As current office holders, each has been "charted" by Project Vote Smart.
For those not familiar with it, Project Vote Smart is premised on the notion that informed people make better choices in elections, so that it's core belief and value is that it should publish information online for voters and potential voters - party caucus attendees included - to allow them to know where a person stands so that decisions reach beyond "the cut of the jib," or past accomplishments in areas unrelated to holding a major elective office and discharging those duties.
In short, for those favoring having informed voters Project Vote Smart defines a clear and immediate format and "roadmap" of how a candidate for office, even if not in the current database, can, if willing, create a cogent, discernible record on the issues upon which a candidacy can be intelligently and fairly built.
PROJECT VOTE SMART SHOWS:
TARRYL CLARK ON THE ISSUES: Senator Clark's Project Vote Smart profile in aggregate is shown by individual pages, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a candidate I could support, based on her voting record, other noted factors, and statement of where she is on the issues.
MIKE JUNGBAUER ON THE ISSUES: Senator Jungbauer's Project Vote Smart profile in aggregate is shown by individual pages, here, here, here, and here. This is a candidate I find personally agreeable, but who I cannot support based on his voting record, other noted factors, and statement of where he is on the issues.
MAUREEN REED ON THE ISSUES:
BOTTOM LINE: If there was a 2006 set of Reed footprints when she ran as a Minnesota IP candidate, they were footprints in the sand and the tide's washed them away. Reed appears in no hurry whatsoever to remedy this lack of voter access to information on what she stands for and believes best, policy-wise, for Minnesota.
So far, Ms. Reed, Dr. Reed, all we know of you is a lot of out-of-district people you would not be representing like you and gave cash; and then that you, via the Hutchinson-Reed IP spoiler ticket, helped achieve Tim Pawlenty having a second term as Governor.
That alone should entitle you to zero support in DFL caucuses.
The clear choice is to define yourself as either proudly having a position on issues, or being fearful of having a publicly divulged position on the issues. Middle ground is lacking.
And in fairness, there is FEC disclosure and a bare-bones campaign website giving biographical information generally unrelated to legislative experience or issues-and-policy beliefs. Being a medical clinician and administrator over the years is proof of intelligence, and an achievement, but says nothing about why I would vote for you or not. You have not even floated an idea of how healthcare reform should proceed, and it's been your career work. Please, we are not mushrooms.
WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR YOU IN CAUCUS? DEFINE YOUSELF THAT WAY, PLEASE.
OR BE PROMPTLY PASSED UP.
______UPDATE_______
Maureen Reed is not a dunce, definitely not, nor a generally unattractive candidate and person, as is incumbent Michele Bachmann. But because Reed clearly is no dunce the game of playing only on saying "I merit it, there are problems, Bachmann is problematic" while hiding from taking positions and promising what she'd do with the job if we gave it to her is more vexing - because knowing she's not a dunce makes it crystal clear she and her out of district elite donor pool feel we in the district can be treated like mushrooms. And that offends greatly.
Today, date of the update, Sun. 19 July, a Reed emailing - read it - why in the world would any sane person buy into this deliberate hiding on the issues. Click the image, read it, and see if you are as offended as I am:
