Pages

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Are they from Oz, or Wonderland, or some place where they're being monitored by the men in black? Okay. I will show them a roadmap ...

An individual named Nikki Carlson indicated to me that Bob Olson is getting heat for challenging the Tinklenberg lobbying status, for challenging Tinklenberg's lack of candor in disclosing his status and history. Apparently it is something along the lines of why confront it, it's Tinklenberg's constitutional right to lobby, to be a lobbyist for a living, etc., etc.

Sure.

So what?

Bill Clinton had a constitutional right to engage as he wanted with Ms. Lewinski, and John McCain had a constitutional right to do the same with a lobbyist so long as his vote and actions on issues were uninfluenced by close relationships, if any. And people have a right to question and vote or not vote for any candidate based on whatever they wish to use as basis for choice. I have had one voter explain a vote based on like/dislike of snowmobiles and snowmobilers. Bless them, it's their right to vote any sane or stupid way they wish and there's a reason for curtains around the voting booth.

The point is, Clinton was less than candid and took heat. McCain held a next-day news conference, not relying on a spokesperson or press release, and he basically said, "Blow it out your shorts." Tinklenberg so far, has put Wodele out, saying, "He does not have to register."

That begs the entire question of what lobbyist status Elwyn truly has, and if known, how would it and should it impact his electibility. That silence, says a lot. That hiding from the issue is a show of Tinklenberg's character and strength - and not a good one by anyone's honest measure.

To confront and disarm an issue is what McCain appears to have succeeded in doing, at least so far. To beg the question and leave a canyon-full of doubts hanging unanswered is the exact opposite - and shows indecisiveness and unwillingness to "stand the heat" so, in Truman's words, should Elwyn Tinklenberg have "stayed out of the kitchen?"

Now - the roadmap thing. Criticism of Bob Olson for saying the GOP will eat Tinklenberg's lunch if he will not even early-on clarify his status and activities before the "kitchen heat" of the general election is dialed up multiple notches.

If anyone from Oz, Wonderland, or an Achilian under the stewardship of the men in black is so clued out to the facts as to doubt that the specialized weapon is loaded and aimed squarely at Tinklenberg's forehead with the sniper simply not choosing now to fire, here is the roadmap; aka "Minnesota Democrats Exposed," a warning shot fired half a year ago:


Is there any way but one to read what that says? Dated August 2, 2007. Is it inexplicit? Of course not.

Bob Olson is doing Tinklenberg a major favor to test him in friendly fire. Doing Tinklenberg a favor in giving the opportunity to confess to friendly forces, same party, on an early timeframe, no Brodkorb waterboarding as yet, and anyone in the DFL who can see past the nose on his/her face should be thankful for what Bob Olson has had the courage to point out.

That pure. That simple.

Constitutional rights, wrongs, that's a total red herring. Will he end up anything but chopped liver after the GOP hatemongering's run its course is a more relevant question in weighing whether Tinklenberg is hurting himself and his party supporters by not coming clean about his lobbying and the wealth it has yielded him.

Again, that pure. That simple.

The man's been going collecting six-figure incomes saying he knows Jim Oberstar, intermixed for certain among many other more equivocal words, and is that his major qualification for office? If not, air the issue fully, defuse it, then move on. McCain did it without any currently apparent flak or blowback. There's something there El Tinklenberg should see. If he believes he's done nothing questionable, and that the questioning is somehow inappropriate, he's acting like Bambi in the headlights and keeping that course means Brodkorb will have his head over the mantle this fall, if he's DFL endorsed.

If Tinklenberg had not been over-ambitious or ill-advised, he'd have quietly tended to his cash cows and not attracted any real scrutiny, as was the case before his, "On, my, the bridge fell" opening act.

That earlier kitchen was not uncomfortably hot at all.

Tink could have stayed there humming his favorite hit songs from Broadway shows, whatever, and not been called to task while the money rolled in. But for reasons he understands better than I do he had ambitions, and now he has accountability issues to face. He brought it on himself, completely and out of ill-advised ambitiousness, and neither he nor hangers-on nor remote supporters nor strangers should be pointing at Bob Olson, saying, "Poor Tink."

It's a crock. It's like Humpty Dumpty deliberately took a jump, hollering on the way down, "Hey, ya'all, watch this."