As is obvious to readers, Bluestem Prairie pretty much stays focused on Minnesota's First Congressional District. However, we do have some other interests, including being the editor of BlogNetNews Minnesota. The position isn't demanding, and keeping an eye on the feed has the added bonus of keeping us informed about what bloggers are writing in the North Star state.
Thus, we had a good belly laugh this morning when we saw this item in the feed:
America's Small City Mayor Mary Ellen Otremba: The 2nd Amendment Vote
I have had a number of people forward me the St. Cloud Times article that Mary Ellen Otremba voted against an amendment supporting of our right to bear arms. I have always believed in giving credit when credit is due and the article is incorrect.
To be clear about what he's saying, here's the [...]
The full post over at his blog:
Mary Ellen Otremba: The 2nd Amendment Vote
I have had a number of people forward me the St. Cloud Times article that Mary Ellen Otremba voted against an amendment supporting of our right to bear arms. I have always believed in giving credit when credit is due and the article is incorrect.
To be clear the vote was on a motion to table the amendment bill by DFLer Tony Sertich. In other words the DFL wanted to not vote on the amendment because they feared it would pass. The motion did pass and the bill did not make it to the floor.
Mary Ellen did not vote to table the bill and did support the amendment. Mary Ellen did make the correct vote in my opinion, and I would have voted the same way.
In addition, a few days ago I did contact the reporter at the St. Cloud Times. He said once he verified I was correct he would run a retraction and correct the record online.
So what's funny about that? Indeed, it would make frequent Otremba critic, Clarissa Mayor Nathan McLaughlin, look like a beacon of fairness, especially since gun rights remain an important issue among rural votes (ourselves included to the dismay of some of our more urbane friends).
Ah, but our tale is not so simple, however McLaughlin may want to tout his creds as the lion of due diligence. One of the things BlogNetNews does is keep a feed of blog post headlines and the first paragraph or so of each post made by each blog. It's quite handy if you're looking for a post you kinda sorta remember someone writing, but aren't having luck searching that blogger's archives.
Here's the feed for America's Small City Mayor. Scroll down to March 17, and you'll see these items among McLaughlin's posts:
- Corrrection: Mary Ellen did note vote to table gun bill.
Thanks to a reader it was pointed out the St. Cloud Times post was incorrect if you look at the actual roll call vote. Mary Ellen in fact did not vote to table the gun bill. Thanks to the reader and apologies to Rep. Otremba on the mistake.America's Small City [...]- Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL) 11B: Opposes constitutional amendment on the right to keep and bear arms.
Olson gun gambit failsPosted: 3/13/2008 at 2:51 PM Source: [65.36.138.212]
Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, took a shot at getting a floor vote on a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms Thursday, but came up short.
Olson, [...]- Corrrection: Mary Ellen did note vote to table gun bill.
So what's the problem? Where's the humor? If one clicks through to the March 17 posts at America's Small City Mayor, the reader will discover McLaughlin scrubbed both entries (here and here).
Thus, no one reading the blog itself would likely know or remember that he had piled on Otremba when he read the Schumacher column, then quite honestly issued a retraction when an anonymous reader pointed out that the St. Cloud Times column was at odds with the roll call of the vote kept by the Minnesota House.
For the record, we were that anonymous commenter that left the informative note at America's Small City Mayor on March 17; the information, not our identity, was what we thought important at the time. Thus, we're highly entertained to see McLaughlin revise his image to be the champion of Truth, even in the service of political adversaries, when the Intertubes provide a different story. And no, he didn't discover the St. Cloud Times mistake on his own, as a casual reader might infer from today's post.
We'd still have respect for him if he had left both original posts up. But this move? Sorry, Mister Mayor, but you're no hero here.
(We'll be adding a screen shot of the March 17 posts in a moment to illustrate this post).
[Update]: America's smallest mayor just stopped by and left a comment, to which we added our snark in brackets. His visit reminded us that we hadn't gotten around to posting the screen grab from BNN Minnesota. We have now done so.
And as we said in the comment section: let him open his site traffic log and produce the email or IP identity of "the known source" he claims left the anonymous comment. Otherwise, he and his pal are simply spinning this second version out of thin air. We simply think that he didn't know a record of the first two posts would be preserved, and thus he concocted his third post--and the explanation for it that he gives in the comments. [end update]
You [sic] post does require "The willing suspension of disbelief"
FOR THE RECORD [Ollie's note: he isn't providing any records, just an assertion] The anonymous commenter on my blog also contacted me personally and it was not you but a known source. In addition the St. Cloud times also verified everything and made the corrections.
The credibility gap continues and widens on your website [Please be specific. There are nearly 2000 posts at Bluestem Prairie. Can you illustrate the credibility gap, or do you just like to throw phrases around?] .
As for having no respect for leaving incorrect posts up?? We obviously have differing views on what ethics and correctness are. [I could not agree more.]
Good try though in looking so magnanimous!! [Who was trying to do that?]
Ollie says: Nice try. Got an independently verifiable record of the comment on the post you deleted? And the IP address from whence it was posted? Got proof that it matches your "Known source"?
You can claim whatever you want, and your "known source" can back you up, but unless you have traffic logs and the email, your claim is simply CYA.
If you have a sitemeter that goes back that far, let's pick a third party to review the IP address on the email of your your "known source" and the email / IP address of the person who left the comment. If not, your comment here is simply all bluster and no evidence.
As for "the St. Cloud times also verified everything," surely you mean the roll call vote, which anyone can look up, and not the scrubbing of your site.
This problem is one of your own making, and not my credibility. Had you simply left up your correction, you'd have no credibility problem. Ethical bloggers make corrections and leave them up. You simply choose to bully and belittle here. Deeply impressive to my readers, I'm sure.
Posted by: America's Small City Mayor | March 31, 2008 at 04:56 PM