RT has shown up at several Mpls Geen Party meetings. Yet his announcements
and news on him mention only the DFL, never the Greens. Some Greens may
imagine he might somehow be the Green candidate, but I see no public
commitment of RT to it. Perhaps he will seek Green endorsement AFTER he
gets DFL endorsement. (Greens are not likely to cross-endorse).
Or he might seek it after he FAILS to get DFL endorsement. Either that
makes the Greens second best, or he has some strategy to get the DFL to
endorse no one, then spring his Green announcement.
Some ex-DFL Greens toy with playing these games with the DFL. It means not
annoucing your real intentions until AFTER the DFL endorsing meetings.
Several months of NOT campaigning as a Green, pulling punches to look like
a liberal, rather than a progressive. Several months of NOT talking about
how bad Belton/Olson/cops/TIF etc are here.
Is it worth it? Not to me. I'd like to see a fighting announced GREEN
candidate RIGHT NOW. No waiting. Commitment NOW. Candor. No games. Force
the other candidates to address Green issues. Otherwise the establishment
(GOP and DFL) will NOT talk about these issues.
So, RT, what's your stance re DFL and Green Party?
And if RT is going DFL, is there any progressive out there interested in
going for the Green endorsement, and forcing Green issues on the DFL and
GOP?
And NO, I do NOT think the Greens should "unite" behind the DFL candidate
just because he/she might be a bit better than the R. The Greens are a
totally independent party, and deserve to RUN THEIR OWN CANDIDATES IN
EVERY ELECTION - no matter how many "good" DFLers are thereby opposed. The
Green Party is NOT the DFL and does not want to be.
Doubtless we will now hear from the liberals that told us to vote Gore not
Nader, because president is too important. Now they will tell us to vote
DFL not Green because mayor is too important. One wonders if there exists
any office on the face of the earth they would permit the Greens to run
for. Candor on their part would be to say There should be no Green Party,
no third parties, just always and ever the GOP and DFL, safely divided up
so all seats are permanent. But that's how we have reached our present
arrogant unaccountable system; they're not willing for any of us to do
anything to change it. That's why the Greens need their own mayor
candidate, and NOW.
--David Shove
Roseville
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, List Manager wrote:
> Unfortunately, RT Rybak's mayoral announcement came during our server
> switch, which probably robbed his candidacy of some discussion on this list.
> But since the 2001 elections were a big reason I helped started this list
> two years ago, I'd like to jumpstart the discussion.
>
> Notwithstanding the incumbent and other possible candidates such as Mark
> Stenglein - who I'm excluding, for now, for discussion purposes -- I suspect
> the battle to make the final two will come down to between two list members:
> RT and Lisa McDonald.
>
> I was reading RT's announcement speech
> (http://www.rtformayor.com/index.asp?Page=DISPLAY&GroupID=1&DTID=PR&ID=8857)
> , and something struck me: there probably wasn't a whole lot here Lisa won't
> also say or agree with.
>
> For example, RT emphasizes 5 points. They include:
>
> Setting Development Priorities, or no more cookie-cutter development - Lisa
> has fought this battle pretty publicly.
>
> Innovative Choices, or city managers be more creative and give us a fair
> deal. Lisa can probably also point to several instances of badgering City
> Hall bureaucrats to do it, or finance it, differently.
>
> Environment. RT touts his aggressively battle against airport noise; this is
> one where Lisa has been somewhat quieter, though nobody calls her the
> polluter's pal. RT may have greater recognition for leading the airport
> fight, though no one calls Lisa the polluter's pal. Her more visible
> development battles may be a counterweight to RT's more visible
> environmental battles, but this is probably an insider calculation.
>
> RT Issues where I'm less certain of Lisa's agreement include:
>
> Ethics, specifically campaign finance reform, including a ban on
> non-election-year fundraising. Not sure where Lisa stands on that.
>
> Build for a New Economy. Sounds to me like a city industrial policy favoring
> the internet and high-tech. Not sure if Lisa is so prescriptive.
>
> So here's my question for those of you who have already decided (and you
> list-member candidates yourselves!): why him and not her? Or, why her and
> not him?
>
> If it doesn't come down to issue differences (and I'm not saying it won't,
> but make the case, please), what does it come down to? Will it be RT as
> Outsider Hell-raiser (albeit with Downtown Council experience and working
> for some development deals in the past) versus Lisa as Insider Hell-raiser
> (albeit antagonizing many of her colleagues by fighting battles lots of
> outsiders want fought?)
>
> Anyway, as Mike Meyers' Cauwfy Tawk lady once said, "Rybak versus McDonald.
> Let's discuss."
>
> David Brauer
> List manager, Minneapolis-issues
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
