Skip to Content

Star Tribune's gubernatorial mental health story gets answers

By David Brauer | 01/12/10

... and you can rest assured that DFLers R.T. Rybak, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Matt Entenza, Tom Rukavina, John Marty, Tom Bakk, Paul Thissen, Susan Gaertner and Ole Savior, as well as Republicans Marty Seifert, Pat Anderson and Phil Herwig say they have not "received therapy or treatment of any kind for use of alcohol or prescription or nonprescription drugs, or for depression or anxiety."

The refusnik camp, for those of you who found reporter Pat Doyle's dragnet offensive and want to limit your selections thusly: DFLers Steve Kelley and Republicans Leslie Davis, Tom Emmer, David Hann and Bill Haas. The latter two did not return the questionnaire.

Doyle's query has been the subject of some discussion in this space; he writes that his emailed survey was designed to mirror what Mark Dayton disclosed last month — which is why untreated mental health or chem-dep issues, or potentially more serious disorders, weren't asked about.

Pat Anderson — who sounds like she's dropping out to run for auditor — complained, "I don't think we should all be asked to come clean on every failing of every other candidate," but answered anyway.

(Capital reporters did ask Dayton for more details, but he refused to share them. The other candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief about that.)

Kelley asserts such questioning would deter candidates, and Minnesotans from getting treatment they may need; he's countered by polisci prof/quote machine Steven Schier, who says such stigmas are dwindling. Over at MPR, Bob Collins, a critic of the questioning, says there's little objective proof Schier is right; such is punditry. Doyle quoted no experts ripping his story idea.

Despite the attention-grabbing nature of the subject (in previous Strib coverage and in this space), the story appeared on page B5 of my Minneapolis edition. 

Comments (3)

Submitted by Bob Collins on January 12, 2010 - 9:30am.

Re: B5

A "Candidates are 'normal'" headline probably wouldn't have attracted much interest on B1.

Submitted by Steve Aschburner on January 12, 2010 - 1:11pm.

Ridiculous approach, and good for the candidates who declined to participate.

The next questionnaire was likely to be, "Tell us precisely when/where you stopped beating your spouse or parnter."

Never mind that pursuing Dayton's particular demon with all others is cherrypicking. If a politician's behavior warrants further investigation -- say, because it's erratic -- so be it. But maybe the Strib doesn't want to pay for all the watchdogs that would be necessary to properly cover this vast gubernatorial field, and is opting for these citizen-politican-journalists to self-report.

Submitted by Bob Collins on January 12, 2010 - 1:52pm.

That's the problem with asking the question, a "yes" answer requires a probe into the circumstances. A "yes" answer could be a reference to treatment for, say, schizophrenia. It also could be a few sessions with a therapist after the death of a spouse.

As to the assertion that there's no political stigma associated with mental illness anymore, if that's true, why would the Strib make the distinction of "mental" health when asking the question?