At 02:33 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Megan Thomas - Personal wrote:
>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.
Contrariwise (as I think Tweedledee would put it), Robert Lilligren hasn't
lost any election yet -- the primary is on September 11. So I'm curious
where Megan is saying Robert Lilligren lost.....
>The idea that I am
>continually harassed by a member of the Log Cabin Republicans to explain
>Stonewall DFL actions is ludicrous.
Odd definition of harrassment -- asking a Chair of an organization to
explain and defend an endorsement should be a relatively straight forward
question -- it would normally be known as a "softball question". It would
also be quite fair for Stonewall DFLers to ask LCR/MN to explain any of our
actions.
>Of course it is easier for her to
>explain what their endorsement process, they have so few people asking for
>it.
I'd like to think it's also because the LCR/MN endorsement process is
straightforward, and objective -- as much as these things can be.
>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.
Actually, Megan, I think you would be surprised by the number of folks who
asked for the LCR endorsement. The dirty trick Megan is referring to, is
misrepresenting Lynne Osterman's position on abortion, and trying to make
LCR's endorsement a negative -- and sending this piece to a targeted list
of social conservatives. The Star Tribune also editorialized against this
dirty trick -- and the Star Tribune is hardly a Republican newspaper. But
that's a state issue, not a Minneapolis Issue. Although I hope that type
of dirty campaign tactic does NOT get used here in Minneapolis.
>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.
Actually, I think there was criticism of the DFL party's endorsement
process (well deserved on many occasions), the Republican party
endorsements (deservedly so for the LaVoi endorsement), and the Central
Labor Union behavior with intimidating labor candidates into supporting the
Labor supported Mayor candidate -- SSB -- and even yanking endorsement of
Jim Niland who isn't even running -- that was a farce. Thanks for bringing
that one up, Megan. It's well worth chewing on that one some more.
>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.
I'd suggest the election toolkit as a better source -- because the toolkit
has candidate released answers to these questionaires. I have to commend
the candidates who have contributed to the toolkit.
Meanwhile, most of the gay people I know in the 8th ward are supporting
Robert Lilligren's candidacy. There are exceptions -- the most vocal Gay
Brian Herron supporter in the 8th ward is Wizard Marks. Ofcourse, Marks
has also been Basim Sabri's most vocal booster in this ward -- the recent
City Pages article on Sabri emphasizes this.
Not sure if folks read the Doug Grow commentary on Lavender:
http://webserv5.startribune.com:80/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisSlug=GROW04
I hear there is a rally in support of the Lavender employees today. I
don't have more details than that -- but hopefully folks who go to this
rally will post about it.
Three of the women employees at Lavender who have quit -- because of poor
working conditions (see the article) are considering starting a new Gay
publication in the cities. I hope they do -- and I hope that whatever gets
started will produce more highly qualified local reporting. Other cities
-- Atlanta, Houston, Washington DC, Boston all have a much better Gay press
than we have here in the twin cities. The interesting thing, is the Star
Tribune is really covering more stories about the Gay community here. I
think that's a big step forward.
Eva Young
Central
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
