Skip to Content

John Edwards

Minneapolis, MN
Commenter for
4 years 3 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 06/18/12 at 10:32 am in response to Why General Mills didn’t get hammered for speaking out on marriage amendment

Tom Emmer lost the very close 2010 election to Mark Dayton because liberal Republican Tom Horner entered the race as an independent, siphoning crucial votes from Emmer. Horner has now been retained (presumably) by the liberal, anti-traditional marriage Minnesotans United to push its cause, creating a pretty smooth payback to Horner, a former PR guy.

Posted on 06/12/12 at 12:03 pm in response to Disclosure advocates agog over campaign-finance decision on Minnesota Family Council

Left out of this lengthy story was the crux. Schultz and Dean are ardent liberals whose team simply lost a decision they were confident they not going to lose. The story really did not need to go any further than the seventh paragraph that quoted CEO John Helmberger: “The Common Cause complaint was nothing but a political stunt designed to harass donors to MFC."

Posted on 06/11/12 at 11:40 am in response to Village Voice Media/City Pages sex ads under new fire

What an admirable story it would have been if City Pages' intrepid liberal reporters had had the courage to expose the sleaze in their own workplace. But then that might have endangered their livelihoods.

Posted on 06/04/12 at 11:16 am in response to Freshman GOP Sen. John Howe took on big issues and, occasionally, his party

Can anyone locate any stories by reporters or other liberals in MinnPost, the Star-Tribune or the Pioneer Press about the need to reach across the aisle and compromise prior to the popular election of Republican majorities to both legislative chambers in 2010? I can't.

Posted on 06/04/12 at 11:05 am in response to Amy Klobuchar's endorsement overshadowed by other DFL convention speakers' fiery rhetoric

A more accurate song title for the DFL convention would have been: "We Want Someone Else to Take Care of Us."

Posted on 06/01/12 at 10:58 am in response to The real story in Wisconsin

This is a very important aspect to the Wisconsin political story. It will be interesting to see how the union friendly Star-Tribune, AP and Pioneer Press news gatherers play it, if at all.

Posted on 05/25/12 at 11:51 am in response to Star Tribune defends rejection of priests' anti-marriage-amendment letter

As a liberal, David was quick to label (ooh, watch out for him, he has a bias) D. J. Tice as a conservative. There was, of course, no such helpful brand on Scott Gillespie (psst, David, he is a liberal.) As this sample dust-up suggests, the "gay marriage" battle is destined to provide riveting entertainment this fall as the Star-Tribune, MPR and MinnPost vie to not be "out liberaled" in their coverage by the others, lest they outrage some of their collective audience. My prediction is...

Posted on 05/24/12 at 11:49 am in response to Voter ID supporters want boycott of AARP because it opposes proposed amendment

The AARP, as well as the League of Women Voters, are ostensibly non-partisan organizations that are controlled by partisans favorable to liberals and Democrats. The fact that DFL political operative Skip Humphrey was president of AARP's Minnesota chapter and is now on its national board is a strong indicator of AARP's bias, which is also clearly evident its stands on issues. Non liberals applaud the boycott.

Posted on 05/10/12 at 04:28 pm in response to Obama backing gay marriage: 'a historic moment'

President Obama made a simple political calculation. He bowed to his fundraisers (one in six of his financial bundlers are gay reports the liberal Washington Post) while figuratively tossing his black supporters under the bus, calculating that they are less likely to turn against him than the gays.

Posted on 04/05/12 at 11:12 am in response to Strib: Scrutinize Blue Cross Medicaid payments

It is hard to tell, of course, whether the arch liberal New York Times' piece is a "news" story (it well could be) or an opinion piece (which it likely is.) The excerpt leaves out, however, the crucial fact that Minnesotans will vote to decide for themselves whether identification is needed.