As one person, I intend to support condidates and vote based on their
positions on TIF, the police, affordable housing and so forth, not
necessarily on party affiliation.
I've been very excited about the Green presence in city politics, and I
hope that the Green influence isn't going to be frittered away in Green vs.
DFL purity battles. It isn't reasonable to expect people to have a great
party loyalty to the Greens at this point. I don't think it's reasonable
to expect people to have a loyalty to any party, but existing loyalties to
DFL and Republicans are a fact. That many of us are disenchanted by those
parties does not mean that we are ready to embrace Green candidates
strictly because of their party affiliation.
Rosalind Nelson
Bancroft
At 02:06 AM 1/18/01 -0600, you wrote:
>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
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
