Give Doug Wardlow and his campaign advisers some credit: They fashioned a campaign strategy ready made for taking on DFL attorney general nominee Keith Ellison.
Wardlow’s once long-shot campaign has positioned him as the anti-politics politician, the guy who, he says, will play the AG job straight down the middle. Though the former one-term state representative is most comfortable on his party’s right flank and led a conservative public life before entering the campaign, it is Ellison who would bring politics into the state Capitol office of the AG, Wardlow asserts.
Or as he said during a recent debate sponsored by KSTP: “There’s no one more political than Keith Ellison.”
Will it work? Back when the DFL was mostly ignoring Wardlow — the spring and summer of this year — its candidates for attorney general inadvertently fed into Wardlow’s narrative. Like Democratic attorney general candidates across the country, most of the Minnesota contenders pitched themselves to DFL voters as the one best suited to curb the legal excesses of President Donald Trump.
With Democrats in the minority in Congress, it was the state legal officers who had become the party’s highest-profile champions, fighting Trump policies on immigration, net neutrality, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, blocking 3D-printed firearms. And many were winning.
Ellison even gave up a safe seat in Congress, where he was building a national standing among the party’s progressive wing, to run for the job. “Everyone knows how ossified Congress can be nowadays,” Ellison explained to a small group of supporters in North Branch in July. “But I’m not running from Congress. I would be more than happy to return there. It was a tremendous honor. But I think about the fact that I can write a bill, introduce it, get 100 people to sign it and then still it doesn’t go anywhere. As attorney general I can actually do something.”
Ellison gave an example: He introduced a bill that would have prevented fast-food restaurants and other employers of low-wage workers from agreeing not to poach each other’s workers. The practice was allegedly a way to keep workers from seeking higher pay in a different job. Before his bill could get a hearing, however, the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts filed legal actions and won a consent decree to end such agreements.
“I think it would be more emotionally satisfying for me to feel like I’m actually doing something for the people I care about, rather than just drafting a bill and giving a speech.”
A political fight over being … political
Democratic AGs didn’t invent this strategy. Republican attorneys general frequently challenged Obama administration policies on the Affordable Care Act and immigration, including a pending lawsuit that seeks to have what remains of ACA ruled unconstitutional. Former Texas AG Greg Abbott, now the state’s governor, once said of his duties: “I go into the office, I sue the federal government, and I go home.”
Without commenting on those suits, Wardlow says he wouldn’t have joined them. He instead has tried to make the case that the office is overly politicized, and did so even before Ellison won a contested DFL primary. And he made it an issue before the revelation that Ellison’s former live-in girlfriend, Karen Monahan, had accused him of emotional and — in one instance — physical abuse.
While Ellison denied the allegations and tried to respond without appearing to be attacking Monahan, the issue stuck around. Only two weeks ago did two events occur that allowed Ellison to come up for air: An investigation commissioned by the state DFL by an employment law specialist could not substantiate the allegations after describing a tumultuous relationship and breakup. And a court-ordered release of divorce files involving the dissolution of Ellison’s marriage with Minneapolis school board member Kim Ellison showed no allegations of abuse. Instead, records showed that Kim Ellison was suffering from depression and multiple sclerosis and may have physically abused her husband.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Lorie Shaull[/image_credit][image_caption]Keith Ellison’s campaign is now focused on those undecided voters, especially undecided DFL-leaning voters.[/image_caption]
It was always unlikely that any investigation that didn’t support Monahan’s allegation would be accepted by Ellison’s opponents. Instead, the audience for the investigation might be DFL voters concerned about voting for someone accused of domestic violence. Since the report was released Oct. 1, the DFL’s play has been to shore up support for Ellison among DFL-friendly voters he should have wrapped up the day after the primary.
Two strategies are at work to do that. The first is to secure endorsements from prominent women. Former Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges was among the authors of an open letter titled “Without Reservation, We Support Keith Ellison” that addressed both their support for Ellison and their opposition to Wardlow. It also includes a review of the Ellingstad report and their concerns for Monahan’s embrace of conservative and Republican support leading up to the election. Ellison also appeared with former DFL candidate for governor Erin Murphy as well as LGBTQ leaders, labor leaders, gun safety advocates and legal community representatives. State Rep. Ilhan Omar endorsed Ellison in a video posted on the campaign website.
The second piece of the strategy is to turn the spotlight back on Wardlow. Ellison and the DFL were slow to turn their attention toward the GOP nominee’s record, perhaps because they thought his right-leaning résumé was so clear and that Wardlow would run on that record. That delay allowed Wardlow to establish his nonpartisan strategy.
In their first high-profile joint appearance, a lengthy back and forth on the couch at TPT’s “Almanac,” Ellison was on the defensive over the Monahan allegations and seemed reluctant to be too assertive toward Wardlow.
The contrast between that and the candidates’ second joint appearance is stark. In a more traditional debate format, televised on KSTP and other stations across the state, Ellison met Wardlow’s allegations that the DFLer was too extreme with his own charges, fleshed out by DFL researchers between the two appearances.
Wardlow is a conservative Christian who voted as a conservative Republican during his one term in office representing a House district around Eagan. He has also been an attorney representing the national Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative response to the ACLU that takes on First Amendment cases for conservatives, especially religious conservatives. He helped defend a videographer who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding, for example.
While he has accused Ellison of planning to use the office to assail Trump administration policies, a Wardlow campaign piece said he would “defend President Trump’s agenda in court.” More recently, he was recorded telling an audience at a GOP fundraiser that he planned to “fire 42 Democrats right off the bat and get Republican attorneys in there.” While assistant attorneys general serve at the pleasure of the boss, party litmus tests have not been applied by past officeholders and might be illegal.
DFL researchers also found a recording of a 2013 speech Wardlow gave to a tea party group that spoke of a “second, unwritten constitution” that should guide Americans, adding “you cannot have liberty without strong families. You cannot have liberty with marriage redefined to include homosexual marriage.”
Ellison and others say these examples are proof that Wardlow would not be the political agnostic that he claims, and he and the DFL have taken to hosting a series of press conferences to highlight different aspects of Wardlow’s record. “This idea that Mr. Wardlow doesn’t have any views on anything is simply not the case,” Ellison said at the KSTP debate. “It is very clear he has a policy agenda. He just doesn’t want to say what it is and I think it’s fair for the people to know.”
Wardlow barely responds to allegations that he has been just as political as Ellison. “There is no one more political than Keith Ellison,” he said. “This is the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee. He still wants to maintain that office if he is elected attorney general. Those two positions are entirely incompatible.”
A stream of attacks
Despite his strength within the DFL and his national standing among progressives, Ellison is the candidate the GOP most wanted to run against. Running and winning in a state House district and then a congressional district dominated by the DFL, Ellison has long been free to be as liberal and progressive as he wanted. The first Muslim elected to Congress, he has been a progressive leader, an early supporter of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and a strong but ultimately unsuccessful candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee (he is currently deputy chair).
His activism predates his political career. Ellison was a black student leader at the U of M during law school and was a civil rights and defense attorney after graduating, including representing people accused of gang violence. He spoke at a rally in defense of Sara Jane Olson, a federal fugitive who ultimately pleaded guilty to trying to plant bombs to blow up police cars. He flirted with the Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan in the 1990s and helped organize Farrakhan’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.
Ellison says he has rejected Farrakhan’s positions, particularly what many see as Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, and pushes back against reports that he met with Farrakhan as recently as 2016. When Wardlow brought up a column Ellison wrote that praised the Nation of Islam leader as a good role model for children, Ellison said, “’95 was a long time ago.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]In their first high-profile joint appearance, a lengthy back and forth on the couch at TPT’s Almanac, Ellison was on the defensive over the Monahan allegations and seemed reluctant to be too assertive toward Wardlow.[/image_caption]
The campaign has defined the political cliche of “slugfest,” with Wardlow and Ellison each offering a steady stream of attacks against each other, sometimes more than one per day:
“Wardlow Shows True Colors on Gun Safety, Reverses Support for Background Checks and Accepts NRA Donations.”
“Keith Ellison Sides With Dangerous Criminals.”
“Women’s Health Leaders Join Keith Ellison to Condemn Wardlow’s Derogatory Comments and Anti-Choice Agenda.”
“Ellison Opposed A Bill That Barred Sex Offenders From Teaching Our Children.”
“Doug Wardlow’s Record of Discrimination Pushed by Trump to Supreme Court.”
“An Inconvenient Anniversary for Keith Ellison. Oct. 31, 2001: A terrorist he supported pleaded guilty to a shocking crime.”
“Doug Wardlow Must Answer Whether He Violated Judicial Ethics Standards by Authoring Extreme Far-Right Blog.”
“Keeping Track of Keith Ellison’s Extremism.”
And on, and on …
A focus on undecideds
If the DFL wasn’t concerned about the race before Oct. 23, it was after. That day saw the release of a Star Tribune/MPR poll on the race that found Wardlow was leading among the 800 voters interviewed by a 43-36 percent margin, with 16 percent undecided. A similar sampling one month previously had Ellison leading 41-36 with 18 percent undecided.
Both were taken after Monahan’s allegations were public but indicated that the slow drumbeat of news about the issue were having an impact. Even so, the later poll revealed at least two problems that Ellison could resolve. The first is that five percent of voters were supporting Noah Johnson running under the Legal Cannabis Now label. The other was the still high number of undecideds.
Johnson has now endorsed Ellison, arguing that Ellison is much-closer to him on most issues and would be more likely to support legalization of recreational marijuana. And Ellison’s campaign is now focused on those undecided voters, especially undecided DFL-leaning voters.
He could start in the state’s two most-populous — and most progressive — counties: Hennepin and Ramsey. There Ellison leads Wardlow 50-29, with 17 percent undecided. Compared to other DFL candidates, however, Ellison is doing poorly. In the special election for U.S. Senate, for example, DFLer Tina Smith leads GOP nominee Karin Housley by a 63 to 28 percent margin in the two counties, with 8 percent undecided. In U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar’s race against Jim Newberger, the incumbent Democrat leads 70-23 with 6 percent undecided. And in the governor’s race, the DFL’s Tim Walz leads Republican Jeff Johnson 60-27, with 9 percent undecided. Capturing the bulk on those Twin Cities undecideds could bring Ellison back to a much tighter race.
Judging from the Kavanaugh protests, the majority of Democrats have vowed not to vote for someone accused of abuse.
It makes one wonder why Ellison has received such a high percentage of Democratic support.
Perhaps most Democrats,like me, can distinguish between credible, and not so credible accusations. Dr Blasey, and the others who wished to testify (but were barred by Republican Senators) were highly credible.
Ms. Monahan is less credible- she has a tape, no she doesnt, yes she does but no one can see it. Also, the bare facts of her allegation are pretty thin- he grabbed her by the ankle once, and called her a name, once. Not exactly the pattern that one saw with Kavanaugh.
Giving women the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean turning off my brain.
Eric, none of the 4 witnesses, who Ford said were there, backed her claim. She didn’t remember the year, where it was, how she got there, who gave her a ride home. You find that credible? I, like everyone else, have no idea what happened in either incident. Find it interesting that you seem to know who to believe and who not to.
I say this as someone who opposed Kavanaugh (based on his judicial record) and is going to vote for Ellison (because Wardlow is so bad): you are going to twist yourself into knots if you try to make a case of why Ford is telling the truth and Monahan is not, or vice versa.
A sworn public statement, with corroborating character witnesses that were successfully ignored by the party in power versus what? Monahan’s son made the accusation and she said she stood by him. Did I miss something? Did Monahan come out and publicly accuse him of anything? Grabbing someone by the ankle one time doesn’t sound like abuse to me.
And if you spin it the other way, you can make a case that Monahan is more credible. Change the names and the political parties around and see how clear it is.
Sworn statements carry a lot more weight than backing one’s child and never really making an accusation.
And you know this how?
Perhaps because Doug Wardlow would be a disaster as Attorney General.
Eric, Miss Monahan was asked to produce a tape. She didn’t. Dr. Ford was asked to produce her therapy notes. She didn’t. The report on Ford has many inconsistencies:
https://static.politico.com/28/7f/80157df74b96bb352b10f8b7aa66/09-30-18-mitchell-memo-ford-allegations.pdf
I’m not commenting on anyone’s honesty, as no one remembers perfectly or states things perfectly. I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy of believing one person and not the other. I’ve yet to find an expert who can do such a thing.
“They fashioned a campaign strategy ready-made for taking on DFL attorney general nominee Keith Ellison.“
When did they do this?
A paranoid person might think Wardlow and/or his Republican operatives were responsible for the timing of Karen Monahan’s son announcing his viewing of a video of Keith Ellison’s alleged assault on her, but such could get a lawyer, even an attorney general disbarred, I think.
In watching Ms. Monahan’s face during her most recent interviews, I couldn’t help wondering what Paul Eckman style mind readers would make of her (Eckman is a psychologist known for his work on facial expression revealing emotions). My mind reading suggests there’s something going on that only she and those with influence on her now know.
In any case, I hope Wardlow loses big instead of the squeaker this will likely be, and that we will all will know the unvarnished truth eventually.
Republicans have been running against Keith Ellison for years in races where Ellison is not even on the ballot. The abuse allegations just made that a whole lot easier.
Are you calling Monahan a Liar?
I have no basis for such, but I saw what I saw in her face; I believe I saw that there is a lot more to this than most know, sort of like the Ellison divorce settlement records made public recently (Something was there alright, but not something the public needed to know save that Keith Ellison, again, is not a serial abuser, but has been abused by at least one woman, and perhaps more can be found if anyone is that interested.). It is hard to respect people’s privacy with so much at stake, but that’s not a problem for too many folks these days.
The very least I’d like in Karen Monahan’s case is for a trustworthy individual or group to view her video and add their impressions to that to the available public information (the law firm’s report requested by the MN DFL); that, or the law enforcement investigation the DFL suggested be done when releasing the independent report on the Monahan allegations.
Plenty of time for any or all of that after the election, but for now, I see no good reason for folks to vote for anyone but Keith Ellison.
Yes
Monahan’s attorney is a guy named Andrew Parker, a conservative legal activist who hosts a weekly AM talk radio show on “The Patriot” and used to be partners with Doug Wardlow. Nothing to see here… move along, move along…
And Dr. Ford’s attorney was involved with Democrats that were sitting on that committee among other things. Do you not see the hypocrisy you are espousing?
No. The commenters in this thread did not mention the Kavanaugh rape attempts, so I see no hypocrisy.
I do see yet another attempt at deflection. This one seems unusually weak, I’m afraid.
What’s truly hypocritical is to ignore the credible sexual assault allegations against Trump from 19 accusers (with massive amounts of accompanying circumstantial evidence), credible sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh from 3 women (with massive amounts of accompanying circumstantial evidence), credible sexual assault allegations against Roy Moore from multiple women (with massive amounts of accompanying circumstantial evidence), and then turning around and accepting as fact the allegations of simple assault against the Black Muslim running for statewide office.
As RB pointed out, ‘whataboutism’ points to a particularly weak deflection. Either way, the two scenarios (a federal appt. vs state election, corroborating witness and character statements, fact patterns, etc) are not analogous.
Beyond what’s already been stated, I would also point out that your account was created 3 days ago, and you’ve already amassed 30 comments, and in almost 100% of those statements, the Republican party li(n)es abound. Indeed, you’ve racked up more posts in those three days than either RB, Paul Udstrand, Jim Smith and Ron Gotzman, all prolific posters here on Minnpost. I assume this is more GOP astroturfing, and that this account will become dormant on November 7 (barring any recount attempts).
Prove me wrong.
Lori Swanson would be 20 points ahead of Wadlow and no one would even be talking about this race. But the DFL’s gotta DFL
Or more correctly, Lori Swanson had to Lori Swanson.
I don’t anyone in the DFL leadership liked the musical chairs game that she kicked off.
That said, I think you are right. DFL endorsement or not, I think Swanson would have cruised to reelection. I think also Matt Pelikan would have been a solid candidate.
But they have who they have, and they will have to cross their fingers and hope for the best on Tuesday.
No, I mean the DFL, because it goes well beyond Lori Swanson.
Swanson only ran for governor because the delegates made the ridiculous decision to endorse Erin Murphy. If they had endorsed Walz, Swanson would have kept her job and the DFL wouldn’t have wasted their money and time on a candidate that was going nowhere. I think Murphy is as culpable for this mess as Swanson, but both of them should be entitled to their political ambition even if they weren’t likely to get elected.
Pellikan is an unqualified clown who is irrelevant to the discussion. His run had nothing to do with Swanson’s decison. But his endorsement is further evidence of how wildly out-of-touch DFL delegates are and why the endorsement process needs to be scrapped.
Pelikan is a well qualified attorney who clerked for both David Lillehaug and Paul Anderson on the MN Supreme Court in addition to his long time involvement with the DFL that all love to hate from the inside to the outside for the ups and downs and general quirkiness that does not hold a candle to the craziness of other MN political parties; the convention did not err in endorsing him. I wish he were running against Doug Wardlow, but Keith Ellison will do the job well, while Wardlow will do the bidding of a malignant narcissist and follow his own bigoted path. I’d settle for a good clown, though, with a JD and a good attitude.
The idea that you would endorse some unknown guy a few years out of law school over the 3-term attorney general is absurd. The people at that convention were completely out-of-touch with reality. Its an absolute joke. Its been 48 years (and will be at least 52) since a non-incumbent DFL-endorsed candidate was elected governor and nearly as long for the AG.
You’re leaving out a rather important player in that whole particular debacle,
Ellison?
Seldom do I become disgusted by door knockers–because I honor any person who will volunteer his/her time to work on behalf of a cause. BUT, Saturday, a woman came around our neighborhood to preach Wardlow-ism and she began by telling me straight out that Ellison is a member of the Jihad and that “there are pictures of him doing ‘Jihad stuff’ to prove it…” That’s not true, of course. But, worse is the fact that Republicans are using it as a talking point for innocent doorknockers–who apparently don’t know better–to use. They’re making their doorknockers look like fools.
But here’s the bigger point for all of us. If , as the Republicans would like us to believe–all Muslims are Jihad. Then all Catholics must be—by extension– sodomites and pedophiles. And Christians must be members of the Ku Klux Klan or must have interests in burning non-believers at the stake. And, of course, what I’ve just said about Muslims, Catholics, Christians–it’s all ridiculous. Because having declared devotion to a “godhead” and a religious point of view doesn’t automatically set a person into malevolency and corruption. If you’re a person with devout beliefs–no matter what they are–you know that for yourself.
So can’t we for once take the “Muslim” issue off the table–and vote on the Minnesota Attorney Generals’ positions on the law?
We should all vote for certain Buddhist traditions or perhaps some innovative new Hindu caste created for seekers of elected offices because those in Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions are all highly suspect 😉 The species as a whole is pretty shady, but there’s no escaping that for us.
You completely ignored the charge that Wardlow bullied a gay high school into a suicide attempt, which he then mocked the kid for being a failure, with this bullying collaborated by other students. Wardlow’s attitude toward gay people hasn’t softened since that time, but except with supporters he has kept it completely under wraps.
Leaving these details out gives your readers a false comparison, as bullying a person into a suicide attempt is if anything worse than what Ellison is charged with doing.
We do not need a hateful bully as attorney general who will focus his efforts on consumer fraud, but blocking cities from enacting additional worker protections and benefits
“Collaborating” or corroborating? This might help Wardlow in some parts of the state, unfortunately. Makes me flash on some of the racist and homophobic incidents in the news over the years. Whatever one has against Keith Ellison, he seems a better human being than Doug Wardlow.
They say all politics is personal. If you have a complaint against a fraudulent company, who would you rather have be your advocate: the guy whose goal is to be the People’s Lawyer, or the guy whose goal is to defeat Keith Ellison?
That’s what i’ve said to undecided voters.
It would be helpful to see the candidates resumes as lawyers, and even more so, as administrators, because that’s what the AG does.
There are only two reasons this race is close. First, the GOP has been running against the scary dark skinned Muslim guy for a long time. Second, the allegations against Ellison by Monahan.
I realize it was all set up by the DFL state convention fiasco too.
I wish everyone would just be honest. If an endorsed candidate is not currently incarcerated, will vote for whoever represents our political agendas.
I’m just tired of the nauseating hypocricy.
Hy·poc·ri·sy
noun
The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
You may have a point here.
Wardlow is a bigoted bully with a history of inflammatory anti LGBT behavior. And that is conforming behavior on the right side of the spectrum.
As an independent, I find both major party candidates to be extremists and either one would be bad for Minnesota. I tend to vote left of center with the emphasis on center and Johnson seems to be the most reasonable choice. If he siphons off enough votes to give Wardlow a victory the blame will rest squarely on the DFL just as the Democrats handed Trump the White House by nominating Hillary Clinton.
Johnson has endorsed Ellison.
If Johnson siphons off enough votes to give Wardlow a victory the blame will rest squarely on the people who voted for Johnson. As has already been pointed out, Johnson has endorsed Keith Ellison.
A person who votes for a candidate whose platform revolves around legalizing marijuana should have enough sense to realize that Doug Wardlow would be far, far worse as Attorney General than Keith Ellison would be.