Doug Wardlow says he wouldn’t be ‘political’ as Minnesota attorney general. What does that mean?

Republican candidate Doug Wardlow: "I’m not going to be doing anything political with the attorney general’s office."
MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan
Republican candidate Doug Wardlow: "I’m not going to be doing anything political with the attorney general’s office."

When Doug Wardlow got into the race for Minnesota attorney general, there weren’t a lot of others eager to challenge three-term DFL incumbent Lori Swanson. But a lot has changed since then — not only to the other side of the ticket, but to Wardlow’s chance of winning the office.

Swanson got out of the race, then got back in, and then got back out again to make an unsuccessful bid for governor. Those moves caused a batch of DFL hopefuls to suffer through their own start-stop-and-start-again campaigns for attorney general. Then, just days before a DFL primary that would promote the party’s strongest and best-known candidate, Keith Ellison, the Minneapolis congressman was hit by an allegation of emotional and one-time physical abuse by a former live-in girlfriend.


All of which has made Wardlow — who once might have been considered a ticket-filler for the GOP — into a candidate who could be the first Republican attorney general in Minnesota in 48 years. The few polls conducted on the race show Wardlow and Ellison tied, with enough undecided voters to make it anyone’s contest.

“We’ve got momentum and I’m traveling all over the state and have done hundreds of campaign stops and every event we go to, there’s ever-increasing numbers of people coming and increasing enthusiasm,” Wardlow said. “The polls are looking good and we’re on a very good path. I think it’s because of the message. Everywhere we go, Minnesotans understand that the attorney general shouldn’t be political.”

Ellison, Wardlow argues, is too political. But for that theme to play to Wardlow’s advantage, he has to keep attention focused away from his own politics. Which is why in an interview it is difficult to get Wardlow to state a position — any position — on many issues.

It’s not just interviews, though. The “policies” page on his campaign website offers photos captioned with his putative positions on an array of issues: “Protect Minnesota Families,” “Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities,” “Minnesota First,” etc. But clicking on any of those items only brings up a larger version of the photo, not any more detail about those positions. Wardlow said the campaign is working on updating the webpage.

Wardlow has also sought to apply his aversion to stating policy preferences retroactively. During a forum on TPT’s Almanac, a video was shown of Wardlow opposing a gender-neutral school bathroom measure. In response, Wardlow said he was merely representing a client, and said he could defend LGBT rights as attorney general if that was state law. ”I’m going to fight for the legal rights of every single Minnesotan when I’m attorney general, regardless of race, regardless of creed, regardless of sex, regardless of sexual orientation,” he said. “As attorney general, my views are irrelevant.”

In an interview at his Burnsville campaign office, he said he thinks LGBT Minnesotans could trust him to represent their position in court and would not seek outside counsel to take on cases involving LGBT rights. “I think that I can represent the interests of the state of Minnesota just fine,” he said. “I mean, lawyers are expressing political opinions on things all the time and they go on to represent clients regardless of their political opinions. That’s just the job of being a lawyer, right?”

A not-so-non-political past

Wardlow grew up in Eagan and graduated from Eagan High School before going on to attend Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. for both his undergraduate and law degree (Republican nominee for governor Jeff Johnson also attended Georgetown Law).

After getting his J.D., Wardlow clerked for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson before becoming an associate for a Washington D.C. firm, working under Robert Lighthizer, the current U.S. trade representative. From there he went on to spend six years as an associate with the Minneapolis firm of Parker Rosen before returning Lighthizer’s firm in 2014. Later that same year, he started work as a staff attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based Christian legal non-profit that takes on First Amendment cases.

In between, in 201o, Wardlow won election to Minnesota House District 38B (the same district his father, Lynn Wardlow, represented from 2003 to 2008.) After redistricting, Wardlow lost the race for the new 51B to Laurie Halverson, 52 percent to 48 percent. He and his wife Jenny now live in Prior Lake with their three children.

For his part, Ellison has provided plenty of fodder for Wardlow’s line of criticism. Ellison has made numerous statements about how state attorneys general are more important than Congressmen because it is where effective challenges to Trump administration policy has originated. And he previously said he doesn’t plan to step down as deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (though last week Ellison told WCCO that he would consider resigning if elected.)

“It’s clear to me that we need an attorney general who’s going to focus the office on the rule of law, take the politics of the office,” Wardlow said. “That’s what’s always driven me in my interest in politics and public service generally. I think that there’s a real opportunity here to, to get the office back into shape and focus it on Minnesota and not on national things, not on political things, but rather keeping Minnesota safe and making sure Minnesota’s fair.”


But Wardlow has hardly been a political bystander. He spent two years as a member of the state House of Representatives, and was not known for shying away from taking conservative positions. He argued that the Affordable Care Act was an unconstitutional expansion of federal government powers, for example, calling it “an unconscionable law” that “eviscerates the structure of our constitutional form of government.”

In 2012, he supported two proposed constitutional amendments: One to require a photo ID to vote; and one banning same-sex marriage. Both were defeated at the polls that November. 

After leaving the Legislature, he testified against allowing transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds with their sexual identity. And as a legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom — the client he was representing during the school bathroom hearing — he defended the placement of a cross in a Belle Plaine park and helped represent an Atlanta police chief who said he was fired for stating personal views against same-sex marriage.

In fact, Wardlow is associated with some of the organization’s most high-profile cases, including its defense of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who refused a wedding cake order from a same-gender couple. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated due process by showing bias against Phillips.

While Wardlow portrays the ADF as a legal non-profit that defends attacks on First Amendment rights of citizens, particularly religious freedom, the organization itself describes its mission much more broadly. “It is not enough to just win cases; we must change the culture, and the strategy of Alliance Defending Freedom ensures lasting victory,” it states on its website.

Not pushing ‘any kind of policy view’

Wardlow said he doesn’t think the work he did at ADF would have anything to do with him seeking the attorney general’s office. “The attorney general shouldn’t be a political position and it shouldn’t be positioned as pushing forward any kind of policy view or any kind of advocacy,” he said.

Why wouldn’t Wardlow be expected to do what Republican attorneys general have done at least since the election of Barack Obama: file suits to challenge federal actions it finds objectionable from both a legal and political standpoint? And if so, how is that different from what he accuses Ellison of planning?

In a campaign piece aimed at supporters and volunteers, Wardlow asked them to rank the actions they want him to take if elected. One of those is “Defend President Trump’s agenda in court.” Others are to “prosecute illegal trafficking in fetal body parts” and “investigate and prosecute illegal voting.”

Wardlow said that campaign literature was  aimed at “getting the base fired up… we were soliciting input.” He first said it was asking for suggestions and didn’t say he would do any of those things. But after being read the words on the card “Doug Wardlow will institute these duties when he is your MN Attorney General,” he said he wouldn’t, in fact, take all of those actions.

“I can tell you this, I’m not going to use — and I’ve said this consistently — I’m not going to be doing anything political with the attorney general’s office,” he said. “When we’re talking about President Trump’s agenda, I’m not going to be pushing any particular agenda.”

But Ellison’s campaign has spotlighted a video of Wardlow at the GOP booth at the state fair in 2017 saying he would use the office to go after alleged vote fraud and illegal voting as part of an effort to make the state more Republican.

“If we win the attorney general’s office, which I can do, we can change the political complexion of the state long-term because the attorney general should be going after election fraud,” he said at the GOP forum. “It should be looking into illegal voting; it should be working with county attorneys to prosecute illegal voting.”

A hands-off approach to regulation

Wardlow has also been critical of current Attorney General Lori Swanson, saying he would take a look at cases brought by or joined by the AG’s office and decide whether the state will continue to pursue them. Swanson, for example, joined other attorneys general in challenges to the Trump travel ban and the separation of refugee families at the Mexican border.

“I do think it’s inappropriate — some of the lawsuits that Lori Swanson has brought to obstruct the president’s agenda. So we’ll have to look at those lawsuits and if there are any ongoing, see if it makes sense to continue them. But that would be the case regardless of who is president. It doesn’t matter if it’s a President Trump or some other president. I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the attorney general’s office to do things that are political or try to push any particular policy agenda through the courts.”

Ellison has accused the GOP of seeking to overturn one of the most-popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act: the ban on terminating or not insuring people who have pre-existing conditions. A suit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues that once the Congress ended the individual mandate that all residents have health insurance, something the Supreme Court upheld, the entire law is no longer constitutional. Nineteen other states with Republican-led governments have joined the suit.

Wardlow said he doesn’t know if Paxton should have brought the suit but said he would not have joined in had he been attorney general. “I do not oppose — and actually support — pre-existing conditions coverage, but that’s not really relevant because it’s a policy issue.”

One of the primary functions of the office is consumer protection and business regulation. Wardlow said he would keep that focus but also wants to beef up the AG’s criminal division, which takes on complex prosecutions at the request of county attorneys around the state. He also said he would like to take a stronger role fighting crimes that target senior citizens; against welfare fraud and child care fraud; against human trafficking; and combating the opioid crisis.

“It’s not just a criminal law problem,” he said on Almanac regarding opioid abuse. “It’s a civil law problem.”

He said the criminal division could look at illegal trafficking of “methamphetamine precursors” from Mexico. “There are many different aspects of this problem,” he said. “We can’t just sue a drug company or a big pharmaceutical and think that’s going to solve the problem. It could do a lot of good but there are many other things we could do: prevention, education, we need to do drug courts. A lot of different things.”  

Wardlow also expressed some misgivings about the direction of business regulation in the state. During an MPR interview in the early summer, he criticized the attorney general’s suit against 3M over groundwater pollution in Washington County, describing the suit as harassing the company on “flimsy evidence.”

“We have a tremendously large and growing administrative state,” he said of regulation in general. “I think that’s problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it burdens job creators and individuals and farmers and workers. But also it undermines the rule of law and it takes away power from our elected representatives.”

“It becomes more problematic when state agencies go beyond their statutory authority or push the envelope and essentially usurp legislative power authority and that does happen. I think there’s a role for the attorney general to play in counseling agencies in the adoption of rules to make sure that those rules comport with the statutes and don’t go beyond them.”

Wardlow has also repeatedly criticized Ellison and other DFLers for the handling of the allegations made by Ellison’s ex, Karen Monahan, regarding emotional and physical abuse. He says it’s a double standard when Democrats in the state and nationally say they believe allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh but are mostly silent on Monahan’s.

“The folks that are opposing Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court, if they applied the same standard to Mr. Ellison, would need to conclude that he’s completely unfit for the office of Attorney General,” Wardlow said. “And yet I haven’t heard too much from national Democrats or the Minnesota DFL on that score.”

But he also continues to support Kavanaugh’s nomination to the court, while also saying that “it’s very important that anyone who believes that they’re a victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault or anything of that nature has an opportunity to be heard.

“But Judge Kavanaugh isn’t on the ballot here,” Wardlow said. “Keith Ellison is.”

 

Comments (45)

  1. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 10/08/2018 - 11:17 am.

    He will be passive, I suppose. He wants to be a time server.

  2. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 10/08/2018 - 11:29 am.

    Guessing it means he’d spend his time working on the state of Minnesota’s business, not wasting his time and our treasure filing specious lawsuits against the President that have zero chance of being successful.

    In short, he’s not Keith Ellison.

  3. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 10/08/2018 - 11:31 am.

    It means he’s not being honest, but that’s Republicans for you… bait n switch.

  4. Submitted by David Markle on 10/08/2018 - 11:40 am.

    I do think it’s pretty clear that Ellison intends to use a very publicized role in the AG office as a political stepping stone.

  5. Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/08/2018 - 11:56 am.

    Still annoyed at Lori Swanson for starting this whole mess, although not particularly thrilled about some of the things about her that have come to light since she did.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 10/08/2018 - 12:38 pm.

      I’m also still annoyed at the DFL for endorsing a non-viable candidate and opening the door for Swanson to run for Governor.

      If Wardlow gets elected AG, it will be be a DFL own goal.

      • Submitted by Sean Olsen on 10/08/2018 - 01:58 pm.

        She was leading the balloting when she dropped out! It’s almost like her heart really wasn’t in it.

        • Submitted by Pat Terry on 10/08/2018 - 02:38 pm.

          The guy running against Swanson for the AG endorsement was such an unqualified joke I doubt she cared about the endorsement. People who would choose a guy like that over a 3 term incumbent don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

          But the non-viable candidate to whom I was referring was Erin Murphy. When the DFL endorsed Murphy, that gave Swanson the opening to run for governor.

      • Submitted by Richard Schulze on 10/08/2018 - 07:46 pm.

        The DFL choosing to back Ellison is definitely an unforced error.

  6. Submitted by Dan Landherr on 10/08/2018 - 12:08 pm.

    “Wardlow said the campaign is working on updating the webpage.”

    This should be disqualifying. He’s campaigning as a “pig in a poke” and hoping enough people dislike Ellison to vote for him. If he’s not willing to state his positions on issues you can be pretty sure those positions are quite unpopular. Looking over his record that appears to be true. His statements are equivalent to “ignore my record and just trust me”.

  7. Submitted by Roy Everson on 10/08/2018 - 12:09 pm.

    Wardlow is one of those too-clever righties who aver to low info voters that a very political office can be nonpolitical. Bunk. Every issue Ellison chooses to address that Wardlow would ignore is still an issue. Ignoring it is to say it’s unimportant. Choosing not to be the people’s attorney general is a political choice. Not to decide is to decide.

  8. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/08/2018 - 12:21 pm.

    “[I]t’s very important that anyone who believes that they’re a victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault or anything of that nature has an opportunity to be heard.”

    It’s just not important that we believe them.

    • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 10/08/2018 - 04:52 pm.

      “It’s just not important that we believe them when they make accusations without the thinnest shred of evidence.”

      Guessing spell check mangled your comment. FTFY

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/09/2018 - 09:10 am.

        Guessing you don’t have the first clue what the word “evidence” means. Yes, a victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault.

        I guess it’s more important to put conservative men on the bench than it is to treat women with dignity.

  9. Submitted by Pat Terry on 10/08/2018 - 12:24 pm.

    Its a good strategy – going after the peoole who are uncomfortable with Ellison and might think this guy isn’t so bad.

    The problem is that its not true. Everything Wardlow has done prior to his attorney general suggests he will be very, very bad.

    Unless Monahan (who is now being represented by Wardlow’s former law partner) shows someone the tape she claims she has, suck it up and vote for Ellison.

  10. Submitted by ian wade on 10/08/2018 - 12:39 pm.

    It means he’s full of it.

  11. Submitted by James Hamilton on 10/08/2018 - 12:50 pm.

    Don’t kid yourself, folks. Both of the major party candidates will further politicize the AG’s office, each in pursuit of the governor’s mansion.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/08/2018 - 01:05 pm.

      Just about anything any attorney general will do is “political.” The term, to me, means that it relates to how we govern ourselves, or how we are governed. You can claim that reining in the authority of administrative agencies is not political, but since it relates directly to the operation of government, it is about as political as it gets.

      It’s a question of who will be “partisan.”

  12. Submitted by Chris Commers on 10/08/2018 - 12:58 pm.

    I read the piece twice and can’t follow Doug Wardlow’s rationale. If he favored photo identification and opposed same sex marriage (two state constitutional amendment issues) as a state rep., wouldn’t he be compelled to do what he thought best as a state constitutional officer (attorney general)? Does the man think we are rubes? Apparently. Or perhaps he’d work for an end to voter suppression efforts and attacks on LGBTQ rights? I’m not hopeful. I hope those voting for him do so with eyes wide open and expect he’ll continue the advocacy he has previously demonstrated. And I hope the rest of us vote for one of his opponents.

  13. Submitted by Jim Roth on 10/08/2018 - 01:06 pm.

    Wardlow would be a different political attorney general. It’s obvious on his support of Kavanaugh while attacking Ellison. He has his own double standard. An AG is per se political in both the cases they take and don’t take.

  14. Submitted by Matt Haas on 10/08/2018 - 01:08 pm.

    Of course not, it would interfere with forcing his religion on the masses.

  15. Submitted by Tim Smith on 10/08/2018 - 01:34 pm.

    It means

    He will not use the office to fight laws and regulations passed in Washington he doesn’t like which is what Ellison is all jacked up to do.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 10/08/2018 - 02:19 pm.

      Riiiighhht. It also means that he would use his office to fight an entire laundry list of grievances put forth by his religion. These people simply can’t help themselves.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 10/08/2018 - 02:56 pm.

      Hmm, are you saying that it’s wrong for state AGs to “to fight laws and regulations passed in Washington” that they don’t like? You like, fighting the ACA, right? Or is it OK for state AGs to fight the ACA in court?

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/08/2018 - 05:00 pm.

      If there is a law or regulation passed in Washington that the Attorney General believes is unconstitutional, shouldn’t he try to fight it?

  16. Submitted by JUDITH MONSON on 10/08/2018 - 02:06 pm.

    Re Ellison controversy: Having worked in domestic abuse In a recovery setting, listening and believing the victim are the first 2 steps in response, and are intertwined with one another. Truly listening implies believing: hearing the genuineness of that person’s experience in their own words (maybe for both victim-ee and victim-er). Believing that it was “true” to that person’s experience is quite different from your judgment one way or another about “does this sound plausible to me?” You, what “you believe,” at least in this instance, doesn’t matter. The victim-ee and victim-er (both vulnerable) do. The third step is “action” (if you care). Of what sort? Some possibilities: 1) become (as in “grow”) more sensitive to victimization of all sorts (your job is “you,” your own thought-behavior, not being judge and jury of someone else’s behavior; want to be a judge? — go to law school); 2) think about (hoping to understand) the complex sources of victimization of all kinds (when you complained to the neighbor who threw trash in your yard, did you take time to “listen” enough to “hear”/”believe” he/she is going through a divorce, scared of losing the kids, thus not paying attention to whomever’s yard?); 3) become a volunteer advocate in court (again, let someone else be the judge — your job, most of all, to offer support, especially in how you “non-judge,” in how you “think”). In short, walk in another’s shoes, rather than insisting everyone else buy the brand you’re wearing. My two cents! Thanks for listening!

  17. Submitted by Tory Koburn on 10/08/2018 - 02:41 pm.

    “…he criticized the attorney general’s suit against 3M over groundwater pollution in Washington County, describing the suit as harassing the company on “flimsy evidence.””

    That’s amazing, considering the wealth of academic research that found extensive and significant amounts of PCBs and heavy metals downriver from the plant – specifically, between the Twin Cities and the Quad Cities. They even found it in mayflies!

    Absolutely disgusting. Wardlow I mean. Mayflies too.

  18. Submitted by Josh Lease on 10/08/2018 - 02:43 pm.

    Wardlow is trying to play people for suckers.

    According to him, we should believe his words, even if his acts and earlier words contradict them. We should trust him now, even though he’s given us no reason to do so. We should blindly accept that he will be a fine and apolitical AG, even though the office is a political one and he’s been a hyper-partisan his entire adult life.

    No, we cannot trust Doug Wardlow.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 10/08/2018 - 02:59 pm.

      Hey, this is how Scott Walker got elected. Keep your agenda hidden, then “drop the bomb”.

      It worked before, it can work again.

  19. Submitted by Karen Sandness on 10/08/2018 - 03:10 pm.

    I don’t know who is right in Keith Ellison’s dispute with his ex, and I wish the DFL had chosen someone else as its candidate. However, I will vote for him.

    It’s as simple as this: The Republican Party has been hijacked by leaders who have gone beyond conservatism, dropped off the right edge of the political spectrum, and become either reactionaries, who want to undo the social, environmental, political, and economic reforms of the twentieth century, or fascists, who absolutely worship the military and the police, conflate religion and nationalism, and think that patriotism means marching in lockstep with every authoritarian institution in the country.

    I have occasionally voted for Republicans in the past. No longer. If Eisenhower or Nixon, or even Reagan (whom I detested), came back to life, the current Republicans would sneer at them and call them “too liberal.” I will not support a party whose leaders are vandals and bullies and who seem to encourage their followers to be mean, greedy, and ignorant.

  20. Submitted by Henk Tobias on 10/08/2018 - 03:17 pm.

    Its pretty simple, he’ll be political.

  21. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 10/08/2018 - 05:59 pm.

    The job:

    The Attorney General of Minnesota is the chief legal officer for the State of Minnesota. The office of the attorney general represents and provides legal advice to over 100 state agencies, boards and commissions. The attorney general is popularly elected to four-year terms in midterm election years and is not subject to term limits. The attorney general represents the state in state and federal court, as well as in administrative adjudication and rulemaking hearings. The attorney general handles felony criminal appeals, advises local prosecutors in the conduct of criminal trials and handles cases at the request of local prosecutors. The attorney general is also responsible for representing residential and small business utility consumers through participation in matters before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The salary for this position is $113,859/year.

    Seems like just doing all this would be a full-time job without trying to influence the country, or being a leader of a political party (DNCC).

  22. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 10/09/2018 - 07:38 am.

    Ms. Sandness and Mr. Tobias are spot-on.

    In a society that purports to be democratic, no one running for office (I almost wrote “political office,” which is what it is…) can do so without being “political,” nor can the office-holder hope to make any decision more important than how many paper clips to order a non-political one. Mr. Wardlow either has no understanding of government and its role in our society, or he’s a blatant liar – or perhaps both.

    Ms. Sandness and I are on the same page, paragraph and sentence.

  23. Submitted by Alex Schieferdecker on 10/09/2018 - 08:42 am.

    “If we win the attorney general’s office, which I can do, we can change the political complexion of the state long-term because the attorney general should be going after election fraud,”

    “Complexion?” Oops, the mask slipped a bit there, Doug!

    • Submitted by William Holm on 10/09/2018 - 07:04 pm.

      Doug’s a rare bird who doesn’t necessarily fly in political flocks. Based upon my conversations with him, Wardlow doesn’t want to help Democrats or Republicans per se. Both the article and some of the comments are skeptical and demeaning to a man who has tried to remain aloof from party politics. When he says he will uphold the law, regardless, he really means it. As with most critics who disparage the man or the office, I daresay they wouldn’t do as good of a job themselves.

    • Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 10/10/2018 - 07:10 am.

      This is probably exactly what he would attempt to do,…

      being one of today’s crop of “conservatives”…

      even though he’s being very coy about that,…

      he’d use the lies continuously spread by the right wing about “voter fraud,”…

      which has been proven over and over again NOT to exist,…

      (except, strangely enough, for a few Republicans who have tried to vote in multiple locations where they own property)…

      to make it much more difficult for minorities and people of color to vote.

      In the name of voter fraud,…

      which ALWAYS translates into voter SUPPRESSION,…

      he’ll change the “complexion” of voters from the rainbow that it should be,…

      to being far more wealthy, straight, white, “conservative,” and male.

  24. Submitted by Julie Stroeve on 10/10/2018 - 07:10 pm.

    regardless of how one aligns with party politics, there’s some surety here. Wardlow believes that it’s correct to return our rights as women to pre-1970. so let’s just call it 1950. where women are at home vacuuming and preparing meals for a husband who works and a child or two or three. there might be another child on the way because birth control is not available. Wardlow wants us to return to that place where women have no rights and black and brown people have no rights vis a vis voting or at the workplace. healthcare should return to pre-Affordable Care Act so that millions of Americans have no access to healthcare. damn the innocents who have no voice and no opportunity to health. this is an America that I cannot imagine. Wardlow and Johnson would take Minnesota back to the 1960s. that[s just not a place we want to go to.

  25. Submitted by Jim Elwell on 10/12/2018 - 10:33 am.

    Yup. Wardlow won’t be at all political after he fires the 42 attorneys in the AGs office who might lean DFL.

    https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2018/10/gop-ag-candidate-wardlow-vows-to-fire-dfl-attorneys/

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/12/2018 - 12:20 pm.

      The irony is that if you point this out to the people who are parroting the “he won’t be political” line, they will ask with some indignation why that would be wrong.

  26. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 10/14/2018 - 05:08 pm.

    Not to simply pile on but with Wardlow’s promise to turn the AG’s office into a Republican redoubt by purging all Democrats, he’s exposed his innate dishonesty.

    My original comment which was one of the early comments simply stated that we could safely assume that Wardlow was lying when he said he wouldn’t politicize the office. I’m not bragging or claiming to have told you so, my point here is that without knowing anything at all about Wardlow other than he’s the Republican candidate, I was able to reliably predict that he was lying… because THAT’S the nature of current Republicans. If they’re lips are moving you know they’re lying.

    What we’re looking at here is a complete collapse of moral, patriotic, and intellectual credibility enveloping the Republican Party.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 10/15/2018 - 08:42 am.

      Yes, a Trumpian liar in the purest sense. He was/is given a very good set of circumstances to win the office and become the first GOP statewide office holder since TPAW and he is unable to constrain his partisan, lying fervor:

      “Republican Doug Wardlow told supporters at a private fundraiser this week that he plans a mass firing of Democrats that work in the state attorney general’s office if he wins in November…In remarks during a fundraising event Monday in Shakopee for Congressman Jason Lewis, Wardlow described plans for a partisan purge. QUOTE: “It’s really exciting now to be in a position for the first time in a half century to take this office back,” Wardlow said. “We’re going to fire 42 Democratic attorneys right off the bat and get Republican attorneys in there.”

Leave a Reply