Many moons ago when I ran for school board I was endorsed first by the Progressive MN group. Then I was also endorsed by the Independent Party. They could have endorsed four candidates since four seats were open. They chose to only endorse two of us, after hearing about seven/eight of us speak. I was not a member of their party (I was DFL), and they picked me over their own party member who ran. They especially liked that I would not agree to vote for a candidate simply because we were all endorsed by the same party.
Given that, they knew I was endorsed by PM, and they stated that they would work with PM to get me elected. I had spoken with PM and told them this, and they said they would work with them as well. The IP then repeatedly called the PM group, and was repeatedly ignored. So the IP did what they could for me on their own. PM then worked less for me, I was told later, because they did not want to have to work with anyone else. That ticked me off, and yes, I partially blame them for the fifteen margin loss in the Primary. I also must take partial blame because I agreed to abide by the DFL endorsement and not run against the endorsed candidate. I should have never gone for the endorsement to begin with, but was talked into that. Remembering too late that the race WAS (IS) a non-partisan one, I chose to run anyway, causing my own political suicide. But I digress. So I agree with Phaedrus, it is about political party power, not about who it is felt to be a good candidate. Lots of DFLers liked me but being staunch DFLers they were bound by the ties that bind. Needless to say, I cancelled my automatic monthly donation to the PM party. Since I am and always will be quite the independent thinker, I simply vote my conscience. One's party affiliation doesn't impress me. You have to give me a darn good reason to believe and vote for you. Pamela Taylor (Tampa) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of phaedrus Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] Re: Samuels vs. Price: discuss >> He may have once been DFL, but he is now a Green >> and, from what I've seen, has the support of many >> Greens and Green leaners. > > Fact: Shane was active in Paul Wellstone's campaign > this year. Paul Wellstone is a DFLer. The fact that he decides to support the candidate who he feels is the best, regardless of party, is not a negative in my mind. I would hope that if a Green Candidate stood in opposition to his values that he would not support that candidate. > In the last city election cycle Shane ran for the > DFL endorsement, garnering something like 4 of 40 > some votes. One of those votes for Shane was mine. > He then went to the Green's convention and garnered > their endorsement. I personally think parties should be willing to endorse a candidate even if another party has also done so. If a candidate is the best candidate from both a Green perspective and a DFL perspective, why should they not seek endorsement by both? Why is that any different than seeking endorsement any other two groups? I could imagine a candidate who would be supported by local Green, DFL, and GOP voters. Why should they not get all three endorsements? To me, the endorsement means "Out of the candidates running, this one stands most closely to our core values." But political parties can't do that because they're more focused on getting power than getting good leaders in office. >> If you think Moore will do a better job than Price >> at representing Ward 3 and leading this city, >> explain why. Whether or not Moore is a better DFL >> than Price is no more relevant than which is a >> better Green, GOP, or any other party. > > I believe it's your Green Party's job to persuade > the voters that Shane is the better candidate. Well, first of all, it's not my Green Party. I don't belong to a political party. As for persuading the voters, I was asking you to persuade me. You believe Olin Moore is the best candidate. Why? . . . > I might have supported Shane if he was a competitive > candidate He came in 2nd last time and the person who came in first is no longer in the race. That doesn't mean he's got it in the bag, but it certainly makes him viable. > The Green Party did so badly in 2002 that they > weren't even able to throw any elections of import, > never mind win them. Due to it's policy of disavowing corporate backing and funding, the Green Party has more potence in smaller, local elections where $$$ doesn't have quite as big of a factor. Btw, personally, I think in many ways, my mayor, city council, county commissioner, etc, is of greater import to my daily life than those higher up the chain. Change can only begin locally. > I thusly see no point in jumping ship now to a party > that is clearly in the end stages of the life cycle > of 3rd parties. The following statement has nothing to do with the Ward 3 campaign, but is my own personal sentiment. If only it were the end of political parties as a whole. As long as there are the "major two", there will always be third parties. Will it be the Greens or the Independence? Who knows, but as long as the main parties do not allow room for anything outside a narrow corridor of thought, people will either pretend to toe the party line during their campaign or they will join third parties. Be free! Jump ship to be an independent thinker! - Jason goray, Sheridan, NE. (Now, parties with kegs on the other hand...) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
