Today's Question Category Archive: Politics/Government

Do you plan to vote tomorrow? Why or why not?

Posted at 6:00 AM on November 2, 2009 by Eric Ringham (16 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Many cities in Minnesota will hold local elections tomorrow. Do you plan to vote? Why or why not?

Comments texted to MPR:

Yes. looking forward to using IRV for the 1st time. -Carina, Minneapolis, MN

Yes. Democracy isn't a spectator sport. -Jesse, Minneapolis, MN

I'm voting for American Idol as Minneapolis mayor. -Nate, Minneapolis, MN

Comment on this post

If you could sign up for Medicare right now, would you?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 30, 2009 by Eric Ringham (26 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

Health care reform legislation in both the House and the Senate offers the option of a government-run insurance plan similar in some ways to Medicare, the program that covers Americans over 65. If you could sign up for Medicare right now, would you?

Comment texted to MPR:

Fo sho! Cheaper health care is where it's at. -Mike, Savage, MN

Comment on this post

Should CEOs who accepted federal bailout money have to take deep pay cuts?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 23, 2009 by Anna Weggel (15 Comments)
Filed under: Economy, Politics/Government

The Obama administration's pay czar has ordered a 90 percent pay cut for executives at seven companies that took public bailouts. Should CEOs who accepted federal bailout money have to take deep pay cuts?

Comment on this post

Should the United States send more troops to Afghanistan?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 14, 2009 by Eric Ringham (24 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government

Gov. Tim Pawlenty says he believes President Obama should send more troops to serve in Afghanistan, both to "complete the mission" and to protect those already there. Should the United States send more troops to Afghanistan?

Comment on this post

What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 13, 2009 by Eric Ringham (34 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender, Security

President Obama recently repeated his promise to repeal the Clinton-era law concerning gays in the military. What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Comments from the Public Insight Network:

It's a nasty reminder of Bill Clinton's decision to cave to idiot fundie opposition that should have gone away a long time ago. There is no reason to continue it one day longer. We're losing good people (including badly needed linguists) because no one in or out of uniform has the courage of character to confront mindless prejudices based on irrational religious misinterpretations of what is basically tribal anthropology. And I say this (a) as a confirmed heterosexual and (b) a 'Nam-era Army vet (and linguist). -Dick Schaaf, Apple Valley, MN

It should be removed entirely. Sexual orientation should not be part of the military's consideration for who serves the country. All orientations should be held to the military's standards for proper behavior, respect, etc. There shouldn't be some sort of discrimination on the basis of orientation, nor should there be an expectation that orientation is something to be kept quiet. -Cole Sarar, Minneapolis, MN

The policy should be repealed. The tendency to same sex attraction is a serious psychological issue and should not be treated as healthy. Individuals with other serious psychological issues, though otherwise physically healthy, would not be considered candidates for the military. The same rule should apply to homosexuals. -Mary Kratz, Stillwater, MN

To put it simply, the policy is unfair, impractical, and absurd in a country that professes to value basic freedoms and equality. I can understand the hesitancy for those who are acting on instruction provided by their church or more traditional upbringing, but the time for an acceptance of these irrational fears is past. Let them serve. Let them serve openly. And God bless them for their service to our country. -Brad White, Dellwood, MN

It should be eliminated and people should be able to serve regardless of sexual orientation. -Richard Rowan, St. Paul, MN

Really - there is no need for it. We as a society should be more tolerant of the stuff going on in the world today in terms of relationships. If anything, a bigger responsibility of it all should fall on the parents and explaining in an open dialogue. And if they want to honor their country, then they should be allowed to do so without question to their sexual orientation. -Ali Elabbady, Roseville, MN

It should have never been signed or enacted in the first place. I am not saying that people should flaunt their sexuality. However, most military personnel do not go around saying to others "let me tell you about my sexual orientation." They want to be able to serve just as others, who picked this line of work. It is always interesting how those who constantly point fingers at those they deemed outsiders are the same people who are hypocrites. They cheat on their wives, abuse prescriptions drug and then have the audacity to stick their nose in places it does not belong. -Victoria Karpeh, Brooklyn Park, MN

It should go away. The reason given for the "Don't Ask" policy is that straight soldiers living in close quarters with gay soldiers will feel threatened or uncomfortable, but gay people have spent their teens changing and showering with their own genders in gym class and sleeping with their own genders on school trips. If anyone has learned to control their sexual urges in close quarters, it's gay people. The military should really be addressing straight men's inability to control their sexual urges- the incidence of men raping women is much higher in the military than in the general population. -Mark Wohlers, Minneapolis, MN

Dump it ASAP. Sixteen years ago DADT was a shaky first step towards equality, yes, but it was at least a shaky step forward. Times have changed; now polling data overwhelmingly show that Americansâ€" both inside and outside the militaryâ€" have gotten used to the idea of having GLBT individuals serving among those who do the Pentagon's bidding. Discharging highly and expensively trained personnel because of whom they love or lust is shameful, wasteful and, above all, tactically stupid. Ours is one of the few nations that hasn't accepted this reality. Why does "American exceptionalism" so often seem to come at the expense of social justice? -Bill Greuling, Minneapolis, MN

It is best described as silly. It was a compromise squeezed out of old myths and practices, and it has not served the institution well. It should go away. Sexual orientation should not be considered any more than race, religion or hair color. -Pat Krueger, St. Cloud, MN

Dump this stupid and hateful policy. Allow the military personnel who have been discriminated against be reinstated. People should be removed for good cause, not for who they are. -Margaret Catambay, Minneapolis, MN

"Don't ask, don't tell" simply needs to be abolished. The military has led the way o racial and gender integration. With eucation and clear policies the military can make an important contribution to American social development by following the leads of other Western nations for whom the open presence of homosexual soldiers in their armies has not proved to be a problem. Forcing homosexual soldiers into the closet has damaged good people and our military organizations in incalculable ways. It will take a unifed front and a firm resolve by leadership to make it happen, however -- getting to that point may be the biggest channel. -Ted Snyder, St. Paul, MN

It's my belief that the law should be repealed. This is not only a political battle but a generational struggle. The quest for equanimity in rights and responsibilities is an individualized process over the ages, and it's time for the newer generations to express politically their solutions for change. -Guthrie Horgan, Chaska, MN

Realistically and in all fairness, it should be repealed. On the other hand, it is a way to actually get out of the Military. -Mary Smith, Little Falls, MN

Eliminate it! Opposition to gays in the military is viewed by many from a religious perspective, while using the excuse of spoiling unit cohesiveness as their cover. As such, this is a matter of Separation of Church and State. Homophobia, like racism, is a divisive disease that festers, often with tragic outcomes. Gays are equally as capable and patriotic as the next guy. Knowing that so many of the world's famous we revere are, or were gay, makes "Don't ask don't tell" a mockery, not only of the Christian faith, but democracy and of ourselves as moral people. -Corinne Livesay, White Bear Lake, MN

The military has been a leader of reform, but not voluntarily in most cases. Beginning with President Truman, they have managed change, and there is no better place to do so. They have been behind the people in the case of gays, and it's time they caught up. Don't ask, Don't tell must be repealed. -Michael Kellett, Roseville. MN

This shameful relic of Republican pandering to their "base" of conservative fanatics has been damaging our reputation, our ethics and our military preparedness for so long, it's time to scuttle it before we get too close to another election and it turns into another issue for the Republicans to use. -Richard Johnston, New York, NY

My Dad, a physician, is a veteran of the Army medical corps. He served in the WWII Army of Occupation in Japan, and as a psychiatrist, he helped the troops cope with their own fear and grief at the sight of the devastation to Nagasaki and Hiroshima. My other Dad, a professor of electrical engineering, is a little older -- he served as a ship's engineer in the Pacific during WWII. My husband's father was an Air Force pilot in WWII. And my husband is a Vietnam veteran, an army platoon sergeant. I am a 52 yr old woman, never drafted, but all my menfolk, gay, straight, or bi, served proudly & with honor. That stupid law is bigotry. End it. -Karen Wills, Minneapolis, MN

I watched Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign Annual Dinner and was impressed by all the promises he made, including "I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that's my commitment to you." I support this commitment, but my concern is this: when LGBT members of the military are allowed to be open about their sexual orientations and gender identities, how will the military educate soldiers, protect the safety of LGBT soldiers, and otherwise prepare for this large-scale coming out? -Natalie Ehalt, Minneapolis, MN

The policy has hurt individuals who wanted to serve our country, causing them pain and depleting the pool of talent available to staff the armed services. Other countries have learned there is no need for a policy that increasingly looks dated and barbarous. -Steve Grooms, St. Paul, MN

Congress should immediately pass a law to allow every able bodied man and woman to serve in the armed forces of the United States. Why should such a large section of the population be prohibited from serving. Regardless of what they say gays and lesbians have always served in the military but in the closet. Why should someone have to hide and lie about themselves in order to serve in defense of our freedoms. I believe sexual orientation is determined at conception and nothing can be done to change that but you can be made to or chose to deny your sexual orientation but that doesn't change the fact that you are gay or lesbian and always will be. -Paul Moe, Minnetonka, MN

Share your reply in the comments: What should happen with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Comment on this post

Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted at 9:15 AM on October 9, 2009 by Eric Ringham (76 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government

The announcement from Oslo this morning that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, so early in his term, was a surprise to many observers -- apparently even in the White House. Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Comment on this post

Is instant runoff voting a good idea?

Posted at 6:00 AM on October 8, 2009 by Eric Ringham (147 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Voters in St. Paul will decide next month whether to adopt instant runoff voting for municipal elections. In Minneapolis, voters have already approved the system and will use it this year for the first time. Is instant runoff voting a good idea?

Comment on this post

Do you think Gov. Tim Pawlenty could win the presidency?

Posted at 6:00 AM on September 25, 2009 by Eric Ringham (70 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is taking steps to form a political action committee, considered a step toward a potential run for the presidency in 2012. His travel and speaking schedule also suggest that he may be trying to build his support outside Minnesota. Do you think Gov. Tim Pawlenty could win the presidency?

Comment on this post

How do you judge whether race factors into a political controversy?

Posted at 6:00 AM on September 17, 2009 by Eric Ringham (16 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender

Highly placed political figures are arguing over whether President Obama gets less respect and more criticism because of his race. Opponents of his health reform plan say that Democrats are using accusations of racism to deflect disagreements over policy. How do you judge whether race factors into a political controversy?

I think that I can feel it in my gut, but only after the question has been raised. In President Obama's case however I think it is more of a credibility issue. If the republicans can discredit Obama then they have a better chance of derailing the democrats agenda. -Gregory Kishel, Chisholm, MN

In my university logic class we learned that the form of the argument was the important feature as to the validity of the argument. If you didn't know who said something (no identifying demographic information - such as race or political affiliation), how would you evaluate the argument? Race is an artificial construct without biological basis but it's effects are real. Of course, you have to try to eliminate your own racial demographic influence if you are going to evaluate an argument justly. Too many Whites think that only those who are non-White are influenced by racial factors. Being White is a racial factor also. -Gary Kwong, Falcon Heights, MN

In the 1960s, when I was growing up in SC, race was a subject of open discussion in politics. With the best of wills and intentions, we have driven it underground, where it still roils, grows and disturbs the political landscape. Because of my history, my antennae are always up for hidden racial meanings in political arguments, and they are rampant today. When reckless, dishonest and outright ridiculous charges are thrown about, race is very likely to be driving the passions of those making such charges. Straw issues may carry the day more effectively and achieve the same result as if race were still a legitimate criterion for judgment. -Karen Seay, Edina, MN

When arguments no longer apply or make sense. The "birthers" are a perfect example. In the face of mounds of irrefutable evidence that Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii they ignore the facts, are irrational. Their refusal to deal in facts betrays ulterior motives. The health care issue is extremely complicated and I don't think most of us can wrap our brains around the intricacies of it enough to know who's making the most sense and who isn't. That said, when someone shouts, "You lie!" at the President, it is at best disrespectful and I personally am inclined to see it as racist. -Katie McGuire, Hebron, KY

Race factors into all political controversies, So I judge is it is racial simply by finding out if it is a political controversy. -Alan Ditmore, Leicester, NC

I don't think in 2009 you can make a judgment about race in a political controversy. I am a child of the eighties who never knew segregation or racism. (I know that I have been accused of both by blacks.) The only racism I have experienced has been affirmative action. I was raised in a small, rural community where there was no discrimination against a strong back and hard work. It seems like today the polarization that is going on is not about race but about who works to pay for the "benefits" that congress would pass for "society's well being." My argument is against entitlement, not the color of a man's skin. -Sonya St. Jacques, Richmond, VA

Share your reply in the comments: How do you judge whether race factors into a political controversy?

Comment on this post

How did President Obama's speech affect your view of health care reform?

Posted at 6:00 AM on September 10, 2009 by Eric Ringham (38 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

In his address Wednesday evening before Congress and the country, President Obama sought to build support for his health care reform effort. How did his speech affect your view of health care reform?

Comment on this post

What do you need to hear from the president's health care speech tonight?

Posted at 6:00 AM on September 9, 2009 by Eric Ringham (37 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

Congress and the public appear sharply divided on the issue of health care reform. Tonight, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an effort to rally Americans in support of his plan. What do you need to hear from the president's health care speech tonight?

Comment on this post

Should the president have direct access to the nation's students?

Posted at 6:00 AM on September 4, 2009 by Eric Ringham (209 Comments)
Filed under: Education, Politics/Government

A planned back-to-school address by President Obama is causing a stir in Minnesota's school districts. Some parents say they don't want the schools showing the speech to their kids. In response, schools are trying to decide how and whether to make the speech available. Should the president have direct access to the nation's students?

Comment on this post

What would you be willing to pay higher taxes for?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 24, 2009 by Eric Ringham (39 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Some high-income Americans are urging the government to roll back tax breaks that have benefited the wealthy. They want the government to spend that money on education, health, energy and infrastructure. What would you be willing to pay higher taxes for?

I would gladly pay more taxes for the right to healthcare. That way I wouldn't be so stuck in a job that I hate. -anonymous text message

I am not willing to pay more taxes to pay for anything, current taxes are far higher than they need to be. If some rich people want to pay more, they can make an individual donation to the treasury. This is about raising taxes on people who don't have the extra money. -Jason, Eagan, MN

Light rail and public education. -Cathy Gunderson

I would be willing to pay higher taxes for universal health care education and a gas tax to promote energy independence. -Jim

Universal health care. -Mike, Minneapolis, MN

I think a tax with a flexible rate that would hold the price of gasoline at a steady $5, $6, or even $7 would be great. -Pete, Minneapolis, MN

Share your reply in the comments: What would you be willing to pay higher taxes for?

Comment on this post

Where does your health care debate take place?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 21, 2009 by Eric Ringham (12 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

Health care reform is the subject of town hall meetings, congressional negotiations and presidential news conferences. But the debate is happening in locations that never make the news. We want to know what conversations you're having about health care. Where does your health care debate take place?

I do not debate health care with my friends and family because we agree. My health care debate happens at work with my coworkers. -Erik, Minneapolis, MN

Share your reply in the comments: Where does your health care debate take place?

Comment on this post

What would success in Afghanistan look like?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 20, 2009 by Anna Weggel (9 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Security

Recent polling finds U.S. public support for the war in Afghanistan at a historic low. And as Afghans prepared to vote in today's presidential election, U.S. casualties were mounting at a record rate. After nearly eight years of war, what would success in Afghanistan look like?

The question implies that military commanders have a clear mission assignment. An example is FDR's charge to Eisenhower "... to enter the continent of Europe and defeat all Axis forces." The commanders in Afghanistan have no such charge. Therefore there can be no answer to the question. Some pundits surmise that the objective of our presence in Afghanistan is to provide the means to enable the formation of a stable US ally in the region capable of providing for its own security. This is not a military objective but a political goal beyond the grasp of our military forces. -Irving Lerch, Washington D.C.

I spent a year in Afghanistan, mobilized with the National Guard to train Afghans to defend their country against the murderous Taliban. While I did see some combat, most of my missions were humanitarian in nature, passing out food, clothing, toys and school supplies to some of our planet's most desperately poor inhabitants. Success would mean some different values than most Afghans hold today, and a new understanding of words that aren't part of their current vocabulary, like due process and legal rights. -Jeffrey Courter, Flossmoor, IL

Success would, in my opinion, be where we see AFGHAN People fighting these terror-fundamentalists for themselves...This tyrannized Nation need to fight for themselves, and with the help of ourselves, and the many others there at this time, we could not help but be successful in this War. Without this, we cannot win. -Dan Wargo, Arcata CA

For me success in Afghanistan would be seeing enough political stability to encourage investment and economic development there. The Afghans might never have democracy as we Americans know it, but they should at least have the right to choose their leadership. Condaleeza Rice once said the U. S. had seen stability in the Middle East before, and that was not enough: the spread of democracy was more important in her eyes, but then the Bush administration got quite upset with the election of Hamas as the Palestinians' leadership. If something like this happens in Afghanistan, we should be prepared to live with it. -Martha Steger, Midlothian, VA

Success in Afghanistan would mean people there would be free of the Medusa-like power of the Taliban. Success in Afghanistan would be the withdrawal of all foreign troops, and no more sad video feeds of young people from the US and our allies dying in sniper fire, or by bombs planted in the road to blow up any vehicle or being that travels along it. Success would be the realization that all of the Earth's people, would have the right to an education, to live a life free of tyranny from those that use murder and bloodshed to foment destruction upon those that do not follow their particular brand of living, Freedom. -Ann Flynt, Jackson, TN

Woman have their full rights, the Taliban are no longer a dominating force in the country and we are out of there. -John Catenacci, Onsted, MI

Let us back up to the late seventies before the US launched what would become the Taliban and Al Queda. After 40 years Afghan women no longer are sold, traded, or have their faces covered. Honor killings still happen, but are punished severely. The infant and maternal mortality rate is in the mid-range for impoverished countries, as opposed to being #1. Half of Afghanistan is UXO free, as opposed to 10%. Paved roads connect 70% of the population. Wells provide clean water. Sewage treatment is country wide. The rate of illiteracy is 10%. 80% of girls and 95% of boys are in school. The government is no more corrupt than the US. -Thomas Baxter, Tallahassee, FL

The Afghans would create their own form of governance (rather than a US democracy) and begin the process of creating basic infrastructure such as micro markets and trade, schools, masques, market areas, basic industry, police, and a viable military that could provide basic defense for the country. The Taliban would be neutralized though not necessarily eliminated completely. -Robert Rue, Peterborough, NH

For the US, a situation where the Taliban is not terrorizing Afghan citizens. They are very difficult to eliminate, so they need to be controlled. For the people, specifically women and children, the right to a real education and choice in marriage and dress. Also ability to divorce and obtain birth control. The key is real education, not soviet style education that teaches that the Soviets were the first to land on the moon for example. Education that teaches the basics of biology and other sciences. Access to the internet. -Susan Beane, Castle Rock, CO

If memory serves me, one of the consequences of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was the deliberate destruction of fruit trees. When food producing trees are routinely replanted and are able survive to maturity success has been achieved. -Judith Cichowicz, Las Vegas, NV

The term "eight years of war" immediately speaks to frustation with a war. If a war is worth being waged, the length of time the war will take is not the issue. The issue is the objective! Is it worthy of the time, material, and most of all the lives that will be spent. For me the Afghanistan War Objective should be, if it is not, to provide stability for the Government and its population to develop infastructure and institutions for a strong society to develop. Good, Positive, noble objectives take time and effort. Early withdrawal will just force us back to a less tenable situation that now exist. -James Essam, Beaverton, OR

We would have cleaned up the Terrorist threat and established peace with the Political group that we are determined to call "Terrorist". The poppy crop would have a market and additional item would have been added to it. If adding a pipeline would have helped their economic growth we would have responsibly helped to establish it. The Military Objective that has been started is a complete failure. We have used up our NATO currency like a bunch of nuts. When opportunity was opened, we followed the leadership of a complete idiot! Many American Generals were fired by the IDOT and the press let the action stay beyond the public' ears. -James Becker, Zebulon, NC

We should follow the time honored tradition of issuaing a proclamation that we have won the war and then leave immediately! This is basically how we got out of Viet Nam, another total quagmire, and it is the only way we will ever get out of Afghanistan. -Henry Bennett, Portland, OR

Turkey; no mullahs, no taliban, no theocracy, no beatings in the street, no acid thrown in girls faces and, last but not least, no warlords. Is that going to happen? No in our lifetimes... -Thomas Ronayne, Detroit, MI

Strictly speaking, the only reason we fougt the Taliban was because they could have given us Osama and they refused to. Our singular objective was and should remain Osama bin Laden. If he's now in Pakistan, then we no longer have a reason to be in Afghanistan. But, if we want to partake in a nation-building exercise, then there are lots of things we might seek to do. No more Taliban, or at least a Taliban that is a pathetic minority that most Afghans hate but no longer fear. A democracy with voter turn-out at least as high (low?) as ours. No more gender discrimination. A non-religious school system. That's a start. -Paul Caldwell, Durham, NC

30 years, not 8. Can you imagine living through a 30 year war ? YES, to those who believe that 'success' must be defined from an Afghan perspective rather than a US military perspective. Social, economic and political development will be difficult; Afghanistan lost two generations of educated people. Rory Stewart (The Places in Between) offers an alternative to current policy: foreign troop reductions to 20,000 sufficient, he believes, to prevent Al Qaeda from operating in Afghanistan and a concomitant increase in development projects uncoupled from controlled efforts at 'state building'. Worth considering ? -Jo Shepherd, St. Paul, MN

Success would be when elections would not be handled by the CIA and the U.S. has dismantled military bases along the formerly (1990's) proposed pipeline route. Success would be if America learns that our knee jerk form of foreign policy has created more problems than it has solved. Absolute success would be if the American people realized that their paranoia has us spending ourselves into ruin by trying to control the world. Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires. Going by the military strategy of destroying a village in order to save it, maybe Afghanistan will in some way actually save America. -Rick Guerard, Oak Creek, WI

First, 'success' is a very subjective term--my opinion is probably very different than Afghanis view of success. I am currently reading A Thousand Splendid Suns by Hosseini, and this great book teaches you about three decades of war-torn Afghanistan and fictional characters living in it. Success to those characters would mean equal rights for women instead of Islamic law. The ability to walk down a street peacefully. Courts that BELIEVE the words of women are just as truthful as men. Changing the minds of Taliban militiamen to put down weapons and pick up a job. It means bringing an economy to a country that has been in a civil war for years. -Daniel Burazer, Mt. Holly, NC

Like the Afghanistan of the 60's, or of Greg Mortensen's dreams. One with schools for all, fruitful orchards, engaged artisans and business people, and free and fair elections. The first step is disarmament of the country - all sides. The second is infrastructure. And it all comes down to trust - in themselves, in us, in the rest of the world. Trust. -Stacy Plemmons, Fort Collins, CO

If it were not for Osama bin Laden who seems to be completely out of the news these days, we would not have any troops in Afghanistan today. Other countries such as Somalia are now emerging as sanctuaries for Osama. What are our goals for remaining in Afghanistan; what will it take for us to leave? -James Friedlander, Brunswick ME

The United States would realize that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan people and that we have no business there whatsoever and that the great game for oil is a pure disaster. the only way to peace is to give up war and end the use of oil. -Greg Gerritt, Providence, RI

There will be no definable "success" in Afghanistan just as there was no definable success in Vietnam or Iraq. Fighting terrorism using our military is playing a never-ending game of 'whack-a-mole' as we move from country to country in a futile attempt to stop ideas with bullets and bombs. Success over terrorism will only come about when Americans rejoin the world community as a true partner and stop efforts to mold other countries into our own image. -John Andreini, St. Louis Park, MN

Rule of law, sustained international trade and no safe havens for the Taliban or al-Qaeda. -Dana Haynes, Portland, OR

Success: a stable government (not necessarily a single central government, but a system most Afghans support) without militant Taliban domination, but possibly Taliban political participation. It would be nice if the government banned poppy/heroin growing & trafficking, and guaranteed women's rights, but that might be too much to hope for now. -Ronald Miller, Huntsville, AL

A stable government which is capable of defending itself. -Fred Green, Minneapolis, MN

Success for who? The US goals are a pipeline that bypasses Iran and a base from which to penetrate Central Asia. These are in no one's interest except for some western corporations. For the Pashtuns, success might be a nation of their own. The British-imposed Durand line put a third of them in Pakistan and the rest in Afghanistan. For people in general success would be for the US to leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later. The money wasted on war could be spent on health care at home. -Per Fagereng, Portland, OR

Success by military means is elusive to measure, as it's about perceptions and what people will tolerate their taxes being spent on. Clearly people will vigorously scrutinize health care reform, but NEVER the unquestioned trillions annually spent on America's military overall let alone its actions in Afghanistan & Iraq. (Basically at the expense of providing universal health care at home.) The Afghan contradiction? Spending on the war's fighting side is viewed as legitimate when a 'win' is in mind, but success really means winning the peace, transforming the place economically, politically & more. Sadly US voters are not so tolerant of this. -Bruce Dickson, Portland, OR

Share your reply in the comments: What would success in Afghanistan look like?

Comment on this post

Would a member-owned co-op work for health care?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 19, 2009 by Eric Ringham (32 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

Republicans and some Democrats in Congress are resisting the public option being proposed as part of health-care reform. One alternative under discussion is the member-owned cooperative, along the lines of those used by dairy farmers. Based on your experience with other cooperatives, would a member-owned co-op work for health care?

My employer recently switched FROM HealthPartners to a for profit insurer due to HIGHER cost at HP. So, are co-ops less expensive as a rule? Apparently not. -Dan, St. Paul, MN

Coop health care will be no different than non-profit. More substantial change is needed. -Jerry Olson, Red Wing, MN

A Co-op solution will solve nothing. Universal public insurance is our only option to globally compete for high levels of national health! -John Laughlin, Stillwater, MN

Comment on this post

What do you see in the Derryl Jenkins traffic-stop video?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 18, 2009 by Eric Ringham (55 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender, Security

A Minneapolis musician named Derryl M. Jenkins has accused Minneapolis police of unjustly attacking him during a traffic stop last February. Police say that Jenkins resisted arrest and that they used the force necessary to subdue him. Jenkins and his lawyer have released squad-car video footage of the incident. What do you see in the video?

What i saw was a half dozen police officers kicking and punching a single solitary black man who was already on the ground. I saw brutal unforgivable force. -Dave, Minneapolis, MN

It doesn't matter what we think of the video. The police will be declared to be not guilty and the brutality will continue. It always will. -anonymous text message

Nothing new here, MPD have shown many times over they're mostly corrupt, incompetent thugs unworthy of the authority they're given. -Tom

It does matter what you see....follow the rules and force wouldn't be needed. Respect the law or change it through appropriate channels. -Matt

Suspects need to lawfully comply, police officers need to protect themselves, the amount of force was entirely appropriate to subdue the suspect. -J. O'Neill, St. Paul, MN

It is shocking what Chief Dolan said - that Internal Affairs reviews force complaints based only on the officers' reports. Do you think those reports document unreasonable force or reasonable force?? IA failure is a key source of continuing PD problems. -John, Minnetonka, MN

Right or wrong police hold all the cards in that situation. At least it has come to our attention, other parts of the world they wouldn't even talk about it or dare to challenge law enforcement. -Chris Carlson, Fargo, ND

It is the officers job to be calm, rational and not escalate the situation. The actions of all these officers escalated the situation. -Mike M., Apple Valley, MN

Comment on this post

What's missing from the health care debate?

Posted at 6:00 AM on August 5, 2009 by Eric Ringham (62 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government

The national debate continues over efforts to reform the country's system of providing and paying for health care. Political leaders, interest groups and care providers are sparring daily in the media and halls of government. What's missing from the health care debate?

A single payer health care system needs to be discussed in Washington! -Abbie, White Bear Lake, MN

What's missing from health care debate? Long-term care needs to be addressed! -Phil, Woodbury, MN

What about tort reform? -Andy, Stillwater, MN

Is insurance not tied to employment being addressed? -Jane Fisher, St. Paul, MN

Unnecessary procedures, unnecessary lawsuits, preventive care. -Jessica

What's missing is tort reform, a huge factor in out-of-control health care costs! -Dawn, Lake Park, MN

Health care is as expensive mostly because of our own unhealthy life styles and nutrition. We need to attack the root causes instead of treating the symptoms. -anonymous text message

What's missing...focus on real solutions for reducing costs. Examples: addressing malpractice limits, standardized reimbursements, etc. -anonymous text message

Share your reply in the comments: What's missing from the health care debate?

Comment on this post

If the Gates controversy is a "teachable moment," what's the lesson?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 30, 2009 by Eric Ringham (19 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender, Religion/Ethics

Today President Obama will get together with police Sgt. James Crowley and Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. for a beer. Crowley is the officer who arrested Gates, a noted African-American scholar, inside his own home. Obama has said he hopes the affair can become a "teachable moment." What lesson do you think needs to be learned?

The episode with Gates reveals we have a long way to go before we can overcome being a racialized nation. -Jann C. Weaver

It is not about blaming at this point. It is about talking about ever-present institutionalized racism and white privilege in the United States. -Jane Lee, St. Paul, MN

Know your neighbors! Be safe, but don't call police without checking to find it may be your neighbor! Let the neighbors know you are home and locked out! -Sally, Eden Prairie, MN

Lessons learned: 1. Black people's behavior will be perceived and presented in the worst possible light, 2. Angry white reactions will force black perspective to be silent so white people don't have to learn any lessons. -Marj, Burnsville, MN

The lesson should be that once the officer ID'd the man as the owner of the house they should have respected his constitutional rights and apologized and left his property. It doesn't matter how verbally belligerent he became. He should not have been arrested. -anonymous text message

The lesson to be learned is one of Tolerance. Tolerance for the differences we have and an understanding that all people have more similarities than differences. -anonymous text message

The lesson may end up being that even large conflict can be addressed by everyone sitting down at the table without the benefit of legal intervention. -anonymous text message

That the police have a superiority complex that insults many people, and they need to address that. -anonymous text message

Share your reply in the comments: If the Gates controversy is a "teachable moment," what's the lesson?

Comment on this post

How are you measuring the success of President Obama?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 23, 2009 by Eric Ringham (29 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Barack Obama came into office riding one of the highest waves of popularity enjoyed by any new president in modern times. Lately, his approval rating has slipped. How are you measuring the success of President Obama?

It is far too early to judge our President. Problems are large and time will be needed to solve them. I stand behind my support for him. -James B., St Paul, MN

I will measure Obama's success based upon how his policies resemble his promises. It will take at least his first term to determine that though. It is shortsighted to attempt to rate his success or failure is such a limited timeframe as many seem to be doing. It took 8-10 years to get into this mess; why do people insist it get fixed in 8-10 months? -anonymous text message

I compare the 6 months of the Obama administration to the 8 yrs of the Bush administration and add 25 points to my approval rating. -John Robertson, Morton, MN

I measure President Obama by the debt he's leaving my children. -Barry

I'm not! Impossible to judge effectiveness based on 7 months on the job! He' running the entire United States! Give him time. -anonymous text message

I'm not. He's just another self serving politician w/ a Christ-like cult of personality ego. -anonymous text message

Comment on this post

How do you define a war worth fighting?

Posted at 3:51 PM on July 20, 2009 by Eric Ringham (8 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Religion/Ethics, Security

The recent deaths of six servicemen with strong Minnesota ties are a reminder of the human cost of the wars Americans are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of Minnesota deaths in connection with the two wars now stands at 79; the national death toll as of Monday was 5,044. Do such numbers have any effect on your support for the war effort? How do you define a war worth fighting?

Comment on this post

What is the moonshot for our times?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 16, 2009 by Eric Ringham (11 Comments)
Filed under: Environment/Energy, Politics/Government, Science/Technology

Forty years ago today, three U.S. astronauts were launched into space on the Apollo 11 mission, which put a human being on the moon for the first time. It was a moment when the nation seemed united behind a common, innovative goal. Members of the Obama administration have suggested that we need that kind of approach to energy policy. What's your suggestion? What is the moonshot for our times?

The moonshot didn't just unite our country, it united the world. The most recent such experience, I fear, was 9/11. On that occasion I e-mailed to a friend that this event would herald a new era of civility in America. And I was right. For about two weeks. -Fred Marx, Minneapolis, MN

First, find a better name. The sixties moonshot gave the nation a common purpose but most of us were only spectators. Today we need a common goal which requires participation of everyone. I think the "Giant Leap for Mankind" in our day should be to create an internet database where inventors and thinkers could publish their technological ideas, to be shared as quickly as possible, so that we could have ever more minds working to push technology forward. Prize money and recognition should be awarded to those who contribute the best ideas. The database would keep track of who was first with particular ideas. -Thomas Johnson, Virginia, MN

We really don't have one, we instead need to fix our infrastructure which is falling apart; create a single payer health care system and come to grips with global warming. This is much more significant than ANYTHING we do in space. -Robert Keegan, Coon Rapids, MN

So far, we don't have one. It should be to fund the research to develop technology and renewable, sustainable sources of energy to replace fossil fuel. We should be leading the way for the rest of the world. -Sharon Grimes, Minnetonka, MN

Better health care than Taiwan for as little money per capita. How ever will we, and our workers, compete with the top 20 economies of the world saddled by health care costs two or three times higher than the competition. The parasites who have gotten rich off the suffering of the American people must be cast off and we must embrace the lessons learned and applied around the world. We need only the common sense and the humility to move forward. -Harv Doucette, Brainerd, MN

Share your reply in the comments: What is the moonshot for our times?

Comment on this post

When, if ever, is public art a good use of taxpayers' money?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 15, 2009 by Eric Ringham (14 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Economy, Politics/Government

In a hearing today, members of the St. Paul City Council are considering whether to dedicate funds to the creation and maintenance of public art. When, if ever, is public art a good use of taxpayers' money?

I believe the tax money toward public art benefits the local tourism economy and public appearances. My vote: better than building professional stadiums. -Steven Larson, Duluth, MN

Art is a good use of taxpayers' money when it creates a cultural environment that brings businesses and jobs to the area, especially young families and entrepreneurs. -Lauren, Minneapolis, MN

Art and culture is always an easy target in times of economic hardship but many would argue that it is these times when we need art and culture the most as a way to give ourselves perspective and to create dialog and a sense of community. To many public art can seem to be a luxury but for most it is a necessity as it is a component of the environment we live in. In the same way that one pays attention to aesthetic detail in their homes shouldn't we also give our communities that same treatment? There also tends to be a notion that public art is competing for dollars that would otherwise go to social services and this is rarely the case. -Melinda Childs, Minneapolis, MN

Simple: ALWAYS! Art improves everyones quality of life! -anonymous text message

Comment on this post

What question would you ask Sonia Sotomayor?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 13, 2009 by Eric Ringham (5 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender

Confirmation hearings get underway in Washington today for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine that you were a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. What question would you ask Sonia Sotomayor?

In what ways do you feel the Presidency has exceeded legal authority in the last 20 years? -Robert Leduc, St. Paul, MN

Judge Sotomayor, where do you stand on consumer rights concerning the decreasing quality of American food and the relationship of increasing health issues like diabetes, obesity, and heart attacks? Is Big Food pulling the wool over our eyes in a similar fashion like Big Tobacco did in the past? -Wade Abed, Eden Prairie, MN

My question would be: Do you believe that the constitution guarantees a fundamental right to privacy? -Matty, Minneapolis, MN

What is your interpretation & philosophy about anti-discrimination & reverse discrimination legislation and adjudication in the US? Please incorporate its particular application to the New Haven, CN firefighters' lawsuit in your response, as well as both your own ruling on it and that of the Supreme Court? -Joe Schaedler, Minneapolis, MN

What unique quality or approach will you bring that will benefit the high court? -Kirsten Vaage, Bloomington, MN

What is the court's role in protecting the citizens of our country from harmful chemicals and toxins? -Carlos Grados, Minneapolis, MN

Imagine an instance where the specific wording of the Constitution leads to an outcome that you have personally decided is unfair and unjust. Is your first duty to justice and fairness or is it to the Constitution? As a Supreme Court Justice, please explain how you would remedy the injustice and still uphold your oath of office. -Ben White, Burnsville, MN

A lot has been made on the subject of "Privacy" being inherent in the Constitution. Do you believe that such a clause exists, and what types of rights does it grant? -Steve B., Apple Valley, MN

Does she believe the Constitution of the United States is an ever changing document that changes with the times, or does she believe that the constitution is a document to which she should follow and adhere to in making her decisions for the Citizens of the United States of America. -Linda Bolin-Schauer, Minneapolis, MN

I would ask Judge Sotomayor how she will find the patience to put up with the insufferable GOP hypocrites on the panel. -Steve, Maple Grove, MN

Do you believe that Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad has been correctly interpreted with respect to granting corporations the same rights as natural persons? If you do believe that this case does so, would you be open to overturning it? -Anne Nolan, St. Cloud, MN

When does life start- at conception, at birth, or at what point in between? -Fred Turk, St. Paul, MN

Aren't the three primary functions of government to (1) provide for the common defense, (2) coin money, (3) enforce legal contracts? Do you agree with recent actions by the government (as a non-signator) to unilaterally change the terms of legal contracts (example, changing the rights of bond holders in the case of GM)? This seems to me to be a clear example of a "taking". -Bruce Morlan, Northfield, MN

The same questions that James Lipton asks at the end of "In the Actor's Studio" -what is your favorite sound, favorite word, turns you on, least favorite word and sound and what job would you love to try and least favorite job to try. They are light and entertaining but still can be very insightful. The congress will be asking such serious questions and mainly pertaining to her bench work but I would love to know more about her as a person. -Alison McPhail, Hanover, MN

What is the basis for your decision to deny employment to caucasians who score higher on mandatory testing than non-caucasians as you did in the firefighter ruling recently over turned by the US Supreme Court? -Denise Simon, St. Paul, MN

Your nomination to the Supreme Court is a historic one as the first Latina to be conveyed this honor. Is diversity an important consideration for the Supreme Court to have people from different ethnicities, backgrounds and religious perspectives? If so, why? Is not the law, the law? -Dan Hoxworth, Mahtomedi, MN

Why do you believe that MLK was wrong when he said one should be judged by the content of their character rather than the skin color? Do you not have to judge against a white person's skin color to "diversify"? Is that not racism as well? How do you justify reverse racism to correct wrongs of the past committed by people no longer alive ? Am I not due compensation because my white ancestors fought for the UNION? Is not my debt repaid? Why can a white person no longer get even a interview for a state or federal job? -Paul Bohn, Burnsville, MN

Comment on this post

Have women achieved equality in American politics?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 10, 2009 by Eric Ringham (19 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Race/Gender

It was 25 years ago this weekend that Walter Mondale, then Democratic candidate for president, announced his choice for a running mate: U.S. Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-N.Y. Ferraro was the first woman to receive a major party's nomination as vice president of the United States. A quarter of a century later, has the promise of Ferraro's candidacy been fulfilled? Have women achieved equality in American politics?

No. Women still face a discriminatory attitude when speaking on the issues: they must prove they are 'hard' enough on security and the like. -Chris, Appleton, MN

Not equality, but they have advanced. -@Pearles52

Comment on this post

Has Sarah Palin gotten a fair shake in the media?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 7, 2009 by Eric Ringham (32 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Sarah Palin's surprise announcement over the holiday weekend that she would resign as governor of Alaska generated a flurry of speculation over her motives and fitness for high office. Her supporters suggested that she might be trying to spare her family additional exposure in the media, widely perceived as hostile to the former Republican vice presidential candidate. We'd like to know what you think: Has Sarah Palin gotten a fair shake in the media?

Sara Palin has shown an ability to make right choices with strong sound beliefs even in the midst of life's turmoil, in contrast to a fallen world. -Dale Larson, Balaton, MN

Palin has spun media coverage to her advantage, claiming to be victimized while behaving aggressively. -Aileen, Rochester, MN

Considering how unintelligent and unqualified Sarah Palin is, I think she has gotten more than a fair shake from the media. -Steve, Maple Grove, MN

I think Palin hurt herself by resigning. -Ben, Minneapolis, MN

You won't get a real answer about Palin on your station. It is dominated by democrats. -John Kidd

I just don't see how she can aspire to higher office if she can't work through the down side of her current position. -Jesse, Minneapolis, MN

I think Palin is completely incompetent and is enjoying the media attention. She has played to the media and created a lot of positive and negative attention. I shudder to think what insanity she would create as president. -Alli, MN

The media has gone after Senator Palin in a predatory & vindictive manner. It's been personal and unprofessional, which shows how bad the media has truly become. -anonymous text message

Sarah Palin is a mentor and leader for working Moms throughout the nation...if people would let her! -Kari, Sioux Falls, SD

Some people do believe that Gov. Palin was given a raw deal. Being thrust upon the national stage with little prep. That would be the fault of the Republican party and the McCain campaign, they have people don't they? Speech writers, speaking coaches, etc. Given that if i were placed on national TV and asked questions about what I read I may stammer or stutter but I could name a paper, or magazine, probably several of them, if you are well read the names should come to you almost automatically. The fact that she could name none and made the Russia comment does not make me doubt her intelligence but rather her education. -Paul Uecker, Rochester, MN

Please do not give this woman any more time and attention than she has already gotten. Her time in the spotlight has been more than fair - perhaps the media might be able to portray her differently if she would answer in a truly straightforward and honest way some of the questions posed to her. I think there remains a lot to be uncovered about this shady character; I feel the news media has treated her very gently and has neglected to uncover the facts about her cronyism and business dealings. -Vanessa Stephens Coldwater, Minneapolis, MN

Yes she has. Becoming a public official and a contentious one at that is sure to bring a greater amount of criticism than may be expected. Having been vaulted from unknown governor to "two heart-beats away" required an extra amount of scrutiny. She's a flash in the pan that will be burned out long before the next presidential election. She's about to find out what it's like to not have any attention from the press, going to guess she'll be complaining about that when it happens. -Matthew Reubendale, Minneapolis, MN

Former Gov. Palin received the correct amount of attention based on her knowledge of national issues and stump speeches. -DT Turner, Minneapolis, MN

No, but a carefully qualified "no"; while the media's strongest asset is "smarts" (that is, most journalists have a broad "liberal arts" background - something commendable, to be sure), political leaders' strongest asset is something I'd term "tempered smarts." There is no humility in the media, and while Palin might not be a paragon of humility, she was raised in a culture not unlike rural MN, where one's intellect gets used like a tool. She doesn't use it for pleasure; this doesn't mean it's not there, or that it's stunted, just that those in the media cannot understand, and thus cannot appreciate, her true spell of "motherliness." -John Schmid, St. Paul, MN

Far too fair. She lacks the know how to do her job. She has proven herself to be a less than affective leader. Mainly she fails to have a global perspective - and that is something I expect of my political leaders. She is not good at her job, and has humiliated herself far too many times, and the media really has left that alone. She's been given far too much of the benefit of the doubt. -Abbi Allan, Minneapolis, MN

Well, I would say she has. Any and all issues that have come about in the media have been of her own doing. Whether it was to the latest flub by Letterman and her complete misconstruing of it, to her complete and utter avoidance of the questions presented to her in the debates. She is the foundation to her own undoing. Give someone enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves. She was just fine as a backwater governor with little media exposure. This is the exact reason I do not want an ordinary person doing an extraordinary job. -Dana Mikkelsen, Moorhead, MN

Yes. Everything that has happened to her she brought on herself by the very nature of her hypocrisy. While claiming to support "family values" her child has her own child out of wedlock. she cannot deliver a speech to save her life, whenever she speaks publicly she manages to make no sense. She's a PTA mom that managed to get elected governor of Alaska so of course she's going to be ridiculed. -Nathaniel Swanson, Minneapolis, MN

Yes. Media did not do anything different with Sarah than any other candidate, which is pick on words, ridicule eccentricities, and overall look for any screw up possible. She knew what she was getting herself into when she joined McCain in the run for the presidency. Even though she managed to excite the very right, she is seriously out of touch with the rest of America, which is represented in the way media treated her. Perhaps if she focused more on coming off as an intelligent woman in politics and less as the "hockey mom next door" (with the worst of what the stereotype portrays), she would be viewed differently by people and by media. -Yan Kravchenko, Plymouth, MN

She has gotten more than a fair shake. She has trotted out her family for political purposes, and has invited the scrutiny that she has gotten. For instance, she is anti-choice, but then reacts poorly when the media inspects her own house with her daughter becoming pregnant (and now a spokesperson on the issue). She wanted the benefits of parading her large family to the media, but could not handle the criticisms it led to. As for the scrutiny of her personally? Being a 70+ year old cancer-survivor heartbeat away from the presidency should expect scrutiny, especially with her palling around with the secession-endorsing Alaska Ind. Party. -Matthew Pettis, Minneapolis, MN

Comment on this post

What does Independence Day mean to you?

Posted at 12:06 AM on July 3, 2009 by Eric Ringham (7 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, Politics/Government

In 1852 Frederick Douglass asked, "What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?" The meaning of the holiday differed then...and surely it differs from one American to another today, depending on perspective and experience. What does Independence Day mean to you?

Independence - it the difference between revolution and revolt. -Corwin, St. Paul, MN

Independence day doesn't mean more to me, than fireworks, family, and bbq. -Mini, Sioux Falls, SD

Independence Day for me represents a spark of the human spirit! -John Leopold, Thief River Falls, MN

I want to feel pride when listening to the declaration of independence but i get held up on the fact that so many of the signers had slaves! -anonymous text message

Independence day, like every national holiday, means time and a half. -anonymous text message

It means that we have to stop bickering for a moment and be thankful for our amazing country and quality of life. -Steph, Minneapolis, MN

Comment on this post

Why should the public care about a politician's private life?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 2, 2009 by Eric Ringham (14 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Nevada Sen. John Ensign, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer: It has become routine to hear about promising political careers imperiled by revelations of extramarital sex. Do such revelations matter? Why should the public care about a politician's private life?

The private lives of our leaders are interesting in the sense that we identify with others - with their daily struggles and interests. We like to point to what someone else does as an example of what they believe. However, one's private struggles should not make or break a candidate - we don't elect our leaders to be a moral authority; but a legislative one. But, we are all human and don't always live up to our own standards. You could have the world's greatest leader with marital issues, or you could have a dangerous fascist with the perfect family -- which would YOU want as a leader?? -Debra Hannu, Duluth, MN

What someone does in private is who they really are. If someone is really an untrustworthy person, then its best to know that before you trust them with something important. If a politician cannot be trusted by their spouse, then why should the public trust them? A leader is not like a technician - perhaps a technician can do a good technical job while being a bad person. But a politician is a leader - being a 'good person' is required for being a leader. Not that a politician cannot have privacy! But if they are a 'bad person' the public needs to know. -Kevin Watters, Shoreview, MN

I care about a politician's private life to the extent that it gives me insight into her/his character. So I don't care about a person's sexual orientation, but I do care about the extent of the lying people do to hide their extramarital affairs. This is can be confusing - somehow Clinton's initial lies about the Monica Lewinsky thing seemed like something anyone would do to save his family and himself embarrassment; John Edward's cheating on his critically ill wife, lying about it, and trying to get someone else to take the fall for the pregnancy of his girlfriend was over the top and indicated a level of selfishness that is unacceptable. -John Lentz, Mahtomedi MN

Because actions speak louder than words, and one's private actions that one may wish to keep private are relevant when they do not align with words and promises made publically. -Gail Crecelius, St. Paul, MN

Unless they are taking money from somebody who will be affected by their decisions I couldn't care less. Unfortunately, the qualification I've stated above is rarely ever examined. Any other issue is merely fodder for the distraction of the 24 hour news cycle. And the chattering class wonders why nobody ever listens anymore. -Michael Miles, Victoria, MN

By "private life," I am assuming that you mean "sexual life." The public is justified in "caring" if the politician has a record of support for laws, amendments or other official public pronouncements that interfere in the private sexual lives of "the public." If a politician messes with my "private" life, he (it's usually a "he," isn't it?) should expect me to mess with his. If ever there were an issue on which all politicians should be Libertarian, private life is that issue. -Claire Thoen, St. Paul, MN

The public should not care at all, except as it affects the politician's public life. Paying a prostitute with taxpayer money, leaving one's office unmanaged, or contracting a venereal disease are all detriments to the job the taxpayers hired you to do. It subjects a politician to pressures, up to and including outright blackmail, that are potentially distracting from their public duties. But the media only cares about "character" and "sleaze" when it's a Republican. Why is that? -Jerry Ewing, Apple Valley, MN

We don't need to hear the gory details, but we do need to know when they are dishonest with their partner, and how they deal with the truth. Are they truly penitent or are they just upset because they got caught? Is this a common occurance, or is it their normal history? I base my feelings about people on their honesty and ability to take blame when it is due. -Elaine Duvall, Brook Park, MN

People are not robots. We can not separate our lives into little components that run independently. All of the individuals that were mentioned wanted the public to think one thing about them while they were performing differently in their private lives. Senator John Edwards wanted the public praise for standing by his wife during her crisis and the praise of being recognized as being a "family man", but in his "secret" life he was cheating on his wife when she desperately needed him. We don't need politicians who say one thing and do the opposite. Our current president said many things to get elected and is now ignoring his own promises. -Ted Stuckmayer, Winona, MN

Politics is interaction. I feel our representatives, as those who mediate political interaction and decision making thus affect our perceptions of how we interact and reach consensus. When they have done something to alienate themselves or someone else, I believe this harms their ability to mediate interaction and consensus. If we are delegating to this person the task of bringing us together and helping produce equitable policies, they can't be alienating their family members and members of their community. Politician's actions speak to their ability to empathize and sympathize, which is most the important quality they could have! -Kevin Ely, Minneapolis, MN

I think the important thing is whether the stance (moral and political) that a politician espouses is in line with their private behaviors. Most politicians are married and have made a life-time commitment to their spouse. A violation of this commitment could indicate that they may also back out of other commitments to their constituency. So, yes it does matter; however, a long-term record is always more important than a few short-term mistakes. -Mary Sullivan, Franklin, MN

I feel this is not a simple black and white question. Knowing things about a politician's private life often shows blazing hipocracy. A anti-gay rights politician who is a closet gay. A moral, religious, self-righteous politician who takes money under the table or cheats on his wife----doesn't that reflect on his public responsibilities as well? On the other hand when media dogs politician's kids, etc., that I have a problem with. I feel it depends on the situation and how their private life reflects on what they are saying and doing in public, are they honestly who they are projecting themselves to be? -Rae Mathias, Heron Lake, MN

Politicians' private lives reveal more about their morals than their soundbites. For example, Gary Hart gave some great speeches but fell apart on a personal level. What politicians do in their private lives matters and does impact their public responsibilities. I would not vote for a candidate who espoused law and order, but broke the law regularly. The person is a hypocrit and not someone I want to represent my values. -Susan Yager, Plymouth, MN

Our only legitimate interest in a politician's private life lies in two areas. First, if the behavior is illegal, it's our business. And second, if the behavior impacts performance in the public role, it's our business. In Bill Clinton's case, we really shouldn't care that he was messing around on his wife. That said, we should care that he was doing so with an intern. It was sexual harassment pure and simple, no matter how willing Monica Lewinski might have been. Any CEO caught messing with an employee would be gone in a flash. In Sanford's case, the only concern I have is his public behavior since it came out. Judgement is lacking!! -John Hetterick, Plymouth, MN

In many other countries it is expected that politicians will have affairs. The US was formed partly by Puritans, so the expectations are different. I think it is most significant when the people who lay claim to family values display anything but family values. Hypocrisy is where the line is drawn. So if Newt wants to criticize President Clinton, he better take note of who he is bringing to his bed. -Kathryn Berg, Woodbury, MN

It is fun to divert attention away from real issues. We seldom have serious discussions about those realities and instead, enjoy the non-serious dalliances of our public figures. We can criticize without being materially affected. -John Reay, Minneapolis, MN

The public should care about Gov. Sanford's private life to the degree that it informs us of significant inconsistencies in his rhetoric, his actions as an elected official, and his personal behavior. The resulting awareness calls into question his ability to form defensible moral positions, his capacity to make valid public policy, and his willingness to live within the constraints of the civil code he espouses. -Douglas Toavs, Chisago City, MN

Generally, I think that their private lives are nobody's business, and revealing them often hurts innocent others. But there is one big exception. When public figures are caught doing things that directly contradict their vehement public stands, the world needs to know about their crass hypocrisy. -Paul Lareau, Little Canada, MN

They shouldn't. -Mark Wohlers, Minneapolis, MN

When that politician makes it a cornerstone of his campaign for election, that he's a family man with family values, blah blah rather than sticking to policy issues, and then it turns out that he was completely LYING about his family values, I think it's a pretty safe bet that most of everything else he says is also a lie. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Every one of them should be hounded from office. And when "family values" includes stances against our gay friends and neighbors, and they are legislating against people who share their (closeted) orientation, well, those people are too sick to serve. -Angela Humbert, Bloomington, MN

I only care when the private life involves a conflict of interest or obvious hypocracy. Otherwise, news about the private life is pure sensationalism. -Fred Green, Minneapolis, MN

Politicians leave "private life" when they file for elective office. They can expect gossip and personal attacks in the course of getting elected and serving. If they can't take this heat, they should find work behind the scenes. If they mess up in any way, they need to come clean - explain circumstances and apologize. If they cannot be truthful and reliable with friends, family, and the public, then they should leave the public's business to others who can meet this basic qualification for office. -Gord Prickett, Aitkin County, MN

Depends. If it effects the person politcal position, we should care. Some are able continue to be good leaders in spite of any personal issues they may have. If it distracts them, changes decision making motivations or impacts how they do their job, we should care. In the current case, missing a week of work is unacceptable and he should be fired as would any of us who were in the same position. -Margaret Kelaart, Minneapolis, MN

The public should care about a politician's private life only when it speaks directly to character. Barack Obama's association people like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright are relevant, Clinton performing sexual acts in the Oval Office is instructive. They provide insight into the fiber, fabric & beliefs of a person. Some would conclude Obama is forgiving or that Clinton is loving - others would make different judgments. Character counts. As an aside, the crude reporting & sexualized depiction of the Palin daughters is also telling - not of the Palin's, but instead of the values of the people in the mainstream media & entertainment world. -Ron Kirscht, Garfield, MN

We are who we are. If we are a liar and a cheat in our "private life", why should anyone expect us to behave differently in our public lives? The public needs to be able to trust their elected represtentatives, and actions do matter. The old saying "actions speak louder than words" does apply here. That is why the public should care about a politician's private life. -Doug Campbell, Bloomington, MN

The manner in which a person conducts their private life is an indication of how trustworthy they are. If they are willing to lie and cheat the on people that mean the most to them what chance do we, the voters, have that they have our best interests at heart. If a person in a position of power doesn't have character to do the right thing, they will be undependable in a crises. -Glen Reiner, Miltona, MN

The public elects a politician based on their judgement and character. An affair calls both into question and casts doubt on their ability to lead and vote with integrity and honesty. The debate about separating a politician's public and private life is, in my opinion, irrelevant. A politician campaigns on the promise to be a public servant and that is what they are. The prestige and power (and in some cases the opportunity to further a cause that you fundamentally believe in) is compensation for foregoing that privacy. In short, the public not only has the right but the obligation to be a check against the moral code of our leaders. -Kira Vanderwert, St. Paul, MN

Same reason would should care about most things: lying is wrong and always has consequences that are hurtful and wasteful. A politician bogged down in heartache, deception, investigation and spin is NOT able to do the job they said they would do. Lots of examples, worst one- Bill Clinton, fooling around that led to huge waste of time and money, commander-in-chief worrying about his own tail / tale while Osama and buddies were plotting against us. Lots of other reasons why 911 happened, but... it matters 'cause burning Americans had to jump off the world trade centers. Politicians that lie waste good Americans time and money. Don't care? Liar. -Brian Reilly, Hastings, MN

My dad always said "Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking." If a person, be it a politician, a finanacial advisor, a mechanic, or whom ever cannot do the right thing when no one is looking then I may not trust that person to do the right thing when working on my car, or managing my money, or in office. Honesty and trust flow from the things one does in their life. Would you trust a Financial Advisor with your money if they were out cheating on their spouse? I wouldn't. And that why this matters. -Wally Andress, Golden Valley, MN

People should care about a politician's private life only so far as it contracdicts their public life record. If a politician publicly speaks & acts to condemn extra-marital behavior, then and only then is his own extra-martial behavior subject to public comment. This applies to any "family values" GOP member, as well as to Eliot Spitzer whose career involved crackdowns on prostitution. Bill Clinton marks a strong contrast, as someone whose public political works and speeches laid entirely outside the bedroom. -Joe Schaedler, Minneapolis, MN

I am somewhat divided on this. On the one hand, I don't care what they do in their private life. However...In our most recent case, he was distracted from doing his job and there should be consequences for that. If a politician runs with "family values" or some such as a part of their platform, I think they should practice what they preach. If a person is willing to cheat on his or her spouse, what else are they willing to lie about? It makes then vulnerable to manipulation & blackmail. But sometimes I get the sense, say with the Clintons, that there is a private agreement between spouses, in which case, it's none of our business! -Camille Holthaus, Minneapolis, MN

On my first glance- of course it matters! Then each instance bears different answers- but when it hits the floor ALL will indeed be affected by their private endeavors. As a rule, the voting public disdains such extra-marital affairs. No matter how bad it gets for these fellows- none of them lost a governorship to Jesse AND a Senate seat to Al....HA!! -Glenn Farwell, Oakdale, MN

It can reveal rank hypocrisy, deceptiveness and lack of impulse control, all of which are traits most people do not want in their elected officials. -David Boyce, St. Paul, MN

Hypocrisy. To the publics eye presenting one's self as a flag wrapped Saviour of society claiming Family values as a political and moral stance (high ground) while in the "dark" of night deceiving themselves,family and voters with actions contrary to the espoused values. -Phil Smith, White Bear Lake, MN

It is only when a politician screams about family and personal values as her/his mantra for personal behavior and then 'gets caught' being too human that I get angry and think about their personal lives. We are a funny society, though. We want our politicians to abide by a code that a lot of us couldn't even begin to. Perhaps we are looking for heroes....who knows? -Mary Beth Blegen, Farmington, MN

Private behavior should inform the public as to the politician's moral/ethical behavior. If he cheats on his wife, he will certianly cheat on the public. If he accepts favors from industry/wealthy, who is he going to take care of, the public or industry/wealthy donors. Some things should be out of bounds, children and family members. -Steve Fuller, Grand Rapids, MN

The public should not. There is very little connection between presidential "character" (as we usually define it) and the ability to govern well. Some of our least distinguished presidents have been pious, honest men. Some of our greatest presidents--men like FDR--were remarkably flawed human beings. The qualities that allow someone to be a great leader are fascinating and worth study, but they have nothing to do with "character" as our media uses that phrase. -Steve Grooms, St. Paul, MN

I DON'T CARE!!! That's it. Anything more numbs my brain cells to unacceptable levels. But since a majority of this country, happen to be "Bleeping" labotomized idiots who spend half their life watching reality T.V. it really shouldn't be a surprise that the rest of the country gives a damn. Something like 20,000 people die each year in this country from not having health insurance, but no one seems to notice because they are too busy discussing what Mark Sanford, or Eliot Spitzer or Jon & Kate do with their genitals. It might matter maybe if they build their careers on telling everyone else how we ought to live, but otherwise, NO! -Kevin Knack, St. Paul, MN

In this increasingly divisive culture we like to see our politicians as saints and the opposition as devils. When 'our' people fail the saint test, they are only human. When 'theirs' do, it is proof that the whole premise of the party is wrong. In a 24/7 news cycle the media is scrambling for a scoop. We don't want our party seen in that light. A politician who strays is seen as corruptible - not worthy of our trust. -Nancy Austin, Stillwater, MN

When politicians keep government and their religion separate, and aren't hypocritical, then the public won't have grounds to care. Until then, I shall relish each time when a politician contradicts the same Values they try to force upon my private body. -Laura Holmbeck, Lakeville, MN

A different angle on the same question: I've seriously considered a run for political office. I have family members who are politically connected, and I'm an articulate public speaker; however, I will never run for political office because I don't want to put up with the public scrutiny and loss of privacy. Everybody makes an embarrassing decision at some point in their lives, and I'd rather not have my personal missteps be public information. (Having said that, scrutiny can still be accountability. For example, it has been poetic justice that some of the strongest political opponents of gay marriage have turned out themselves to be gay!) -Ryan Flanders, Minneapolis, MN

As an elected official (county commissioner) I beleive we should only be interested as the issue pertains to an official's good judgement. We elect officials to examine eveidence and then, based on the information at hand, make the best judgement with constituents interests in mind. If an official is percieved to have poor judgement in his personal life it may make sense to infer his judgement may be flawed in his official capacity. On the other hand we are all sinners and I do beleive we can all be more acccepting of other people's in adequacies. It's easier to see the speck in another person's eye than the log in one's own. -Rick Morris, Waseca, MN

Yes, especially when your party's platform emphasizes 'family values'. -anonymous text message

Public officials should reflect the positive aspects of society. Being a role model is something that all public officials should take as a requirement before they decide to pursue public office. -Hans Hansen, Spring Lake Park, MN

It is very important to understand the character of the individual when we give them the authority to affect our lives. This is a Republic, and we give the leaders a limited authority to speak for us on certain matters. If they are not trustworthy, honest, sincere, and lack the basic values we hold, why should we expect them to do otherwise when they respond to our interests? It is very important. -Jim McKie, St. Paul, MN

We should care only in that it's easier to trust someone whose public and private faces are congruent. In addition, it appears that maintaining an affair and keeping it a secret is an enormous burden and has to be a distraction from preferred job performance. What with wiping browser history, editing emails, slinking about and all the other requirements for a properly dubious private life I'm surprised any of them get any real work done. -Brent Olson, Ortonville, MN

Of course it matters! Poor judgement in someone's personal life leads me to expect poor judgement in one's life in general, including their job. -anonymous text message

Normally, I don't think that the private life of a politician is all that important as long as no laws are broken. However, when a politician uses his position and power over someone in his chain of command (Clinton) and in the professional offices of a public institution (the White House), it becomes a concern about abuse of power or authority. Similarly, when a politician deceives the public and his staff about his whereabouts and abdicates his role of governor of his state for a time, then it becomes a very important public issue about the dedication and the competence of that governor to manage the state's affairs. -Dan Hoxworth, Mahtomedi MN

A politician's sexual acts with consenting adults should not concern the public. Politicians' sex lives are irrelevant. Their marriages are not official state events; they are not high priests of domestic propriety, they need not produce an heir to the throne, they do not enrich the fertility of the land through sexual acts, and they do not embody the state. What the public really needs to know about their politicians is where their loyalties REALLY lay, and how they intend to serve those with wealth and power (as opposed to their commitments to the poor and powerless). Sex and politics is the prurient interest of puritan oppressiveness. -Michael Jefferis, Minneapolis, MN

It absolutely matters. If a person can't be trusted to be faithful to a spouse, how can he or she be trusted elsewhere in his or her life? -Eric Schubert, Inver Grove Heights, MN

I really don't care- we should be focused on the ramifications of their policies. News about misconduct and the like detracts from more important news: health care, environment, education, economy, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. I think some would like us distracted from the real issues that we need to be engaged about. It feeds a growing (and unfounded) distrust of government. -Joseph Mish, Pine Island, MN

If they lie to their family what are they doing to tax payers? -anonymous text message

If a politician will cheat on his/her spouse, he/she will cheat on their constituents. If we want to measure the character of our elected officials, we must consider how they behave when they believe no one is looking, at least while they serve their term of office. -Steven Brown, Albertville, MN

We care about politicians private lives when their activities become hypocritical of their stated beliefs and antithetical to the practice of their office. In Spitzer's case he was the highest ranking official of the executive branch and was caught doing business with a prostitute which is illegal. In Spitzer's case the affair is less important than the act of breaking the law. The latter was in direct moral opposition of his stated oath to enforce the laws of New York state. With Mark Sanford the hypocracy of his affair has completely destroyed the moral authority he invoked to condemn homosexuals or exercise evangelical righteousness. -William Pappas, Stillwater, MN

We ought to be willing to forgive---after all, everyone I know is flawed, but there are cases where a politician's personal failings make it clear he/she isn't the person we thought we elected. When a politician can't be trusted be his own wife, why should the public trust him? The failings of one politician don't make me stop believing in the values that politician and I share, but no politician is irreplaceable, and undoubtedly there are many cases, including in SC, where a city, state, party, etc. is better off when a person whose personal life has become such a distraction or reason for mistrust that he ought to resign. -Chad Eslinger, Brooklyn Park MN

Unfortunately, what I learned in advanced PolSci classes long ago is still true today: Regardless of how/why people say they vote or support politicians, in the 80% range choose by personality. Since US "media" developed, starting with mass newspapers, people have dropped substance out of their leadership decisions. Entertainment and superficiality abound. 'Who' is doing 'what' has become the most important factor. The public shouldn't care about irrelevant parts of private life, but they do. Since ones' personna is all that people care about, elements of private life at least show us what kind of character the politician has. Unfortunate! -Richard Novack, Edina, MN

Yes, especially when your party's platform emphasizes 'family values'. -Becky, Minneapolis, MN

We shouldn't. We just do so we feel better about our own decision to stay out of public life. I think it's for gossip, boredom, and the only time it is of interest when it goes specifically against something they are campaigning with; ie - prevention of gay rights when they are themselves (privately) on the down low, or make a huge stance for monogomy or "family values" - when they themselves are pointing at others and yet doing the same thing. That i think then opens themselves up for public scrutiny. when they are making judgments on the public's private lives, then - by all means - they should be themselves scrutinized 10 fold. -Abbi Allan, Minneapolis, MN

It gives insight to the person, their values, how they honor commitments, loved ones and social standards of conduct. -Anita Ratwik, St. Paul, MN

To a certain extent, we shouldn't care about a politician's private life. But some things, when they become public, have ramifications beyond the politician's family and close friends. Gov. Sanford is the most recent (and perhaps best) example of this: by sneaking off to visit his mistress, he not only betrayed his wife and children but also left the ship of state without a captain, and proved to his constituents that he had solely his own interest in mind. When revelations like that become public--when a politician proves himself self-indulgent and untrustworthy--it is in the public's best interest to know and to take action accordingly. -Kacia Lee, Minneapolis, MN

Normally no. But if you run on 'family values' then you are shown to be a hypocrite. -Heather, Champlin, MN

The public should care about any public servant's integrity. It should therefore care about deceit or fraud of any kind. Cheating on one's spouse is not more serious than taking a bribe. Sex between consenting adults, same or other, is nobody's business, unless it involves cheating on a committed partner. -Evan Hazard, Bemidji, MN

It determines the politician's vulnerability to intimidation from people in low places. We need representatives that will do the right thing, not cover their backside. -Roger O'Daniel, Minneapolis, MN

As NY attorney general, Eliot Spitzer very effectively prosecuted the type of financial games that have driven the world to the brink of another Great Depression. Does anyone really believe that our country is better off with him out of office? I don't. We need people like Spitzer. And we need to accept that politicians are just as flawed as the rest of us. -David Gardiner, Maple Plain, MN

If it affects his or her ability to govern they should care. In the case of Mark Sanford, it obviously did. In the case of Bill Clinton not so much. -Nicole Masika, Brooklyn Center, MN

It is relevant only in so much as it reveals hypocrisy. If a politician is all about family values but can't practice it, to me that reveals that the politician is out of touch with reality. -Janne Flisrand, Minneapolis, MN

I would prefer that elected officials always and only be referred to as "public servants". Leader, or "statesman/person" should only be used in review of their service. -anonymous text message

Perhaps it would influence an electors opinion if they knew the candidates had a history of embezzelment or pedophilia, prostitution, adultery, blackmail, murder, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc (although these and more are well represented by our current congress). -Rodney Gingrich, St. Paul, MN

In general, we shouldn't. But when, for example, a politician is hypocritical, my values are violated. At this point, I CARE about his or her private life -- but I don't need to HEAR about it over and over and over. -Ellen McEvoy, St. Paul, MN

I don't mind politicians kanoodling around, as it seems that most of history's great leaders had overactive sexual appetites. I just don't want to hear about it, and I don't want to pay for the gifts or travel required to maintain that lifestyle. -Eric Fyle, St.Paul, MN

I think what happens privately within the family or marriage of a politician should remain that: private. It seems hypocritical to point the finger to a public figure while extramarital affairs remain a reality in many families outside of public life. This is not to say it is okay to "cheat"; it is not, but it should remain a private matter within the family so long as not an actual crime has been committed, or the law has been broken, etc. It is easy to judge about someone in the public light, while we do not know the emotional factors that contributed to the affair. The state of a politician's marriage does not neccesarily disqualify him! -Sylvia Chandler, Chanhassen MN

It is indicative of their judgment or lack thereof. I personally want judicious men and women serving in public office. -Tom, Anoka, MN

With politicians spending millions on image boosting hype the public has no real ability to measure their integrity. A public office holders private life is a reflection of how honest and moral that person may be. If a politician objects to this "invasion of privacy" than go into another line of work! -David Foxworth, Mahtomedi MN

They who would set themselves above us to govern must have our trust, else the system fails. If a man's own wife cannot trust him to be faithful to her, why, then, should we trust that he can govern in good faith? There are already enough jokes about cheating, corrupt politicians without having them prove the truth of it. Were a politician and their spouse to live an openly 'open' relationship, I would have no problem with 'marital infidelity', since that is part of their lifestyle choice. However, I would be surprised if an 'open' politician would get elected as that sort of liberal lifestyle is still frowned on by our society at large. -Daniel Dillman, St. Cloud, MN

I dont agree with the affairs of politicians however, i just want to know they can do their job right. Their personal life is their own business. -Richard

They should only care if it affects job performance, or if it conflicts with the policy rhetoric of the politician. If politicians campaign on 'family values' and support laws that seek to control the personal lives of constituents, then if their personal life is in contradiction to those laws, the hypocrisy should be exposed. -Richard Rowan, St. Paul, MN

It matters. The true test of a persons character is how they conduct themselves when they think no one is looking. -Bob Hicks, St. Paul, MN

People generally have two faces; the one they wear when they need to be professional and the one they wear when they are with friends and family. But whether they are in the public or in private, their core remains the same. If they are honest and trustworthy in private, then so will they be in public. If I know how someone treats their family, how they run a business and how they have impacted the community they live in, I can make a better choice in who I vote for to represent me in state and federal matters. -Marilyn Geller, Laporte MN

A politician's private life is no different than anyone else's. If they happen to go outside of what is considered 'correct' behavior than they should be required to answer for that behavior. The 'good old days' when a politician could hide their actions behind the name of the office is gone. When a person goes into politics they need to realize that they are now under a microscope of the public eye and everything that they are doing, will do and even have done in the past will be very, very carefully looked at. -Stephen Cheesebrow, St. Paul, MN

I'm not sure the public needs to care about a politician's private life. Of course, it's human nature to want to know basic details, such as marital status, children, childhood experiences, etc., but unless or until our elected officials' private activities interfere with their public duties, or break laws, I think it advisable not to intrude. Their policy views, and their effectiveness in implementing their policy views, are what impacts me as their constituent. If laws are broken or duties are neglected, then I do look to their peers to investigate and keep me informed. -Rita Warner, St. Paul, MN

It's not the crime. It's the cover up! It's the hypocrisy! It is about being duplicit! -Daniel Fix, St. Paul, MN

Undoubtedly, how one conducts oneself in their "private life" is a reflection on their virtue or lack of virtue. If someone fails to make wise choices privately why should we assume that they won't do the same publicly? Privately, Clinton had an affair. As a politician, Clinton lied under oath. Privately, Sanford had an affair. As a politician, Sanford spent state money to travel to his mistress. A politician's decisions in his private life cannot be cleanly separated from his ability to make decisions professionally. -Anne Taylor, Arden Hills, MN

If a politician's private life is interfering with his or her official duties, or if it is leading to illegal or unethical behavior (such as visiting one's mistress at the taxpayers' expense), then the public has a right to know. While a politician cheating on their wife is not really newsworthy, when that same politician takes political positions based on so-called "Christian morality," and that same politician grandstands at every opportunity, and attempts to enforce their religious or moral beliefs on everybody else, they should expect to be held to a higher level of public scrutiny. -Erik Farseth, Minneapolis, MN

Jefferson said that the new nation should have "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." The public has the right to expect the same deference from the people it elects to serve them. Not slavish or absolute adherence to some arbitrary standard, but behavior that neither insults nor degrades the institution for which the officeholder has been chosen, nor the voters who entrusted them with power. Standards change with time; it was previously fatal for a president to have been divorced, e. g. "Egregious" is a slippery word, but in general, the public knows it when they see it, and make their indignation known. -Irl Carter, White Bear Lake, MN

If politicians can not be trusted to be faithful with their spouse how can they be trusted to be faithfull about anything else? -Harley Pierce, Minneapolis, MN

Even a politician deserves some privacy. But a politician is a public servant, not merely a celebrity, with an obligation to act for the public good. And if a public servant's private behavior leaves me wondering about their integrity, then I lose confidence in their leadership. If Sen. Larry Craig seeks gay sex while voting against civil rights for gays, I want to know about it. He is a self-dealing hypocrite, and I don't want him in public office. If Rep. William Jefferson has family members who are "consultants" and "lobbyists" for other nations, he too is self-dealing and exploiting his office for his own and his family's gain. -Gail Dekker, St. Paul, MN

Many of the Qualities we want in our public servants would be exhibited or not in their private lives. Honest, Respectful, Listens, Communicates Well, Cooperative and Dedicated. -Jayne Caldwell, New Hope, MN

One's private life is a measure of one's integrity. We say we want people of integrity in office. But a sex scandal sells more news than thoughtful legislative policy. Maybe tomorrow's question can be "Why should the media care about public policy?" Why didn't the MN legislature finish their work on time? -Merlin Peterson, Glenwood, MN

Character is character. The way a person behaves in private indicates the way s/he will behave in other spheres. Secret sins will poison a person's interactions, decisions, and insights. -Amy Anderson, St. Paul, MN

A politician's private life becomes a public matter only when his/her private behavior impinges on his/her public duties or obligations. Mark Sanford left his job without telling anyone where he was. Furthermore, he built his political persona as a set of values that he violated in his private life. -Margaret Jo Shepherd, New York, NY

If the only thing we are talking about is extramarital sex, I'm not sure the public should care. Unless a public officials behavior directly affects how he or she handles political issues, it doesn't really affect people and isn't our business. Murder, embezzlement, tax evasion, illegal behaviors, yes. Those we need to know about. Sex. Not so much. -Mary Nelson, Minneapolis, MN

I do not see how one can separate public from personal judgement when considering the actions of an elected or appointed official. In their positions, trusted to represent the interests of so many others and to protect the resources over which they have control, they must consider the long-term implications of any action, be it personal or public. In today's environment of free and open world-wide communication politicians lose the power to separate the personal from the public. -Sieglinde Gassman, St. Paul, MN

We shouldn't unless their behavior demonstrates a dishonesty or lack of integrity that can be proven to interfere with their ability to govern or puts their decision making in question. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." -Marian Severt, Brainerd, MN

Not everything in a politician's private life should be public. Non-adult children should be off limits. But financial information should be transparent so we can judge possible corruption. And how people deal with challenges in their lives (like infidelity) show us how they may deal with other challenges. Everyone makes mistakes people who won't admit them may not be good public servants. -Avonelle Lovhaug, Shoreview, MN

I honestly do not care about a politician's personal affairs in regards to his spouse, affectional orientation or extramarital activities. What I do care about are personal beliefs in regards to racism, abortion, education, health care and equal opportunity that will impact the lives of constituents when the politician is voting on these issues. If the elected individual is harming another person through physical abuse and/or verbal and emotional threats, that would be a concern to me. However, when two consenting adults joined in a partnership (marriage or otherwise) decide to "work it out", that is their issue and not mine. -Rebecca Lund, Maplewood, MN

Maybe we shouldn't to the extent we do, but I think we learn less from the revelation than from how that politician follows through. Do they make excuses? (No one will ever be able to say "I'm hiking the Appalachian Trail" without a resounding round of sniggers in response) Do they truly protect their family? Do they fight their spouse for the Dominican vacation home? If their private life includes paying household help under the table or not paying their taxes or soliciting prostitutes, then of course the public should know. To err is human, to break the law is... criminal. -Sandra Evans, St. Paul, MN

Share your reply in the comments: Why should the public care about a politician's private life?

Comment on this post

What's your message for Al Franken?

Posted at 6:00 AM on July 1, 2009 by Eric Ringham (23 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

Minnesota's new senator arrives in Washington to join debates already in progress on a number of issues: health-care reform, climate change and a Supreme Court nomination, to name a few. Given changes in the agenda since he stood for election: What's your message for Al Franken?

To Senator Franken: What part will your good humor play in your new role as MN Senator? Best Wishes! -Phil Limerick, Maple Lake, MN

Senator Franken, do you agree that only criminals will own "the most dangerous of" guns, if restriction of the 2nd amendment continues? -Cory, Gilbert, MN

Don't forget who you work for and to whom you are accountable. -John, Thief River Falls, MN

I want to know what Senator-Elect Franken would like to accomplish in the U.S. Senate during his six (more like five) year tenure. -Noah Anderson, Chanhassen, MN

He should fulfill his promise because he said he will be good advocate for education. -Mahamed Cali

Comment on this post

How has the Senate dispute affected your faith in the electoral process?

Posted at 6:00 AM on June 29, 2009 by Eric Ringham (19 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government

It's been nearly eight months since the election that Minnesotans thought would decide the race between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken. How has the Senate dispute affected your faith in the electoral process?

I will not vote for a 3rd Party again. That is what I have learned. -Virginia, Apple Valley, MN

My trust in the political system has faded away more now because it seems our political parties are out to one up one another rather than to fulfill their responsibilities as working for their state and communities and the peoples interest which has not happened with this last election. -Tim, St. Paul, MN

Comment on this post