It’s a mystery to me why Paulsen could not simply answer “yes” or “no” to a question asked by three different people at different times during the town-hall session I attended in Brooklyn Park. The first person could not have been more clear when she asked him to respond “yes” or “no” to whether he would accept funds from the National Rifle Association. Paulsen insulted her and the rest of us by responding that he did not expect any contribution from the NRA.
Did he think we were stupid and would not notice his issue avoidance? That is when our frustrations with yet another non-answer to a question from someone in attendance boiled over and we became, in his words, “more boisterous” than those in attendance at the two town-hall sessions held earlier in the day. Yes, some of us briefly gave voice to our contempt.
A bit later, another person was selected to ask a question. He pointed out that Paulsen’s claim of not expecting a contribution from the NRA had not answered the previous question, so he posed it in a different way: “If the NRA sent you a check, would you send it back?” Again, Paulsen refused to give a direct answer and, again, our frustration erupted for a short time.
Finally, a third person asked Paulsen to answer the question, and the congressman said that he had given all the answer that he intended. By this time, many of us had given up protesting, because we knew he did not care what we thought.
All of the above leads me to ask the question: If Erik Paulsen is so sure that the NRA is not going to contribute to his campaign, why not just say he would not take their money and get it over with? It certainly appears that the NRA has some hold on Paulsen that even money cannot buy.
Michael Waring, Edina
StarTribune, June 1, 2018