As ol' Ronnie Reagan said in his debate with Fritz Mondale, "There you go again" with your classist resentments for those who weren't born "poor boy from the West Side," That nostrum Chuck has used ever since I entered politics because I live "on the hill" he hates with every fiber in his body. Talk about reverse snobbery!
I, of course, will hold my progressive credentials up against Chuck Repke's and every other DFLer's when it comes to issue positions the DFL party is supposed to stand for, and Chuck and other party insiders know it. Using the tired cliche that those of us not born "poor on the West Side" (which is not the bastion of poverty Chuck would have you believe it is) are of a mind to keep the less well-heeled out of elected office is a spinning ploy to crush credibility of critics who know how outdated the party's obsession with abiding by a single endorsement system is, and how many elections - primaries, mind you - have been lost to challengers. Republicans? I couldn't care less how they do their endorsements.
Chuck would have you believe I'm some little Richie Rich from old-money St. Paul and that my pioneer roots in this town disqualify me from being a Democrat - or even an independent progressive. It's all words, like the Bush administration,like the Pawlenty administration, like the Kelly administration. All spin.
When the party in which I've invested thousands of hours and about 50 years of my political life cannot see its own folly for clinging to outmoded hatred for the open primary - simply a fact, not an imprimatur - then it's obvious that criticism from within will be marginalized and dismissed as anti-DFL, anti-progressive, perhaps inhuman. That is the most dangerous posture for any organization to take, the unwillingness to understand reality.
Chuck's comments speak to a willingness to seek and hold power by coercing candidates he'd never support under any circumstances into taking an oath of allegiance to a process that has brought the party to its lowest level of participation since 1944, yielding the lowest caucus participation in its history (except for the extraordinary 2004 anti-Bush turnout), more candidates taking their case for election to electors, and fewer endorsees surviving primaries than at any other time in party history.
How do party insiders view this trend? How can they look at the data without concluding something inside is decaying?
I do know that mischaracterizing critics of the status quo as unworthy of influence because of their brithplace or background is as undeservedly discriminatory as any cultural racism this party and its platform purports to abhor.
As for my current party affiliation, I am what my conscience tells me to be. If that be for a Democrat, as it was in the last election, that's how I'll caucus and vote. If a Green surfaces whose views and vision surpass that of a Democractic contender, I may well go there. Party loyalty is not the answer to solid public policy. Competence, vision and caring for constituents are far and away the most important elements for serving in office. Party loyalty is far down the list of considerations by comparison.
-- Andy Driscoll Ward 2 (The HILL!)
On Mon Feb 28 07:12:52 PST 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/27/2005 2:57:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All the "good ol' boys" like Dennis and Chuck Repke will flood you now with all sorts of reason why nothing should change, and that endorsements are the
only way for the "little guy" to have a leg up on the moneyed candidates. Well, they've been proven wrong time and again, because of the party endorses a "little guy" who's unelectable, money or no money, and a moneyed
challenger wins the DFL primary - like Dayton or Ciresi - then all the principles of a single endorsement go out the window and the party loses another race, in the process, shattering the party faithful to shards during
the endorsements, then trying to recover their pride by drawing the winner back into the fold.
Wow, I resemble those remarks...
Here's the problem in Andy's attack on the Minnesota (DFL and GOP do it the same way) endorsement system. If one would agree that you can't win an election without money and if you accept the fact that some people who would be great office holders are not among those blessed to be born rich or have rich relatives or friends, then given Andy's alternatives those folks should just hang it up. Don't bother only the wealthy should hold office its their birthright to lead us. If the party would hold a convention and deem 2 to 10 as acceptable as Andy suggests it wouldn't stop them from attacking each other in the primary, it would encourage them to attack each other in the primary. That's what primaries are! And, Andy there was never a time since Minnesota went to a caucus system that there hasn't been primary challenges (remember Governor Sandy Keith). The caucus/convention endorsement process is one that measures not the width of one's support but the depth of one's support. The assumption here is that the endorsement creates a candidate who has people who believe enough in him/her that they will invest not only money but their personal time to go to the caucus and then the convention. Those people, the party assumes, will then become volunteers and they will grow the party. The party is more than a brand or a label it is a functioning organization, the caucuses are the entry level for people to access the party. It is the most open system one can have, look at the alternatives in other states without caucuses there is no entry point to the party and the "old boys" there are nothing but the heavy hitters. Lord knows, I know that it bothers Andy that a West Side poor boy like me can have the same opportunity in a political system as those who have for generations left their mark on the saintly city. And, that we would all be better served if those who have already made their fortune would bless us with their leisure time by holding public office, but, those are fighting words to me. I have seen real people, average Jane's and Joe's capture their party's endorsement because they were well enough liked and trusted by their friends and neighbors that they would invest two days out of their lives for them and go to the caucus and sit through a boring convention. I am sorry that a ball busting attorney like Mike Ciresi who is accustom to buying what he wants would find it hard to buy a party's endorsement, but my gut tells me he would buy which ever one he thought was cheapest to purchase. By the way, Andy aren't you a Green now?
Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past Present Or Future (JMONTOMEPPOF) Chuck Repke
W 7th
------------------------------------------------- JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY: http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/ ------------------------------------------------- POST MESSAGES HERE: [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/
