ARTS & FARCES internet

Michael - I’m .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)! I didn’t intend for that to be a big mystery. It’s one of my e-mail addresses and since I’d been conversing with you online about the Screening Committee (SC) controversy, I passed along Patti Hurd’s 6-17-02 listserv posting using that e-mail account. After reading your recent article, I went back, and, sure enough, I didn’t put my name on that e-mail. In response, you thanked me for the information and I just assumed you knew who you were thanking. I wasn’t trying to confuse you!

From my point of view, as someone who voted for Ed McGaa twice at the state convention (although I had some qualms about him) and then joined his campaign team a few weeks later, I see this controversy from a different perspective. I don’t think it’s politics as usual, unless you’re referring to the embittered-patriarchal-realpolitik stylings of the loudest McGaa haters. That’s the kind of win-at-any-cost, truth-and-fairness-be-damned approach I’ve seen within the Republican and Democratic parties. I think some of the new members of our party—and I don’t mean you yourself because I think you’ve tried to be objective—have brought with them some very unfortunate tendencies. Is it just coincidence that those who have been most vociferous in denouncing Ed McGaa are uptight white men who are relatively new to the Green Party (joined within the last few years)?

Ed is not politics as usual. He’s not a policy wonk, not a stereotypical Green, and doesn’t have the personality and cultural traits most treasured by his critics. What I see is that a number of people who either favored No-endorsement (pro-Wellstone) or Ed’s convention opponent Tim Davis came out of the St. Cloud convention with no intention of giving Ed McGaa a break. They hated him for thwarting their plans or the aspirations of their candidate. They were suspicious because he “came out of nowhere” and grabbed the nomination away from the frontrunner (or helped wreck the wishes of Greens for Wellstone).

Granted, Ed showed his political inexperience by some of his early missteps in the campaign and he was criticized for doing so (deservedly so). He listened to the criticism and took it to heart when it came from people who were interested in helping our party’s newly-endorsed candidate. He disregarded it when he perceived it as carping coming from people who had never supported him and were never going to support him.

Some critics of Ed McGaa will never be satisfied by any explanation or conversation. Their minds are closed and they’ve been hostile from the get-go. From a campaign point of view, we had to make a decision about how much time and energy we wanted to put into playing games with the small — but loud — group of McGaa haters. I don’t mean people with sincere questions and understandable doubts. I mean people who thrive on controversy and attack politics and showing off.

A few days after you posted your concerns about David Strand’s accusations on the listserv, I took the initiative and sent you a personal e-mail. I didn’t write it for publication or distribution. In your response to me, you wrote, “I will certainly honor your request not to distribute your email message, and I’d ask for your reciprocity in this regard… Be advised that this and any future correspondence, unless previously agreed otherwise, is considered on the record and for attribution.” Despite my intent for it to be one Green talking privately to another (rather than a campaign official to a journalist), you do quote parts of my original e-mail in your article.

The quotes you use are not taken out of context, but I’d like elaborate a bit so people understand why I wrote. You note that I “doubted the accuracy of the Ed quotes” and did agree that “if he really said those things, the screening committee was obligated to report them to us before the convention.” I ended that paragraph with: “To purposefully conceal comments like that would be an outrageous dereliction of duty!” I still feel that way.

Commenting on my statement that I “doubted the accuracy of the Ed quotes,” you write, “On a casual glance, this would appear to be an almost denial that McGaa had made the alleged statements, but there are two problems. First, it’s a second-hand statement from someone who wasn’t a participant in the event where the alleged statements took place. Second, there’s no denial that the statements were made, only that varying degrees of perceptions of what was said were involved. One could argue that the second-hand claim actually corroborates Strand’s allegation that McGaa did, in fact, utter the inflammatory statements.” Yes, it’s obviously a second-hand statement based on my conversation with one Screening Committee member and the reading of an e-mail account by a second member. One could argue anything one wants, but it’s a stretch to say that my assertion of belief that McGaa DID NOT utter the inflammatory statements “actually corroborates Strand’s allegation that McGaa did, in fact, utter the inflammatory statements.” That’s crazy! Because I believe—but cannot prove—that McGaa did not say those things, that means it’s more likely that he did say those things? That’s not good logic.

Based on information provided by Screening Committee member (and eventual McGaa co-manager) Karen Carlson, I did tell you that “the ‘jewish blood, jewish cash’ comment—which is as dumb as it is disgusting—was not uttered by Ed, nor was it uttered during the screening session. It came out of the mouth of someone who supposedly supported Ed at the first Greens-grill-McGaa session in Minneapolis (after the convention).” I also wrote: “The speaker subsequently stole a bunch of Ed’s books and credit cards as he skipped town. Obviously, that guy wasn’t speaking for Ed! He was a fellow Indian, however. Ergo, in the minds of some Greens, he must have been speaking for Ed. Don’t underestimate the power of unconscious prejudice or at least fear of “the other”) to cloud perceptions.”

Now, people have a right to be skeptical of those who are quick to play the “race card.” Along with patriotism, cries of racism are often the last refuge of soundrels (think of O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Ron Brown, etc.). Still, we’re all smart enough to realize that prejudice—conscious and unconscious—does exist. I think it’s interesting that some Greens who have been super-sensitive to any possible trace of anti-Semitism on the part of Ed McGaa act oblivious to the possibility that some of the criticism of his supposedly “unpolished” and “untrustworthy” nature play into age-old stereotypes about American Indians.

I’m surprised you didn’t follow up on this. You write, “So, here we have a denial from the McGaa campaign that Ed McGaa ever made the most damning statement Strand alleges,” but you dismiss it as a “second-hand account.” Did you talk to people who heard the statement made at the first meeting held to calm the fears of metro Greens? The speaker’s name was something like Lavern Fast Horse. Everyone at that meeting heard him make the statement. It didn’t come out of Ed’s mouth…and it didn’t occur during the Screening Committee interview. Since that’s the most damning of David Strand’s accusations, shouldn’t it call into question his reliability?

As for the Goldman-Coleman accusation, this is what I wrote in full: “According to Karen, Ed mentioned the Goldman-Coleman name change once—probably in the context of Coleman’s political opportunism (I’m suspicious of people who do not tell us the context of statements and actions). He did not repeatedly refer to him by his former name. Again, three of the four screeners did not sense any anti-Semitism.” Saying it once in a tone and context which caused no concern to 3 of the 4 screeners is quite different from Strand’s accusation (“repeatedly referring to Coleman’s name change from Goldman calling him Coleman/Goldman through the remainder of his interview”).

Here’s some more of what I said to you in that 7-17-02 e-mail: “I don’t believe there was any cover-up attempt. Note the inclusion of Ed’s praising of MacArthur & Patton, Ed’s criticism of Wellstone’s support for aid to Israel, and Ed’s mentioning of Wellstone’s MS. If the three screeners wanted to shield Ed from controversy, they would have omitted that stuff. One screening committee member, for whatever reason(s), had a different perception or is now saying he had a different perception. I don’t remember him telling any of these lurid tales during the convention when we as delegates were choosing whom to endorse. That would have been the logical time to speak up.”

I went on to tell you that I trusted Karen Carlson’s rendition of events. Speaking directly to the general accusation that Ed McGaa is an anti-Semite, I wrote: “Ed is not ‘a polished person’ (read: an educated, ambitious white person or at least a culturally assimilated Indian person). He’s not a professional politician. He’s not a policy wonk like Ken Pentel (whom I really like—thanks for covering Ken’s campaign in such an interesting way!). I disagree with him on some issues. But he’s not an anti-Semite! What does that word mean to you? To me, it means a person who hates Jews. To throw that word around to include everyone who rejects aid to Israel or dislikes the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby or wants justice for the Palestinians or who sometimes speaks awkwardly about a group of people to which he doesn’t belong is OUTRAGEOUS and, in the long run, it undercuts both the credibility of the accuser and the utility of the word.”

“I’ve talked with Ed on many occasions since the convention. I’ve never detected any anti-Semitism or fixation with Wellstone or Coleman’s ethnicity/religion. He’s never referred to Coleman as “Goldman” or even mentioned his jewish heritage. It’s true that he’s criticized Wellstone’s ‘allegiance to Israel’ at the expense of older Americans, but I’ve repeatedly told him he needs to call that a military aid commitment to the Israeli government (among others), not an allegiance or loyalty. That’s sloppy talking, or maybe thinking, but it’s not hatred. Last week, Ed sent a letter to the local Jewish Citizens Council in an effort to more fully explain his views on Israel.” [Ed’s letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council can be found at http://mcgaa.org/letters-from-ed.html.

In closing, I told you that I have “an instinctive revulsion toward anti-Semitism” because of my own Christian faith and that “I would not be working for someone who hates Jews (or any other group, for that matter).” Here’s where I wish Greens of goodwill would give me, Karen Carlson, Chris Glidden, and the other dedicated Greens working on the McGaa campaign some credit for having at least a few brains and a little sensitivity. Do you really think we’d be working for someone who hates Jews or sees a Jewish conspiracy controlling the world? Believe me, if that’s what I had detected when I first met Ed McGaa and then started spending time talking with him, I would have walked away immediately.

To believe the tale that McGaa is an anti-Semite is also to believe that the McGaa campaign team has been covering up for him. That assumes we’re dishonest, untrustworthy, disreputable people. It also assumes that Ed is willing to be muzzled. It’s been my observation that actual anti-Semites are proud of their anti-Semitism because they view Jews as evil and feel a duty to spread the word. None of this has any connection to the real Ed McGaa.

Now, Michael, in your article you comment on my 7-17-02 e-mail to you in this way: “So, here we have a denial from the McGaa campaign that Ed McGaa ever made the most damning statement Strand alleges and a corroboration of the derogatory statement regarding another candidate’s name change. Except these are second-hand accounts: someone who was not at the McGaa screening interview cannot know what statements were or were not made during the interview.”

Two counter-comments: Firstly, it’s not true that I corroborated Strand’s derogatory statement about the name change. I wrote that Karen Carlson told me Ed said it once but the way he said it raised no alarm bells for her. Strand’s accusation was that Ed repeatedly referred to Coleman by the “Goldman” name—the implication being that he was mocking his Jewish heritage. Far from corroborating that accusation, I was disputing it. Secondly, of course this was a second-hand account. I wasn’t a member of the Screening Committee. But I did want to respond to what was being written on the listserv and I wanted you—as a conscientious Green—to know that I shared your concerns about allegations of Screening Committee impropriety. I was doing what I could and I passed along your concerns to Karen Carlson.

Karen started to answer your “seven very straightforward and one open-ended” questions, but was prevented from doing so by changing circumstances. On his own initiative—because he was outraged by what he perceived as defamation of character (both spoken and written)—Ed McGaa retained an attorney to look into the possibility of pursuing legal action against David Strand for false accusations. This wasn’t a campaign strategy and I wasn’t at all sure that it would help the campaign, but since Ed is not an anti-Semite, he takes offense when someone accuses him of being one. Ed’s attorney recommended that we have no contact with the press on this matter at that point in time. That’s why Karen did not send you a full account of the Screening Committee actions. Rather than pursue truth and justice through the media or listserv, Ed had decided to look into the possibility of doing so through civil law. That’s his right.

Karen wasn’t trying to sandbag you. In your article, you twice call her an “amateur.” You’re right. In fact, we all plead guilty to that charge. None of the Team McGaa members are getting paid for the work we’re doing for Ed and the Green Party. None of us are campaign consultants or hired guns who do this for a living. We’re doing this because we believe in Ed McGaa and the Green Party of Minnesota.

You were obviously annoyed by Karen’s e-mail of 7-22-02, but she and the rest of us had concerns larger than just your article-in-progress. That’s not to say that we didn’t appreciate a sympathetic, honest journalist, and we really did want to answer the allegations, but we weren’t in a position to do so at that time. What disappoints me is that you apparently did not follow up on the leads Karen gave you. She suggested that you speak to Joseph Bester and Patti Hurd (the other two Screening Committee members, in addition to Karen and David). Did you contact them? If so, what did they say?

Karen also told you that it was her understanding that David Strand had reputedly made false accusations against some other Green candidate in the recent past and that he stopped doing so only after legal action had been threatened. Now, that’s an interesting piece of information. Is that story true? What are the particulars? Does David have a pattern of spreading malicious “information” about candidates with whom he disagrees? You include the allegation in your article, but you don’t tell us whether it’s true.

Karen actually answered two of your questions when she wrote that she “did not begin work on a team for Ed until about 20 seconds after his MPR appearance” (=May 21). In other words, she was NOT associated with the McGaa campaign in any manner at the time of the screening interview and at the time the final report was issued.

Finally, there’s a few other things I noticed as I was reading your article. We agree that the GPM had a right and obligation to endorse a U.S. Senate candidate. In your intro, you say, “The problem is that we endorsed the wrong candidate” at the St. Cloud convention. I don’t agree, but that’s your opinion. I expected at some point, though, to hear why (the unnamed) Tim Davis would have been a superior candidate. It’s worth mentioning that Tim and his campaign team have been nothing but gracious to Ed’s campaign since the convention. Tim abided by the decision of the delegates and chose to channel his energy and wisdom into the 5th District congressional race rather than join the McGaa-bashers. That says something very good about Tim Davis (www.VoteTimDavis.org).

When describing the Screening Committee process, you write, “It’s important to understand that this screening report is the only information delegates received concerning McGaa prior to the endorsing convention.” That’s not completely true. As a delegate to the convention, I received two or three mailings from Ed McGaa. That gave me a basic indication of who he was. He provided the URL for his website. Those familiar with his books also had an opportunity to know where Ed was coming from. At the convention, Ed had a booth set up, he was personally available to talk to delegates, and he addressed the convention before the voting. Green delegates also had a chance to comment on Ed’s beliefs and strategies before the voting. If you mean the screening report on the Web was the only information issued by the state party, that’s true. Of course the state party had an obligation to release an accurate, unbiased summary, but the responsibility of good decision-making is always on the delegate or voter in the end.

You cite Ed’s screening answer which “makes his partial disagreement with the key value clear.” That might be a fair assessment, although it would be more safe to say that Ed made clear that he’s not a complete pacifist. This shouldn’t be such a big problem for a Green candidate, though, since the platform of the Green Party of the United States is not completely pacifistic (http://www.gp-us.org/platform/2000/index.html) and the national party’s interpretation of the Nonviolence value includes the statement “We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations” (http://www.gp-us.org/tenkey.html).

You don’t cite another portion of the SC report which is worth quoting (not because it’s directly relevant to your article, but because this has been one of the other controversies surrounding Ed from the very beginning): “If Ed had been Senator McGaa during 9/11 he would have not exploited the situation for political revenge, nor would he have panicked as he feels our president did. He would not have mobilized our military the way Bush did, only to drop thousands of bombs, killing many innocents, with little effect. Ed would have followed our constitutional and congressional safeguards. He would have never voted to give the president a full go ahead. He compares the war on terrorism to Vietnam, and calls it a no win situation as it is now.”

So, while Ed told the SC that he supported “rational military protection/retaliation to secure freedom from terrorism,” he did not say he supported Bush/Congress’ war on terrorism. Yet, the progressive press started printing the story that McGaa agreed with Wellstone on the Afghani bombing and the Patriot Act (thus undercutting a key rationale for running a Green against Wellstone). It’s a lie that was then picked up by other journalists and the Ed-hating Greens have used it as their main justification for running someone in the primary against our endorsed candidate. The willful ignorance of some Greens in painting Ed as a warmonger is very similar to their attempts to paint him as an anti-Semite. I guess the thought is if you throw enough mud, some will eventually stick. THAT’S politics as usual!

Commenting on Karen Carlson’s 7-18-02 e-mail, in which she says she didn’t know that Ed McGaa would be screening with the committee until that very morning, you write, “One possible reading is that there indeed existed a conflict of interest of which she wasn’t aware until the morning of the screening. If so, she should have recused herself from the McGaa screening process.” There was no conflict of interest involved. I’d put it this way: In the past, Karen had read one of Ed’s books and she had liked it so she was pleasantly surprised to hear that Ed was interested in carrying the Green banner.

Should the members of the Screening Committee all have recused themselves from interviewing Ken Pentel, since presumably they’d all heard of him and had positive impressions of him? What about Tim Davis? I’m guessing the members may have heard Tim speak in the past or perhaps they’d read something he’d written. Is that a conflict of interest? No. One of your questions is, “...[W]ere any members of the screening committee associated with any political campaign or campaigns in any manner?” That’s framed so broadly as to be meaningless. Presumably some of the members voted for Ken Pentel in 1998. Did that mean they were “associated” with his 2002 campaign “in any manner”? No member of the SC was part of the McGaa campaign at the time of the screening. I can tell you that!

You refer to the Patti Hurd listserv posting which I sent to you and you say, “...Hurd brings two more allegations to light: one of the members of the screening committee brought a book to the screening interview and asked McGaa for an autograph and two members of the screening committee are currently working for McGaa’s campaign.” You put the worst possible spin on her e-mail when you summarize it like that. Patti wasn’t making allegations; she was responding to them. She clarified that one person did have Ed sign a book after the interview was over. Patti added, “I agree this was not the best timing and probably should not have been done.” So, maybe it was poor judgement. So what? There was nothing sinister about it! And the autograph-seeker was NOT Karen Carlson (who would later summarize the screening).

The “allegation” that two members of the SC went on to work for the McGaa campaign is mentioned by Patti, who commented, “It is my understanding that after the Convention, everyone on the Screening Committee is free to join in and work on campaigns.” Joseph Bester spoke in favor of Ed at the Convention, but I don’t see anything wrong with that. Karen Carlson is the only member of the SC who has been active in Ed’s campaign since the Convention. Beginning on May 18, Ed McGaa became our party’s endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate. A few days later, after hearing Ed on MPR, she decided he needed some help from Green Party members so she stepped forward. What’s the scandal? That’s commendable! If more members had stepped forward early on, maybe we could have avoided some of the missteps and confusion.

Patti Hurd wrote, “I think David would agree that NONE of us intentionally did something that is ‘reproachable.’ There were concerns that were brought to our attention about individual candidates and we discussed how to handle this. The Committee decided to make those concerns known BUT notified the particular candidates about this in order to allow them an opportunity to include their responses along with the concerns. What seems obvious now, but wasn’t obvious at the time, was that David felt more strongly about some of the comments Ed made that day than the remaining 3 of us. I truly believe that had we known this, we would have treated Ed the same way as the other candidates…” Two candidates did, in fact, raise red flags with the SC members. Formal concerns were lodged and the candidates were given a chance to respond. This did not happen in the case of Ed McGaa. Why not?

In summarizing David Strand’s 7-14-02 listserv message, you write: “Strand takes responsibility for the omission of his concerns from the screening report, states that he is discussing it now because ‘there was a moral obligation to share the information even if it was messy and inconvenient,’ and outlines his methodology regarding his information disclosure. Most importantly, Strand says specifically that he ‘called Ed to let him know I would be sharing this information from his public screening interview.’ Further, Strand states that he ‘met with Karen Carlson, the member of the [screening] committee who did the hard work of compiling the various reports, and we spoke about our differing opinions about these statements. She and I agree about what was said.’” Karen has told me that she did NOT agree about what was said. That’s the crux of this whole controversy.

If David Strand thought Ed McGaa was an anti-Semite and all-round bigot, why didn’t he insist that the Screening Committee lodge a formal concern along these lines with the candidate and give him a chance to respond? Did David see Karen’s summary of the screening interview before it was posted on the Web? Did he sign off on it? Surely he saw it or heard about it before the actual Convention voting. He was at the Convention. Why didn’t he tell the delegates that we were on the verge of nominating an anti-Semite? If he viewed the screening report as incomplete, wasn’t THAT the time and place to bring it to our attention?! Why the silence?

I don’t believe in “shooting the messenger” just because you don’t like the message. That’s a cop-out (if not a cover-up). Regardless of the messenger, the merits of the message should be carefully considered. Ed McGaa isn’t perfect. He’s not a longtime Green (neither is his primary challenger!). He’s a little rough around the edges when it comes to plain-speaking. Is he Mr. Sensitivity? Not always. Does he use the wrong word to make a point or get “trillions” mixed up with “billions”? On occasion. During yesterday’s Farmfest debate he misunderstood the question about the commodities check-off and gave an off-the-wall answer. Yes, that’s frustrating. And he doesn’t yet know enough about NAFTA, GATT, and Globalization to give a good response to the question about Fast-Track. I admit that. I do know Ed McGaa well enough, though, to say with assurance that he’s NOT an anti-Semite and he DOESN’T hate or despise Jews, Mexicans, Koreans, Brazilians, Slavs, or any other ethnic group. People who think he does are speaking from a place of ignorance and they should examine their own motives. This leads us to the million-dollar question that your article ignored: Why did David Strand wait until July 9 to make his serious concerns about Ed McGaa public (through the GPM listserv)? That’s when he told us for the first time that “Ed set off alarm bells” when he met with the Screening Committee (which occurred in May, I presume). Wanting to find out more about David Strand, I did a little investigating of my own. I used a Web search engine and I found a series of messages David posted to a Minnesota politics newsgroup called “mn-politics-discuss” (a Yahoo! group).

On May 11 (one week before the convention), David mentioned Ed in a positive light, as an example of diversity among Green Party candidates. No mention is made of Ed’s supposed anti-Semitism. He doesn’t give any hint that he disliked Ed or was upset with what he said:

“While all male, there is some diversity among announced statewide candidates. One announced candidate for U.S. Senate endorsement is Native American (a registered tribal member)...The Green Party is a bigger tent than many assume on this list. It just covers vastly different ground in many cases than either the DFL, Republicans, or Independence Party.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/10776

It’s the same story on May 19 (the day after the convention). David presents a balanced report of convention activity re: the Senate endorsement, with no hint of hostility toward Ed:

“It is interesting that Audrey Thayer, Convenor of the Indian/Native American Caucus of the Green Party of Minnesota who is also Ojibwe and who has always worked closely with Winona carried a different message. After conversing with the campaign of Ed McGaa, she threw her support behind his candidacy. She even resigned her post as part of the convention facilitation team in order to speak in favor of his candidacy and that carried alot of weight. Members of various tribes from around the state I spoke to made similiar decisions….The race for endorsement was very close between Ed McGaa and Tim Davis and went to Ed on the third ballot using preferential balloting with 66% being the threshhold for endorsement of either of the candidates or NOTA.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/10849

On May 22—in the face of criticism re: Ed’s MPR interview—David wrote that he had been a Tim Davis supporter at the convention and said that he “raised concerns about ways Ed McGaa chose to express himself and his ideas after his verbal interview but those concerns were not articulated in the committee’s final report to delegates.” So, the first cautionary word about Ed surfaces, but David doesn’t seem particularly hostile toward him. Nothing about anti-Semitism is said. His account is balanced and objective (no passion or venom):

“I too was a supporter of Tim Davis to the last ballot at the convention…. Because of the sensitivity of the situation with running a candidate against Wellstone, many felt Tim would be able to articulate Green positions well without allowing the ballot line to be taken by someone who would not represent Green values and positions and who ONLY wanted to hurt Wellstone without building support for Green postitions….I was on the statewide candidate information collecting committee that met and questioned all candidates seeking endorsement requiring a degree of neutrality on my part prior to the convention. I raised concerns about ways Ed McGaa chose to express himself and his ideas after his verbal interview but those concerns were not articulated in the committee’s final report to delegates. He is the party’s endorsed candidate. Ed’s mailings to delegates prior to the convention apparently struck a chord with many. Others spoke of having read his numerous books and held them and him in high praise. The level of support he had at the convention I believe was a complete surprise to many of those in the other campaigns and among those closest to resembling what one might call a “party establishment” within the Greens.

After Ed’s appearance on MPR there’s been a buzz on Green listserves. There have been a number of Greens who have called for a primary challenge to his candidacy. Others think that people should work with Ed around concerns that have been raised about his candidacy…. At any rate, it would be true to say that Greens are divided about this race in ways that have nothing to do with the much reported ‘Wellstone’ issue.” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/10872

How did David Strand evolve from that tone on May 22 to making comparisons between McGaa and Le Pen (and possibly Hitler) in early July? I don’t know, but that would be an interesting story! Today, David seems to be pro-Wellstone:

“Still, I’m willing to cut Wellstone some slack. If he wants to appeal to the gblt community and their allies (and they are as much where the political power lies as the community itself) he’d better start making good on his promise to work for “seperate but equal” treatment of glbt families and relationships under the law….Wellstone IS a freind of the glbt community. Since most scholars believe DOMA to be patently unconstitutional (under the full faith and credit clause), perhaps it’s no big deal. I mean, what’s a little cowardly political posturing among freinds when it’s thrown out by the courts in the end anyway?” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/message/11086

I don’t know David Strand so I can’t say why his attitude changed over time, but it’s interesting to see the change over the course of his e-mail postings. Did it have something to do with all the heat he was getting from people who thought Ed embarrassed himself and/or the party during the MPR interview? Did it have to do with a fundamental loyalty to or growing support for Wellstone? I don’t know, but I think that should have been part of your news story.

Michael, I hope you’ll consider running this reply on the Arts & Farces website. We don’t see this quite the same way, but I do think you’re trying to be fair to all concerned and I appreciate that.

P.S. - I do want to make it clear that I don’t know David Strand and I have no insight into his motivations. For whatever reason, he turned against Ed after being relatively friendly and respectful toward him. Maybe some of his recollections about what went on during the screening session got garbled over time. I’m NOT accusing of him intentional dishonesty. I want to be as fair as possible. I don’t want to leave the impression that I think David is a bad or malevolent person when I have no personal knowledge of him.

Jeff Taylor

COMING SOON: A very brief postscript on anti-Semitism in general.

[Ed. note: Jeff Taylor is co-manager of Ed McGaa’s sentatorial campaign. Final paragraph, beginning “P.S. - I do want to make it clear….” added 8 August 2002 at request of Jeff Taylor.

With regard to the issue Taylor raises regarding my use of portions of his 17 July email, he asked that I not forward his email to others. And I agreed. While I didn’t forward his email, I did indeed use portions of that email as a source for my article. For that I humbly and sincerely apologize. I can’t even offer an excuse—I simply missed Taylor’s request as I was writing the article last Sunday evening.

Nevertheless, I stand by the article in its entirety.

Taylor raises some valid points that I believe clearly underscore the need for an investigation by the coordinating committee into the screening process in general and the McGaa screening in particular.]