Jim Ragsdale: Minnesota -- broke, a l...

Jim Ragsdale: Minnesota -- broke, a little bloated, and now looking...

There are 119 comments on the TwinCities.com story from May 21, 2010, titled Jim Ragsdale: Minnesota -- broke, a little bloated, and now looking.... In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

He goes on long trips without explanation. He comes home and criticizes my appearance, even as he pays greater attention to his own image.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Apr 09

Twin Cities

#111 May 24, 2010
madawoman wrote:
<quoted text>
People like you are so ignorant and yet you vote! Under "he" the twin cities got rid of light rail and went to buses and now the liberals are on the light rail kick again.
The state of mn has always been in a "crisis". It depends who is whining or who is NOT getting paid off.
If you think the current state of our state is in a financial status with anything near precedence, please point it out. We have never been in this bad of a crisis and all so the mini-king can please a bunch of teabaggers. You are the one displaying your ignorance with this post. How many times do you people need your hypocrisy thrown into your faces?

Since: Apr 09

Twin Cities

#112 May 24, 2010
Not Your Way wrote:
<quoted text>
No they're not moronman, only you and the other leftist dolts, of which orel is a senior executive.
Thank you, I am honored that YOU think so low of me. I MUST be doing something correctly.

Since: Apr 09

Twin Cities

#113 May 24, 2010
Joe Merlot wrote:
<quoted text>
The opinion that I get out of this article is that the Governor is "cheating" on Minnesota by considering a presidential run and that the Governor has harmed the state of Minnesota in the process. Is it your opinion that it is reasonable to write an op ed representing an opinion that (a) has no basis in fact and (b) represents a petty attack? That's what this article is. That's somewhat of a limited journalistic standard in my mind. I wouldn't resort to that in an informal discussion/debate.
How would (or do) you respond to birther's that continue to question President Obama's legal qualifications to the presidency? I'm sure you would (or do) dismiss them as petty idiots that are using the issue to pursue their ideological agenda's, right? And you would (or are) absolutely justified and accurate with that response.
That's exactly what I'm saying here.
It absolutely is an op ed piece, however, excuse me for expecting a modicum of journalistic ethics and standards.... Even for an op ed piece.
And for the record, Yes, I would respond exactly the same to an op ed piece questioning the President's citizenship.
But Joe, you do seem level headed and I am sure you can recognize that whether warranted or not, he did spend a lot of CRUCIAL time away from MN during an intense period in which he SHOULD have been here negotiating with the legislature to pass a balanced budget. This complaint about him, I believe, has more to do with his refusal to roll up his sleeves and get the most important work of his governorship done. Instead he has chosen to hit the campaign trail all while still not even announcing his run at the same time he was literally CALLING in his vetos. He should have been here to negotiate his vetos, but chose not to. Our budget, though signed into law now, still is not balanced. It was delayed. Kelliher also was in the middle of a nasty (but announced and public) campaign and was still there doing her job. This is not an endorsement of MAK. I am still backing another candidate, but merely to illustrate that there are choices he made concerning the lack of attention to MN that many are not happy with.
P T Bull

Minneapolis, MN

#114 May 24, 2010
Joe Merlot wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is a convenient perception that helps you rationalize to yourself why the Governor is wrong on issues that you vehemently disagree with him on. It's far easier to discredit an opposing view point by assuming a phantom and evil motive than it is on the merits of the issues...

The left normally comes from a feeling place, so thought leaders that talk about meanness and so forth are more effective than trying to convey complex intellectual constructs. The sheeple mostly want somebody to blame all their bad feelings on, someone to take responsibility for all their problems. Leftism is primarily an engine powered by grievance, victimhood is its fuel, and scapegoating is its steering wheel.

Purple prose? Well, gotta try some new sheeple criticisms from time to time. ;)
P T Bull

Minneapolis, MN

#115 May 24, 2010
orreljw wrote:
<quoted text>...he did spend a lot of CRUCIAL time away from MN during an intense period in which he SHOULD have been here negotiating with the legislature to pass a balanced budget...

Media spin is not fact, it is media spin. We all know the legislature didn't get down to budge work till the last few days of the session, and he was there. Its one thing to have different opinions, but to have ones facts simply presented to you by political advocates is the recipe for sheeplehood.

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

#116 May 24, 2010
P T Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
The left normally comes from a feeling place, so thought leaders that talk about meanness and so forth are more effective than trying to convey complex intellectual constructs. The sheeple mostly want somebody to blame all their bad feelings on, someone to take responsibility for all their problems. Leftism is primarily an engine powered by grievance, victimhood is its fuel, and scapegoating is its steering wheel.
Purple prose? Well, gotta try some new sheeple criticisms from time to time. ;)
I wish you were more wrong than you actually are.

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

#117 May 24, 2010
orreljw wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, I am honored that YOU think so low of me. I MUST be doing something correctly.
The scorn of that troll is a Badge of Honor for those of us who dare to THINK. You ARE doing many things correctly!
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#118 May 25, 2010
Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for being willing to see that about yourself. I respect the courage you demonstrate by admitting it here in public. Now, what there is for both of us to do is to call out these insipid attacks from our "own side." When a known conservative does this for attacks on Democrats, and a known liberal does this for attacks on Republicans -- the attackers are more likely to take note of criticism from "their own."
Otherwise, they'll just blow off any suggestions that their attacks are petty, partisan, and do not forward any serious discussion of REAL issues.
Are you game?
I'm gamed. I have to admit, I haven't seen any such criticisms recently (as in the last couple of months) on the right, but absolutely, I call them out going forward as well. At times, I have but not very strongly and more as an aside.
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#119 May 25, 2010
Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad we agree that it is an op ed piece. Exactly which journalistic standards or code of ethics are you saying Ragsdale violated? Please elucidate.
Here I thought we understood each other. Now were going in circles. You don't feel the need to argue simply because we are of different political philosophies, do you?
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#120 May 25, 2010
P T Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
The left normally comes from a feeling place, so thought leaders that talk about meanness and so forth are more effective than trying to convey complex intellectual constructs. The sheeple mostly want somebody to blame all their bad feelings on, someone to take responsibility for all their problems. Leftism is primarily an engine powered by grievance, victimhood is its fuel, and scapegoating is its steering wheel.
Purple prose? Well, gotta try some new sheeple criticisms from time to time. ;)
I absolutely love it, PT. To be fair, the right has some sheeple too. They tend to be of the religious sort. Certainly different in it's motive and intent, but a narrow mind set none the less.
Gus

Minneapolis, MN

#121 May 25, 2010
This column was brilliant. Nice job Rags!

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

#122 May 25, 2010
Joe Merlot wrote:
<quoted text>
Here I thought we understood each other. Now were going in circles. You don't feel the need to argue simply because we are of different political philosophies, do you?
I think we DO understand each other, in terms of the hypocritical"gotcha" politics each side plays against those who run for office while in office. We have each agreed to call out "our side" when we see examples of this. It is great when two with divergent views can align against a bit of hypocrisy common to both sides. Who knows where this could lead?

To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, imagine if we went to the fights and a civilized debate broke out?

So, while I agree with you that Ragsdale was off-base for attacking T-paw for running for higher office while in office, I am left wondering just what these objective journalistic canons and codes of ethics are that you refer to. Unless, of course, that was just your way of indicating your displeasure with Ragsdale being off base. I could accept that.
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#123 May 25, 2010
orreljw wrote:
<quoted text>
But Joe, you do seem level headed and I am sure you can recognize that whether warranted or not, he did spend a lot of CRUCIAL time away from MN during an intense period in which he SHOULD have been here negotiating with the legislature to pass a balanced budget. This complaint about him, I believe, has more to do with his refusal to roll up his sleeves and get the most important work of his governorship done. Instead he has chosen to hit the campaign trail all while still not even announcing his run at the same time he was literally CALLING in his vetos. He should have been here to negotiate his vetos, but chose not to. Our budget, though signed into law now, still is not balanced. It was delayed. Kelliher also was in the middle of a nasty (but announced and public) campaign and was still there doing her job. This is not an endorsement of MAK. I am still backing another candidate, but merely to illustrate that there are choices he made concerning the lack of attention to MN that many are not happy with.
Hello Orreljw and thank you for the complement - I think :)

First, although I appreciate you bringing specific criticisms to discuss/debate on this issue, you are jumping around a little. My reply was communicating why I thought Ragsdale's piece was garbage (primarily because he level's an accusation without nary a an ounce of justification in terms of specifics. It's like saying so and so is an a55 without explaining why you think that). In response to qualifying to you why I though the piecec was garbage, you've cited why YOU think Ragsdale's criticism is valid. I do appreciate you stating your opinion, but wanted to at least point this out.

Now....

To comment specifically on your thoughts. I do understand the appearance of engagement that is introduced by a campaigning elected official, but feel that the criticism of the Governor failing to "roll up his sleaves and negotiate" to be a wholly different complaint. They've said that about the Governor all along and I fail to see how that has changed as a result of the campaign activity. The reality is that a "failure to roll up his sleaves and negotiate" is more about his refusal to negotiate core believes (i.e. tax increases and further extend the level of "progressiveness" in our tax code). Those are show stopper for the Governor and his constituency. To be fair, there are similar show stoppers for the left. That is not a failure to "roll up your sleaves and negotiate" it's more what you are willing to negotiate and what you are not. The reality is that the combination of the appearance of a lack of engagement is simply extended by this argument, however, in truth neither are based in fact but a perception and a perception that serves a specific purpose of discrediting the opposition emotionally rather than on the issues.

Secondly, I would ask if you had the same criticism of President Obama both as he sat on the Illinois legislature while campaigning for a national senate seat and while he sat on the national senate seat and ran for the presidency. During those times he repeatedly registered vote after vote of "not present". A presumable lack of engagement and perceived neglect of his duly elected responsibilities. Although President Obama was not sitting in an executive branch leadership role, there are plenty of examples from the left where that was the case, both recently and throughout history.

I still think that this is an emotional issue and a non issue that people slide to out of frustration when they can't move the needle in debate of the real issues.
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#124 May 25, 2010
Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we DO understand each other, in terms of the hypocritical"gotcha" politics each side plays against those who run for office while in office. We have each agreed to call out "our side" when we see examples of this. It is great when two with divergent views can align against a bit of hypocrisy common to both sides. Who knows where this could lead?
To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, imagine if we went to the fights and a civilized debate broke out?
So, while I agree with you that Ragsdale was off-base for attacking T-paw for running for higher office while in office, I am left wondering just what these objective journalistic canons and codes of ethics are that you refer to. Unless, of course, that was just your way of indicating your displeasure with Ragsdale being off base. I could accept that.
Thanks Madman and I think I used Journalistic Ethics/standards fairly loosely. More of the latter indicating my displeasure with Ragsdale.

I too am impressed when those with opposing ideologies agree on something like this. I wish it would happen more.

Thanks for the discourse.
Of No Party

Saint Paul, MN

#125 May 25, 2010
SCjams wrote:
Of No Party, you can indeed find both American and Confederate flags in the south. We DO have families who lost members fighting under each.
However, I think I get your point. By 'southern populism' you mean appealing to redneck white trash. Thanks for the stereotype, but I thought you libs were against stereotyping, no?
If you could show me where I mentioned anything about "redneck white trash", I'd really like to see it. I at no point mentioned anything about economics. I'm talking about political theory, not income or education level. The simple fact of the matter is that Identity Politics is what has become the norm of campaigns today. Try to paint the other side as being "out of touch" and not part of "the real America." Put words in their mouth they didn't say in order to make your point. I should have just had you write your response as my answer as to what I was getting at because you came thru in demonstrating it.... Big Time.

Since: Apr 09

Twin Cities

#126 May 25, 2010
Joe Merlot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Orreljw and thank you for the complement - I think :)
First, although I appreciate you bringing specific criticisms to discuss/debate on this issue, you are jumping around a little. My reply was communicating why I thought Ragsdale's piece was garbage (primarily because he level's an accusation without nary a an ounce of justification in terms of specifics. It's like saying so and so is an a55 without explaining why you think that). In response to qualifying to you why I though the piecec was garbage, you've cited why YOU think Ragsdale's criticism is valid. I do appreciate you stating your opinion, but wanted to at least point this out.
Now....
To comment specifically on your thoughts. I do understand the appearance of engagement that is introduced by a campaigning elected official, but feel that the criticism of the Governor failing to "roll up his sleaves and negotiate" to be a wholly different complaint. They've said that about the Governor all along and I fail to see how that has changed as a result of the campaign activity. The reality is that a "failure to roll up his sleaves and negotiate" is more about his refusal to negotiate core believes (i.e. tax increases and further extend the level of "progressiveness" in our tax code). Those are show stopper for the Governor and his constituency. To be fair, there are similar show stoppers for the left. That is not a failure to "roll up your sleaves and negotiate" it's more what you are willing to negotiate and what you are not. The reality is that the combination of the appearance of a lack of engagement is simply extended by this argument, however, in truth neither are based in fact but a perception and a perception that serves a specific purpose of discrediting the opposition emotionally rather than on the issues.
Secondly, I would ask if you had the same criticism of President Obama both as he sat on the Illinois legislature while campaigning for a national senate seat and while he sat on the national senate seat and ran for the presidency. During those times he repeatedly registered vote after vote of "not present". A presumable lack of engagement and perceived neglect of his duly elected responsibilities. Although President Obama was not sitting in an executive branch leadership role, there are plenty of examples from the left where that was the case, both recently and throughout history.
I still think that this is an emotional issue and a non issue that people slide to out of frustration when they can't move the needle in debate of the real issues.
i do understand your view on this, but my take on it is that we are facing extreme problems that warrants taking a second look at your "core" beliefs. You use Obama as an example to offset what role our governor took and I would like to point out to you that on MANY issues, Obama HAS INDEED stepped off his stance on "core" beleifs in the name of negotiating. These beleifs would include additional tax cuts and also offshore drilling. I understand that you support his definative stance on no new taxes, but even if he were going to keep the solid stance he has made, that would seem to me to be further reason to BE HERE and NEGOTIATE a solution. What we ended up with in this cuurent biennium is nothing but a push off fo r the next governor and legislature to have to deal with. I can't help but think it may have been done by plan to, in a sense, sabotage the next person to hold that office. But then again I felt the same thing on the national level too. Is this one of your party's game plans? Mess things up then complain that the new party hasn't cleaned it up fast enough.
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#127 May 25, 2010
orreljw wrote:
<quoted text>
i do understand your view on this, but my take on it is that we are facing extreme problems that warrants taking a second look at your "core" beliefs.
I want to be careful not to slip into a Health Care Debate as we already agreed to disagree on that topic in past discussions. That said, it is a stretch to say that the Obama Administration and liberal backers of the health care bill stepped off of their "core" beliefs other than to offer contrived and meaningless tidbits that could be used to create a perception of compromise. The reality is that the show stopper in this case was whether subsidizing insurance for the masses that (allegedly) cannot currently afford it. Single payer was DOA and we all know that so going from single payer to what we wound up with was not a compromise at all. Further, the opposition's position was that the uninsured issue is a phantom issue with a dramatically over stated impact and we all felt that reform meant looking not at insurance, but the delivery system itself. That didn't happen at all and in the end, the bill was passed with the majority of the money spent on insurance subsidies. I'm know I'm generalizing here and you could pick apart the above in semantics, but in principle I think it's a fair characterization.

Look, let me be clear on my philosophical/ideological leanings. Although I absolutely believe in smaller government scope/role and lower taxes, I'm not a radical libertarian that would tear down entitlement based institutions like social security. I believe that the HHS programs both nationally and locally are compassion based programs rooted in humanity and I'm OK with them. I simply believe that (a) those programs need to live in the context of reasonable taxation and budgetary discipline and that compassion alone doesn't justify over taxing and/or building a big brother government and that (b) we surpassed that threshold long ago and have over extended both the role of the government and the taxpayers wallet. I'm not even an absolute no new tax and simply prefer that any need or proposal for a new tax be carefully vetted and fairly applied. For example, social security. There are a number of options to address SSI solvency that range from cutting benefits to increasing the age of retirement to increasing taxes on a host of different individuals. After looking at the % of solvency that each solution represents, I would opt for a tax increase on participants. The idea being that the program adds value so I'm willing to pay more to keep it around for current and future retiree's and I don't expect someone else other than those benefiting to field the tax. Now that's me and not the Governor, but most like minded individuals that I talk with feel the same

Regarding the notion of a strategy to leave the institution in shambles to trap a future controlling party, that's probably a little far fetched. That would hold that the Republican's somehow set up the global recession as a strategy. I'm familiar enough with the issues that lead to the recession to say with a certain degree of confidence that that wasn't the case.

I tend to be of the mind that that both sides are more similar than they are different. They both conduct business the same way and are subject to the same abuses, rhetoric and mis-information campaigns. The only real difference is the core beliefs. That's why, while I tend to the right, I tend to try to keep myself issue oriented and consider the practical realities and implications of each issue separately and prefer to avoid subscribing to a broader ideology that everything I believe must fit. Sure, I'm a limited government/tax mindset, but that's now where I fall on EVERY issue.

Since: Apr 09

Twin Cities

#128 May 25, 2010
I must apologize and clarify. No, I did not intend to suggest that the recession was by design and in no way did I mean to suggest any American would purposefully destroy our economy for political reasons. I did read back my post and I do understand where that would be the reaction. What I was referring to was our president's inability or unwillingness to deal with the issues (other than TARP) to start fixing the economy before the next president was seated. I understand that there are many dems out here who preferred it that way, but seriously I was not among them. We were/are facing a crisis and the delay in fixing the problems during that horrendous presidential campaign I still think may have been a calculated decision. But again, that is only my OPINION. I do also want to clarify that yes, the compliment was intended. You are a great representative for your side, whether I agree with you or not. There have been many points you have made that I have taken into regards as I try to form my opinions on the topics I am not set in stone on and I do appreciate your direct and firm stance while still being respectful.
As far as the health care debate, you are right that we have argued this one to death and will never reach consensus, but you must at least acknowledge that there were definite concessions given prior to any attempt at negotiation by President Obama. this is one of my biggest complaints of him. The republicans over the years have become MUCH better negotiators to get closer to their goals than we have seen from this administration. there was nothing we held that we could negotiate with thereby effectively allowing the obstructionist views that the right side of the aisle has entrenched themselves in. If we hadn't caved on single payer before the negotiations (that didn't) began, we may have ended up with what many of us really wanted which was a public option to keep insurance companies in check. That didn't happen and I blame Obama's lack of deal making for this. But seriously there WERE concessions made.

I just hope that the current environment in Washington can be changed at least enough to get the two sides communicating again. We will fail without the balance, either way.

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

#129 May 25, 2010
Great dialogue, Joe and orreljw! On those days when I wonder why I bother, I can find inspiration from a few of the sages on these pages.

Carry on!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

International Falls Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
International Falls Music Thread (Sep '13) May 18 Musikologist 10
News Remote development: Naicatchewenin casts its ne... (Dec '15) Dec '15 Medewiwin 1
News Big dreams for Big Falls Campground (Sep '15) Sep '15 Loveupnorthcamping 1
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Minnesota ... (Oct '10) Jun '15 Richard Vickerman 17
News Kokua Line: Star-Bulletin 1st Extra Ed. (May '15) May '15 Lisa Verhoek 1
News WTF, Summer? It's 103 Degrees in Canada, 55 in ... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Petal Power 2
News Calendar says spring, but winter refuses to go ... (Mar '14) Mar '14 Mets Fan Forever 6

International Falls Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

International Falls Mortgages