The A.G. debate decoded
If you didn't hear the debate on Midmorning today with the candidates for attorney general, it's now available online. It originated from the UBS Forum, the theater-like thing we have upstairs for these sorts of things, an opportunity to hear from the public and allow participants to engage "newsmakers" directly.
The questions were a little uneven... ranging from some guy who was suing the attorney general to Senate candidate Michael Cavlan who wondered why Papa John Kolstad was not included. Don't get me started and don't get me fired. My opinion on debates has been documented here before.
There was also a question asked as "what do the candidates think about full civil rights for gays?", which allowed each candidate to sputter on about how they're not in favor of discrimination. Great. The obvious question, I suppose, should have been on same-sex marriage; at least I'm guessing that's what the real question was. And what's the answer to that? "No, I won't represent the state of Minnesota in any court should it pass a ban on same-sex marriage."?
One of the problems with the debates I've heard so far is nobody -- and, yes, I'm using the term loosely -- seems to know what the heck the attorney general does . The answers from the candidates seem to be the same for every question. Fairly philosophical, stump-like dissertations. What else can you do? Talk about the fine points of friend-of-the-court briefs?
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
I don't envy any of the three candidates running.
One interesting moment today (about a half hour in) was a question about stem cells research. Jeff Johnson said he didn't think it was an issue in the attorney general race (like I said, what is?) but said he supports the Bush administration on the subject. Then he said Swanson has raised the issue because the people in the attorney general's office "like" wedge issues.
Then Swanson said Johnson co-authored a bill to strip the U of public funding if they got private money for stem cell research.
Johnson said, "that's not true."
Swanson cited HF2026 in the 2004 session (I can't figure out how to find a bill in a previous session and Votetracker didn't exist in '04), and we were off and running.
But then we never heard Swanson's opinion on stem cell research and John James was never given the opportunity to answer.
It was the first hint of anger on either side I've heard in the debates so far.