While I respect Mr. Kringstad, I must disagree when it comes to Grant Hauschild.  Hauschild doesn’t represent us. He represents special interests, specifically foreign mining companies.  His recent attacks on Gov. Walz over the order regarding mining in the BWCAW watershed are part of an unforgiveable pattern of using his position within the DFL caucus to advocate against environmental protection. 
This was true when it came to protecting wild rice and giving tax breaks to build the Hermantown data center.  This is the last stand for our beloved wilderness, and he is an advocate for its demise.  This not only affects the BWCAW, but the entire watershed, including Lake Vermilion and the Rainy River basin.  While some have suggested that he is better than the alternative, I have to disagree.  I believe that a so-called Democrat arguing that his colleagues owe their majority to him and using that position to advocate for toxic mining is far more destructive than having a Republican hold the seat.  This is particularly true when it comes to upholding Gov. Walz’s order and protecting the wilderness.  Then there is the issue of integrity.  Some time ago, Senator Hauschild joined Roger Skraba to urge the Trump Administration to reverse the BWCAW watershed mineral withdrawal.  Keep in mind that this ban was based on a legal process spanning 454 days, 8 public sessions, 650,000 comments in favor of a mining ban, and 22 scientific reports concluding that such mining would pollute the BWCAW.  Then he privately told BWCA supporters that his letter was a mistake.  Yesterday, he told a crowd in Ely he always has opposed any mining ban in the watershed.  If that is the case, his private apology was untruthful and opportunistic.  There are other examples.  Thus, I will not cast a vote in November for Grant Hauschild.  I will not affirmatively vote to destroy the wilderness.
Kelly Dahl
Linden Grove