« Has Michele Bachmann backed away from tort reform? Rochester editors think so | Main | Star Tribune misses teabagging candidate's Republican affiliation yet again »

Feb 07, 2010


Dave Thul

You are attacking a combat veteran for expressing his viewpoint?

Seems like it was only last month when you were attacking Quist for daring to criticize Rep Walz, a veteran.

Sally Jo Sorensen

Nice try at distraction from the chair of the Steele County Republican Party, but no one is attacking Engstrand as a war veteran, disrespecting his service to our country in Iraq, nor questioning his loyalty to this country (which was the case with Allen Quist, who deemed Congressman Walz as a greater threat than terrorists).

Engstrand's service to our country is not being questioned, nor should it be. I'm grateful for it, as I am for that of Congressman Walz and Senator McCain and all veterans who serve honorably.

Rather, what's being scrutinized are Engstrand's remarks and beliefs and whether they are a good match for those of voters living in Southern Minnesota.

In this post, I examine his use of a rather mean-spirited nickname for the 2008 GOP Presidential candidate John McCain (since Thul brings up combat veteran status, remember that McCains's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross). To me, Engstrand displayed questionable judgement to use this dismissive name for Palin's running mate. Pundits and entertainers like Steyn and Limbaugh can do this for a living--those who run for office are generally expected to adhere to higher standards.

That Engstrand repeated the mean-spirited slam against decorated combat veteran Senator John McCain on Veterans Day on a public Facebook group raises additional questions about his judgment and match with Southern Minnesota values-- not Engstrand's patriotism or his service.

Moreover, the earlier post on Engstrand's blog entry doesn't question his service or patriotism, but his judgement and grasp of facts. To call attention to Engstrand's Feb. 2007 blog post that included Engstrand's notion that newly elected liberals intended to "help" Iran's president finish the Holocaust and to chase Christians out of America is entirely proper.

In the earlier entry, I quoted the entire post so that readers could see the context in which Engstrand's belief was stated and included a screenshot of the post, as well as links to the material. And in this post, I include a screen shot and include the pedigree of the "Yosemite Sam" nickname.

Thus, Thul's response raises interesting questions in and of itself. Why wouldn't he want voters in Southern Minnesota to know what Jim Engstrand says publicly online about John McCain and those who were elected in 2006?

Why distract Bluestem's readers by attacking a straw man?

Even more interesting: what does Dave Thul think about the substance of my posts: Engstrand's public writings online?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad