Debate Minnesota, which states as its mission to “promote civility” and “provide for fair, informative and in depth discussion of ideas” among other commendable goals, staged the recent debate between Tim Walz and challenger Brian Davis at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Not holding to all those ideals however, they chose as the evening’s moderators two ultra-liberal journalists representing two ultra-liberal newspapers.

What ensued was a debate so civil as to encourage somnolence, fair in form but hardly in content, presenting no more information than could be gleaned from the candidates’ campaign literature, and as deep (or shallow) as an incumbent candidate likes to keep it. Not surprisingly, every question was formed from a liberal perspective.

Even the handful of written questions the moderators chose from the 100 or so submitted by the audience reflected as much. No discussion of judicial activism/ restraint, no questions about abortion or euthanasia, nothing about the meaning of marriage or sexuality, nor illegal immigration, nor voter fraud, etc. were brought up. Even the discussion of the economy avoided Congress’ culpability. Mostly it was this plan versus that plan — and on and on — enough to make ones head spin. And who would expect less?

The moderators are who they are, and no one should expect them to be anything else. I commend Debate Minnesota for doing the hard work of hosting the debate, and I greatly respect the ideals contained in their mission statement. A little more attention to the implementation of those ideals would be nice.