Minneapolis Star Tribune, Dec. 7
Franken is no victim as he leaves the Senate
U.S. Sen. Al Franken is leaving Congress much the way he entered it, amid a swirl of controversy and surrounded by equally ardent defenders and detractors.
Franken’s fall was swift - a matter of weeks between the first accusation and Thursday’s pledge to resign. It reflects a rapidly shifting national dialogue on sexual harassment and misconduct that is quickly creating a new order, one in which there is little tolerance for the kind of behavior that earlier might easily have been dismissed or gotten a mere wrist slap.
That does not make Franken a victim. He is among the first wave of those who are suffering serious penalties for behavior that victimized women. In an otherwise emotional and gracious speech, the one sour note was Franken’s continued refusal to acknowledge his actions. He continued to assert that the incidents are either untrue or unremembered by him. Some of his closest allies struck a different note.
Gov. Mark Dayton, before noting that he considered Franken a friend, first said in a statement Thursday that “I extend my deepest regrets to the women who have had to endure their unwanted experiences with Senator Franken.” Similarly, DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin called Franken “a tireless and strong progressive on behalf of Minnesotans,” but added that it “in no way excuses his behavior toward the women who came forward. His resignation today is an important part of the healing process.”
Franken should be commended for recognizing that his greatest obligation is to the people he represents and that circumstances had compromised his ability to be an effective senator, as the Star Tribune Editorial Board argued Thursday. There is a personal loss here for Franken, who called his Senate service “the great honor of my life.” But there is a loss, too, for Minnesota. A relatively popular, hardworking public official with the seniority to command important committee assignments, the relationships that build good legislation and the voice so needed to cut through obfuscation with piercing questions is leaving. In a body like the Senate, where newcomers start at the bottom, there is no quick or easy way to replace that.
As a senator, Franken fought hard for advances in mental health legislation, brought awareness to the dangers of overreaching technology, worked with Native Americans, championed the Violence Against Women Act, pushed for badly needed Wall Street reforms and more. He was aided by his previous celebrity, a sharp wit and a sharper tongue, all of which worked to give him an outsized presence even as a freshman.
That voice in the Senate will soon be quieted. But other voices are being heard, voices that for too long have been ignored or trivialized. Minnesotans should be proud that this state has signaled that sexual misconduct will no longer be tolerated or excused. There are others in public office - or attempting to enter public office - who must be held accountable as well.
The work is just beginning.
___
St. Cloud Times, Dec. 9
Who should be Minnesota’s next senator?
With Thursday’s announcement of Sen. Al Franken’s resignation from the U.S. Senate comes an opportunity: to elect a senator who can both represent Minnesota and represent the best of Minnesota.
The responsibility to appoint a replacement for Franken until the voters get a chance to decide rests with Gov. Mark Dayton. That person will almost certainly be a Democrat, like Dayton and the senator being replaced. That’s to be expected.
But Minnesotans should be looking further down to the line, to the November 2018 election that will now determine who will sit in both of the state’s Senate seats. Democrat Amy Klobuchar is also up for re-election.
Minnesota’s voting map puts it solidly in purple territory. Vast swaths of the state have gone red for Republicans in the past several elections. As is traditional, urban areas, the Iron Range and some scattered rural counties have gone blue for Democrats.
Instead of fighting a pitched battle to swing the state’s Senate delegation fully red for fully blue, Minnesota voters would do well to embrace the purple in choosing its next senators.
We should be looking for (and pressing party leaders to identify, develop and run) moderate candidates with the ability to solve problems.
A senator who truly represents Minnesota will be someone who’s willing to work to solve problems with anyone who is willing to cooperate with them, regardless of party.
It will be a person who knows both the value of a dollar and what it costs to ignore great needs.
It will be someone who can help set an example of fair play and a mindset of productivity for senators from more, shall we say, mercurial places.
It will not be someone who’s primary mission is to turn Minnesota blue or red for the sake of the party, as if governing is no more significant than a Vikings-Packers football rivalry. That’s tribalism, not leadership. And we’re better than that.
Minnesota has been well-served in the past by Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate. It has also, at times, been badly served by senators of each party. The difference has not been a question of political viewpoint, but of intensity. Moderates have served us best.
So let’s keep Minnesota purple. Let’s find candidates who represent who we are - or at least who our collective notion of Minnesotan-ness says we want to be: reasonable, rational people who believe in fair play, watching our pennies, helping our neighbors in need, being polite, getting the job done, and living and letting live.
That’s who Minnesota’s next senator should be. Surely there is a leader out there for us. And when we find that candidate, surely it doesn’t matter what party they espouse - if they’re truly committed to our values.
But voters have to live up to that ideal first. That perfect Senate candidate won’t survive the campaign unless we the people let go of the current view of governing as a game to be won rather than a service to be done.
Republican? Democrat? Third-party? Does it matter?
Yes. But it’s not the only thing that should.
___
Post Bulletin, Dec. 8
Opioid emergency demands extraordinary actions
Minnesota counties have opened up an important new front in the war on opioids.
At least 20 counties, including Olmsted and Mower, plan to file a lawsuit against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids to recover at least some of the costs of dealing with this public health emergency.
The Trump administration has declared opioid abuse a national emergency, and the county actions recognize that and call attention to the local costs - human and financial - of dealing with a deadly health crisis that many believe is due in part to the overprescription of drugs, for which the manufacturers and distributors bear some responsibility and accountability.
“This is a public nuisance and they need to help us clean it up,” Washington County Attorney Pete Orput told WCCO-TV last month.
Metro area county attorneys plan to file civil lawsuits in each of those counties, accusing the drug companies of fraudulent marketing and negligent distribution. The lawsuits will seek restitution for at least some of the public costs of addressing the crisis, from law enforcement and medical care through treatment and prevention.
“What we seek by filing these suits is accountability and restitution,” Orput said. “This isn’t a money grab. This is asking them to help us pay for the crisis they’ve put in our laps.”
This legal effort is not unlike Minnesota’s historic litigation against tobacco companies 20 years ago, which as described by the Mitchell Hamline Law School, “changed the way America approaches the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States.”
It’s far too early to say the litigation can help achieve an outcome of that magnitude, but public health officials and county board members say it’s a place to start.
“It’s one thing we can do to join our voice with others across the nation,” said Sheila Kiscaden, who was one of five Olmsted County commissioners to vote to authorize the action last month.
Two commissioners, Matt Flynn and Jim Bier, voted no, with Flynn saying the county risks “being drawn into a game where we are going to be a pawn in this legal issue for years to come.”
That’s a reasonable concern, but County Attorney Mark Ostrem correctly says the county litigation is likely to be bundled into a consolidated action that goes to federal court. There’ll be costs to prepare the lawsuit at the local level, but there are costs right now in dealing with the profound community impacts of opioid addiction.
In Mower County, where the proposed litigation won unanimous approval from the county board, County Coordinator Craig Oscarson said at a meeting last month, “The epidemic is impacting all of us in many ways, including financial. We know that we are seeing more clients we serve in terms of treatment and jail. … It is obvious this epidemic needs attention and causes strains on budgets as well as county staff.”
Litigation isn’t the only way to get at reducing prescription opioid addiction, by any means, but it can have an immediate impact on the companies that control the production and flow.
In an emergency, you take extraordinary actions. Court action is one extraordinary way to get at the root of the opioid epidemic.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.