Rep. Joe Radinovich (DFL) v Dale Lueck (R) – 10B
Freshman Rep. Joe Radinovich won his race by just 323 votes. Republicans have gone after Radinovich for voting to legalize same-sex marriage since voters in his district were overwhelmingly against it. His Republican opponent is Dale Lueck.
This is their debate from October 16, 2014 at Lakeland Public Television. The two clashed notably on a proposed pipeline through the district and on same sex marriage, a topic that came up following a question about transgendered students.
The question asked if the issue of transgender students using the locker room of the sex they identify with comes up at the legislature, how would they vote. Lueck said the issue, which is currently before the Minnesota High School League board, is “fallout from the 2013 same sex marriage vote” which “redefined…traditional marriage to suit a minority” and has opened up a “Pandora’s box” of issues and this is just the first of many that will need to be dealt with.
Radinovich countered that the transgender student issue “has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. I mean nothing at all. And I really think the comments by my opponent are fear mongering.” Lueck called the fear mongering comment “a bit over the top.”
Radinovich said the issue was important “I do believe that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with and I think that in the full light of day that we’ll have the opportunity to hear from both sides.”
Click here for a direct link to this discussion in the video. Transcript of this exchange at the end of this post.
Timings of topics/questions and notes
2:22 – Radinovich opening statement
5:10 – Lueck opening statement
8:28 – What are your hopes for district and the economy? What do you think is working? What do you think isn’t working? And what do you hope for the people and businesses that are there?
8:42 – Lueck response
9:40 – Radinovich response
11:28 – Lueck rebuttal
12:20 – Radinovich rebuttal
13:25 – Competitive races for open judicial seats are a real rarity in Minnesota. I have a two part question related to that. Do you favor the proposal put forth by former Governor Al Quie and others to allow the governor to appoint judges followed by periodic retention elections and secondly should political parties be endorsing judicial candidates?
13:47 – Radinovich response (favors the proposal)
14:30 – Lueck response (disagrees with proposal)
15:58 – Radinovich rebuttal
16:55 – Lueck rebuttal
17:45 – What is your philosophy when it comes to funding higher education in Minnesota? Should it be funded at a high enough level so a college is easily in reach for most people, they don’t have to be so reliant on student loans and grants or is that not practical or not even the government’s role?
18:09 – Lueck response (role for government there, but it’s limited)
19:43 – Radinovich response
21:31 – Lueck rebuttal
22:28 – Radinovich rebuttal
23:33 – Pipelines. Embridge wants to build a new pipeline through six counties in northern Minnesota. What are your thoughts on this and how would you handle the differing opinions and beliefs of your constituents?
23:51 – Radinovich response – says Lueck has misrepresented his position on this. Wants to use existing corridor for pipeline instead of running it through ecologically sensitive areas.
25:37 – Lueck response – northern pipeline corridor is full. Oil on trains is a public safety issue.
27:44 Radinovich rebuttal
28:53 – Lueck rebuttal
30:01 – MNsure has received a lot of criticism this year. Rather than create the MNsure exchange, should Minnesota used the federal exchange for health care insurance?
30:13 – Lueck response
31:45 – Radinovich response
34:00 – Luuek rebuttal
35:05 – Radinovich rebuttal
35:41 – On October 2nd the Minnesota State High School League board voted to table its proposed transgender student policy until its December 4th meeting. The original policy as presented by Outfront Minnesota was to allow a student with the gender identity of the opposite sex to use all the same facilities as the opposite sex – showers, bathrooms, changing rooms – while playing opposite sex sports. Outfront Minnesota considers it discrimination to not allow a transgender student to identify with their gender identity. If this comes before the House of Representatives as the bullying bill did how would you vote and who would be protected by the bullying bill in this circumstance?
36:30 – Radinovich response
37:23 – Luuek response – says it is fall out from the 2013 same sex marriage vote.
39:26 – Radinovich rebuttal – this has nothing to do with marriage
40:01 – Lueck rebuttal “when you open up a pandoras box, you need to deal with what comes out.”
40:32 – What is your understanding of treaties with indian nations and how they apply now to relations between the state of Minnesota and indian nations here?
40:46 – Lueck response – treaties are being “stretched” to encompass things that didn’t exist at the time they were made many years ago.
42:27 – Radinovich response – treaties represent our word and are law.
42:55 – Lueck rebuttal
43:24 – Would you support transportation packages designed to primarily benefit the Twin Cities area in order to obtain needed transportation infrastructure improvements in your district?
43:39 – Radinovich response –
45:34 – Lueck response
47:36 – Radinovick rebuttal
48:36 – Lueck rebuttal
48:42 – Closing comments Lueck
51:53 – Closing comments Radinovich
Transcript of comments about same-sex marriage:
Well ah, this is just one of a number of issues, and while that particular one with the high school sports issue may be new… it’s. We, we got an issue that the fallout from the 2013 same sex marriage vote and it goes not just at the high school level and this gender identity issue. It goes all the way down into the elementary school. We’ve got teachers in somewhat of a quandary now. How we going to teach the issue of same sex marriage, gender identity, the whole thing. Ah. Be careful what you ask for. When we did change the law and I wasn’t there obviously, Representative Radinovich was, we opened up a whole new area that that going to have to be dealt with ah, and dealt with carefully. We’ve already redefined the marriage to, traditional marriage to suit a minority and we’re all God’s children here but we’ve got to back up here a little and certainly respect those that are in the minority, but still to to force a minority view on to everyone ah, you know, we we got to back up here and deal with this on a sensible matter. But again it’s the fallout of what happens when you got one group of people with a preset agenda, very liberal agenda, can make decisions that no input, won’t take any input, they’re going to do it in a way and so here we are. So it’s going to be a problem to deal with over the next two years. And ah make no mistake this is just one of the little things that came up, but there’s a whole string of them waiting that are going to have to be dealt with particularly at the education of the elementary school level.
Yeah, ah this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. I mean nothing at all. And I really think the comments by my opponent are fear mongering. I do believe that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with and I think that in the full light of day that we’ll have the opportunity to hear from both sides . This has cropped up in the last couple weeks. And again, my opponent may have said it best that we are all God’s children and um we all deserve to you know have our opportunity to put forward our case but this has nothing to do with marriage and I I frankly just consider his comments to be fear mongering.
(chuckles) Well, I think that’s a.. that’s a bit over the top. Ah I just go back and reiterate something that I learned in my christian background that is we’re all God’s children and ah we certainly, you know have to treat everyone that way. It has to be handled…ah .. you know when you open up a Pandora’s box, you know you’re going to have to deal with what comes out.
Thank you to MAPE for sponsoring our debate coverage. Thank you to AFSCME Council 5 for sponsoring our debate coverage