{"id":35446,"date":"2013-03-28T12:15:52","date_gmt":"2013-03-28T17:15:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=35446"},"modified":"2013-03-28T09:05:33","modified_gmt":"2013-03-28T14:05:33","slug":"missions-stated-and-unstated-part-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=35446","title":{"rendered":"Missions Stated And Unstated – Part III"},"content":{"rendered":"

So the “debate” among the DFL candidates for the non-partisan Minneapolis mayor’s race took place yesterday.<\/p>\n

What happened? \u00a0Probably nothing all that newsworthy; it was a debate of\u00a0DFL candidates. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

For a non-partisan race.<\/p>\n

Of course, Cam Winton – who is running as a fiscal conservative and social moderate – was left out of the debate since he’s not a DFLer (anymore).<\/p>\n

There’s been a flurry of emails between Winton and the Humphrey Institute. \u00a0And I personally wrote Dr. Larry Jacobs and the Humphrey Institute to get clarification on the debate about the debate.<\/p>\n

The debate looks a little like this – and I’ll paraphrase both sides, since the email trail is a long one:<\/p>\n

Winton<\/strong>:\u00a0The Humphrey Institute should not be running partisan debates for a non-partisan race. \u00a0It violated the Humphrey Institute’s mission. \u00a0And shunting him to the separate “losers debate” with the likes of Leslie Davis and, I dunno, Howling Cat LeLouche and Fancy Ray McCloney and having a DFL-only debate is a straight up sign of bias.<\/p>\n

Jacobs<\/strong>: \u00a0The Humphrey Institute is aware that there is intense competition for the DFL endorsement – and this debate is analogous to the intra-party debates in the run-up to, say, the Presidential or Gubernatorial primaries. \u00a0The Humphrey Institute invites plenty of Republicans to marquee events, and Winton is going to be the subject of a separate event with plenty of media coverage [other than the “Losers’ Debate”]<\/p>\n

Perhaps Jacobs’ explanation – that the partisan debate is a nod to a traditional endorsement process \u00a0– makes sense, in and of itself. \u00a0Maybe. \u00a0The Minneapolis mayor race\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>officially non-partisan, so the “endorsement”\u00a0should\u00a0<\/em>be meaningless – but we all know that in Minneapolis, it’s not. \u00a0 It’s an important bit of PR in Minneapolis, a city full of people who vote party first and foremost.<\/p>\n

And that’s the part that sticks in my craw.<\/p>\n

So here’s a question for Dr. Jacobs: since the DFL-only “debate” is designed to inform voters in advance of an endorsement that is…<\/p>\n