This is NOT an issue of "purity". The Dems nationally, and the DFL
locally, have shown by long history, especially in the last 20 years or
so, that they do not and sill not deal with most progressive issues. They
say nothing.They leave the issues undiscussed, unremedied.
It's easy to see why. They want lots of money to campaign. Who has the
money? The much better off. So both parties wind up advocating for the top
20% or less. Almost no one does anything for the bottom 80%, certainly not
the bottom 50%, the bottom 20%. The Ds and Rs are ESTABLISHMENT
PARTIES. Their candidates are ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATES. They WILL NOT
discuss progressive issues.
The Green Party is a party of principles. Much more progressive than the
Dems. There is a yawning GULF between the Greens and the DFL. Meaning,
lots of issues of great interest to most people will be discussed ONLY by
the Greens.
Look at the issues Nader raised vs those rasied by Gore. Or by Pentel vs
Skip Humphrey.
Liberals like at certain times to pretend there is very little differnce
between their DFL and the left. It is NOT just a question of which similar
bottom occupies a seat. The DFL candeidates will NOT discuss most issues
of interest to most. The Green MUST, or will not be endorsed.
The Green Party is a SERIOUS party of SIGNIFICANT change. The DFL is
NOT. Their candidates are NOT. If they were, their financial backers would
walk away. They KNOW what they must NOT talk about.
--David Shove
Roseville
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rosalind Nelson wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
