I'm going to take a contrarian view of this one. Joe B. writes:
So to distract from the real story, the Mayor recklessly, falsely and without merit assumes a quid-pro-quo by RT. But this assumption says much more about the incumbent than it does about R.T. If the Mayor is used to making quid-pro-quo deals, she may assume that other people operate the same way. Like millions for the Target corporation and Ryan construction and over $10,000 in campaign contributions from Target and Ryan management and owners? <end Joe quote> The problem for Rybak supporters is that they already HAVE made such claims about Sharon's quid-pro-quo. So in some sense, they've laid the groundwork for the paradigm to be turned against them. I think RT is on dangerous ground accepting endorsements like this. Putting aside any judgments of the Police Federation, I think he's undermining some of his own principles. For example, RT doesn't take money from those who lobby the city, or PAC contributions. That's to preserve independence and not be beholden to specific interests. But as any campaign pro knows, there are financial contributions and there is "in-kind" help - organizations spending their own money to lobby members/sympathizers, or providing bodies to do lit drops, etc. A PAC contribution is money from a member organization, but an endorsement also provides benefits from a member organization. When the day is done, what's the difference? Is a candidate any more independent getting one versus the other? RT's reform effort also stresses transparency, such as more timely and more complete contribution reporting. But "in-kind" benefits - say, the amount of lit droppers an endorsing group provides - are hard to count, but often more beneficial. Are citizens any further along in getting a full view of special-interest influence? Look, don't get me wrong: organizations and individuals have a right to participate, within the bounds of the law. Candidates have the right to court endorsements and talk to whomever they want. Bob Gustafson made the excellent point that an endorsement does not reflexively mean a quid-pro-quo. For most voters, we just don't know. That's why RT has been a "breath of fresh air" when he disdains certain kind of arrangements that, at the very, least look bad. Perhaps it took the Police Federation endorsement to get some attention, but I think he's backtracking on those principles now. Also, I am no campaign strategist, but I do think an endorsement like this fractures RT's only-recently-congealed base. The view out there is that Green votes put RT into the general election. I'm a bit skeptical: in the 10th ward, Lisa McDonald won the northern part of the ward where Greens did better, but RT won the southern tier of precincts where Greens did more poorly. To me, RT won by whomping everyone where the Greens had no candidate: Ward 7, 11, 13. However, I'm sure there are more sophisticated analyses out there. In any event, a Police endorsement is poison to many left-leaning voters. I wonder how many Greens or left-type voters will now simply sit out the mayor's race. I wonder if the Police Federation endorsement brings in enough voters to compensate. A digression: I was doing a little chart of pre-primary discussion on the list the other day. In the 11 days up to the primary (September 1-11), I counted posts for and against the four most popular candidates (I ignored neutral posts). Lisa McDonald won the derby, with 61 total posts; 30 for, 31 against. Sharon Sayles Belton was second, with 45 total posts; 15 for and 30 against. RT was third, with 32; 16 for and 16 against. (Stenglein was an afterthought here; he had ten posts, with 3 for and 7 against.) My point is that for all the blather about this being an "RT list," there has been relatively little discussion of him and his positions, pro or con. The issue of him not being here has become a sideshow. What's truly been AWOL is a substantive (but respectful!) list discussion of who he is as a candidate, and what he will or won't do. It's up to all of us to change that in the five weeks before November 6. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
