The DFL mailed a postcard on behalf of the Terri Bonoff campaign that implies that Judy Johnson is someone who would "impose a personal ideology into public school classrooms" because of her response to an intelligent design question at the TwinWest forum last month.
What this flyer conveniently neglects to mention is that Johnson also said at that forum that she would leave this issue up to local school boards to decide. Anyone who has had a three-minute conversation in the hall with Johnson knows that she is new to the intelligent design debate. She believes what she believes, but she is far from an ideological boogeyman (boogeywoman?) to be feared by Darwin fundamentalists and secular extremists. She would rather talk about local government aid, public safety, and property taxes.
Johnson expresses her beliefs without "imposing" them on anyone. Regardless of her views, the question is moot: the state Academic Standards for Science have been written and approved by the Legislature. Hypothetical questions on hot-button topics such as intelligent design, "conceal carry" legislation (old news, already in statute), and abortion (federal law), can be hyped to distract voters from more relevant issues like proven leadership, knowledge, and experience in government.
Terri Bonoff doesn't need red herrings to win; voters are smarter than that anyway. To her credit, campaign lit published so far by Bonoff's campaign (as opposed to the DFL party) takes the high road by focusing on her strengths in the business world, and her legislative interests like education and health care reform.
POLITICS
3 comments:
The flyer is unclear. Can you give us access to a better scan so we can read the flyer?
I cannot do so anytime soon, but the DFL could probably e-mail you a PDF.
Abortion is more a state than a national issue - and Roe v Wade could well get overturned in the Supreme Court. There are abortion bills before the legislature every session. I hope that should graphic photos of aborted fetuses show up on car windshields at some of the fundementalist churches in the district that you will also condemn those. Ditto with lit pieces that demonize gays.
The Science standards were addressed, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they get brought back. It's a fair question to ask.
My representative, Keith Ellison voted for a creationist amendment during the 2004 session. It was thanks to the Minnesota Family Council voter guide that I found that out.
It's interesting that your arguments on this sound like the democrats on gay marriage (we've got so many more important issues to talk about).
Post a Comment