb, the level that you have now sunk to is beyond shame.
People are dying because there is a lack of affordable health care in this country.
People are losing their homes due to drunken greed on Wall Street.
People are dying in foreign lands right now for a war that our Commander in Chief cannot give us a straight answer for why we went there in the first place.
And you want to talk about photos posted by staff? Sir, you are truly without shame.
Say, Aaron?
In a word, “no.”
I’ve followed Paulsen’s “career” since he first doorknocked me back in 1994.
The only reason Paulsen isn’t now called “The Weasel” is because Coleman holds the trademark.
And Team Madia wants to talk about former legislators.
Michael, doncha hate it, when Democrats act like you?
This is hilarious. What does it mean when he won’t condemn racist or other bigoted comments by Republicans? It means he is acting in the best traditions of being a partisan. Much like the Democrats that said nothing about the bigoted statement by a Ohio union leader when introducing Hillary. Like the Republicans who figured Reagan selling arms to Iran was alight as long as the money went to “fight” communism. Similar to those who revere FDR despite his attempts to grab authoritarian power by stacking the Supreme Court or his willingness to send a couple million Russian refugees back into the hands of Stalin knowing they would be executed. Those that look fondly on LBJ despite him deciding that for primarily political reasons it was worth a couple million lives in Viet Nam. Most recently it is those from either party willing to forgive their candidates for supporting the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, deficit spending and on and on and on.
The Democrat and Republican parties are the most destructive forces in our country. Their primary purpose is to consolidate power and they are willing to forgive any sin and take any measure to realize their goal. A primary method used is their ability to only care about the ethics of their competition while justifying all but the most egregious acts by their own members as necessary for the “greater good”.
The parties are the mechanisms that allow people to act immorally while still feeling good about themselves. They are organizations that survive on people’s willingness to accept hypocrisy. People like Aaron Landry and Michael Brodkorb are the soldiers that help make that possible. Creating forums where excuses come before acceptance and party line bigotry can be nurtured and grown.
If nothing else, this election is serving to flush out into the open the extent of the deep-rooted bigotry in this country, and at least some people are taking a hard look at it and they don’t like what they see, even sometimes in themselves. Obviously Brodkorb won’t be one of those who condemn bigotry either.
But racism is gone. Right?
I mean, in August when the McCain / Obama race was tightening up, and McCain even took the lead for a few days, I saw several liberal columns and MSNBC talking heads (Olbermann, Maddow) saying that if Obama loses this election, it would be proof that we still have racial biases in this country. Because, of course, the only possible reason someone wouldn’t see the light and vote for Obama would be because of racism.
So now, with Obama coasting to victory, I can only assume that racism is no longer a factor, based on the words of the columnists and MSNBC hosts. In fact, I guess I should assume that the larger the victory, the more “gone” racism in America is.
No Dtm, racism will not be “gone” - even after Preident Obama is sworn in, the GreedOverPrinciples’ party’s “faithful” will still be around.
So if we don’t elect a President Obama, according to Maddow and Olbermann, we’re racist. But if we do elect a President Obama, according to you, we’re still racist.
Dang.
Ta heck with Paulson condemning Lindner’s racism.
How about condemning the subtle racism of the NRSC’s latest anti-Madia ad? While the text of the ad is once again dealing with the OCD’ish paranoia about taxes the designers of the ad have a lot of fun playing with the contrast of the ad, with the result of making Madia look a lot darker skinned than he really is.
This might not be such a big deal if it were Michele Bachmann; everyone knows she’s a loony partisan.
Paulsen, on the other hand, has tried to lay claim to the Ramstad mantle or bipartisanship and civility. Well, he had an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, and he chose party over principle.
That’s our Eric Paulsen; a politician’s politician.
Only an idiot would deny that racism exists. Congratulations, DtM.
Sometimes it’s necessary to remind voters of the past leadership style of a candidate like Erik Paulsen, and the gutless approach he takes to dealing with topics like racism, homosexuality, etc. Maybe he could get Ramstad to hold a press conference and denounce the scurrilous remarks by Lindner back in 2005…that’s his style. How many more thousands of dollars of lieing, attack, negative ads by Paulsen will we be exposed to in the next 8 days?
Strib decides not to endorse in CD3, but I thought presented a stonger case for Madia. Tinkelenberg got the nod for the 6th and Michelle was called out for being an incompetent nut case- sort of.
“Bachmann has little to show for her two years in office — three minor bills, one of which recognized the state’s 150th birthday. The incident earlier this month when she went on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of possibly harboring “anti-America” beliefs and calling for the media to investigate her colleagues to see who was “pro-America or anti-America” just adds to the list of bizarre incidents and statements that undercut her credibility as a political leader. ”