Let Marcus Speak!
Wednesday night's Minneapolis Mayoral Debate turned into an incredible eruption of chaos and democracy. Rybak and Mclaughlin are the guys you hear about, but Marcus Harcus and Farheen Hakeem completely stole the show. It was amazing. Watch the video here and read the Star Tribune article (which doesn't do it justice): Surprises jolt Minneapolis mayoral debate
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 4:56 AM |
| 
19 Comments:
So, how does the "social justice" agenda differ from communism?
-Censored
The point of Marcus Harcus in this debate is he injects a completely different reality and perspective - one you'd never normally hear in a sanitized mainstream debate. It's about diversity of perspectives.
If this debate was only Mclaughlin and Rybak, you'd hear a bunch of quibbling about x number of cops and who should take credit for it -- a very, very narrow slice of reality in this city.
Rybak's a coward for giving up his seat on stage to the rabble rouser, Marcus Harcus.
The reality of being completely insane?
The guy is a commie. WTF are you thinking?
Anyway, who will be the DFL Senate candidate?
I think we can agree Wetterling is a lightweight that was run against Kennedy as a get out the vote device in his district. She's proven she can't beat him and really has nothing to offer.
Klobuchar is an insider, and in terms of DFL endorsement that means alot. She's also a tough on crime Dem and that will play well, but she's from Hennepin Co, and that won't.
On the other hand Doran is rich, and self financing DFL senate candidates are welcome in MN. There's a good chance that with a private contribution of $20MM he can buy the job (a la Dayton.)
What's going to happen?
=Censored
Would you be so enthusiastic about this if it had been the gun nut candidate disrupting the debate?
Crap, I was all primed to vote for Farheen, now I'm torn between Marcus and Farheen...
As for censored, I thought the days when social justice was equated to communism ended in ... 1958? 1975? 1989 at the latest, anyway. Communism, as even we far-lefties are aware, was just another way to trample democracy in order to achieve social/economic dominance. Though the initial impetus for communism (pre-1920, or pre '49 in China) was noble, "social justice" eventually became just window dressing to the communist agenda, which was a mere lurching toward (and preservation of)political and economic power. Look at China, one of communism's major success stories.
In other words, you need to explain more thoroughly -- without paleocon soundbites -- your antipathy to social justice.
So, how does the "compassionate conservative" agenda differ from fascism?
- Redacted
Mark,
Did you just call China "a success story?"
Wow. I have no idea what to say. If that's the workers paradise you're looking for, well, you need to travel dude. That and explain why there are thousands of Chinese immigrants coming here every year and just about zero from here to there.
Allow me to elaborate. I hate communism. See case studies USSR AND China. "Social Justice" is the same thing that avoids an uncomfortable label. Commies aren't cool.
Let's face it, communism is an attractive sounding plan. Everyone gets along, works togather, mutual support and sharing. Its the way we all wanted 2nd grade to really be.
Its seductive too, enough so that half the world tried it at one point. But there are big glaring problems, and so far the only proposed solutions have been to blame the people in charge and point out that conveniently this other group who's available could do much better.
Truth is, its a deeply flawed system rife with injustice and inequity and it fails to provide either material goods or opportunity on par with capitalism. Its environmentally devestating and must quash such simple human rights such as free speech and religion to succeed, even for just a little while.
Besides, I thought you thought I was neocon, not a paleocon. (Not that I'm either.)
So far as redacted.
Well, lets see, Facisim calls for full employment and nationalized industry. It also calls for universal healthcare and conscription. You know, with the exception of conscription it sounds alot like the Democrat's agenda - oh wait, Charlie Rangel did float conscription too...
Perhaps you could identify how they are the same (and spare me the Abu Graib = Dachu nonsense.)
-Cesnored
Slow down and read what Mark wrote again. He referred to China being a "success story" for communism after saying "was just another way to trample democracy in order to achieve social/economic dominance..."
Where do you get "worker's paradise" out of that?
Uh, where he wrote, "Look at China, one of communism's major success stories."
-Censored
Well let's see, facism joins extreme jinoistic nationalism with military expansionism. It also calls for regulating sexual morality and establishing a leadership cult. You know, with the exception of making the trains run on time, it sounds alot like the Republic's agenda - oh wait, Tim Pawlenty did call for funding Northstar...
- Redacted
Where would that military expansion be?
Afghanistan and Iraq are freer than ever and holding elections. Its not exactly the occupation of the Sudetenland.
Regulating sexual morality?
Actually I think Germans gave awards to women who had lots of children regardless of maritial status. Or do you mean that they took homosexuals and systematically killed them after they could no longer do hard labor. Because if you do, I can see how that parallels exactly with marriage being with held and having to settle for civil unions. Its exactly the same!
Cult of leadership?
Dude, Clinton and Cult both start with C. Charismatic politicians are nothing new, or limited to any particular group.
Trains? Yeah, whatever. I notice its not being built.
This all you got? Well Redacted, consider yourself Didacted. (hehe - I crack myself up.)
-Censored
Luke: You talkin' to me? Is this Luke "fewer voices is better" Francl? ;-)
I'll freely admit Marcus Harcus is out there, and I'd never vote for someone like that. He's not completely insane though. Who else is talking about racial profiling, or about how we need more love and self-respect, especially kids who are turning to gangs? That's not crazy, that's life in the city my friend. And yes, it's a different reality than what you and I experience on a day-to-day basis.
Before this ruckus, RT Rybak gave a shoutout to Marcus. Until that point I'd never heard of him, or even knew there were other candidates for mayor. So then I find out we're having a mayoral debate, and one of the candidates is in the audience instead of onstage.
Debate organizers have a right to decide the terms of a debate, and the criteria for who is included. At the same time, the public is entitled to hear from all sides. I don't know the criteria for inclusion in this particular debate. We had two non-endorsed DFL candidates and one endorsed Green party candidate.
I do know this: Farheen and Marcus made this debate a HELL of a lot more interesting. He and his supporters managed to rally the support of half the audience and 2 of the 3 candidates on stage - that was enough to get him up there. And I know in my gut it felt right, it felt like democracy-in-action.
This being Minneapolis, some redneck gun nut with a bunch of hooting redneck supporters would NOT have won over any of the audience or anyone onstage, for better or worse. I think that's just the way things work in town hall-style politics, which is what this event became.
I'm sorry, some times less voices makes for a better conversation.
I don't mind if those big bad filters screen out someone who is obviously a nutball. I want to hear hard-hitting questions directed to the major candidates. I want them knocked off their talking points. Distractions like this leave less time for that. (Pathetic moderators let them evade it entirely -- but that's another issue.)
By your logic, we should let Lyndon Larouche into the Presidential debates.
Censored, better get back to your fourth grade reading comprehension workbooks.
Mark doesn't like communism. He notes that China is a successful communist state, and that it sucks compared to communism's "noble" impetus. Communism is simply a method of gaining and solidifying social and economic power by trampling democracy.
Read it again.
P.S.: Social justice is communism? Better let the Catholic Church know.
By my logic, we need both kinds of debates Luke.
Nobody knocked Rybak and Mclaughlin off their talking points more than Farheen and Marcus - that's what I'm saying.
It so happens this debate was the best of both worlds, since it didn't get nutty until the end.
Yes, I would absolutely love to see a televised presidential debate with more than Dem and Repub candidates - I'm surprised you're such a defender of keeping everyone within the established two-party system.
I'm all for tearing up the two party system. But with the election mechanics we have now -- first past the post -- there is effectively no way for a third party candidate to win (especially at a national level). I'm strongly opposed to third party wankery. If they want to make a difference, start a caucus in a major party and work for change from there.
What can I say, I've been burned by the third parties (Libertarian and Green). They are bumbling idiots at best, dangerous at worst.
Letting a nut like Larouche into a national debate would lower the level of discourse. Not all viewpoints are equally valid.
In this particular debate, I don't have a big problem with Farheen being there, even though she has no chance. She brings a legitimate, if naive, viewpoint to the table that is held by a decent portion of people in the city. Marcus, on the other hand, is clearly a wack-job. If he knocked the candidates off their talking points, it's because he knocked the debate off track.
I hear you. We need runoff voting then, yes?
Perhaps you'll tbe more amenable to independent U.S. Senate candidate Robert Fitzgerald. I have an interview with him this week on MN Stories. He's basically a likeable regular guy whose views could be at home in the Independence Party or DFL, but he's a citizen sick of party bickering and just decided to run as an independent.
You're spot on about Farheen -- she has some idealistic positions I really admire, and she definitely adds a lot to the debate, but comes off as naive in important areas.
I could show you some very embarassing footage of Marcus. Once he got on stage and settled down, he asked to hear the question again. He paused, then said "I'm not even gonna answer that" and get got up ready to start spouting off, and people booed him. Eventually he got into the groove and played nice, and I still argue he made some valuable points, be he did derail the whole thing for 10 minutes.
Post a Comment
<< Home