In place of taking cues from party labels, Terry Morrow’s Star Tribune column (“No Parties, Just Ideas,” November 15, 2009) asked citizens of our state to approach the 2010 election “based on the issues.” Doing so, he says, could allow us to focus upon the issues we face with a serious, sustained public discussion regarding the current mid-term election.

This invitation to shift our attention away from partisan labels and toward the pros and cons of the ideas being debated has not caught on by most. Still, I propose that we as Gustavus students take him seriously on this offer.

To do so, Rep. Morrow could have an in-person debate of “the issues” surrounding his candidacy with the opposition candidate Rebecca Peichel.

An on-campus event sponsored by a non-partisan organization like the Gustavus SGA or the political science department would accomplish this.

For Gusties, it is crucial this happens. After all, the candidates Gusties support shouldn’t be able to circle the issues because we are fond of their party label; rather, in a serious, sustained public discussion before the student body, we should be asking Rep. Morrow to defend his questionable record from concern.

The debate would give Rep. Morrow the opportunity to, amongst many other things, justify to his students why he’s voted to burden Gusties by imposing taxes on music downloads, making alcohol more expensive, and sending the jobs we hope to get when we graduate out-of-state.

Morrow warns of the dangerous tendency for people to say, “I am of the same party as this legislator, therefore I agree.” Along those lines of argument, I think that while many students here may agree with Morrow’s party label, after viewing his voting record they might disagree with his HD 23A leadership.  A debate will help us decide this.

Phil Cleary ‘11