>> THIS AFTERNOON, THE GOVERNOR SAT DOWN WITH A 1-ONE INTERVIEW WITH MARY LAHAMMER.

NO SIMPLE SOUND BITES, FOLKS.

WE'RE GOING TO DEVOTE THE NECK SEVERAL MINUTES TO THIS DISCUSSION AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN SEVERAL MORE MINUTES TOMORROW.

NOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU A HINT, THEY TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM HIS PRIVATE LIFE TO THE X.F.L.

TO HIS BUDGET PROPOSAL, INCLUDING SOME POLICY SPECIFICS YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD BEFORE.

SO, HERE WE GO.

HERE'S PART ONE OF MARY'S ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNOR VENTURA.

>> Mary: THERE'S BEEN A MOM THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, ESPECIALLY IN THE REALM OF HEATING ASSISTANCE TO PULL SOME MONEY OUT OF THE CURRENT SUE PLUS, THE $920 MILLION SOME, 30 MILLION FOR SCHOOL ASSISTANCE, 30 MILLION FOR LOWER INCOME.

ARE YOU OPEN AT ALL TO ANY SURPLUS MONEY GOING TO SOMETHING LIKE HEATING ASSISTANCE?

>> WELL, IF YOU GET A REBATE CHECK, THAT CAN BE SPENT ON HEATING ASSISTANCE, TOO, CAN'T IT?

YOU KNOW, IF WE GIVE THEM -- IF WE GIVE THE PEOPLE THE MONEY, WILL THEY KNOW WHAT TO SPEND IT ON?

>> HOW ABOUT FOR SCHOOLS, THOUGH?

SCHOOLS SPECIFICALLY ARE SEEKING HELP WITH THEIR HEATING HELP?

>> WELL, THEN, WHY NOT EVERYBODY?

WHERE DOES IT END?

IF WE GIVE IT TO THE SCHOOLS, THEN -- THEN HOW ABOUT THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOMES?

THEY'RE NOW HERE, THEY WANT A PIECE OF IT.

YOU KNOW WHAT SNIFF A GOT A GREAT IDEA ON THE REBATE.

EVERYBODY SAYS THAT I HAVE PEOPLE FROM DULUTH SAYING SPEND MY REBATE ON HIGHER ED.

YOU KNOW WHAT MY GREAT IDEA IS?

HOW ABOUT IF WE GIVE EVERYBODY THEIR REBATE CHECK AND THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO WITH IT WHAT THEY WANT, IF THEY'D LIKE TO SEND IT BACK TO US, THEY CAN DO THAT.

THEY CAN WRITE ANOTHER CHECK -- THEY CAN PUT A MEMO AT THE BOTTOM.

I WANT MY MONEY FOR TRANSPORTATION, I WANT IT FOR HIGHER ED, I WANT IT FOR K-12 AND THEY ARE FREE TO SEND THAT MONEY BACK.

AND I'LL LEAVE THE CHOICE TO THEM, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR REBATE, IT'S THEIR CHOICE TO KEEP IT.

IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S AMERICA AT ITS FINEST.

IT'S NOT GOVERNMENT DECIDING WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR MONEY, IT'S YOU DECIDING WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR MONEY, AND IF YOU FEEL SO MOVED TO GIVE YOUR REBATE CHECK, SAY, TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THERE'S NO ONE STOPPING YOU FROM DOING THAT.

>> Mary: BUT ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO ANY OF THE REBATE MONEY NOW BEING DEDICATED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO -- >> MY VIEW IS THAT ALL BUDGET SURPLUS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

I ONLY RAN, MARY, ON TWO PROMISES.

NUMBER ONE WAS TO GIVE BACK ALL BUDGET SURPLUSES AND NUMBER TWO WAS TO CONTROL THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT AND NOW I HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WANT ME TO GO BACK ON THE TWO PROMISES I MADE.

I WON'T DO IT.

I WON'T DO IT.

>> GOVERNOR, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR CAMPAIGN PROMISES, THAT YOU WILL NOT BREAK THEM.

ARE YOU -- SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE THINKING MORE ABOUT YOUR LEGACY AND WHAT YOUR MARK ON MINNESOTA IS GOING TO BE.

>> NO, I DON'T THINK ABOUT MY LEGACY, I THINK ABOUT LOOKING IN THE MIRROR.

HAS NOTHING DO DO -- REMEMBER THIS, MARY, THEY BUILD STATUES FOR PEOPLE WHO SPEND MONEY.

THEY DO NOTHING FOR PEOPLE WHO WATCH THE CHECKBOOK.

IF YOU WATCH THE PEOPLE'S MONEY AND ARE CAREFUL WITH IT, YOU WON'T GET A STATUE BUILT TO YOU.

BUT IF YOU SPEND THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, THEY'LL BUILD A STATUE FOR YOU.

>> YOU DON'T WANT A STATUE?

>> I DON'T NEED A STATUE.

>> WHAT DO YOU WANT?

>> NOTHING.

>> JUST RECOGNITION THAT YOU KEPT THOSE TWO PROMISES?

>> THAT RECOGNITION WILL COME FROM ME, I DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

I'LL RECOGNIZE IT MYSELF THAT I KEPT MY PROMISES.

>> HOW ABOUT THE ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS WITH LAWMAKERS, ARE YOU STILL DOING SOME OF THOSE TO PUSH THE BUDGET?

>> OH, YEAH.

YEAH.

IT'S ALSO, TOO, A CHANCE THAT -- IT'S FOR THEM TO MEET ME IN A SMALLER SETTING AND GET TO KNOW ME AND ME GET TO KNOW THEM, AND EVEN THOUGH WE'LL DISAGREE ON THINGS, I THINK ONCE WE UNDERSTAND, KNOW EACH OTHER AS PEOPLE, IT BECOMES EASIER TO DISAGREE.

>> HAVE YOU ENJOYED THEM?

BY ALL ACCOUNTS, A LOT OF LAWMAKERS HAVE COME OUT SURPRISED.

I REMEMBER SENATOR BELANGER SAYING THIS GOVERNOR HAS NO IDEA HOW MUCH POTENTIAL HE HAS.

IT IS AMAZING.

HE DOES NOT REALIZE WHAT HE COULD DO.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, Mr.

BELANGER WOULD KNOW, YOU KNOW.

HE'S A GUY WHO'S BEEN HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

HE'S A SHY OLD FOX THAT -- SLEIGH OLD FOX THAT KNOWS THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT.

>> >> DID YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD SAID THAT ABOUT YOU?

>> NO, I DIDN'T.

I THINK IT'S A CASE OF -- THEY ALSO NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS CROSSING NEW GROUND, TOO, THAT I WAS A GOVERNOR THAT DIDN'T HAVE A PARTY OVER HERE, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE A LOT OF SHOTS FIRED OVER MY BOW, TOO, WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE.

>> BUT YOU FIRED THEM BACK.

>> SURE, AND THAT'S IN MY -- THAT'S MY NATURE.

YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T TRAIN ME IN NAVY VEAL TRAINING TO BE, YOU KNOW, A SHRINKING VIOLET.

THEY TRAINED -- >> NOBODY WOULD EVER ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A SHRINKING VIOLET.

>> NO, BUT VERY AGGRESSIVE.

SO WHEN SOMEBODY FIRES AT ME, I'LL FIRE BACK, IT'S IN MY NATURE.

MAYBE NOT ALWAYS TO THE GOOD.

AS I TOLD THE SENATOR, YOU KNOW, YOU LEARN.

THIS JOB'S AN EDUCATION, EVERY DAY OF IT IS AN EDUCATION AND YOU'LL LOOK BACK AND, WELL, WHAT DID I DO TWO YEARS AGO?

WAS I SUCCESSFUL?

WELL, LET'S TRY A NEW APPROACH.

I DIDN'T COME UP THROUGH A POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THEIR PARTIES WHERE THEY ALL KNOW ME.

SO NOW WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND, HECK, THEY MAY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ME FOR SIX YEARS, SO THEY BETTER HAVE TO START GETTING TO KNOW ME.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> THAT MEANS I MAY SEEK REELECTION AND IF THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA DECIDE THEY WANT TO SEND ME BACK HERE, THAT'S FOUR MORE.

WELL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION, SAY, WELL IF I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS MAN FOR FOUR MORE YEARS, MAYBE WE OUGHT TO GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER AND SEE WHAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH.

>> SPEAKING OF REELECTION, I THINK IT WAS AT LEAST A YEAR OR TWO, GOVERNOR, YOU SAID IF THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA REALLY WANT ME TO COME BACK AND WANT ME TO RUN AGAIN, I WILL RUN.

IS THAT STILL TRUE FOR YOU?

>> WELL, ULTIMATELY IT'S MY CHOICE.

ULTIMATELY IT'S THE CHOICE OF ME AND MY FAMILY TO RUN.

IF I DEEM THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF MY FAMILY TO RUN, I WON'T.

BUT IF I DEEM THAT MY FAMILY IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND THAT THERE'S FOUR MORE YEARS OF WORK WE WANT TO DO, IF WE HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED EVERYTHING -- I ACTUALLY GAVE THEM AN ULTIMATE I ACTUAL A SESSION -- ULTIMATUM A SESSION AGO.

I SAID GIVE ME EVERYTHING I I WANT AND I WON'T RUN AGAIN.

AND THEY DIDN'T.

SO THEY'RE INVITING ME TO RUN AGAIN.

MAYBE THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT, IF THEY GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT AND I FEEL LIKE I'VE ACCOMPLISHED WHAT I CAME HERE TO DO, WHAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED WHAT YOU'VE SET OUT TO DO, MARY, TO ME, YOU GET OUT OF THIS BUSINESS.

YOU GO BACK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

YOU'VE DONE YOUR JOB.

>> SO WOULD YOU SAY IF YOUR BUDGET, IF YOUR REFORM PROPOSAL, THE TAX REFORM, EVERYTHING SAILED THROUGH, ALL TURN INTO LAW THAT YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A REASON TO RUN AGAIN?

>> YEAH.

I COULD WALK AWAY FROM THE JOB GOING, GEE, I ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL.

THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT MORE TO ACCOMPLISH.

WHY SUES SIT THERE AND SPIN -- WHY SUES SIT THERE AND SPIN YOUR WHEELS AND BASK IN YOUR GLORY?

I DON'T NEED THAT.

THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO MOVE ON, OTHER CHALLENGES TO TAKE OUT THERE.

PLENTY OF THINGS TO DO.

AND ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS, I WOULD ENJOY GETTING MY PRIVACY BACK MORE.

NOW, MAYBE THAT'S A PIPE DREAM, MAYBE I'LL NEVER HAVE IT BACK BUT I KNOW I'LL NEVER HAVE IN IT THIS JOB BACK.

>> DO YOU MISS YOUR PRIVACY?

>> YEAH.

>> DOUSE YOUR FAMILY, AS WELL?

IS IT HARD ON EVERYBODY?

>> IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO WALK AROUND EVERY DAY UNDER THE MICROSCOPE.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO WALK AROUND KNOWING, GEE, IF I SLIP AND LOOK LIKE A FOOL, I'LL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY NEWS TONIGHT.

YEAH, IT'S HARD, IT'S A PRESSURE YOU LIVE UNDER.

>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW YOUR STANCE ON A COUPLE OF LEGISLATIVE THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING THE BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT DOWN TO PRAILT?

DO YOU HAVE ANY POSITION ON THAT?

>> I'LL WAIT AND LET THEM DECIDE WHAT TO DO AND WHEN THE BILL GETS TO MY DESK, I'LL MAKE THE DECISION AT THAT TIME.

I WANT TO SEE WHAT IMPACT IT'S GOING TO HAVE FINANCIALLY, WHAT THE IMPACT IS THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S .10 OR .08, THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT BIG A DEAL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

>> HOW ABOUT PHILOSOPHICALLY, ALL THESE BILLS PUSHED TO MAKE A NUMBER OF DWIBS A FELONY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SAYS THEY PROBABLY CAN HANDLE THE EXTRA INMATES, AS A WHOLE ARE YOU AT ALL SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR DRUNKEN DRIVERS?

>> I DESPISE DRUNK DRIVING, NO EXCUSE FOR IT.

NO ONE CAN COME UP TO ME IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE AND GIVE ME AN EXCUSE WHERE THEY -- WHY THEY DROVE DRUNK.

THERE IS NONE.

THERE IS NONE.

AND SO IF THE -- IF IT REQUIRES STIFFER PENALTIES, SO BE IT.

NOTHING PERTURBS ME MORE THAN TO READ IN THE NEWSPAPER HOW SOMEBODY GOT THAYER 11th D.W.I.

NOW, IF THEY'VE GOT 11, THAT MEANS HOW MANY TIMES HAVE THEY DONE IT AND NOT BEEN CAUGHT?

AND HOW MANY TIMES HAS YOUR LIFE BEEN IN DANGER BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT THERE?

REMEMBER, DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, IT IS NOT A RIGHT.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE.

YOU ARE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING.

AND SO THERE ARE NO EXCUSES TO ME FOR DRUNK DRIVING WHATSOEVER.

>> SO SHOULD REPEAT OFFENDERS, YOU SAY SOMEBODY 11 TIMES ARRESTED SHOULD THAT PERSON BE IN JAIL AND -- >> YEP.

I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

>> HOW ABOUT CASINO?

THERE IS A LOT OF CASINO TALK RENEWED AGAIN AND YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT FOR A STATE-RUN CASINO BUT MIGHT BE OPEN TO A PRIVATELY RUN CASINO?

>> I'LL LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND ALL THAT BUT I'M DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO A STATE-RUN CASINO.

WHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THE STATE SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN GAMBLING?

WHERE IN OUR CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY -- WHAT NEXT, THEN?

A STATE-RUN RESTAURANT?

A STATE-RUN LIQUOR STORE?

A STATE-RUN SEARS OR -- >> STATE DOES THE LOTTERY NOW, THOUGH.

>> EXACTLY AND THAT'S JUST AS BAD.

TO ME, WHY SHOULD THE STATE BE INVOLVED IN GAMBLING NOW?

LET US REAP THE PROFITS FROM IT AND TAX IT, IF YOU HAVE IT, WE SHOULD TAX IT.

I THINK THEY SHOULD BRING -- PERSONALLY, I THINK THEY SHOULD BRING SPORTS BETTING ABOVE BOARD.

BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD WE LOSE $2 BILLION, IT'S A $2 BILLION A YEAR INDUSTRY.

>> IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D REALLY BE ABLE TO GET BEHIND OR JUST AN IDEA?

>> I THINK IT'S AN IDEA OUT THERE.

WELL, HOW ABOUT THIS?

HOW ABOUT IF WE DIDN'T TOUCH THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR GAMBLING BUT WE OPENED UP SPORTS BETTING?

TO A PRIVATE ENTITY?

THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, ISN'T IT?

THAT WAY WE'RE NOT CONFLICTIN ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CASINOS BUT ALSO SATISFYING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT'S A FREE BUSINESS.

NOBODY COLLECTS TAXES ON IT.

IT'S AN UNDERGROUND BUSINESS THAT PERFORMS TAX-FREE OUT THERE.

BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE RUN BY THE STATE.

IT SHOULD BE DONE BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

STATE SHOULD ONLY TAX IT.

♪