Friday, May 14, 2010

Tom Emmer. Two DWI situations decades in the past. Missing a vote on making DWI law tougher. So what?

Strib has the article, online here. I quote only the headlining and a brief excerpt.

Emmer, MIA on DWI vote, ignites criticism

Passage of legislation imposing tougher consequences for drunken driving draws attention to the absence of the Republican gubernatorial candidate at other times.

By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune


Last update: May 13, 2010 - 10:57 PM

The Senate and House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday requiring that more serious first-time drunken-driving offenders use breath-activated ignition systems to drive. The legislation also provides for longer license revocations for repeat offenders.

But the 131-0 vote in the House brought more attention to the actions, or inactions, of the Republican-endorsed candidate for governor, Rep. Tom Emmer of Delano.

Emmer was among three House members who didn't vote on the measure. He said he missed it.

"I had a lunch I had to go to at noon, and it ran over, simple as that," Emmer said in an interview on the House floor after the vote.

Is that bordering on tacky sensationalism - not National Enquirer, but a step too far in that direction?

When faced with a situation of risk and questionable judgment in the past, it is very, very marginally related to fitness for office - quality of personal decision making IS separate and apart from quality of policy analysis and decision making, and ideological disposition.

There is a world of reason to attack Emmer's policy biases and ideological disposition, and how his predilections that way would impact his judgment and functioning if elected Governor.

But whether or not he drinks too much now, or did in the past, is distant from such real and immediate basic issues.

In running for office - if an opponent has some such DWI situation, even more immediate in time or in number of encounters - should you make it an issue distracting from where you and the opponent disagree on what's best for the community each of you is seeking to serve?

My gut belief - It can be mentioned in small groups and even joked over or raised in other appropriate situations; but it is not directly an election issue and should not be intruded too far and too publicly into where it would only serve to detract from what are more telling and legitimate election issues. Gossip and rumor and humor aside, it's not a big flag to be waved as if more important than it really is.

Enough.

BOTTOM LINE: Run an election on issues and ability; not old trash.

_______UPDATE________
Minn Post [Doug Grow] reports pettiness from both sides of the two party system; this link. It's at the level of what I would call cat-house commentary. The whores on each side making noise about the quality of services from the other. Why pour kerosene onto such tiny smoulderings that instead should extinguish? Fueling such fires is counterproductive to having informed intelligent voting.

________FURTHER UPDATE_________
I distinguish fair game from foul. An attack in general, on missing votes in too great a number, that allegation, DFL candidate Mark Dayton in an emailing noted:

When Representative Emmer missed the vote in the Minnesota House on Governor Pawlenty's unallotments, his excuse was he was attending his son's hockey practice. He later admitted he was attending a political event in Willmar.
When he missed a crucial vote on the Outdoor Heritage Fund, his excuse was he was attending his daughter's softball game. That vote, however, occurred after midnight!

Rep. Emmer claims government is not working; well he's certainly not. He's missed nearly half the votes in the last crucial week of the legislative session. And some of his excuses are truly unbelievable.

Tell Minnesotans the truth, Rep. Emmer. And get back to the work you're being paid by taxpayers to do.

I have no complaint with that criticism as fair commentary. Mishandling of the job and neglecting the duties is relevant, and could also be a charge leveled against Pawlenty and against Bachmann.