Did anyone read the Strib city council endorsements today? NONE of them offer any arguments to back up their picks.
In Ward 4, they say Johnson "worked on" ward issues and voted with Cherryhomes on downtown development. They say nothing about her competitor except he's a retired ironworker. Does that disqualify him? They go on to say he doesn't make a case for "unseating" her. Does this assume in a race of incumbent vs. challenger, the challenger has to prove incompetence of the incumbent rather than a straight comparison of the candidates? In 5, they start by sharply criticizing Cherryhomes' strong arm tactics, then compliment Natalie Johnson Lee as energetic and knowledgeable, then endorse Cherryhomes. Huh? Did I miss something? In 6, they endorse Kallenbach, saying he "easily overshadows" Zimmerman, and will "restore civility" but they don't offer ANY evidence for this. If anyone on this list has read the Jonathan Palmer/Rick Stafford debate of the past days, I would say it pretty well refutes those claims. The Mpls. daily paper arguably has more coverage of any other medium relative to these races. The Star Tribune is pretty irresponsible to offer up these unsubstantiated endorsements. It is a slap in the face to the candidates and volunteers who have worked so hard on issues and campaigns important to them, their wards and the city. If the Star Tribune is not going to adequately research and back up their endorsements, then they shouldn't make them. -Nikki Carlson -- 4035 Sheridan Av. S. Minneapolis MN 55410 612.925.5884 _______________________________________ 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
