On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Pamela Taylor wrote: > 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.
My take on PM: an attempt by an outside group to gain power within the DFL, bypassing all the usual years of hack service. PM is hierarchical; in essence an attempt by the leadership to employ the PM member/footsoldiers to gain power within the DFL for themselves. If you work with someone else, you dilute that power. The hierarchy then redeploys its troops to more opportune races. This is how it was several years ago. I left PM because of it. It stayed the same for some time. I hear there have been recent changes, so perhaps it is better than it was. --David Shove Roseville _______________________________________ 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
