I second the views of David Brauer and Karen Collier.
Dyna Sluyter wrote, "About now one of your cult will hit the reply
button . . . ." Well, I was playing on the other team, working for Olin
Moore. When the question was which candidate I preferred, I proudly said
Olin Moore, and I would do it again. But that question is two days moot. The
relevant question now is, what kind of Council Member will Don Samuels be? I
hope that he will be the best public servant that he can, and that he will
live up to his supporters' best expectations.
Linda Mann characterized Dyna's message as "Sour Grapes DFL style."
As David Brauer aptly observed, "this sentiment is ONE DFLer's." And let's
not forget that, while Dyna has frequently appeared on this list in January
and February bashing Don Samuels, in November and December she was bashing
the DFL Party (over the scheduling of the endorsing convention). I
respectfully suggest that Dyna's style is more "Dyna style" than it is "DFL
style."
Here is another DFLer's take: The election is over. The Party's
endorsed candidate didn't win. Let's deal with it, congratulate the
candidate who did win and wish him the best, learn a lesson if we can, and
look forward rather than back.
Doubt (or faith) in a candidate before he or she gets elected is
based on his or her record as a private citizen and his or her rhetoric as a
candidate. The voters have now exercised their judgment, and have reposed
their faith and trust in Don Samuels. As a public officer, the former
candidate deserves to be judged on how well he or she governs, which for Mr.
Samuels remains to be seen. There is only one Ward 3 Council Member, and
(like it or not) it is Don Samuels, so wishing him well is wishing the ward
and the city well, and wishing him ill is wishing ill for the ward and the
city. Hold him accountable? Absolutely. A good public servant would not ask
otherwise. But until we can judge him on his record, until he gets a chance
for showing his stuff, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
Two years ago, on Inauguration Day, a fellow DFLer posted a message
to a different electronic listserver, announcing his refusal to refer to the
incoming president by his title. I understood his point, and his anger. But
when my fellow traveler was writing his message, I was standing on the
Capitol's southeast lawn, in the freezing drizzle, awaiting the
inauguration. I was there as the guest of a friend, a fellow lawyer whom I
know through the bar association, who in her day job worked for the
Republican National Committee. She and I had sparred good-naturedly
throughout the campaign, and the election's aftermath, about our candidates'
relative strengths (and weaknesses). When she invited me to the inauguration
as a gesture of goodwill and solidarity--not with her candidate or party,
but as a fellow citizen--I accepted. Her tickets got us into the section
reserved basically for Republican political operatives, so I was probably
the lone Democrat in a sea of hundreds if not thousands of Republicans.
My friend and her other guests were good company, and not unduly
partisan (perhaps partly out of respect for my feelings). I cannot say as
much for the whole crowd. There were a few jackasses (no pun intended)
nearby who, whenever President Clinton was mentioned, could not help but
mock and strut like frat boys after their team won a ballgame. I was
embarrassed for them (although the crowd seemed not to mind), and sad: sad
that on that day, a democracy's most important pageant, those people were
partisans first and citizens second. Today, I refer to President Bush by his
title, because I want to be as unlike them as I can be: a citizen first, and
a partisan second.
Don Samuels deserves at least as much consideration. The DFL Party
endorsed Olin Moore, I campaigned for Olin Moore, and the voters elected Don
Samuels in spite of our effort. Hopefully the Party will learn from Mr.
Samuels's campaign, which successfully reached out across party lines. But
now that Don has won, more power to him. Zealous partisanship during the
campaign can be a good thing: it can bring out the worst in politics, but
sometimes it can bring out the best too. After the election is another
story. Whatever happens in any election, we ought to remember why we
participate in partisan politics: with a view toward building a more just
and merciful society, a more prosperous community, and a happier future for
ourselves and our descendants. We may be partisans, but we are fellow
citizens too, and the causes that can bring us together matter far more than
the details where we differ. Now that the electron is over, let's spend at
least a moment taking off our hats as partisans, and look at the candidates
and at each other as neighbors and fellow citizens.
To Don Samuels, I offer my congratulations, and my best wishes and
prayers for a successful term.
BRM
Brian Melendez
Downtown
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________
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
