"On TPT Almanac tonight, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer talked about the transitioning the US to be a global partner in the world, with more spending on domestic needs instead of military spending. Jack talked about the importance of also transitioning to sustainable energy now. Al Franken talked about Al Franken tax problems."

Ouch, that is not good.

For what its worth, Bakk was quoted in the Strib the other day saying he had been approached by people asking him to run.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18436689.html

And David Schultz, even if he forgot his source, is a straight shooter. Not a guy who makes stuff up.

That Jack isn't a serious candidate if the media isn't covering him or knows who he is! You can't win without the media and if Jack can't get his hands on a halfway decent press person who can get his name included in these lists!

....from a great many media outlets, but I expected better from TPT. Their "overlooking" of JNP is inexcusable and quite lazy. I might understand it if he had like 2 or delegates to the state convention, but he has a sizable amount, maybe even enough to deny Franken a first ballot endorsement. About 10 minutes of research would have allowed any "reporter" to find this stuff out.

I don't share your high opinion of Schlutz.

Here's his passage about Walz:

"Tim Walz is sort of the new darling of the Democrats. Normally people wouldn't think a freshman would try to move from the House to the Senate. But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate."

The last sentence is simply inaccurate on Schlutz's part. There was NO MPR broadcast on which Walz had to "deny that he was going to run for the Senate."

Walz's comment about not running appeared in a Polinaut post after a conference call.

The call itself? Here's the media advisory sent out for it:

(Washington, D.C.) – Please join Rep. Tim Walz TOMORROW, Thursday, May 1 for his weekly call with the Minnesota media.

No RSVP is required to participate in this call. Call-in details are below. Entrance and exit tones will be silenced for optimal radio recording.

WEEKLY PRESS CALL

WITH REP. TIM WALZ

THURSDAY, May 1

10:00 AM Central/11:00 AM Eastern

Call-in number: [redacted]

Access code: [redacted]

This week’s call will focus on the 2007 Farm Bill.

*****
Hardly the "But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate" Schlutz wrote.

Yeah, right, that's straight shooting.

BTW, the darlings over at the Minnesota Monitor don't seem inclined to correct the misinformation.

I think the Tom Bakk rumors come from this story in the Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18436689.html

Here is the applicable excerpt:

Although most DFL activists interviewed Wednesday said they still support Franken, some party leaders acknowledged being nervous. And state Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said he had been approached "by numerous people in the last 16 hours" to enter the race.

Bakk, chairman of the state Senate Tax Committee, said that he wouldn't rule out a U.S. Senate bid but that so far he is keeping his sights on a run for governor in 2010. "But there's no question this is pretty serious," he said.

While he probably wouldn't be the one to do it, Bakk said, "there may be a way to take the endorsement away from Franken at the [state party] convention."

Your post really captures the insular absurdities occuring from the media and the state legislators about this Senate race.

It is important to note that some media and some legislators are showing awareness of real conditions in the Senate race. Doug Grow interviewed Jack on Minnpost. On Almanac last night Eric Escala and his cohost (I can't recall her name - Kathy Hurzer or something ) demonstrated that they understand that Jack has a campaign that is a possible winner. The proof is that they interviewed two people about this Democratic party Senate race: Al Franken, and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. (Make that three people, if you want to include Dark Star.)

The talk about Bakke sounds like utter nonesense to me. He has no state wide profile, no developed message. I'd suggest he may be feeding this as a way to raise his political ambitions.

I talked to a friend in the state legislature last week, maybe the Sunday after the big bombshell was dropped by Prof. Jacobs regarding concerns about the "professionalism" of Franken's campaign. She did tell me that "people were having concerns about Franken, and that she was too".

The conversation went on for quite awhile, and I got a picture of state legislators viewing themselves as keepers of the organization they are devoted to, and some now having second thoughts about their generally having gotten in line early behind Al Franken.
She said she supported Franken originally to get the process of having people lobby her to support their candidate behind her.
She doesn't support Franken now, but sees problems with publically coming out and saying so. She likes Jack now and is leaning toward voting for him at the state convention, as she is seeing his strengths as a candidate.

My biggest problem with what has has been covered by the media you refer to is that "people" (Bakke, Sam and Sylvia Kaplan, some state legislators) are thinking like kingmakers, and we have a participatory democratic process to follow that will give us a strong candidate, be he Jack or Al.

Dan defends Schlutz by asserting that the writer doesn't have to be responsible for his actual words or for sourcing material, but for some general "essense." Dan himself doesn't have to listen to MPR or consider any facts, either, just the "essense."

Wait! Isn't there a word for that? Hmmm...

Oh, yeah, that word:

Truthiness.

Here's how Stephen Colbert explained the process in an interview with the Onion's AV Club after introducing the word on his show's first episode.

"Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."

Thanks, Dan, for making Colbert's point.

What's your problem with media criticism, Dan?

You use an argument of distraction by pointing to the old 60 Minute case, rather than stick with the text Schlutz produced. That's what this discussion is about, regardless of your strategy of deflection.

Then you suggest those doing the criticism have a problem with Schlutz, rather than the text that you continue to defend, even though you've now admitted that "maybe" Schlutz is wrong.

I don't recall the argument here being directed at Schlutz himself, but at what he wrote. You're somehow trying to deflect once more by claiming the argument is a problem with Schlutz himself. Sorry: not a defense against a textual criticism.

A "slip"? What you're defending is most of Schlutz's text. He wrote: "But the rumors about him running or being interested in running or being pushed to run were strong enough that he had to go on Minnesota Public Radio to deny that he was going to run for the Senate."

Minnesota Public Radio broadcast nothing of the sort. Rumors weren't strong enough that Walz "had to" do anything. Walz responded to a question in a press conference focused on the Farm Bill, not to "rumors" that made him do anything.

So go ahead: write "LOL" ( personal derision) and try to turn this thread into a conversation about 60 minutes or the Bush administration or anything other than the subject of the post and thread: criticism of local media handling of a story.

Lying is okay with you? No wonder you don't understand the outcry.

How is Walz a "viable alternative" when he doesn't have the slightest interest in running for the U.S. Senate? Didn't in the Spring of 2007 when Schumer tried to recruit him; doesn't now.

You're back into "truthiness" again, Dan, the fact-free way you want the world to be.

. . .seem to be the only tools you can bring to this discussion.

If you look back at the thread, I wasn't the one to first suggest that Schlutz could be lying--you were the one to introduce that word into the thread, Dan. And you've stated your opinion that lies don't matter. Some defense.

Facts remain--and you are only able to parse Schlutz's text to somehow make it seem okay for writers to write sloppily without fact checking.

And then you insinuate that there's a motive here other than media criticism and respect for journalistic standards. This is another fallacy of distraction.

We both seem to be debating this subject with passion and interest. How unfortunate that you must stoop to labeling another's interest in a subject as being "cheesed off."

Let's go back and look at your starting point, Dan. You wrote: "And David Schultz, even if he forgot his source, is a straight shooter. Not a guy who makes stuff up."

YOur own argument has moved from that statement to a defense of the notion that facts don't matter. Challenged on that, you deflect, or attack the person and motive. Your arguments aren't based in logic or fact, but a personal perception of "essense."

Dan-- your last post illustrates that you simply do not "get" what the problem is with the Schlutz Report.

Actual: Walz was on MPR talking about the Farm Bill. That MPR report can be found on the network's website.

Actual: Walz was not on public radio talking about the Senate race. The short squib about the Senate race and the conference call was posted at Polinaut.

Actual: Schlutz misunderstood the information and reported that Walz "had to" go on public radio. That's the misinformation, Dan, since the broadcast Schlutz mentions simply doesn't exist.

You've already admitted that you didn't listen to MPR and it's your remarks suggest that you haven't spent time trying to understand what Kelly and I am writing about.

Rather, you attempt to make this about the critics' motive and emotion and weak analogies with other cases, while defending the Schlutz Report a fact-free vacuum.

As readers can deduce from this thread, your reading and reasoning skills have been as sloppy as the Schlutz Report in question. As an old figure of speech goes: birds of a feather.