11:35 in the morning and done with my second post.
Read my response again slowly Andy, I was making no effort to attack you
personally. I was only attacking the notion that somehow the party (any party)
would be better served if it didn't have an endorsement process that gave some
meaning to being endorsed. The fact that we have been prior political rivals
doesn't have to be screamed from the rooftops. You asked for Hill and me to
comment...
MY point is that you attack the endorsement system because the wealthy are able
to run against the endorsed candidate and win. Somehow it is the fault of the
system that there are people with enough personal fortune that they can use it
to buy themselves a primary victory and you believe that if we changed the
system to endorse multiple candidates it would be better. Somehow, it would
bode better for the party if one of the five candidates that they said were
acceptable won in a bitter hard fought money spilling primary than if the party
continues the process of blessing the one who appears to at least have some
interest in the party as an organization.
It makes no sense. There is no gain for the party if it created a system where
it would guarantee that there was always a primary of acceptable candidates -
it would truly then be a joke. The Mike Cerisi's of the world would find the
DFL endorsement system less cumbersome as they crushed someone like Patty
Wetterling, but who cares, why should someone like Patty run for office anyway?
They can't win if they don't have wealthy friends. The current system gives
those candidate's like Patty who don't have personal fortune early credibility
and the ability to raise money. It makes them competitive.
So what if they don't always win! Your solution would guarantee that they
always lose because the money would dry up. But, your right the fat cat who
had 10% of the delegates would win and the useless meaningless process you
propose could claim a meaningless victory.
Some of us actually like a system where the depth of ones commitment pays off.
The fact that a candidate can get people to go to the caucuses says something
about the quality of that person. On a local level, good decent people who
have a lot of friends can get them to go to a precinct caucus and steal away
the endorsement from grizzled old political hacks like Repke or Hill or
Driscoll.
On your attack on me personally, Andy I don't hate Summit Hill, and I don't
discriminate against wealthy people, some of my best friends are people who
have tax shelters. I have even worked for a few... and, you know for the last
couple of weeks I couldn't remember how Chris got endorsed in 97... thanks for
reminding me.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Live in West 7th
Work on the East Side
But I shop on Grand Avenue whenever I can, Honest!
-------------------------------------------------
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/
