Re: [Mpls] Re: whether Jonathan will officially drop out

[Jhpalmerjp]

Actually Rick, Let’s keep the record correct is right.  The 177 does refer to
possible delegates to be elected at the 2000 DFL Precinct Caucuses, which has
been an issue discussed at length on this listserv so I won’t rehash it, but
it speaks the lack of an accurate voice from the community as a whole. In
keeping the record correct, it should be noted that I was not a member of the
credentials committee, but did attend the last credentials meeting where a
number of interesting things took place. Notably among them were your
proposals to remove certain delegates, the inaccuracy in the lists that were
provided to my campaign versus others (e.g.people not listed as delegates who
were or who “became” delegates at the meeting), and the inconsistency of
criteria applied.  Most important though is the lack of notification to other
campaigns including the “revised” list sent from Betty Boeck who was
supporting your candidate, which had several inaccuracies in it that we had
debated at the meeting, and these nine delegates you speak of that I know at
least my campaign was never given notice of, but yours apparently was. Out of
the 137 that attended last year and were arbitrarily decided on, it still
leaves a percentage of 67% in attendance, still not a mandate.

More to the point now, to have your candidate go through three ballots of
slightly shifting tallies with the actual jump being made after a vote for no
endorsement and people saying that they wanted to leave and seeing the
endorsement as the only way to get out of the convention, really doesn’t come
as “mandate from the ward”.  And while I would have benefited from “No
Endorsement”, I did not have a “No Endorsement” strategy, and since I know
that no one on my campaign would have the lack of integrity to discuss any
part of the campaign’s business outside of the campaign, I can only assume
that you are misinterpreting something you overheard or making this up just
like the fictitious “Matthea scolding” or Terry Erickson's Queens comment.

And while we’re on the subject of integrity and believability, perhaps you
can explain why your candidate would, once I turned down wearing on of his
buttons, try to coerce me by saying that I owed him because he got me the
acceptable rating from the Stonewall DFL Caucus.  As an openly Gay man, that
seems to be rather disingenuous to imply that he could or would control the
Caucus in that manner, and rather disrespectful to the Caucus in my opinion.  
As the DFL endorsed candidate, I would expect a higher level of integrity.
Interestingly enough, a rumor circulated right after this that I was
supporting Dean because of a nonexistent job offer from the Mayor’s office.

You ask what will citizens be able to believe in me as member of the city
council, well first it’s that I can’t be bought or controlled.  That I am
running for this because I want to represent the community, as I have been
doing, not because someone told me to run or I didn’t want another candidate
to have the office.  Most importantly that I’ve actually done the work,
rather than spinning a few trips out to the community into experience and
desire.  

As I mentioned previously, I and my campaign are still considering options at
this point.  Most importantly, though, I still maintain that this race should
be about the people in this ward, and that the people as a whole should
decide who holds the seat, and represents the community.  So let the people
decide, and if your candidate is truly the best person, he’ll get it.  I
would think for a longtime DFLer like yourself, allowing the will of the
people to prevail would be the utmost priority.

Jonathan Palmer
Stevens Square-Loring Heights

Leadership Does Matter!
www.jonathanpalmer.org