Flannagan brings authenticity and truthfulness to her candidacy, attributes that Tafoya cannot claim

To the Editor:

The October 16 debate between Michele Tofoya and Peggy Flannagan on MPR was one of the better ones I have heard. Thanks to them for balancing cool civility with pointed arguments. Tafoya hammered away on the fraud that occurred under the watch of the Walz-Flannigan administration. She also attempted to brand Flannagan as an ideological progressive who would not work "across the aisle." Flannagan repeatedly referred to Tafoya's early allegiance to Trump and her well-documented "evolving" away from the MAGA mindset after she was nominated. Apparently behind the times regarding her evolution, the President has just endorsed Tafoya and has offered to come to Minnesota to campaign for her.

For me, the issue comes down to this. Should Minnesota vote in a senator who modifies views according to the shifting power sources that she identifies with? Should Minnesota have a senator who is consistent about her views, even though her ability to work across the aisle is not yet known (which is also true of Tafoya). Years ago, many voted for Paul Wellstone not because they agreed with his positions, but because he came across to them as authentic and honest. Flannagan will have to use her smarts to learn about dealing with the dynamics of the Senate. But so did Paul. And Wellstone worked across the aisle to pass significant bills, most notably much needed mental health insurance reform. Peggy Flannagan brings a similar authenticity and truthfulness to her candidacy, attributes that Michele Tafoya cannot claim.



Dan Gartrell

St. Paul,  Retired professor from Bemidji State University