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 appreciate David Finke's comments (thank you!) and note that they confirm my
assessment; it is about picking DFL winning candidates, not necessarily GLBT or
GLBT friendly candidates, which is perhaps less idealistic and more pragmatic
than what some people thought. That's what has caused so much confusion. Many
people believe Stonewall's mission is GLBT issues, and when good friends of the
GLBT community are not rated at least "acceptable", people are angry because
they don't understand that the scope of Stonewall is DFL first, (by GLBT), as
opposed to GLBT who are DFL - there is a difference.
David's comments are a lot more palatable than when another member referred to
those who did not receive the endorsement as "losers" who will "always be
losers"; that commentary is disrespectful and does further damage to Stonewall's
credibility. Clearly stating that a perceived lack of a committment to the DFL
was a problem sums it up.
In response to David Finke's notation that I do not participate in the Stonewall
processes, that is correct. I probably would have participated at some point,
but I've observed too many candidates getting the Stonewall endorsement who I
have personal knowlege that despite what they may say in a screening, are
absolutely not friends of GLBT folks; I could make a list of names and
misdeeds, but that would not be helpful. Stonewall is DFL-first, and that is
fine for them; While I am involved with the DFL, I personally could not offer
endorsement or support to a candidate who is not GLBT-supportive, regardless of
party affiliation, etc. I have a different expectation. I value principles
more than labels in politics. (It is my opinion that the last presidential race
had a labeling problem too; the candidate most in tune with democratic party
ideals was labeled a Green.)
On a final note, because I did not see Candidate Lilligren's screening (or any
others), I can't really comment on Stonewall member perceptions of his ability
as a public speaker or viability as a candidate that they may have gleaned from
that screening. However, in the almost nine years that I have lived within a
few blocks of Mr. Lilligren, all nine years I have observed his dedication to
the neighborhood and related neighborhood issues. I've seen Mr. Lilligren's
volunteerism turn around a large portion of the area where he lives, and have
positive effects for the entire neighborhood. While many of us in the activist
catagory are sometimes less respectful than we should be in the heat of our
passionate causes, Robert always seems to be able to maintain his sensibilities,
respect everyone around him, and continue to work hard. Speaking ability?
Robert might have some learning to do in that category, I don't know, but as
they say, actions speak louder than words.
There are too many words and not enough action in politics these days.
Robert's willingness to get involved in the AmericInn Motel issue to search for
a win-win solution in a potentially politically explosive situation speaks
volumes (CM Herron deserves a lot of credit on that issue as well). Robert
Lilligren posesses qualities that I believe residents value in a council member,
and this is what gives Robert the impetus to become a full time council member
for the entire ward, without the help of the Stonewall endorsement.
David Piehl
Central
"David Finke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/11/2001 06:25:50 PM
To: Dave G Piehl/USA/Pillsbury@Pillsbury
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Mpls] Stonewall
My old friend and neighbor, David Piehl posted:
>I think the whole Stonewall DFL debate is all about expectations.
<snip>
>Clearly, Stonewall DFL is most concerned with picking "winners".
<snip lots more>
>David Piehl
>Central
If David actually participated in Stonewall DFL, he would
realize that picking the most electable candidate is
seldom voiced as a priority. However, Stonewall DFL is
very much about picking the best *Democrats*. We are,
after all, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Friends
Caucus *of the DFL Party*, and proud of it. The Green
Party has the Lavender Greens, organized by David Strand.
Queer Greens and Green Party friends of Queer folk should
go there. The Republicans have the Log Cabin Republicans,
whose able advocate is Eva Young. Queer Republicans and
Republican friends of Queers should go there. Don't know
what the Reform/Indies have & don't much care.
You have to choose your political party, or you can
choose none. My twenty years in the Democratic
Farmer Labor Party of Minnesota has been full of respectful
treatment, support, valued friendships, and priceless
learning experiences. I highly recommend the DFL to any GLBT
person or ally who is seriously interested in being part
of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Rank and file DFL Party members have seen fit to elect this
openly gay man to party office a number of times over the years,
currently as Chair of the 61st Senate District DFL, 5th
Congressional District Delegate to the DFL State Constitution
Commission, and of course, Stonewall DFLers have honored me
with a term as their State Caucus Secretary. I don't think
they did that because I was a *winner*. However I have never
made my opinion a secret that the Minnesota DFL Party is
a treasure that can do much good in the world. It is something
worth preserving, improving, expanding its influence. It is
a living and breathing example of democracy right here in
river city. Yeah, it is my opinion that abiding by the DFL
endorsement is very important. I will continue to try to
communicate this case to the best of my ability. And I
assume the other three major parties will be telling their
troops the same thing.
It's not about being a "winner", but it *should* be about
being a good Democrat.
David Finke
Central Neighborhood
______________________________________________________________________
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
