Mpls-Issues tip: PLEASE trim the previous message when responding. The redundant
characters make tough reading for Digest subscribers and needlessly lengthens download
times.
-----------
Carol Becker asks:
>Maybe someone can explain why disregarding a party endorsement is not a big
>deal?
I think it was a bigger deal when there was a real risk the DFL could lose.
But remember, the ultimate goal of an endorsement process, as you wrote
earlier in this post, is to "make a
determination on which one will do a better job of representing the
beliefs/values of the DFL." I have sat in many conventions (including the
recent 10th ward one), where it is easier to determine how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin that who best represents the DFL's values and
beliefs. When the only MAJOR policy difference is that one candidate will
abide by the process and one won't, to me the means have become the end. In
that case - two or more DFLers roughly equally able to uphold our values - I
am a small-d democrat, and am willing to toss it to the greater mass of
primary voters (especially when we closed our delegate rolls a year in
advance - a big reason I worked to change this is to HELP the legitimacy of
the endorsement by allowing everyone in. However, this change alone doesn't
cancel the point I'm making above.)
If we knew only one DFLer would make the field, I would be more committed to
endorsing early. As my friend Scott Benson has reminded me, I run the risk
of hubris and could get surprised. But at this point, I think most races
will be DFLer-on-DFLer so I'm not always willing to make a critical decision
this early in the process, if two folks who represent the beliefs and values
of the DFL are running.
So why do I still participate? Two reasons. One, there may be candidates who
don't uphold the beliefs/values of the DFL as I see them, or one who is far
inferior beyond the "will abide" litmus test. I do want to stop them, or
help opponents. Two, a convention can be a great classroom - you can learn
so much more about candidates positions, character, and who supports them by
spending a single afternoon every four years. (I think of a convention as a
political open house - a great chance to see who you're voting for in
action.)
Fundamentally, in this environment I regard the endorsement as a positive
thing to enhance someone's chances (with money, workers, recognition, etc.),
not a negative one that bounces others out. I guess I see it as a screening
process, but not a roadblock. So I'm generally not upset about people
running against the endorsed candidate. The only time I DO get upset is when
someone GETS elected based on their promise to honor the endorsement (and
others' agreeing to get out), then LOSES endorsement in the next election,
and then decides that abiding is no longer worth it. That's hypocrisy in my
book.
I don't hold it against candidates who announce in advance they won't
abide - that's honesty, and something DFLers of all abiding beliefs can
intelligently factor into their convention vote.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
