1. Re: Mark Brunswick's story about ten out-gay candidates running for office --
A little additional perspective. By my count there are 68 Minneapolis general election spots up for grabs (2 Mayor, 26 Council, 12 Library, 6 Schools, 6 Park At-large, 12 Park Districts, 4 Board of Estimate). That means that gay candidates make up about 15 percent of the total city general election candidates. Regardless of what you think of gays running for office, by objective measures that doesn't seem wildly over-representative of gays in the city population. 2. Re: Crime rate decrease and the mayor's race -- Four years ago, "Murderapolis" was the big issue Barbara Carlson had to run against Mayor Sayles Belton. Back then, the mayor's campaign argued that larger national, societal forces (rise of crack & gangs) were at work, so it was unfair to hold the mayor too accountable. Four years later, I think the same argument applies in reverse: there are larger national & societal forces at work (great economy, sustained national effort against gangs)...should the mayor get any credit? Well sure - we'd be ripping her big-time if the crime rate was going up, not down. But my view is that she deserved less blame in 1997 and less credit now. In general, crime has been a "lagging indicator" in Minneapolis - our rate went up after the rest of the nation's rate did, and is trending down after the rest of the nation's rate has stabilized. And of course, there's still the local debate about HOW the crime decrease has been achieved (whether police tactics were appropriate or not). 3. Re: RT mocking Lisa McDonald's hearing loss -- I probably shouldn't wade into this one, but I think this charge is oft-repeated enough that proponents are trying to elevate legend to truth. I have listened to the MPR debate like others have viewed the Zapruder film, I think the knock against RT is an unfair charge. A couple of questions before the infamous stadium question, Lisa McDonald told the moderator she needed the question repeated. Everyone was civil and the moderator repeated the question, and Lisa answered. Then came the stadium question. The moderator read the question. RT answered first. Then the moderator repeated it for Lisa. She said she needed to think about it. The moderator said, "not too long, we're almost out of time," and went on to Sharon & Mark Stenglein, who answered. There's an odd pause as everyone waits for Lisa, and RT says, "Lisa's still thinking about it." A shot? Sure. But in the flow of the debate, there was absolutely no evidence Lisa did not hear the question, especially since it was repeated for her and she said she needed time. It appeared she was stalling - remember, this was just after the virulently pro-stadium Strib editorial page had endorsed her - and RT pressed her, as an aggressive opponent might do. I find it contradictory that RT's critics say he is so slick he tells every audience what they want to hear -- and at the same time, allege he was so crude as to mock Lisa's disability at a major public forum. Unless there is more compelling evidence out there, I think this charge against RT is bogus and unfair. 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
