Skip to Content

Peter Swanson

Golden Valley, MN
Commenter for
5 years 4 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 04/24/10 at 12:40 pm in response to Seifert-Emmer flap prompts familiar Minnesota memories -- and the question: Will it backfire?

Bernice, I think people should read the letters and decide for themselves. The media denied us that choice.

For more on the Marlene Johnson revelation, check out this link:

http://www.landlordpolitics.com/dancohen.html

Posted on 04/23/10 at 09:58 am in response to Seifert-Emmer flap prompts familiar Minnesota memories -- and the question: Will it backfire?

If we are talking about last minute DWI revelations, how about 1) the "November Surprise" against George W. Bush that almost worked, and 2) Buck Humphrey's reluctant response that backfired against him?

Regarding the Boschwitz letter, here is what I wrote on SwanBlog in 2005:

The close race in 1990 between Boschwitz and Wellstone was turned upside down by an exchange of letters. Supporters of Wellstone sent a letter to members of the Jewish community in Minnesota promoting his...

Posted on 04/14/10 at 12:42 pm in response to A plea for civility or playing politics with tragedy?

Uh, I said it is a pretty mainstream comparison. Jeff Klein does not dispute the comparison; he says that it's a good thing. All of which is well within the bounds of reasonable discourse. Let's all be little Fonzies. Be cool.

Posted on 04/14/10 at 10:37 am in response to A plea for civility or playing politics with tragedy?

Oklahoma City was political in the sense it was motivated by anti-government views. It was not political or partisan in the sense of advocating governmental change through the political process. The example I will give is that Muqtada al-Sadr at one point gave up (officially, if not in entirely in reality) violence in favor of entering the "political" process. So if the Mahdi Army was killing people, that was not political. If they were encouraging people to vote in Iraqi elections for...

Posted on 04/13/10 at 10:04 pm in response to Enough history to plague a saint: the problem of political memory

I forgot the MX missile, B1B bomber, Trident sub, Stealth bomber, and intermediate range nuclear missiles in West Germany.

Then he got to cutting nukes.

Posted on 04/13/10 at 04:48 pm in response to Enough history to plague a saint: the problem of political memory

Typos above. Make that "NOW called MISSILE defense"

Posted on 04/13/10 at 04:38 pm in response to Enough history to plague a saint: the problem of political memory

Yes he wanted to abolish all nuclear weapons, through the strategic defense inititative, not called missle defense. He didn't want to do it unilaterally. He wanted to negotiate from a position of strength. He was against the nuclear freeze. His favorite saying was "doveryai, no proveryai" - trust, but verify. He was against SALT II. All of which supports my point that the issue is more complicated than a Jon Stewart punchline.

Posted on 04/13/10 at 02:16 pm in response to Enough history to plague a saint: the problem of political memory

The point I was making is that this current reduction-by-a-third is not necessarily the same reduction as advocated by the Gipper. What's the starting point?

If we both sit down in respective barber chairs and each ask for an inch off the top, does that mean we end up with the same haircut? Logic kinda kills the Jon (no 'h') Stewart punchline, sorry.

There is an old saying that grand juries are so easy that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. To say that...

Posted on 04/13/10 at 12:34 pm in response to Enough history to plague a saint: the problem of political memory

1. Reduce nuclear weapons by a third? A third of...what? If you are going to be cutesy and use old quotes to portray others as ignorant (copyright Jon [no 'h'] Stewart), you have to provide context.

2. "...investigation, indictment, or conviction..." Are these three things synonymous? How many were investigated but not indicted? What is the standard for an indictment? Something about a "ham sandwich"?

3. Jimmy Carter nostalgia. How fitting!

Posted on 03/29/10 at 12:55 pm in response to Flap over Gitmo lawyers overshadows other ethical issues

Mr. Turchick,

YOU: "Evidence to suggest this is that the OLC memos were not in the mainstream of legal thinking."

ME: That is the fallacy of an appeal to the majority. You are saying that it is true because a lot of people agree with you. I note that you have not criticized a single citation or a single assertion in the memos.

Even if you think the memos are wrong, you would be in a better position to defend the Gitmo lawyers if you were a little bit more cautious in...