The debates from the back two rows

I attended the debates last night courtesy of the Public Insight Journalism section of MPR and I wanted to thank those guys for the awesome spot they got me on the main floor. It is with great pleasure that I report to you all what I noticed.

I'll suppose I will start with the debate format. I was absolutely appalled at the style in which it was conducted. Kerri Miller started off asking specific questions to candidates about their campaign, rather than any actual substantive questions. I found myself agreeing with Mr. Fitzgerald when he called her out that over a half hour into the "debate" there was not a single question of policy being debated.

However I quickly found myself less and less likely to vote for Mr. Fitzgerald, for two reasons. The only set in stone policy I heard from him was the decriminalization of illicit drugs. Other than that his response to any other question was "The Independence Party doesn't take money from special interests, so we won't do it like those two do it."

While a great two-second audio clip on the radio, Mr. Fitzgerald, I heard that same sentiment come out of your mouth every time you spoke, just another broken record. I think the Independence Party is confused and thinks that's the reason Jesse Ventura won, and it's not.

Amy Klobuchar took the time to explicitly state she has never run a negative attack ad on Mark Kennedy, and when confronted by Kerri about her one with Tyesha Edwards' mother saying, "Mark Kennedy, you should be ashamed," she claimed that wasn't negative. She also claimed that the DFL, the DNC, and PACs have not run any ads on her behalf, which is also another lie. She also tried denying her ties to Emily's List, rather than promote that she is a pro-abortion candidate, she tried to hide that and deny that at the debates.

Mark Kennedy didn't do much better himself. When confronted with the drug PACs that contributed to his campaign, he didn't try to defend their right to contribute -- he just attacked the other candidates. He did point out his contributions to Congress, and rightfully pointed out Amy's lack of conviction for violent offenders, that is, the fact that she let most off on plea bargains giving them severely reduced sentences in order to obtain an easy conviction. But like the other candidates, he never went deep into policy and focused mainly on attacking the other two.

I liked the governor's debate much more. Especially for the fact that the moderator, Gary Eichten, was very quick to admonish those who applauded, cheered, or booed candidates when they made a statement.

The thing I remember most, and the thing that pretty much eliminated any chance of me voting for him, was Mr. Hatch's claim that Tim Pawlenty raised Hennepin County property taxes for a Vikings stadium. Mr. Hatch also took to interrupting Mr. Pawlenty several times. However, I must note that he was in the same seat as Mr. Fitzgerald -- maybe the seat is cursed?

Another glaring disqualification from his lips was his assertion that he would sign into law any bill brought to him as governor because "it is the will of the people," as if the people of the state had a true say and not just the elected politicians. Then, when asked if he would use his veto power he jumped at the opportunity to list things he would veto -- and then was challenged as to how he could veto a bill passed by the "will of the people" when he said he wouldn't veto a bill that was the "will of the people." What a shameful display of talking out of both sides of your mouth. And before anyone says "That's not what he said!" it is, I was there.

For the most part I didn't listen to Pawlenty, because there is nothing he could say to get me to vote for him. The only thing that would make me vote for him would be for him to return private property rights in Hennepin County, repeal the ability of the Hennepin County board to establish a tax that is not the will of the people, and repeal his "fees," or as Peter Hutchinson was so apt to point out, "...the establishment of taxes, and that Mr. Governor is what they really are..." and pay me back for them, by tomorrow morning. Doesn't seem likely does it?

Peter Hutchinson was the only reason I wanted to stay, in hopes that I could hear something substantive. If anyone reading was listening to the debate last night, and you heard Mr. Hutchinson talk about how he was opposed to the MVST Amendment, I was the lone person in the room clapping.

He said a number of things that made sense, and he did talk about one of his now "8 G's", and that is green cards. He tried to drudge up support for one of the early versions of the DREAM Act, when the illegal immigrants were supposed to be on a path to citizenship, which Pawlenty supported but does not anymore because of the stripping of the provisions.

As I told the Public Insight Journalism folks last night, going on the debates, I would have to say Mark Kennedy marginally took the show in the first act, and Hutchinson won by leaps and bounds in the second. I will still be deciding if I would vote for Hutchinson or possibly Leslie Davis of the American Party, or Walt Brown of the Quit Raising Taxes party. It almost seems like a hard choice.

Although I still may write in Sue Jeffers.