Mpls-Issues tip: PLEASE trim the previous message when responding. The redundant characters make tough reading for Digest subscribers and needlessly lengthens download times. ----------- I think the whole Stonewall DFL debate is all about expectations. Clearly, many GLBT folks have been under the impression that Stonewall DFL endeavors to ensure adequate representation of GLBT issues; one does not necessarily have to be GLBT to have a firm grasp of the issues facing GLBT folks, so the idea of endorsing non-GLBT candidates is not necessarily foreign. In fact, one does not necessarily have to be DFL at all to have a grasp of GLBT issues. Folks who thought Stonewall DFL would promote candidates beneficial or sympathetic to the GLBT community are then disappointed when candidates who are less GLBT friendly (or not at all) are endorsed over candidates who are more GLBT friendly. The problem, of course, is that the Stonewall DFL exists (demonstrably) to engage GLBT folks in promoting DFL candidates, GLBT friendly or not. There is a subtle but important difference here. Stonewall is so concerned about "picking winners" because their goal is to engage GLBT in ensuring the election of DFL (as opposed to GLBT friendly) candidates. That's why some candidates who have done little or nothing to benefit the GLBT community were endorsed; the Stonewall DFL is DFL and wants DFL candidates, and they want GLBT assistance in electing DFL candidates. Stonewall DFL is not an independent GLBT issues group, they are DFL and with that as their bend, they will support whatever DFL candidate they think has the best chance of winning - recall the words of Megan Thomas: Megan Thomas Wrote: Like every other political procedure in the world our process is both formative and normative. The reason we do in person screenings is so we can get a feel for the people. Sometimes we just don't like someone. You see, how can GLBT issues be the "real" issue if not liking someone is grounds for no endorsement!??!? I would add, however, that not all people who were endorsed were screened, lest someone be misled by that statement. Megan Thomas Wrote: they will continue to LOSE because they cannot move beyond LOSING these times and pull together a campaign that is not going to LOSE. Clearly, Stonewall DFL is most concerned with picking "winners". The DFL claims to be inclusive of GLBT; so they have separated out the GLBTcommunity to become a special tool to elect DFL candidates. It's unfortunate that so many people thought Stonewall was promoting GLBT friendly candidates. Now I have a question - Wizard Marks wrote: In his 8 years in office Herron has treated the GLBT with respect and everyone in the room had some personal experience with him that they could connect to. Please offer some examples; this type of statement is what is referred to in the marketing world as "puffery". Brian's former aide, Laura Ayers, would qualify as treating everyone with respect and dignity, but Laura is not Brian; what Brian has done, i.e. votes, specific cases, promoting causes, etc. is of interest. I have never heard him mention his Stonewall endorsement, although when I have attended the Pride parade, I have noted his participation - I've also heard many examples that would support a contrary argument - so please elaborate for all of our benefit! Wizard Marks wrote: Bob Lilligren sat behind a table and answered questions. It was clear that, on the level of running a whole ward office, he was a long way from up to speed or ready for thechallenges. He didn't seem to have a grasp of the bigger picture. I'm unsure what you might be referring to here? I, for one, am thankful for Robert's unbiased and knowlegeable positions (we could all learn a lot from him!), and particularly appreciative of the assistance he has given CM Herron over the past few years in regards to affordable housing, etc. (which CM Herron acknowleged at the 8th ward convention). I consider Robert very knowlegeable on a wide array of issues, and very diligent in his causes. It is perhaps Robert's willingness to consider the merits of each situation before drawing conclusions that frightened the DFL. David Piehl Central ______________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this message is private and confidential information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
