> [Original Message] > From: Eric Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This tired tactic of yours of attacking without > attacking is getting old.
No, what's "getting old" is this relentless determination to sort the DFL's dirty laundry in here by trying to say something without saying anything. Kelly didn't "betray" the individual DFL voters who put him in the mayor's office because his reputation for not toeing the party line was a matter of public record since you were, as you say, in diapers. He didn't "betray" the party leadership because they took him in and kept him on in spite of his maverick nature. As you put it, "Kelly has been a good politician and able to remain a Democrat with some non-Democratic positions." And he sure didn't betray me because I fully expected the man who refused to support Wellstone to pull something like this. > Yes DFLers have internal disagreements and some > disputes. Most of these are public as an outsider like > you can easily reference some of it without > misrepresenting them (but you choose not to). Accusations of misreprentation is getting just a little personal. I didn't misrepresent the DFL whimpering about "betrayal" in here. I didn't misrepresent your determination to beat this dead horse in here. I didn't misrepresent Kelly's party affiliation or his political philosophy. I made a mistake about your convoluted nomination/endorsement, convention+primary process and I admitted it. > You then > go on to speak of your beloved Greens and their quest > for political/social perfection. This doesn't float, either. I refuted your attack on the Green Party for being "anti-Democrat" by pointing out that we don't blame the DFL when we lose elections. I refuted your attack on the Green Party for being idealistic by pointing out that we had concrete, practical proposals that successfully address these very local issues. > That pursuit is good, but you seem to forget that the > Green Party has had some internal ironies as well. Missed the point again. The point is that, despite your attack on the Green Party for being marginal, we don't bore you with our internal ironies by whining about them in this St. Paul forum. It's as if the St. Paul Issues Forum has lately become the DFL Internal Financing and Betrayal Issues Forum. > In the usual anti-DFL zeal, in the 2002 U.S. Senate > campaign the Greens endorsed a pro-war, conservative > candidate who made several anti-semitic comments that > spoke to his bigotry. Lies and subjective nonsense. Ed McGaa was not "pro-war"; he was a native American who was proud of his military service and the fact that he'd risen from non-commissioned enlistee to the rank of officer and pilot. His comments were only construed as anti-Semitic out of context and without regard to intent. > Thank goodness there was a primary to fall back on so > that the voters in the Party could correct the > mistake. I guess that's one time you're pleased that > the system in the way that it is. Wrong again. Read the messages before replying. The primary election is all that was needed and there was no "mistake" to correct. > Now for Nader, the sole reason for the major party > status of the Green Party in Minnesota. What can one > say about his hypocrisy? This guy spends the 2000 > campaign blasting the corporate influence in campaigns > and bloviating on the sameness of Dems and Repubs. Your misuse of the word-of-the-day from Rush Limbaugh's Little Book of Daily Insults notwithstanding, Nader certainly did blast big-money influence on campaigns. Just a minute, I think I hear a high-pitched whining noise. Oh, it's just more internal squealing about Vance Opperman. Yes, Nader does make a point of the similarity between Democrats and Republicans. Just a minute, it's that sound again. . . oh, now it's just another DEMOCRAT named KELLY TRYING TO IMPERSONATE A REPUBLICAN. > This year, he's got corporate dollars in huge amounts > helping him gain access to the ballot and plenty of > Republican operatives working to secure his ballot > access. This year, Nader is neither nominated nor endorsed by the Green Party and he hasn't accepted "corporate dollars", only dollars from individual, private contributors. Please get your facts straight before you slander the Green Party any further. > I guess the big money is ok if its coming your way. Haven't seen a dime. Now, let's start getting some facts coming YOUR way. > The semantics about Kelly being a Democratic For Life > is not funny. It was direct to his party affiliation > not association with the Pro-Life Democrats. No "semantics". It speaks directly to Kelly's loud and long dissention from the DFL Party line on a great number of issues. If you're surprised by it, you haven't done your homework. > Next subject, this horse is dead. It was dead on arrival. It's you DFL'ers who keep trying to breathe life into it so you can continue beating it with public protestations about your own internal party politics. Guy Western the West Side _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
