Some on the list may find today's short article in the (Minneapolis)
Star-Tribune interesting. It's by Bill McAuliffe, "I know you are, and
so am I."

It was tough last year to be known as a DFLer in the suburbs.  But an
evloving case suggests the Republican label wasn't complication-free.
The case stems from name-calling in a Hennepin County board race in
which the endorsed Republican candidate, John Knight, faced Linda
Koblick, a longtime local GOP official.
Late in the campaign, phone callers for Knight told voters he was "the
only Republican candidate" in the race.  Koblick, claiming that the
statement was known to be false, filed an unfair campaign practice
complaint, and two weeks ago Knight was charged in district court with
four gross misdemeanors.
Now the Third Congressional District Republican Party is suing in
federal court, naming Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar and Carver
County Attorney Mike Fahey as defendants. (The case was referred to
Fahey to avoid a potential conflict of interest in Hennepin County.) It
seeks to stop the criminal prosecution against Knight.  Klobuchar, a
DFLer, endorsed Koblick, who won the race.
Erick Kaardal, a Minneapolis attorney representing the party (and also
the district party's co-chairman), said the case isn't about who can
claim party membership and who can't.  Instead, he argues, the
prosecution is an attempt to infringe upon free speech.
"This is big," he said.  "The government's response to false campaign
speech should be more speech, not criminal prosecutions."
Joh Baker, a Minneapolis attorney representing Fahey, said Fahey and
Klobuchar were only doing what the law requires them to do.  He said it
was unlikely that a federal court would halt a district court
prosecution."

My quick comment:  Interesting that the Republican party position is not
to contest the point that the speech was false, and knowingly false...
Also, who is supposed to do the "more speech," and how?

John Shockley
Department of Political Science
Augsburg College
Minneapolis