.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Katherine Kersten's Korner

I don't know Katherine Kersten is demonstrably writing more crazy these days, but her last kolumn was only a short respite from the insanity. Today, she is calling for censure -- not of President Bush, consummate liar, but of Dean Johnson.

Wingnuttia Level: 10 (She's gonna blow!)

I guess I really shouldn't be all that surprised. Republicans have been clinging to the Dean Johnson imbroglio like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood. Like I have said before, Johnson made a mistake. I doubt he out-and-out lied, just as I doubt he had extensive discussions with supreme court justices about Minnesota's DOMA law. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, in a place that people may not wish exists but does. People talk, on and off the record. It happens.

That hasn't stopped Republicans from calling for Johnson's head, and Kersten is no exception. She is outraged, not only at Johnson, but at the fact that nobody seems to care. Here is a blatant example of lying, in her view, and that nobody is taking it seriously is incredible to her.

You know what? Welcome to the world that I and many other liberals have lived in for years. There's a big difference between Dean Johnson's alleged lies, though, and President Bush's proven lies. Nobody has died as a result of what Johnson said. Nobody will. This will, ultimately, be a pretty minor event in the history of Minnesota. Whether the institutions of the U.S. will ever totally recover from Bush's lies is another story.

Kersten doesn't get any of this. She doesn't understand that maybe people don't care about Johnson's alleged lies because President Bush and other Republicans lie so frequently it's not a big deal anymore. Nobody could foresee people ramming planes into buildings. WMDs in Iraq. Smoking Gun. We'll be greeted as liberators. Mission Accomplished. We have turned a corner. Nobody could foresee the levees being breached. Need I go on?

"If that doesn't warrant censure, I don't know what does." Now only if you said that about President Bush instead of Dean Johnson, I would say "right on."


At 11:20 AM, March 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rules for Republicans haven't changed since Nixon:

1. Admit nothing
2. Deny everything
3. Make counter-accusations

At 2:51 PM, March 30, 2006, Blogger Douglas Hester said...

1. We'll tell you everything, more rather than less, sooner rather than later...

2. I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

3. Newt Gingrich left his first two wives while cheating on them...

We can play these games all day. Politicians on both sides lie, the trick is to make them accountable when they do, no matter who they are.

At 2:56 PM, March 30, 2006, Blogger Douglas Hester said...

Why do you attack Kersten so much, wingnut comments etc.? Even if you disagree with her, she is professional, and presents a logical argument. I don't necessarily agree with her, but give me a reasoned, thought out argument, and I'll at least respect that and give it some thought. Putting k's on everything is not witty.

At 3:05 PM, March 30, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kirsten: A high public official -- and maybe more than one -- has violated public trust. Yet all three branches of government, and much of the press, seem to have agreed to sweep it under the rug.

Forgive me -- is she talking about Bush, or Johnson?

At 5:39 PM, March 30, 2006, Blogger MN Politics Guru said...

Kersten does not make logical arguments. See polygamy and gay marriage. Seriously. She's a hack.

At 6:47 AM, March 31, 2006, Anonymous Ashamed of the Star & Tribune said...

Calling Kersten a hack is a polite way to put it.

I am amazed at the badly written, poorly thought and insulting to our intellegence columns by this woman. The fact that she is published by what is considered the top newspaper in Minnesota is a sad comment on how far the journalism business has fallen. In the name of "balence," I suppose, we now read something that a High School English teacher would chastise as poor work. Shoddy work and it makes our state look ignorant. I just hope she isn't reprinted as an example of serious Minnesota political discourse.

Reading her makes me wonder why they couldn't have found a better quality writer. Perhaps Pete D. has some time on his hands...

At 3:44 PM, March 31, 2006, Blogger Douglas Hester said...


Six months after the Lawrence decision, three members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought a marriage license at the clerk's office in Salt Lake County, Utah. G. Lee Cook wrote on his application that he was already married but wanted to legally wed a second wife.

As a result, the clerks refused to issue the license and refunded the fee. The trio then sued, claiming that their constitutional rights to religious expression, privacy and intimate expression had been violated."

Apparently Mr. G. Lee Cook didn't get the memo that gay marriage stops with one partner. I'm not necessarily for or against gay marriage, but here's exactly what Kersten was talking about.

At 3:48 PM, March 31, 2006, Blogger Douglas Hester said...

Jeez, the formatting on the above post was atrocioius, sorry. The first two paragraphs were a quote from the weblink, the third paragraph is my comment.

At 6:45 PM, March 31, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Cook wanted two wives. Your snark about him "not getting the memo about gay marriage" makes no sense.

At 11:42 PM, March 31, 2006, Blogger Douglas Hester said...

I was commenting on guru's point about Kersten's assertion that gay marriage will lead to calls for polygamy to be legitimized not making any sense. Seemed to make sense for this fellow Cook.

Like I said previously, that post was worded and formatted weirdly. I apologize.

At 1:01 PM, April 01, 2006, Blogger MN Politics Guru said...

People can argue for "polygamy" all they want; they are not getting it. As people have pointed out countless times, gay marriage involves removing gender-specific language from our marriage laws. Nothing more. It's a simple change. Legalizing polygamy would require huge changes. I personally think that such changes would be legally impossible; polygamy tends to create situations where women are treated as chattel.

Gay marriage and polygamy aren't even in the same ballpark. Now, arguing that legalizing gay marriage would lead to child marriages is at least logically comparable, but it's still ridiculous.

At 10:41 AM, April 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of you think Kersten's columns are badly written, poorly thought and insulting to our intellegence. I hope you think the same about Nick Coleman as well. His prose and writing skill are similar to that of an average 7th grader. His analtyical skills are way, way below that of Kersten's. You just want slam anything and everything she says because you disagree with her politics, but that is no cause to render a judgement on her general intelligence and writing skills.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home