Re: [Mpls] Re: Dean Zimmermann's silencing

[Brobson34]

Here's a concept that I'm sure has occurred to many others: What about the
DFL basing its endorsement more on the competency and overall quality of the
prospective candidate more than on fidelity to the party? If the party
allowed serious consideration of candidates who said they weren't going to
abide by the endorsement, or even of candidates who had been endorsed by
other parties but were in keeping with many of the viewpoints of the DFL, it
would add credibility to the endorsement in the eyes of the people who
actually elect these candidates--independent, non-affiliated voters. It might
also prevent some of the divisiveness, back-biting and fractionalism that has
beset the party ever since it became apparent that the DFL endorsement was no
guarantee of victory in the primary, let alone a general election.
As I've said earlier, what you have now are a coterie of special interests
who have no reason to provide checks and balances on each other when it comes
to responsible spending and policy proposals. This puts the DFL further out
of the mainstream and alienates people like myself, who might otherwise be
more sympathetic to what the DFL is trying to accomplish.
The DFL certainly has the right to narrow the process through screenings by
its special interest groups and by convention rules that forbid anything
other than absolute loyalty to those groups. But it doesn't take a genius to
anticipate that this will continue to hurt the party in the long run. The
electorate is increasingly diverse in many many ways (race, gender, income,
sexual preference, etc.), with increasingly diverse opinions and persuasions
within those subgroups. When it comes to accomodating such diversity, the DFL
has lost its reputation for open-mindedness--and for common sense.

Britt Robson
Lyndale