Adam writes:
>Admittedly,
>we didn't take the time to post our ideas to this list of DFLers, but I'll
>seriously reconsider that in the future (many 60Bers are on this list). I
am
>well aware that we can't solve these problems without working across party
lines
This seems contradictory: if we're all DFLers here, and you agree we need to
work across party lines, you should have worked to convince us, especially
all the 60Bers here. (Plus, Mpls-issues readers are a captive - dare I say
fixated? -- audience.) I think Terrell Brown took the time to make moderate
Republican points - but aiming his fire more at DFL politicos than DFLers
who actually express sympathy with tax frustration. I think the mini-debate
that occurred between Terrell and Myron during the summer was great, and am
sorry you didn't attempt it here, Adam.
However, I must take issue with your complaints that this is a "list of
DFLers." The list was set up to be open to all, and there may be a higher
percentage of non-DFLers on the list than in the city as a whole. (I think
most people haven't disclosed their party affiliation; it's reasonable to
think a majority are DFL, given the city's make-up, but never assume!) I
welcome any and all non-DFLers to mix it up - a one-sided list isn't much
fun. Also, whatever folks' affiliation, this list has been fairly critical
of DFL governance of the city. Adam might have exploited that.
>Many of us Republicans do not fit into the stereotypes constantly thrown
around
>in the press or in these public forums. We are working hard to change our
>party, to introduce ourselves as people, and to overcome voter apathy and,
in
>some instances, ignorance.
One excellent way to combat ignorance is to be specific. Instead of
basically claiming that anyone who is a DFLer can't complain about property
taxes, you'd do well to detail where, exactly you would draw the line about
city spending. That way, perhaps, we can look past the label. But so far,
it's all been partisan labeling - which I admit I shot back at you.
I did check out the Stenberg website. From the issues section: A pledge not
to raise taxes (that's nuanced - better hope there aren't emergencies,
recessions, welfare reform doesn't crash, and god forbid additional
investments that might actually be worth it.) The phrase "government
monopoly on education" - code for vouchers (without actually saying so.)
Pro-life. Pro-death penalty. Anti-same sex marriage. No public incentives
for affordable housing other than property tax cuts. On these major, major
issues, all GOP boilerplate - not that a GOPer can't have that, but not one
claiming to break the mold.
There are a few unconventional positions: 100 percent state funding of
education. Pro-LRT (but not in the Hiawatha corridor) - a new exurban
airport connected by LRT. Pro-new stadium (!) as long as it's less than 10
percent of the total cost. Domestic partner benefits through cafeteria plans
where employees get a set amount of money they can spend on benefits.
So there's something. (To be fair, Rod Grams would never go for a
stadium...but then, neither would Jim Niland.) Not enough to convince me the
GOP has turned over a new leaf, but list members can now judge for
themselves. (http://www.stenberg.org/issues.htm)
To take my own advice about not strictly labeling the other side, I was
pleasantly surprised that the city GOP chair endorsed the library
referendum. Even though I was only a lukewarm supporter, and it seems a
curious place to acknowledge higher taxes can, at times, be good, I took it
as a positive sign that Republicans can be open-minded. I look for more
evidence of same.
And I can't speak for others, but I can say that I would gladly vote for the
candidate with the best platform - Republicans, to my mind, probably won't
get there, but there is an opening.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10 - Fabulous 60B!
