From: “Pablo D. Kenney”
Date: December 9, 2007 5:22:41 AM CST
To: carletondemocrats
Subject: [CarlDems] republicans don’t want you to vote (Happy New Year)

Welcome to the election year.

In a year full of election glee and mirth, the Carleton Democrats will kick off the year protecting our senate seat in a Special Election on January 3rd .

Governor Pawlenty scheduled this election on the earliest possible voting day because he doesn’t want YOU to vote.The republicans are counting on winning this seat through deceit and inertia.
They’re counting on you to sit this one out.

They`re even running the same candidate that WE defeated in 2006.

How can we fight back?
We need a coordinated and strong response of voting, education, and volunteers. We need to show that we will fight for our seat, for our values, and for our vote.

What do we need from you?

1)your vote. minnesota has same day registration and all Carleton students are eligible to vote. This is a close election and with few exceptions we need your vote here more than where you are currently voting. If you have any questions about this please contact me (kenneyp)

2) your knowledge. The republicans are counting on us to be unaware.What are you voting for and who are you voting for?
First, this election is important because it will provide a real DFL majority in the state senate. This will allow the Democrats in Minnesota to fight back against the governor`s “GOP machine” proposals.
Kevin Dahle is the DFL endorsed candidate running for this seat. (Running against Ray “lost in ’06″ Cox). Dahle has been a teacher at Northfield high school and a strong citizen in the Northfield community. He has been a teacher for over 24 years and has taught many of our fellow Carls.

TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

3) your time. The more volunteers we have on January 3rd, the more people we can get to the polls. We will have voting vans and we will be tabling in Sayles and need people to do this. It is the first day of classes, and if there is any day to skip and for any reason--this is it. Please reply to this email if you can volunteer any of your time. This is a really important election and we need every person we can get. Let me know when you are available and what you are interested in doing (publicity, tabling, working on campus/northfield).

In any case, I think the timing issue has been overblown. It’s time to focus on who can be the best senator now.

(BTW, I’m leaning towards voting for Dahle--but looking forward to hearing the candidates tomorrow night.)

Tracy:
I haven’t said so yet, but I think it was great of you to post the LWV letter at the start of this thread. That’s one of the reasons why I won’t even try to guess how you’ll vote. The LWV letter raises some good questions about timing: If the judiciary opening was vacant for a while, as others have noted, it seems politically calculated. I appreciate your posting it even if you won’t join us for lunch.

John:
Way back in post #9, you said,

The fact that Iowa votes in just a few days, and we are going to be bombarded by the media for the next year, is enough to make you want to move away, or find a cave somewhere. I almost feel that the media has already decided who we should vote for anyway.

Have you heard or read how the media or other parties may be doing this, before we’ve even had a primary? The constant emphasis on who raises the most money, which assumes that we have the best democracy money can buy? Or people who meddle with even those figures by donating large sums to the candidates they think can be beat most easily? (Like those with a middle name of “Hussein”?) This is a tangent from the special election topic, so maybe we should touch on it at lunch….

What do they know about financial theories and what experience do they have to back those theories up.

When they work a plan, provided they have one at all, do they have a back up plan?
Is their overall philosophy all about a band aid approach to problem solving or can the solutions survive beyond the next election?

Will he/she represent the majority of his district or is he or she playing for some other orchestra?

I would like to see answers longer than 30 seconds and I would like to hear their stories about how things come to pass in the district and in the hallsof govt. If a man or woman has no stories, they weren’t there.

John: Thanks for the 2007 Quote of the Year nomination. It’s a first for me. My press secretary will be releasing a statement later this week. (If I can hire one, pro bono.) And I hope the low primary turnout is no indication of what the turnout might be like for the special election.

Tracy: Thanks for the compliment on my sense of humor. My kids are a tougher audience, so I need the practice.

Anne: It’s good to see you raise the question of guidelines as it applies to discussion of City Hall issues. I confess I have been more focused on teaching than on much of the City Hall debate, here. Also good to hear you pass along the Rotary’s suggested guidelines for ethical passing-along.

I agree with Jane that LG should be opinion and not held to strict professional guidelines, and yet in situations of real dialogue, people listen to, and are changed by, what unfolds in the conversation. So if John and I and Ann, and sometimes others, have raised the issue of guidelines and how blogging can be ethical (and how we can all become wiser with experience), then it goes against the grain of authentic conversation to claim one should bracket or avoid any fruits of what might come from a discussion about ethics.

Besides the Rotary guidelines Anne mentioned, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), and the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) both have codes of ethics that, while professional, would not have to be applied rigorously, but might certainly offer some enlightenment that non-professionals (meaning everyone) might benefit from. The fact that they’re professional should not mean one can’t learn from them, or make their codes of ethics a “bogus pseudo-professional media standard” (Tracy, post 25).

There’s also a blog called “The Ethical Blogger,” which describes itself as a project of Brown University, and, as you might imagine, explores issues of blogging and ethics:
http://ethicalbloggerproject.blogspot.com/

One of Griff’s big things is “Leadership Blogging,” and there’s a very natural overlap between leadership and ethics, or at least openness to ethical guidelines and their evolution.

Tracy: Regarding “working so hard to smear”: If someone is spreading a rumor under the guise of “just fact-checking,” and if spreading the rumor--such as Griff’s ballot-stuffing rumor--carries a clear political benefit and conflict of interest, then we should be concerned, and the word “smear” would seem to apply. If it’s an issue of facts, and if the facts reflect poorly on a candidate, then the candidate simply has to deal with it.

MS 211B is clear that candidates should not offer anything of value in exchange for editorial favoritism. If you look it up on the website of the Northfield News, Richard Osborne wrote a letter before the 2006 election questioning Cox’s construction company’s contract to remodel the News’ offices just before Ray interviewed for the endorsement, and an employee of Ray’s wrote a response, claiming that it was the lowest bid, so supposedly, that makes it fair. Yet in fact, a candidate winning via lowest bid just before receiving a newspaper endorsement should make us even more suspicious. It was poor judgment on both Ray’s part and the papers, but Ray has been unable or unwilling to see or admit the problem. If his opponent had done the same, you can bet he’d be howling. (I don’t think the paper, under Sam Getts’ leadership, would do the same today).

It’s unfair, yes, and it’s smear, to spread rumors, but it’s not smear, and not unfair, to make these kinds of observations about the facts.

Does this make me partisan? I still like Rep. John Duncan of TN for opposing the war on traditionally conservative grounds, Senator Olympia Snowe for opposing Exxon’s disinformation campaign, and John McCain for opposing torture, and also opposing Bush signing statements that would nullify anti-torture legislation. They’re all Republicans. I’m still critical of Pelosi for keeping impeachment off the table, and of all the Democrats who knew about the torture techniques being used and said nothing. I’m passionate about certain issues, but I’m not partisan. Call me what you like.

Does that seem like a low number, or just because the primary only really involved a republican choice?

I have nothing to base it on, so I thought I would ask. What is a typical percentage for a primary election, and a general election?

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20071218/ElecRslts.asp?M=LG&LD=25

STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 25
Independence Candidate Totals Pct
VANCE NORGAARD 50 100.00

STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 25
Republican Candidate Totals Pct
ROD TIETZ 649 21.34
RAY COX 2029 66.72
KEITH SWENSON 363 11.94

STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 25
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Candidate Totals Pct
KEVIN DAHLE 462 100.00

I honestly did not know there was only one person each in the democratic or independant columns.

I don’t think you would be the only person that thought that way today, in regards to the republican party nomination for this office. In doing so, do you think it would be not about “messing up the republican primary” but more of voting, so that your canidate has a better chance in the general election between one canidate or another?

One could say that it is unethical, and others could say its just politics. I am glad that you have strong ethics, and held yourself to a personal high standard.

I cannot wait to see the results of the primary.

It is exagerating and It incites fear in people to claim everyone is suing. It just is not the case. And I was a little tongue-in-cheek about Griff’s blogging--but why would I read it if he wasn’t saying anything?

I would, however, love to see discussions on ethical behavior--would it be ethical for me, a left wing Democrat, to vote in todays primary in the Republican column in order to mess up their primary? It is not illegal--is it right? It would be very Rovian of me. ( I think it would be unethical, so I didn’t do it--but I did consider it before giving it up. )

I also think politics are a mess--I think politicians, including the local ones, spend time worrying about getting elected than they do about actually doing their job. Each decision is based on whether they will come out right with who funds their next campaign instead of whether it is right for the people they are supposed to represent. Democrats right in there with Republicans and a few Independents, too.

I really think that politicians have to decide what they believe --and go with a party that follows those core values rather than pandering to the vocal minority or the moneyed minority. Reality is that we have sold elections out, and election funding reforms are not working.

John: thanks for the comments–but you are misleading the reader by referring to “in these highly litigious times.” Unfortunately, you are simply repeating Republican talking points to undermine liability lawyers and lawsuits, aimed very specifically at John Edwards and in general at Democrats for attempting to maintain the rights of the little people to sue when wronged. There are frivoulous lawsuits, but they are infrequent.

Jane, I am a free thinker, and I can assure you that had no intention of misleading the reader, or using anyones talking points. All I was saying, that it seems that everyone in the United States seems to have a lawyer on retainer and will sue at the drop of a hat.

I do my ever-loving best not to expose my political affiliation, as I really do not feel I have one anymore. I do not like Republicans, and I do not like Democrats, and I feel that there some really wacky independants out there. Just because I post here, does not make me a republican, a democrat, or an independant. I am a free thinker, and claim no affiliation to any party. I however, vote every chance I get, as too many soldiers have died to protect that right.

As to Griff’s post… I haven’t really thought about it specifically. I was more interested in the greater topic, so I have not had the chance to beat on the dead horse. I will wait, and beat on the next one. I am sure there will be more.

You did touch on exactly where I am going with this inquiry, and that is the ethics of having a blog.

I have been really struggling with your quote though: (He rarely says anything with which to find fault-he sticks mostly with the facts.) Was that a bit tounge in cheek?

I think Griff was indiscreet in his question and I think we have all punished him here. I don’t know who would sue him--it is a bit murky. I think we may see some developing legal precedent in the blog-o-sphere, but I doubt it will involve our very own Locally Grown.

It is always interesting, however, to discuss the ethics of having a blog and how it should/would keep itself on the right side of the ethical line--but I think it is a philosophical question--and I do not think it is my place to tell Griff, Tracy and Ross how to answer the ethical questions.

(I did like how you said that Tracy and Ross are more careful in their comments than Griff--but I think it may be because Griff does more of the day-to-day blogging so you read more of what he writes.)

Griff, Ross and Tracy--I read this blog because I enjoy your comments and most of your guest’s, too. Keep up the good work. Griff-so silent--cat got your tongue?

You call it rules… I call it standards and guidelines. I am just looking at it from the sense of being able to protect themselves. Perhaps “police themselves” could have had a better word choice. Robert’s Rules of Order would be overkill.

As to doubling the salary, I am all for it! However, last time I checked… 2 x $0 still equals Pro-Bono.

And you are correct as well, that it is thier own blog, and they can do what they want… however, with thier blog, they could potentially do harm to others.

One must be very careful about what say, as if it is wrong… It could be viewed as a type of defamation, and therefore considered not to be opinion, but that of slander. It then it could get into a grey area with blogs. When libel is in a “broadcast media” form that could potentially reach a wide audience. At that point, it could be considered a libelous statement.

I am not saying this has or has not happened. What I am asking of them is, “Has this ever crossed your mind that something you may post may ever become an issue, and how does one protect themselves from possible litigation, over a blog post?”

I know that Tracy and Ross try to be very careful, and Griff lives on the ragged edge.

My second question is, “Do you feel that as a group of bloggers, you are covered by the fact that you are simply stating opinion, and that is covered by free speech protections? If not this, then how?”

I am just trying to understand it better… Freedom to blog is a free speech thing, but how does one protect themselves in these highly litigious times?

I just wonder if between themselves, if they have some personally discussed standards, and places they won’t go… or if it truly is a free for all. I know from e-mail conversations, that they do try to confirm “rumors” as much as possible, but sometimes, you just have to run with it.

I am just curious. I am just trying to understand Ross, Tracy, and Griff better.

I must take the time this holiday week, to seek them out, buy them a cup of joe, and ask them in person… but maybe they may want to share thier perceptions here in the mean time.

Again, not trying to call them out on anything, I just want to understand them better. I do like what they do…It is just sometimes I wonder about some of the posts.

Jane, thanks for the viewpoint. It is what makes these discussions great. We can all learn from others views.

-J

If these 3 had to get 2 to agree, we would have to at least double their salary and I think they would have to give up their day jobs. It seems to defeat the point of the blog, which is somewhat (I hope) spontaneous and more like a conversation than a Robert’s Rules of Order meeting.

At the same time, we could always have a discussion of what we think Griff, Ross and Tracy should do. And then we could blog about what the city council should do. And then we could blog about what the police dept. should do. (Griff--this is not sarcasm. It is something else I just haven’t figured out what.)

Terry Tofte said that when he came to Northfield, he learned there were more opinions than people. Then he left.

I enjoy seeing what Griff, Tracy and Ross think, and I especially like to see someone get their licks in on Griff, as he is a slippery character to catch. (He rarely says anything with which to find fault-he sticks mostly with the facts.)

…and we can talk about helping Locally Grown develop more clear ethical guidelines about how to call it–how to know when asking a question about a rumor is OK, or when it might damage someone’s business, hurt an election, or constitute libel, etc. …

I hereby nominate Paul’s quote for the as of yet un-established “Locally Grown 2007 Quote of the Year” honors, and task the “group of three” to make a new years resolution to take a look at this and establish some standards and guidelines to police themselves a bit.

He has a point, and this could be an entire discussion thread, or even an IRL salon on its own.

I don’t want it to seem like I am throwing virtual rocks, because I am not.

However, in my opinion, there have been some interesting discussions, and there has also been some stuff that I, personally, thought was questionable to post. I don’t know if I would have posted some of those items, if it were me. It would take an IRL meeting, and discussions to see Ross, Tracy & Griff’s point of view on those items to better understand the ‘why’ behind the actions.

How does one define standards, when one of the three judge things on a case by case basis, and not in consultation with the others? There are three names on the masthead here. You would think that two out of three experts should agree on some things before they go out…

I like what Ross, Tracy, and Griff do most of the time. It’s just, that sometimes; I do not understand where they are coming from, and what drives them to step out on that limb from time to time. It just seems like a great personal risk at times, and I wonder what protections they have.

Has a blogger ever been sued for libel? I guess that’s another thing to Google. I know from participating here, that I never want to run my own blog. I have always wondered what the personal liability is of running something like Locally Grown, and if you need to insure yourself in some manner.

Just my $0.02… And wheat pennies at that.

Regarding the new rumor that you’re floating in your more recent post, Tracy--the claim that Locally Groan has become too GOP--I don’t see anyone on this thread claiming this. Another thread? You guys been getting a lot of calls?

We know Griff is a Cox cheerleader of sorts. Had a lawn-sign for Cox in ’06, featured on Cox’s site, which I do read on occasion in my more bipartisan moments.

In your book, the lawn-sign and blog help might qualify Griff as a Rabid Partisan Republican. Or at least a Rabid Partisan Cox-supporter. I might contest this, but call him what you may. I attended one of Griff’s talks on blogging, and I found him kind, attentive, civil and informative. I like reading what he has to say here, regardless of what anyone says about Groan Locally being too Republican. (Who said that? I said Griff should not resort to politican rumor-mongering in regard to one post out of--how many? But who said LG is too Republican?)

Ross is Ray’s brother-in-law, and Ross’s spouse told me in ’06 that one or both of them may have voted otherwise in one of the previous Cox-Bly elections, but they were both planning to vote for Ray in 2006. Still, I would hope no one would call Ross a Rabid Partisan Republican based simply on this much information, or you could call me a Rabid Partisan Republican too. Then I’d be dual-partisan, and therefore seriously conflicted, at least in the eyes of some.

That leaves you, Tracy, and I have little sense of your political opinions, except that you ran defense for Griff’s recent lapse of judgment, which might lead me to think you’re going to vote for Ray, but I would not assume. The odds are much better than the Powerball, but I’d still say it’s too soon to tell.

So if any other readers here think Groan Locally is just a front organization for Republicans, or for Cox, or that it’s anti-DFL, well, call me. I’ll give you a piece of my mind. I’m in the book. Tracy seems to think it’s unfair and not accurate to describe this blog that way, and as I’m in the doghouse with her, I figure it’s the least I can do. Take up the slack, lend a hand, you know. I may never hope to be in her good graces again, if I ever was, but at least maybe not this decade. Yet an effort to mend things is usually worth an attempt. I like to be hopeful. So give me a call, and I’ll run defense for Tracy against this outrageous claim that LG leans RPR (Rabidly partisan Republican). Or even MPR (Minnesota Public… er… Mildly partisan Republican.)

Anyway, so Tracy has made known her RSVP on the baloney lunch offer, and she’s out, but if anyone else is interested, maybe we can come up with some good suggested guidelines for the ethics of rumor fact-checking at Locally Groan, and pass them along to Griff and Ross.

There’s nothing that says blogs should be ethical, sure; they can just be opinion, even unethical opinion. But it’s the conservative in me, influenced in part by Griff’s advocacy of Citizen Journalism, that thinks it’s still OK, and not too nerdy, to be ethical in a Citizen-Journalism-way. (I’m listening to Griff’s better angels….)

We’ll miss you, Tracy. It might have been fun. If Ray shows up, we’ll have him send you our regards. (Just kidding.)

And Tracy, you won’t even have to look at our suggestions. We won’t even send you a copy if you don’t want ‘em. I promise. But you can ask for a copy later if you change your mind. (Wink wink.)

and I have to admit I was thinking of ways to knock Ray off the ballot myself--partly because I am such a strong Democrat and partly because I think a bigger Democrat majority might offset the Pawlenty stone-walling (although maybe not, as we see on the National level the Democrats rollover to Bush blather.)

But I decided that if I went and registered as a Republican just to vote for somebody now, I would live to regret it in the form of those awful Republican junk mailings. (They are bad and the phone calls are worse.)

I am proud to be a democrat and a liberal. I once respected Republicans, but I can’t remember why. Republican now stands for forcing religious law on the people (constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; anti-choice so women comply with their religious beliefs.) And we have NO new taxes but spend and borrow, which is bankrupting our country and giving us fun infrastructure challenges, like the 35W bridge collapse.

My suggestion for questions would be about each candidates position on amending the constitution to reflect religious laws, about making tough but unpopular decisions to raise taxes to fund schools and transportation, and how committed each candidate is to their party’s positions--(and if they even know their party’s position.)