Get over it! Stop obsessing. Your candidate lost. If the best you can do is
whine about stuff like this it does not bode well for your candidate.
Frankly I am amazed at the number of people who when they cannot say
something good about their candidate they whine about the rules and so on.
Honestly, do we want a council full of whiny sore losers who complain about
some perceived affront rather than engage in the real work of the people?
The Stonewall DFL is a PARTISAN, POLITICAL organization and as such we don't
do free advertising for those people running against the candidates we have
endorsed and found acceptable. At this point in the POLITICAL process we
have made those choices and now we advocate for those people. To paraphrase
Bert Black, we are a political group, not a public utility.
Throughout this "debate" I sense a bit of an almost sub-conscious attitude
that we need to fall all over ourselves to drool at the feet of the people
who lower themselves to talk with the lowly queers. Last year I had a
candidate whining because we did not find him acceptable, this despite the
fact that he did not even show up to the screening we did. In his whine he
talked about how he had always been there for "you people". Well, we don't
do this in the Stonewall DFL. We have a process that is both formative and
normative. In other words, we make choices based on both facts and gut
instincts.
For all the whining may I point out that the Stonewall DFL has not found
anybody "non-acceptable". We do not do negative ratings. The fact that a
candidate is not on our web page or in our literature is not a statement on
them. It is the absence of statement. No more should be inferred from that
absence than from the absence of a picture of Krusty the Clown. It means
that we have no opinion of those candidates officially.
Megan Thomas
Personal Opinion
Can't wait to go home to lovely St. Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fredric Markus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mpls-Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: Re [Mpls] Micromanaging Identity Group Screenings
> Checking back with the Stonewall DFL website www.stonewalldfl.org this
> morning I discover that in Ward 6 there are now only two faces left in the
> Politburo portrait - curious, considering that there were four (marked by
*)
> of the seven candidates
>
> Shada Buyobe-Hammond*
> Jim Graham
> Dean Kallenbach*
> Barb Lickness*
> Tamir Nolley
> Jonathan Palmer*
> Dean Zimmermann
>
> at the Whittier Neighbors candidate forum last evening who participated in
> the Stonewall DFL screening event.
>
> For the record, the 2001 Minneapolis Candidate Directory at
> www.e-democracy.org, also lists
>
> Brian Hanninen and Cam Gordon in Ward 2
> Joe Biernat in Ward 3
> Barb Johnson in Ward 4
> Walt Gutzmer, Robert Lilligren, and Sandra Miller in Ward 8
> Shirley Carlson and Dan Niziolek in Ward 10
> John Casserly and Willie Bridges in Ward 11
> Craig Larsen in Ward 12
>
> none of whom are referenced on the Stonewall website report.
>
> Consider the column headings on that Stonewall website report:
>
> Candidate name - Expressed Interest in Endorsement - Returned
> Questionnaire - Question & Answer Session - Received Acceptable Rating -
> Candidate Endorsed
>
> I know that Shada Buyobe-Hammond and Barb Lickness expressed interest in
> endorsement, returned the questionnaire, and participated in the Q&A
session
> for Ward 6. I was there. I'm told Walt Gutzmer and Robert Lilligren
screened
> in Ward 8.
>
> We are led to surmise that Joe Biernat, Barb Johnson, Jim Graham, Tamir
> Nolley, Dean Zimmermann, Sandra Miller, Shirley Carlson, Dan Niziolek,
John
> Casserly, Willie Bridges, and Craig Larsen declined the opportunity to
seek
> Stonewall DFL endorsement
>
> and by the absence of information in the Stonewall DFL website report, we
> are led to the conclusion that Shada Buyobe-Hammond, Barb Lickness, Walt
> Gutzmer and David Lilligren are also to be included in the list of
> candidates who declined the opportunity to seek Stonewall DFL endorsement.
>
> Well, this is still wrong, folks, and if these four - or more! - of the
> absent faces expressed interest in endorsement, returned the
questionnaire,
> and/or participated in the Q&A session, one must wonder at the motive of
> Stonewall DFL in concealing this information. Not a reputable situation,
in
> my opinion.
>
> Fred Markus, Horn Terrace, Ward Ten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
