I'll be live-blogging Tuesday's gubernatorial debate on MPR's Midmorning, starting at 9 a.m. The two-hour session will also feature fact-checking from the Poligraph team from the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota. Join the conversation as you listen to the broadcast.
Update 2:54 p.m. - From Tom Scheck
Someone suggested that Emmer wrote some nasty things on Twitter a few years ago. He was actually on the end of attacks from Paul Gardner (along with Rep. Buesgens).
I would post it but figured I'd let you do it since it's your blog.
And the apology.
It routinely gets headlines [news editors seem to love it]. Once elected, pols jump before cameras and mics to show their toughness. It has a huge impact on the State's bonding, public safety, courts, corrections and human services budget. It has an $8 billion annual impact on the State's economy. But, after a seemingly endless series of debates, I've yet to hear a candidate for Governor in MN talk about reducing the impact of sexual violence.
I listened to the debate and thought Kerri Miller did a great job with the moderation. Follow-up questions and pressing the candidates to answer the question. I've made my decision on who I'm voting for and had made that decision for awhile now.
I find the 'tone' is what interests me now. I find Emmer's 'shame on you' remarks as very condescending and uncalled for. If people want to talk about leadership qualities, treating people respectfully is one of them.
I agree, Jeanne. I've read several pieces about Emmer's reputation as a very intense sort of legislator. His temperament is concerning to me. I don't mind if politicians get tough from time to time, but during several debates it's seemed to me that Emmer's tone has been quite condescending, both to his opponents and to the moderator. If how he speaks to the debate moderators or to his opponents is any measure of how he'd relate to the legislature, we would be in for a lot of conflict and gridlock with Emmer as governor.
A candidate's policies are very important, certainly, but I think that personality and leadership style are also things to be taken into consideration.
Remember when Emmer twittered some mean or disrespectful things during a legislative session a couple years ago? I can't remember the details. I wish somebody would look into that and refresh memories.
I listened to debate which I thought was very informative. Mr Horner seems to appear level headed, moderate, honest, and intelligent. I do hope that the public gives him a chance to change Minnesota for the better. I am tired of hearing the same old rhetoric from Dems and Repubs who cater to their own. We need a fresh pair of eyes to look onto the problem at hand.
Sorry, voter from minneapolis, but Horner's agenda is Republican at its foundation. That's the school of thought he was raised in and it appears that he has been somewhat successful in portraying himself as a "fresh pair of eyes." All that glitters is not gold.
@Jamie, actually I think Emmer, amongst others, was on the receiving end of some disparaging tweets from a Democratic House member. Might need a fact-checker on that though.
This is why it stuck in my mind as something bad that Emmer had done (comments after the MPR story back when it happened):
If the general public regularly listened to Rep. Emmer's comments on the House floor they may see things differently. "Respect", "Fairness" and "sound judgement" aren't clearly apparent to me.
If legislators really thought about it, they would realize Twitter is much more of a liability then an asset.
Posted by Mark Bendstrom | May 29, 2009 3:58 PM
I've heard so much meanness and snideness and disingenuousness come out of the mouths of Republicans on the House floor and elsewhere that I can't believe these two really could be hurt by what Gardner wrote. Republicans are such slick experts at bullying that they often get away with saying and doing worse things.
The first thing Gardner wrote about Emmer belittling women was a perfectly legitimate comment to make. He has the right to express such an opinion. The second thing about the black eye was not ok, but was still mild compared with the things Republicans often say.
Posted by Jamie | May 29, 2009 5:04 PM
As someone who watches House floor sessions quite often, I've gotta say that if the media is going to be treating Gardner's twitter posts as a scandal, they might also want to do a story on Emmer's rageaholic tirades against his colleagues that prompted Gardner's comments. For the past five years the media has been either ignoring Emmer's behavior or treating it like a cute little personality quirk.
Posted by Chris | May 29, 2009 7:50 PM
- - - - - -
If Horner is such a republican why are the GOP bashing him as just another liberal?
Seems Horner might be the kind of politican that might not be the new style, but more like the 1980's or even 1970's style. Where thinking and conversation were involved in law making.
@BJ, the issue I have with Tom Horner presenting himself as an Independent is truth in labeling. How was he going to win the endorsement of a Republican Party that is filled with squeaky-wheel Teabaggers (he supports GLBT issues, remember)? And Horner also supports eliminating corporate taxes; not so 'liberal.'
In an environment of growing numbers of the electorate stating they don't trust Democrats or Republicans, what would be the wisest position to take--present yourself as an Independent. Worked for Jesse Ventura, didn't it?
Horner was a waterboy for the Republicans for years and all of a sudden had a come-to-Independence Party conversion. I would have respect for his candidacy if he was honest about his motivations to run as an Independent.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where is the live blogging? I was hoping to read it after the fact, but I don't see it. (This would be quicker than playing the 2-hr audio.)
You shoudl be seeing a large box underneath the title with the word "REPLAY". click that.