FIRST: Hal Kimball, at his Blue Man blog, noted the situation, this link, this language:
Is Michael Brodkorb still running the show at MDE?
Yesterday, a post appeared at 1:29 pm, about a South Dakota blog going after Matt Entenza.
It was posted by "Luke Hellier".
SOUTH DAKOTA POLITICAL BLOG PICKS UP ENTENZA STORY
By Luke Hellier | December 4, 2009
South Dakota War College, a political blog from South Dakota, picked up the story about Entenza’s fundraising event in Washington, DC. The post is below:
Remember this story from a couple of years ago? If I recall, I even blogged on it:South Dakota War College, a political blog from South Dakota, picked up the story about Entenza’s fundraising event in Washington, DC. The post is below:
Remember this story from a couple of years ago? If I recall, I even blogged on it:
"Luke Hellier" posts a link to the story
"I even blogged on it:" back on August 28, 2006.
"I" as in "Luke Hellier".
But that story was written by Michael Brodkorb.
And read it all at Blue Man's post. He gets comments from a number of area blog authors, recognizing immediately that it's a true "gotcha" catch for the situation that Hellier and Brodkorb appear to be pulling off with that blog, where, ostensibly according to what he says Brodkorb is no longer writing the material after having taken a high state GOP party position, but where the item itself contradicts as false such self-serving pronouncements. So, go figure.
Digging the hole deeper, the link to the MDE post [ostensibly by Hellier] is now a dead link, [and there is no Google cache entry that I could locate showing what it looked like], but the story is now posted under the banner headline, "UPDATED: SOUTH DAKOTA POLITICAL BLOG PICKS UP ENTENZA STORY, By Luke Hellier | December 5, 2009 [no timestamp]".
Read it, in particular the added lead-in language referencing Kimball's sleuthing, and making a lame attempt at discrediting it, but instead discrediting itself, when you read the remainder of the post, and see the undeniable formatting and what it shows and says, this screenshot [archived in case of further change]:
No matter what "explanation" or spin Hellier puts in updating, the item speaks for itself, and clearly so.
.......................
SECOND: To me, the underlying situation does not look good for the Matt Entenza - Lois Quam run for Governor. That's the subject of a separate post, not yet authored at Crabgrass.
But it appears from the invitation to a DC fundraiser for Entenza that a number of healthcare sabatour types - those out to gut true healthcare reform - are sponsoring an event for the Entenza-Quam spouses:
Invitation link, at Polinaut. And note from the face of the invitation, it is NOT just me paying heed to the Entenza-Quam pairing as important. It's there for all to read, within the four corners of the document; posted above.
Kieth Ellison, what in the world are you doing keeping that kind of company? Some might judge you by the company you keep, not by your avid declarations of favoring a strong public option, indeed, even single payer. And now ---
Aside from the Ellison name as a cosponsor; after the Entenza-Quam pair's putting a shadow on Mike Hatch's shadow, having an investigative person following Mike and his shadow around town [and shadowing Mike's registered automobiles even and where one had been parked] during the last guv race ramp-up, the Entenza-Quam candidacy is unappealing to me, especially with the field including so many truly capable and unblemished candidates, each of whom is to me a better option than one with past close ties to UnitedHealth Group and its burdensomeness on the national healthcare scene, in the way of single payer or strong public option reform. Look at those names on the Entenza invitation. To me it is close to toxic, but each person has his/her own judgment in such things.
I would hate to see a flawed DFL candidacy fail to recapture the executive branch during the time that redistricting will be decided. Anyone but Entenza, DFL'ers, please.
However, if it's Entenza vs. Coleman, or some other GOP operative such as Siefert, then it's hold your nose and vote for the best chances of redistricting being favorable, ultimately, for progressives. Not that Entenza is a progressive, regardless of how he'd paint himself on his campaign website bio. He has that tie-in to UnitedHealth Group, and this disturbing fundraising situation -- make of it what you will.
It appears that Dayton is poised to oppose Entenza in a primary; and there are other excellent options in the running at present. Think about it. The governor's race will be bigger than any Congressional district, in terms of redistricting based on the new upcoming census.
________UPDATE__________
To clarify the unclear situation, the text in MDE is verbatim that of the South Dakota blog, this link.
So does that exonerate Hellier-Brodkorb, or dig the hole deeper? I say it digs things deeper, since the South Dakota item DOES NOT cite anything that blogger wrote in the past, it cites, just like the Hellier item, earlier Brodkorb stuff; and reviewing that blog, for August 2006, reveals nothing mentioning "Entenza" or "Nelson" using the Firefox search, of this link; over the time range Aug. 24, 2006, onward to end of month.
So, this "Remember this story from a couple of years ago? If I recall, I even blogged on it: [...indented text...] Read that here," has the "I" before the indented stuff, referencing the earlier Brodkorb item.
Yes the Hellier item and the South Dakota post have a parallel structure -- each as if Brodkorb wrote the original, cross-referencing his earlier work, so that the suggestion, regardless of which item, Hellier's or the South Dakota one, was posted first, is that both authors were using a Brodkorb text, without changing pronouns, but pumping something verbatim, into a posting, where use of "I" fits neither Hellier at MDE, nor the South Dakota blogger, who did not post anything earlier.
The Hellier explanation does not hold water; and Hellier's scrubbing the earlier post from Dec. 4 which he ostensibly published, so that a browser's "view page source" could not be used on it only adds to suspicion. Viewing page source on Brodkorb's Aug. 2006 post, the Hellier item [from Dec. 5, after scrubbing the earlier post], and the South Dakota item, and how apostrophes appear in viewing page source for each, begs the question of what the unscrubbed Dec. 4 page source looked like.
Bottom line, both the South Dakota item, and Hellier's post use "I" in the prelude, before indented text, with the link not to anything either wrote, but to something Brodkorb wrote years ago, so that each shares with the other the same defect, as if each were pumped into a post from a Brodkorb email, or some such. Bottom line, neither Hellier nor the South Dakota posting person posted "earlier" about Entenza, and this Nelson person - only Brodkorb did. Bottom line, an existing post was not updated, rather it was scrubbed by Hellier, with a new post substituted. Figure it out for yourself.
_________UPDATE_________
An anonymous comment was submitted to moderation starting, "As a progressive democrat from Sen. Dist. 64, I care deeply about your display of ignorance regarding my former Representative Matt Entenza. Your sexism when it comes to trying to paint Entenza with your own notion of what Lois Quam stands for ...".
To the individual authoring it: If you want to publish political advertisements start your own blog.
However, if you are willing to put your name behind the advertising-comment and resubmit it giving an email address where people can respond if they agree or disagree, I will publish it as a guest post - under your name.
Put up or shut up.
...........
One suggestion - requirement. Deal with the gumshoeing of Mike Hatch, or show you've no justification you can offer for it and its offensiveness by declining to face it. Or don't and I will publish your guest post with a footnote flagging that you are affirmatively declining this invitation. Put up or shut up.
If you want to remain anonymous do so. I will hold the item in moderation until you decide to flush out of the weeds and put a name upon the candidate advertisement you expect me to honor.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
I guess it is equally sexist of me to feel I would vote for Margaret Anderson Kelliher in a heart beat over Entenza or either of the Iron Rangers, or that I support Reed or Clark, and supported and preferred Wetterling, over Bachmann, Mark Kennedy, and Elwyn Tinklenberg. I wonder how hotshot hired gun and KOS maven Dana Houle would feel about that, given how he did a Tiger Woods balancing act kind of thing between Tinklenberg and Entenza, each in turn as his favorite when with either, and then I go and dislike both of them.
Sexist pig that I am, as the anonymous advertiser claims [the one who would rather be anonymous than put his name and identity, her name and identity - I don't want to seem sexist by infering a gender - behind his/her loud-mouthed whining].
I am still waiting; the offer still stands; verify your identity, get a guest post.
Whichever gender, it doesn't matter - the free post is awaiting a simple show of minimal courage over cowardice. It's that simple.