>>Discrediting wasn't the right word. Your post was expanding on Mark Anderson's point about Street Cops - while avoiding his point about whether McManus was an effective manager.<<
Well, Eva, what you've done is give me a ticket for littering because you don't like how I drive. More and still, I think you're widely missing the point. Mark was questioning his leadership style and it's effectiveness by making statements that I think were at least inaccurate, but may have had merit, therefore I asked for clarification. If he is questioning the Chief's ability with inaccurate statements, than addressing those statements addresses the core statement. Much has already been said, including by me, about how effective a leader and manager McManus. Regardless, you don't get to pick what I decide to address or discuss. >>I objected to the way you used G Anderson's column in this case - in my opinion, the the mention of street cops in that column was in a different context than what Mark Anderson referred to in his post.<< Fine to ibject, but still not your choice what I decide to discuss. It wasn't the same context, but that was the point, because that was the only case that the word "alienate" even was used in referring to McManus. Mark statements, in my opinion, were inaccurate, he already admitted to reading basically the same things I posted, yet he came to a different conclusion to which I can find nothing to substantiate it. That makes those statements false in my mind, and that was what I was addressing. >>6 council members? Well he needs to convince a 7th to get confirmed.<< Again, not even tangentially related to the actual point. >>EY: I think it's a bit much to attribute all Lubinski's support on the city council to "identity politics."<< Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's outside the realm, nor do I even think it's wrong to favor identity politics. Going into this process, I wanted a person of color and was open to another disadvantaged group such as a woman or GLBT community member, and if they could be from the department, so much the better. I don't think there's anything wrong with starting out with those ideas or preferences, but when decision time comes, the bottom line has to be, who is right for the job. Regardless of politics and preferences who makes the best fit. And in this case it's McManus. >>I also think the whole thing saying that because Lubinski and Gerold are internal candidates, they will be like John Laux is another red herring.<< No guarantees, but as people are advancing the idea that an internal candidate is better for the job and for bringing about change because their internal and change will best come from the inside (Niziolek advanced this last night, quoting an MIT professor even), than one does have to consider what internal candidates have done. It's not a red herring to hold this up as an example and ask the question. No guarantees, I'll agree, but the question should be examined. Jonathan Palmer Victory REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
