Yesterday, in the wake of the 10th ward convention, I wrote:
>The convention just adjourned without endorsement. Doug Kress peaked at 55
percent.
>All 3 candidates look like they will go to the primary.
Then Loki wrote:
>David is being shy. He had a considerable role in
>adjourning this convention.
Aw, geez, Loki - I was trying to be cool and update the list from the floor
via my Blackberry pager, which requires you to use your big meaty thumbs on
these little tiny keys. I was going for speed while not trying to ruin the
opposability of my digits!
As to my role in the convention, well, Loki is being grandiose <grin>. As
you can tell from Tim Bonham's results page
(http://www.scc.net/~t-bonham/MPLSW10.HTM), Doug Kress peaked at 55 percent
on the fourth ballot, and was down to 51 percent on the sixth. The
convention then entertained a motion to adjourn - which already had
considerable momentum since the numbers were steaming toward no endorsement.
Former state Sen. Allan Spear (who I believe is a Kress supporter) moved to
make the adjournment motion debatable - a last gasp to convince delegates to
endorse Doug. Sen. Spear - my former college professor and a man I respect
greatly - opposed adjourning. He gave a very eloquent speech about how the
DFL had become successful by uniting early though endorsement, how by
forgoing internal fights we'd give the DFL the best chance to win. Audrey
Johnson also gave a speech about how much easier it is for a candidate to
organize and run with DFL endorsement, and warned of losing to Republicans
if the DFL fought it out all summer.
Dan Niziolek's troops had been bugging me since the second ballot to speak
to No Endorsement. "Why me?" I thought to myself. "I want to work with any
of these folks if they win, and I like 'em all. I had to deal with Lisa
McDonald being smokin' mad at me for several years after speaking up for an
endorsement at the 10th ward convention four years ago, and I really don't
need another quadrennial enemy."
However, it's true that I came into the convention uncommitted, and was
fairly sure that I didn't want an endorsement. Why? All of the candidates
seem good, but two (Doug and Dan) were still pretty new in the candidate
role. I didn't detect significant policy differences between them, and
wanted to see them continue to prove themselves in a longer campaign. I
guess I wasn't yet ready to winnow the field. I also wanted to hear the
speeches, Q&As, and see how they (along with Ann Berget) proved themselves
in the convention crucible.
As Doug's percentage crept up from 43 to 50 to 52 to 55, I told the Niziolek
people I wouldn't speak to no endorsement. Doug Kress's endorsement wasn't
my first choice, but if it was fairly earned (and Ann Beget was right - all
the candidates deserve kudos for campaigning honorably and substantively), I
wasn't going to stand in the way. When Doug dropped on the fifth ballot to
53 percent, I still told Dan's campaign no, because I wasn't sure the drop
was a trend. Only when the next ballot came in and Doug dropped to 51 did I
feel ready to go.
I was the final speaker for adjournment. I told the convention I was
chagrinned to oppose Sen. Spear, who has done more for civic life than I
ever will. I also told them I was chagrinned because four years earlier, I
stood on the same spot and argued that DFL delegates SHOULD be the ones
doing the winnowing.
However, this year, I argued, there weren't the stark differences between
candidates there were in the '97 Ritchie-McDonald race. Furthermore, Dan was
going to the primary, so we'd have a fight whether we endorsed or not. The
21st-century 10th ward is one of the most DFL in the city - with all due
respect to Shirley Carlson and the GOP, if the DFL can't beat the
Republicans here, we really are in trouble.
Earlier, the convention passed the reform I've been pushing to elect city
delegates in the same election year, not at the previous year's precinct
caucuses. So I told the convention we'd only hand the Green Party an issue
if we picked an late-ballot endorsee at a poorly attended convention (just
128 delegates, half of four years ago, with 100 delegate slots open) where
some DFLers (those who didn't know they had to be presidential-year
delegates or who didn't live in the city when the 2000 precinct caucuses
were held) couldn't participate. Given these circumstances, we'd produce a
stronger standard-bearer if we did it where all DFLers could choose, and
this year, that meant a primary.
I want to emphasize: I meant this as a compliment to the Greens. Even though
they are unproven electorally, Greens are already a check on DFL
misbehavior; that's a good thing -- especially in a district without a
serious Republican threat. But again, I advocated for no endorsement because
I believe it was the right thing for DFLers to do - we will have a candidate
in the 10th ward final, and I'm confident she or he will be a good one
(though if I were a Green I would also want as many DFL candidates in the
primary to split our base. No need to thank me, Green folks.)
As I said, I think no endorsement would have happened if I'd kept my trap
shut. But I did want to let you know what I did, and what I was thinking.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
