In fact, endorsing organizations always expect a candidate/elected official to be beholden to them. That's why they endorse. The expectation is that, through endorsement, we own a piece of you, especially if with our endorsement comes money.
If local elections were partisan contests like state and federal elections (and I'm not endorsing this idea), it would flush such nonsense out in the open and either force this mayor to ask for DFL endorsement, declare for the party that's paying his way - Republicans - or claim independence. It might not change the present scenario except that he couldn't credibly claim to be a Democrat while running as an independent. Many DFLers, especially East Siders, remain in Kelly's camp as they did for Norm Coleman�even after he came clean and switched parties. Those same DFLers are quick to attack challenges to their endorsed candidates as deceptively disloyal. And they are rewarded with seemingly endless terms on important bodies like the Planning Commission, the Charter Commission, the Human Rights Commission and any number of boards and commissions that help run this city. Yet, when it comes to actually serving, incumbents generally thumb their noses at their party platform to which they theoretically pledged allegiance by asking for the party's blessing. Does that prevent their re-endorsement when caucuses and conventions signal the next election? Of course not. "S/He may be a bastard," goes the old saw, "but s/he's our bastard." That illusion persists as though another candidate more likely to stand for the party platform could not be elected. It's the illusion that incumbency is more important than integrity. Thus do we find incumbents growing increasingly arrogant and independent from their constituents' and the public interest. If a candidate challenges the endorsee of his or her own party after asking for the endorsement and not getting it, all will be forgiven if the challenger wins. But woe to the challenger that loses. The hypocrisy rampant in party politics is a major reason why we've seen such a precipitous plunge in party process participation and a concomitant drop in voter turnout. The disgrace we call local elections (in which little more than 10-15% of eligible residents bother to vote in primaries and, perhaps, double that in the general) screams for major reforms, not the least of would be honesty, consistency and inclusiveness in party politics and a greater recognition of the need for broader citizen involvement in local governance. The absence of those attributes contributes significantly to the generally mediocre leadership and low numbers of qualified citizens stepping forward to serve their city, their county and their state. But never for a minute believe that endorsing organizations don't have the highest expectations that their endorsed candidate will be "theirs" throughout the incumbent's term, and they press for undue influence based on that notion. Too often, the office-holders are, indeed, unduly influenced by them, leaving citizens feeling disempowered in affecting public policy that affects their lives. For all the flap we hear about Kelly and Coleman and Bush and the rest, we have only ourselves to blame if likeminded voters aren't voting. It takes some serious organization, not insider baseball and deluded power brokering to yield competent and accountable government and the elected officials that we send to represent us. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 -- "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton -- Visit our weblog: http://newswired.blogspot.com From: Eric Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Jacob Dorer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just got a letter from Mayor Kelly today, which some of you will get too. He > mentions others running for mayor have disagreed with the DFL and endorsed > candidates in the past. No he doesn't. He went after one in particular. He sort of dismisses Ortega and says he's not sure if he has always supported the DFL endorsed candidate and goes on to say some marginally nice things about Ortega (we haven't always agreed, but he knows his heart is in the right place, he's worked hard on the Ramsey County Board or something like that). He takes some serious shots at Coleman. He mentions the endorsments and other stuff. Clearly, his sights are set on Chris Coleman. For the average person, it reads as if he's showing respect for their likeness, but in reality its informing people of what he thinks are weaknesses for a candidate seeking party endorsement. He does state clearly that he is still a Democrat. He says he's not seeking endorsement because he wants to serve all of St Paul, as if a party endorsement means you're beholden to a group of people instead of ideals. Oh well. There was also a pledge to run a clean campaign and a promise to be accountable for his campaign activities. That was different. To sum it up, the seven or eight sheets of paper I received said: "Hey, I'm running. Look at what I've done. This is what I want to do. The DFL is too narrow. I can reach across party lines. Bush ain't so bad. Rafael is OK, but nevermind. Chris is much like me. Vote for me." The font was too small. The information, was on front and back, far too much. The campaign pledge was different and caught my attention the longest (shock). Eric Mitchell Payne Phalen ------------------------------------------------- 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/
