Robert Lilligren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the mayor's race Rybak was not found "acceptable" by SDFL. Speeches were made in favor of this action citing his disregard of the party endorsement, past work against DFL endorsed candidates, and deliberately dividing communities (the police chief debate was used as one example). No speeches were made against. An acceptable rating by the caucus is perquisite to endorsement. McLaughlin was found acceptable and endorsed.
Tamir: I'm not much af a fan of RT Rybak these days, but I have to respond. Rybak's selection of McManus to be police chief was one of the few times that the Mayor actually tried to bring the community together as opposed to dividing it....and in fact the community came together overwhelmingly for the new police chief. Further more, Comissioner McLaughlin's Law-and-Order focused campaign which attempts to eliminate police accountability (barely achieved, desperatly needed,) is extrememly dishonorable. As the VIce President well knows, his own office, as well as several other Council offices, was flooded with calls for council members to support Chief McManus. William McManus achieved a nearly impossible task of bringing together many groups that felt abused by police, with traditionally pro law enforcement groups and getting them to agree on a few things. He had earned the trust of many communites, and (unlike the Vice President) has earned the trust of African-Americans, Immigrants, and those who feel as if their voices are ignored where they are beated up or harrassed by out of control cops. After the Vice President's vote to dismiss the civillian review authority and his own personal involvment in it's reorginization, I would think this would be obvious to him. It should be noted that many of the council members endorsed by Stonewall, including more traditional pro-police council members, such as Barb Johnson, voted in favor of McManus' confirmation. The only three to vote against McManus were Dan Niziolek, an ex ccp-safe officer, who is close to the police union, Lisa Goodman, who never gave an explanation for her vote, and the Vice President, who admitted that there were more calls to his office in favor, but for some reason decided to ignore the many progressives who had previously supported him. Robert Lilligren, the progressive who initially challenged Brian Herron when it looked like an uphill battle, and Vice President Lilligren seem to be very different people. Robert...I mean Mr. Vice President, you've really changed! As for Stonewall, not being a DFLer I have no problem with their criticism of Rybak's challenge of DFL endorsed candidates and his political attutude toward the DFL as a basis for withholding their endorsement...it's their party, but the police chief debate is different. It belongs to all of us. The debate was whether to go with McManus, or go with one of two internal candidates, one of whom was involved in the dishonorable brutality toward the ISAG protesters, the other involved in the dispicable attempt by the Cherryhomes-led council to close the Hard Times Cafe. McManus had a reputation as a reformer and as someone who could build ties with very different groups. The Vice President, however said only one thing at the confirmation.....that McManus didn't buntly say the crime was "unacceptable" in his ward...I would think that McManus' job as a police officer would make it obvious that he views crime as unacceptable, but I believe that those who opposed him had a different agenda. The Vice president wanted to send a message to those groups who were working to change they nature of the police department....and Mr. Vice President, we heard you....that's why we vote! The truth is that there is a division in communites in Minneapolis about crime and police accountability. There are some people who watch a little too much TV news and think that crime in Mineapolis is so terrible that police need to abuse people who are inocent from time to time, in order to send a tough on crime message to those who really are comitting crimes. They would never publically admit this though. They would say, "we can't prove that police actually were wrong in this case." They will say this from the comfort of the safe middle class homes they inhabit as they breath their sigh of relief that "the undisirables are being kept in line," while those of us who have actually experienced police brutality get more and more frustrated. I belive that those who opposed McManus...both council members and private residents, actually are the type (discribed above) that quietly supports and approves of a little police miscnduct in a post 9/11 age where everyone is frightened of everyone else. As I understand it, Stonewall is an orginization within the DFL, dedicated to the equal and human rights of the GLBT community. Do Stonewall members really believe in the civil rights and human dignity of all people, or do they actually queitly support police brutality? Tamir Nolley from the safe and quiet home in Holland the new ward 1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
