These requests for an explanation of the Stonewall DFL endorsing process are
not made in good faith. Both Mr. Piehl and Ms. Young are seeking to divert
attention away from the fact that their candidates lost. The idea that I am
continually harassed by a member of the Log Cabin Republicans to explain
Stonewall DFL actions is ludicrous. Of course it is easier for her to
explain what their endorsement process, they have so few people asking for
it. It is also highly ironic that Ms. Young complains about Concilmember
Herron when just last year she was calling it a dirty trick for someone to
publicize the Log Cabin endorsement of a legislative candidate.
It still amazes me that some people continue to harass the Stonewall DFL
regarding our endorsements yet do not question the endorsing processes of
other, presumably heterosexual controlled organizations. Where is the
questioning of Progressive Minnesota, of Central Labor Union, Steelworkers,
Green Party, etc.? Not to say I think they are deserving of any more
examination. Consciously or subconsciously it is bias in action to hold one
group of people to a higher standard than others.
As I have stated over and freakin over before: all known candidates were
invited to a screening interview or to fill out a questionnaire. The members
of the Stonewall DFL Caucus listened/read and then voted their conscience.
You can find the results of these vote on our web page at
www.stonewalldfl.org.
Megan Thomas
Happy right now to live in St. Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:21 AM
Subject: [Mpls] Stonewall DFL candidate screenings: qualifications &
promises
>
>
>
> I have been hearing a lot from Stonewall DFL folks about how "qualified"
their
> endorsed Minneapolis candidates are, but I've never really been able to
find out
> how Stonewall DFL defines "qualified".
>
> I am aware that candidates are required to respect the endorsement
process, and
> to use the Stonewall DFL endorsement on their campaign literature - what
else?
>
> When the candidate is an incumbant or been elected to other positions, are
> attendance and voting records considered? Is the candidate required to
state
> the ways they have been a friend of the GLBT community? Are comparisons
made
> between stated positions and voting records, or are the words of the
candidate
> taken at face value? Is the connection with other special interest groups
> (possibly with conflicting goals) considered? Or is it less formal, as
Megan
> Thomas once posted, that sometimes they just like a candidate better? Are
there
> different considerations for different candidates, or one set of criteria?
If
> Stonewall DFL requires that the candidate use their endorsement on
candidate
> literature, would it be a good idea to request that they have a presence
at
> events such as Pride - at least a booth?
>
> Could someone from Stonewall DFL please clarify?
>
> Thanks
>
> 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
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
