Media Panel Week 1 - David Brauer

(Coordinator’s Note: David Brauer, who wrote the following media-panel critique of this week’s gubernatorial debate, is a Twin Cities-based writer and commentator, and the former morning talk host at KSTP-AM.)

Environment

Bravo to Mark Dayton for noting that the "why can't we all get along?" philosophy -- so hopefully articulated by most candidates here -- often breaks down when goals are vastly different. Boo to Dayton for not suggesting which way he would go on ANY of the intractable problems articulated in the E-democracy question (not the others were much more decisive).

Thankfully, some candidates mixed it up on feedlots -- a great illustration of tough choices. The back story here is interesting: Skip Humphrey has come out for a two-year moratorium on feedlots; he's the target moratorium opponents Mondale and Benson are aiming at (Freeman takes the middle ground, calling for a study, perhaps because his labor base is one of the quiet forces benefiting from factory farm construction). Benson implies that there's no "real science" to support such drastic measures, without noting that the Carlson administration has dragged its feet on gathering the kind of data necessary to evaluate these relatively new mega-facilities. Mondale cites the feedlot moratorium as the worst idea of the campaign (and from his own party!), and that it will have a long-term negative affect on our economy. Perhaps, but right now factory farms account for just 1 percent of Minnesota's ag wealth. As for the "chilling effect" on our ag economy, one presumes our land will be just as productive in two years as it is today (perhaps more so) so the bedrock economic reason for factory farms to locate here will remain.

Name your poison: moratorium opponents are whistling past the feedlot that mega-spills won't keep happening before the "science" and preventative standards are in place; moratorium supporters hope economic growth won't go elsewhere, though Marty and Pentel think big feedlots won't help in the long run anyway.

Internet

This was a fun one. The Contributing-To-The-Hype award goes to Ted Mondale, who breathlessly claimed that "no candidate can consider running for office without a web site and e-mail address." Oh, Ted, I'll bet it could be done.

Mondale, Ventura, and Humphrey stake out explicit no-tax positions; only Marty notes that Net tax policy should be consistent with similar forms of commerce (such as catalog sales). He's the only one who comes close to pondering the possibly unfair advantages that a tax-free Net could gain versus competing technologies (including retail businesses paying those high but important property and sales taxes). Curiously, the Republicans are missing from Tax Break mania -- Benson, Quist and Dick Borrell (Your Third-Person Governor) do not swear to keep their mitts off.

Censorship: Quist opposes "genuine" censorship, but does that mean he supports some inauthentic kind? Borrell would prevent companies from sending you ads for porno and phone sex. No one says they will mandate site-blocking software in schools -- Ventura comes the closest -- though Benson touts her efforts to provide such tools.

Everyone wants to open up state government info to the net, though Borrell goes the farthest, proposing live streaming video of committee hearings (oh, the bandwidth!). I say info-openness begins at home, and challenge candidates to become the first to put their campaign finance info on-line quickly -- on their own web site!

Humphrey, Pentel, Marty, Ventura, and Mondale all would expand net access in public places such as libraries; Humphrey suggests a phone model of affordability with wealthier net uses making private access cheaper for poor ones. Benson advocates public-private partnerships without specifying if that means public subsidy.

The most expensive proposal, short of a state wiring effort: Humphrey's pilot program to give 9th graders laptops with modems. Marty demonstrates he is a true net user by advocating a state program to improve reliability of service, at least a back-up during major disruptions. (Speaking of disruptions, where did Mike Freeman and Roy Terwilliger go?)

While the E-democracy folks offered candidates a chance to rip each other in their closing statements, only Mondale (see above), Dayton (ripping the current 20 percent property tax give-back plan of the governor and legislature), and Freeman (opposed to Norm's educational vouchers) took us up on it.

Dayton did get more specific with a plan to keep schools open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (thus dropping the other shoe from his proposal last week to pump more money into all parts of the school system), plus a $1,500 per-child tax credit in lieu of the property tax cuts. Freeman emphasized his strong support for property tax cuts over all others. (Interesting side-note: Democrats are usually the big proponents of progressive taxation, so isn't it interesting that the one candidate who proposes to cut the more regressive tax, the sales tax, is a fairly conservative Republican, Joanne Benson?)

No surprise, Marty and Ventura base their candidacy on resistance to special interests, though Marty offers specific applications and no pledge on taxes, while Ventura offers few specifics and an iron-clad pledge not to raise taxes.

Humphrey enthusiastically clambered aboard the educational standards and testing bandwagon, long a Republican issue.

Everyone promises to appoint a great team if elected.

And speaking of… thanks to the candidates and especially the E-debate team. I now have a little insight into how hard they've all worked, and they all deserve a hearty round of virtual applause!

Next time, folks, let's figure out a way to get the candidates to mix it up a little more…

Sincerely,