Up to this point Rae Hart Anderson, the District 50 Senate candidate without any political party endorsement or affiliation, has been able to do or say pretty much anything she wants without challenge from either of the two endorsed candidates. This is understandable to a point as realistically Rae has absolutely no chance in this election and the endorsed candidates do not want to be distracted from getting their message out to distinguish themselves from their real competition.
This dynamic is generally understood and adhered to in most elections by the mainstream candidates with a real chance at winning as well as by conventional "alternative" candidate who are running either to call attention to a single issue that neither mainstream candidate is addressing or to build a foundation for future political aspirations.
Rae Hart Anderson in no way can be described as "conventional" and the same can be said about the campaign she is running. Unlike a conventional "alternative" candidate, she knows no bounds as to what is proper and acceptable conduct in a political campaign. During good times and a "ho-hum" election climate this could be viewed as a distraction or minor irritation for the competitive candidates. However, this election takes place in serious times. The two mainstream candidates have distinctly different views on what is needed to address the serious issues our state and country face and if the people choose the wrong one there will be real and long term consequences. From what I am hearing in the course of door knocking and talking to voters, the unconventional and often unethical way Rae is running her campaign is causing confusion, misconceptions, and a general disdain for paying attention to what is at stake in this election.
Rae has the right, even without the good judgment, to run in this election. But we the people have the right to know who it is that is running to represent us.
Just who is Rae Hart Anderson? The more one looks into this the murkier the picture becomes.
Rae makes a lot of lofty claims about her background and qualifications. On her web site she lists her major credentials as "RN, ARNP, Educator, Business owner and administrator, Health Care Provider-direct care". She also cites some very impressive educational credentials: "Bachelors degree: University of MN in Public Address and Education; the Humanities, Journalism; Graduate School: University of MN, School of Public Health, Maternal Child Health emphasis, including health care administration, biostatistics, statistics, research, addictions, drugs, child development, community health project at Minneapolis under Margaret Hewitt, CNP, family counseling, public health clinical trials, research 'Parenting Children with Disabilities' with 60 graduate credits in education and public health".
Obviously someone with these kind of credentials would make an impact and one would expect there to be a voluminous electronic and paper trail of achievements, awards, and accolades. But a Google search on "Rae Hart Anderson" yields mostly items related to her recent political activities, many of them highlighting outrageous actions and erratic public behavior. Similar searches on many variations of "Rae Hart Anderson" to various licensing bodies come up empty.
These are just my observations - I make no accusations and you can draw your own conclusions. I do not have access to the search and employment verification tools that professional journalists and HR professionals have at their disposal. It would be interesting to see the results if someone with such resources did a little investigating.
As a final point to ponder regarding Rae's educational claims, take a close look at her web site (http://www.hartanderson.org). Setting aside the aesthetics and the technical implementation, it appears that the content reflects the views and personality of the candidate as she has presented herself in public, but does it look like the work of a person with the educational level she claims? In my view it appears to be aimless rambling in a desperate search for a coherent thought, just like Rae's performances in the candidate forums.
Setting her resume aside, there even seems to be a question of where she lives. She gives no address on the "Sun Focus" voter guide. Her official candidate filing lists her address as "1769 N Lexington Ave #180, Roseville, MN 55113". This is not hard to verify as a UPS Store that is not in District 50, and is obviously just a mail drop. She apparently is a resident of Fridley but that address does not appear on any of her campaign literature that I have seen. In the course of door knocking for Gina's campaign I have run across several anecdotes from people in the district where Rae has door knocked that relate conflicting information. A friend of mine in Columbia Heights said that Rae told him she lived in New Brighton when she knocked on his door and gave her pitch, yet in a recent opinion piece she submitted to the Northeaster she identifies herself as a Shoreview resident. As far as I can recollect she did not state her residence in her appearances at the various candidate forums as all of the other candidates did.
While the preceding information may raise some eyebrows and red flags, the crux of the problem with Rae Hart Anderson as a candidate revolves around her character, honesty, and fitness for the job.
