News Release

News Release: "Moderate Progressive Republican" candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis claims Star Tribune article "seriously misstated my position"

Link to Star Tribune 9/2/09 article (note -- link may not be to a permanent address)

Link to Carney's news release sent the day before the Star Tribune article

The Ballot dispute complaint is online at www.republicancontract.com

Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-803-9084 -- bob@republicancontract.com

Note: City of Minneapolis Elections Director Patrick O'Connor may be reached at: 612-673-2073

For immediate release

-------------------

Minneapolis, MN, September 2, 2009 -- Today the print-based Minneapolis Star Tribune published an article titled: "Minneapolis mayoral ballot dispute may go court" (see link, above).

"Unfortunately, this article seriously misstates my position in the dispute", said Bob Carney Jr., whose first affidavit of candidacy stating his political principle: "Moderate Progressive Republican" was rejected by Patrick O'Connor, the City of Minneapolis Elections Director. Carney served a summons and complaint on the City of Minneapolis Friday, August 28, 2009, seeking to order the City of Minneapolis to copy Carney's political principle onto the ballot, as stated on Carney's first affidavit. The lawsuit has not yet been filed. Carney has a meeting tomorrow with a prominent Minneapolis law firm, which is considering representing Carney on a pro bono basis.

Today Carney sent an e-mail to Steve Brandt, the Star Tribune report, which said in part:

...Unfortunately, you (and/or an editor?) have seriously misstated my position.
You wrote: "A Republican candidate for mayor of Minneapolis who says he was denied a chance to file both his party and his political principle below his name on the city ballot is seeking a judge's ruling that would force the city to accept both."

It is true that I am a Republican. It is also true that unlike the endorsed Republican candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis, who states his political principle as: "Independent Civic Leader", I am running towards the word "Republican", not away from it. However, from the time I wrote "Moderate Progressive Republican" on my first affidavit of candidacy, my position has been this: it is my right to state my political principle using words of my own choosing. I have never claimed a right to state both a political principle and a political party. Referring again to your article, I have never said I "...was denied a chance to file both [my] party and [my] political principle below [my] name on the city ballot..."

In fairness to you, let's briefly examine how you may have inadvertently conflated Mr. O'Connor's position with mine. In the news release, I included a paragraph from my complaint citing at some length the first Minnesota Supreme Court precedent (Quealy v. Warweg, 1908) regarding (in the Court's words) "...the propriety of any attempted statement of a party or political principle..." My purpose in making this a part of the news release (and part of the complaint) was simply to demonstrate that regarding "...Defendant's claim...": even if Mr. O'Connor was correct in asserting I am attempting to state both a political party and a political principle, the Court opinion indicates this distinction is immaterial. If you re-read the news release paragraph you will see this is my thrust.

Unfortunately, you seemed to have come away from this paragraph not with the understanding that I am claiming Mr. O'Connor's distinction is legally immaterial at best, but with the notion that I am claiming the right to state both a political party and a political principle. Again, this is absolutely not true -- I have always and only claimed my right to state my political principle -- without editing, censorship, or prior restraint by the City of Minneapolis.

Here's how I see the nub of this situation: Mr. O'Connor is "spinning" -- he purports that I am stating both a political party and a political principle -- something that I have never claimed to do, something I deny doing. Not only have you been spun (or edited, which of course is worse), you have also spun all your readers -- seriously misstating my position.

This is not a trivial or nit-picking distinction. I lay particular emphasis on pages 21 to the first line of page 24 of my complaint. Please also note that I propose to the Court a solution: add the prefix "Political Principle:" so that the line under my name on the ballot will read: "Political Principle: Moderate Progressive Republican".
"

Carney will contact Mr. Brandt today, to explore further ways of setting the record straight. The full e-mail Mr. Carney sent to Mr. Brandt is an appendix to this e-mail.

The complaint served by Carney on the City of Minneapolis is on-line at www.republicancontract.com.

<end>

I read your article "Mayoral ballot dispute may go to court" in the September 2, 2009 StarTribune. Unfortunately, you (and/or an editor?) have seriously misstated my position.

You wrote: "A Republican candidate for mayor of Minneapolis who says he was denied a chance to file both his party and his political principle below his name on the city ballot is seeking a judge's ruling that would force the city to accept both."

It is true that I am a Republican. It is also true that unlike the endorsed Republican candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis, who states his political principle as: "Independent Civic Leader", I am running towards the word "Republican", not away from it. However, from the time I wrote "Moderate Progressive Republican" on my first affidavit of candidacy, my position has been this: it is my right to state my political principle using words of my own choosing. I have never claimed a right to state both a political principle and a political party. Referring again to your article, I have never said I "...was denied a chance to file both [my] party and [my] political principle below [my] name on the city ballot..."

After a careful reading of my complaint, which I referenced in the news release and made available on-line, I'm sure any reasonable person will agree that I make the distinction between stating a political principle and stating a political party abundantly if not painfully clear.

In fairness to you, let's briefly examine how you may have inadvertently conflated Mr. O'Connor's position with mine. In the news release, I included a paragraph from my complaint citing at some length the first Minnesota Supreme Court precedent (Quealy v. Warweg, 1908) regarding (in the Court's words) "...the propriety of any attempted statement of a party or political principle..." My purpose in making this a part of the news release (and part of the complaint) was simply to demonstrate that regarding "...Defendant's claim...": even if Mr. O'Connor was correct in asserting I am attempting to state both a political party and a political principle, the Court opinion indicates this distinction is immaterial. If you re-read the news release paragraph you will see this is my thrust.

Unfortunately, you seemed to have come away from this paragraph not with the understanding that I am claiming Mr. O'Connor's distinction is legally immaterial at best, but with the notion that I am claiming the right to state both a political party and a political principle. Again, this is absolutely not true -- I have always and only claimed my right to state my political principle -- without editing, censorship, or prior restraint by the City of Minneapolis.

Here's how I see the nub of this situation: Mr. O'Connor is "spinning" -- he purports that I am stating both a political party and a political principle -- something that I have never claimed to do, something I deny doing. Not only have you been spun (or edited, which of course is worse), you have also spun all your readers -- seriously misstating my position.

This is not a trivial or nit-picking distinction. I lay particular emphasis on pages 21 to the first line of page 24 of my complaint. Please also note that I propose to the Court a solution: add the prefix "Political Principle:" so that the line under my name on the ballot will read: "Political Principle: Moderate Progressive Republican".

Your article has already been published, and in my view has put me in a false light. As part of my effort to set the record straight I am sending the text of this e-mail out as part of a news release, preceded by a brief explanation at the top, and with a link to your article. I will plan on calling you later today to see if you think the paper should run a correction... or if I should challenge your article through a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece... or if you think everything is hunky-dorian-grey... or whatever. Paid advertising is out. An on-line comment is out -- I have read and do not accept your newspaper's terms and conditions for posting on-line comments.

One further point on your article, you wrote: "Carney said city election officials denied him the right to label himself a...". Granted, "...state his political principle as..." is two more words than "...label himself a...", but "...state his political principle as..." would have been so much more accurate -- it's what I've been saying all along.

Questions for you Steve; please reply to these by e-mail:

1) Did this article appear exactly as you wrote it?

2) Were words or phrases in the article added or changed by an editor?

3) If the article was changed, did some of all of what I claim are misstatements of my position come from an editor?

4) If you are constrained in some way from answering these questions, how and why are you constrained?

Bottom line: you told me yesterday (Tuesday, 9/1) on the phone that you "scanned" my complaint (is this a faster way of skimming that I don't know about?) On the phone you were evidently in a hurry -- no surprise, newspapers still have deadlines. Steve, I'm sure that writing for the squashed-into-one-word StarTribune, you are a victim of the giant time pressed whine-press AKA MM... However, you are compensated regularly for your state of victimhood, which you have "voluntarily accepted" of your own "free will" -- whatever those words mean these days. As an unpaid extra in the producing-and-directing StarTribune world-as-a-stage, I think I have certain rights -- one of these is to have my name and character presented fairly and correctly in the world-play program the StarTribune publishes constantly and daily.

Finally, let's keep this in mind Steve. You and I exist. We're people. The "StarTribune" doesn't actually exist at all -- it's a "corporation". Here's the crucial difference between a corporation and a ghost: some people claim to have seen ghosts; I've never met or heard of anyone who claims to have seen a corporation. Have you?