David Finke writes:
>As part of the statewide DFL Party, the Stonewall DFL is chartered
>as a statewide DFL caucus. Our constitution mandates that at least
>three of the board meetings per year be held in Greater Minnesota.
>And traditionally, the board meets at State Central Committee
>meetings. In fact, caucusing at State Conventions and State Central
>Committee meetings predates the old DFL LGBTF Caucus' being chartered
>as a DFL club. So the board is going to be there anywhere. There
>are several issues on the agenda that Stonewall DFL needs to
>weigh in on. Not just endorsements. But since we have to be there
>anyway, we'll vote on the endorsements, etc. that were recommended to
>the board from this past weekend.
This makes it hard for Minneapolis candidates, and other Stonewall rank and
file members who are NOT involved in the DFL at a statewide level, and who
want to focus more locally on city races, but don't want to be involved in
excessive internal DFL machinations to participate.
At 01:57 PM 2/23/01 -0600, Alan Shilepsky wrote:
>> > the age old litmus test -
>> > will you run against the
>> > DFL endorsed candidate in the primary?
>
>Let's do a private sector analogy. Say Target only has room in its Twin
>Cities stores to display one brand of vacuum cleaner, and it screens Red
>Devil, Hoover and Eureka to decide which brand to offer. A key
>screening question is: "if we don't pick your brand, do you promise to
>refrain from selling your line at any of our competitors' Twin City
>stores."
LOL Alan, great analogy.....
>These "promise to withdraw" arrangements disadvantage the voters
>(including rank and file DFL primary voters) and advantage the
>organized, early and often, activists. And it is worst that it is done
>in supposedly non-partisan elections. And that it is initiated and
>enforced by the screening groups that claim to be promoting a value or
>identity interest. It looks more like they are promoting the kingmaking
>monopoly of the insiders.
This attitude certainly does not promote the interests of Gays and Lesbians
in the city. Let's look at one example: Brian Heron gets recommended for
endorsement over two other openly gay candidates--at least one of whom has
better positions on the gay issues related section of the Stonewall
questionaire. Where does Brian score better? You got it--the DFL
endorsement question. Brian isn't someone who is known in our ward for
doing much for Gay and Lesbian citizens. And there are some in the ward,
who no doubt feel that Brian shouldn't have to do much for Gay and Lesbian
citizens, because his job is to represent African Americans--after all the
8th ward seat is the "African American seat". This is the type of racist
and divisive politics that has poisoned CNIA. The central neighborhood is
a very diverse neigborhood. Racial demogogery does nothing to solve some
of the challenging problems in our neighborhood.
>PS--isn't there a law against inducing a person not to run? Does it
>only come into play after filing?
Interesting point. I find it very interesting how incumbents in
Minneapolis are so against having challenges. Only a mediocre incumbent
would be afraid of a healthy challenge for the seat.
More and more, the entrenched DFL apparatus in Minneapolis is becoming the
problem rather than part of the solution. That doesn't mean there aren't
lots of good people who have volunteered long hard hours towards building
the DFL.
Eva
Eva Young
Minneapolis, MN
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
