With all of the questions and partial information on this list about the recent
Progressive Minnesota endorsements, I just want to add a few comments. I am the
long-time PM member who chaired the endorsement meeting on Saturday.
For people on this list who aren�t familiar with Progressive Minnesota, we are
an organization dedicated to electing progressive candidates to metro-area
offices. Candidates who we have endorsed in the past and with whom we work
include: Jim Niland, Julie Sabo, Scott Dibble, Dore Mead, Gail Dorfman, and
many others. We also are committed to advancing a progressive agenda through
referenda and ballot initiatives. We were the organizers behind the 1995 Living
Wage referendum in St. Paul, both the metro-area referenda against public
financing of stadiums, and we were the lead organizers of the recent St. Paul
school funding referendum. In addition to campaign organizing, we work in many
other ways to push progressive issues. We have coalition partnerships with 4
unions. Our almost 3000 members have interests in issues which affect our
lives, and, through open membership meetings, have created a 12 point Metro
Agenda. This agenda focuses on issues like livable wages, excellent public
schools, and affordable housing. Progressive Minnesota was founded as The New
Party, and has at its core a commitment--in campaigns--to following a fusion, or
cross-nomination, approach. WE WANT PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES TO WIN. We have had
a lot of successes in the past 7 years, and we continue to expand our vision
(and effectiveness)!
Our endorsement process is open to every PM member. Last Saturday, there were
more than 40 who participated. Earlier, at an open membership meeting, we
decided to focus--at this stage--in Minneapolis Wards 9, 10, 11, and 12. All
known candidates in those wards were invited to screen. Candidates were asked
to fill out an extensive questionnaire, which asked specifically about issues
from our Metro Agenda. PM members who participated in the endorsement meeting
had copies of the questionnaires. Candidates who screened were asked to give an
opening statement, and then were asked a standard six questions by members.
Then we had a brief open question period, where members as individuals could ask
their own questions. When we evaluated each candidate, we discussed strengths
and weaknesses in terms of electability and issues. The discussion was
organized to be fairly straightforward.
Another thing to know is that this round of endorsements were the EARLY
endorsements. They expire at the end of March, at which time each race will be
reevaluated. Other races might, at that time, be entered, or new candidates
might be endorsed. The point of early endorsements is to create an early swell
of support around progressive candidates who might then be able to translate
that support into an ultimately successful campaign. The Progressive Minnesota
staff will now begin working on behalf of the candidates we endorsed on
Saturday. Eventually, there may be more endorsed candidates. By declining to
endorse early in the 10th Ward, PM members have not declined to endorse at all;
my sense of the meeting is that PM members are in fact very interested in
revisiting the endorsement possibility in this race at a later time.
I do not think it is accurate to suggest that there was any one issue that sank
any particular candidate in the 10th Ward endorsement discussion. The general
sense of the PM members present is that all three candidates could potentially
be very strong, but that the group could not coalesce around any one candidate
at this time. Just as we were a group of progressives who were having a
difficult time deciding on a candidate at this point, voters in Ward 10 must
also be having a difficult time finding decision criteria. And a PM early
endorsement in the race wouldn�t accomplish our overall goal for early
endorsements. This is my sense as to why we declined to endorse in Ward 10 at
this time.
The original posting on this list asked PM members who were present at the
screenings to share their individual responses. While I hope more people will
share their impressions of the day, I do not think that any one person�s
impressions should be taken as a summary of the hows and whys of any particular
decision. We were all there as members of Progressive Minnesota, and we were
there as individuals with different goals, emphases and issues of importance.
Some difficult decisions were made, and made well, I think.
I was extremely impressed by the level of discussion about every candidate, and
the overall degree of commitment on the part of the PM members who participated
in the endorsement process. For the most part, people found very fair ways to
express strong ideas and concerns, excellent questions were asked, and decisions
were made on very reasonable grounds. As committed progressives and as members
of an effective and growing progressive organization, I think we did a great job
last Saturday. More important, I think our work--which is really just
beginning--is going to help elect great progressive candidates to the
Minneapolis City Council!
If you have questions about the endorsement process, about our Metro Agenda, or
about the work of Progressive Minnesota in general, you should call the PM
office at: 651-641-6199.
Martha Easton
Northeast Minneapolis
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
