Can Minnesota Elect a Bold Progressive Governor in 2010?

I also support Sen Marty for those reasons. (0.00 / 0)

I do have (two small) issues with the renew campaign.  First it seems a bit odd that all you have to do is put forth money and then you can vote for your candidate.  A friend of mine brought up the fact that candidate x's supporters could all just cough up the $ and then vote.

But my biggest issue is that at the conventions MANY of the renew groups are posting as 'undecided'; they aren't undecided they have three candidates to choose from.  Even if John Marty was one of their top three choices, I would take issues with the false advertising. Many delegates are truely undecided, but end up clumped with renew MN because, well frankly, they are very well organized.  I tried to bring this up to a renew member and she acted offended, so I didn't get any answers about my issues.

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:51:26 PM CST

I attended a TakeActionMN/ReNewMN event last fall (0.00 / 0)

and although the people I met were friendly, they weren't progressive.  Some of the ideas presented by the speakers were somewhat progressive but I would call their ideas more common sense.  I didn't hear anything about marriage equality or single-payer healthcare or progressive taxation.  In fact, most of the people I met at the TakeActionMN event were NOT even close to progressive but more likely moderate liberals.  In fact, many of the people I talked to supported the war against terror in Afghanistan.

So how can an organization that consists mainly of moderate Democrats really call itself progressive?  How can an organization that doesn't support the most progressive candidate in the governor's DFL endorsement call itself progressive?  It can't and it shouldn't.  I find it false advertising and I think TakeActionMN should just come out and say it really is a front for the Minnesota DFL and that they created this group to avoid the long drawn out endorsement process at the state convention.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 00:04:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reNEW MN (0.00 / 0)

reNEW MN is a project of TakeAction MN. It's a grassroots progressive organization that is determined to get a progressive governor elected this year. The paid staff and the board were not allowed to vote for the three candidates. Those who voted were paid TakeAction members. We voted on the candidate who met three criteria:
1. The candidate we thought was the most progressive
2. The candidate we thought could win the election
3. The candidate we were willing to devote our time and money to.

My three choices were Mark Dayton, Paul Thissen and Tom Rukavina. I really like John Marty and agree that he is one of the two most progressive candidates, the other being Mark Dayton. I'm one of those who didn't vote for him because I didn't think he could win.

Mark Dayton has a long history of progressive leadership. He stood up on the Senate floor to speak out against the marriage amendment, even though his doing so was unpopular. He was never afraid to vote his conscience, no matter how unpopular it was. He was one of the few senators who voted against the Iraq War. So was Paul Wellstone.

I don't feel that reNEW MN engaged in any false advertising. Many of the subcaucuses are reNEW MN uncommitted. There's nothing false about that. They will eventually select one of the three candidates, but they are uncommitted as to which one.

So be so quick to condemn reNEW MN. They have a lot of energy and are a real force in this year's election.
 

Don't cook your own goose.

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:34:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reNew, form over substance (0.00 / 0)

I don't quite know what to make of reNew either. Smart folks, laudable philosophy. I certainly understand and appreciate the approach of forming a voting block to further a progressive agenda, particularly given the large number of candidates, and the need for a bold progressive candidate.

Where I'm having difficulty is -- I've met quite a few TA/reNew members who like the philosophy in theory, but have issues with the process.  Many of them feel as though the process was co-opted by non-reNew folks in a way that ultimately detracts from reNew's mission, and at the expense of the issues.  Puts folks in a difficult position, as I think progressives are a little tired of glossing over a progressive agenda in the name of a half-hearted endorsement process.

Anyway, I agree with folks on here that Marty is the best candidate on the issues.  Setting a progressive agenda first, and then engaging pragmatism second in order to pursue that agenda is the way to go. Seems like many of the other candidates have these priorities flip flopped, which isn't exactly inspiring.  

I'm hopeful that the good progressive folks of MN will find a way to reconcile this disconnect in the coming weeks.  Based on this past weekend's results, especially in greater MN, looks like it's starting to happen.

---

by: JT @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:00:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ReNewMN auctioned off the endorsement... (0.00 / 0)

So is it any surprise that three of the least progressive candidates got their endorsement?

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 14:59:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't know. (0.00 / 0)

I've arrived at some conclusions about who is best on the issues, but I don't really know who is least progressive.

I have heard some reNew insiders are second guessing having had an "endorsement" process when they did, and allowing the process to get away from them and co-opted.  

---

by: JT @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:16:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

co-opted? (0.00 / 0)

As a reNEW person, I don't feel the process has gotten away from us or has been co-opted. It's difficult to try something new, but I'm glad that we're trying something, rather than just assuming that the same old process will get us a better result.

I also don't agree that the three least progressive candidates were endorsed. Overall, the group of candidates out there are pretty progressive. Who you deem more or less progressive is really a difficult thing to put a fine point on. But the key is not having the person who says the most progressive things be our candidate or the person who introduces the most progressive bills, but the person who is most progressive that will be able to win and work with us once they have won.

We're all just using our experiences and insights to make our best guess as to who those people are. We don't get to see what the future looks like if we had endorsed this candidate or that one. We just get to make the future that is before us, and try to make the best possible choices to make the best possible future.

I feel good about the choices made by the group of people that are supporting the reNEW vision, and I'm glad to be a part of that process.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:41:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've said this before, but I'm not sure it was... (0.00 / 0)

..."co-opted", but what strikes me is that all three endorsees are from Minneapolis. I mean, with 3 slots one  would think that maybe one slot could go to a suburban progressive, one slot to an Iron Ranger, or something else (St. Paul?). Giving all 3 slots to Minneapolis-based progressives seems pretty damn redundant.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 16:44:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bingo! (0.00 / 0)

Its like all the progressives in rural Minnesota don't count.  What are we, chopped liver?

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:52:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (4.00 / 1)

I believe and know John Marty can win in November.  First, jobs are one of the main issues for the next election and John Marty is the author for the Minnesota Emergency Employment Development.  This program was first instituted during the Minnesota recession of 1983 and was a glowing success.  It has been held up as a shining example by national economists who say it is the best program to create jobs in the last 50 years.

Second, John's pledge as THE ONLY candidate to take no PAC or lobbyists money resonates with independent voters who are cynical of politicians being bought and sold by the special interests.  I have witnessed Democratic candidates win Senate seats in Republican states against entrenched incumbents in the past touting that position and John Marty will win in November with that as his lead position.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:24:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice (0.00 / 0)

"How can an organization that doesn't support the most progressive candidate in the governor's DFL endorsement call itself progressive?  It can't and it shouldn't."

Are you going to take your ball and go home now?

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:06:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I apologize it that statement offended you (0.00 / 0)

but the truth hurts.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:26:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rachel Nygard (0.00 / 0)

Here is some more Marty supporter arrogance:

"How can an organization that doesn't support the most progressive candidate in the governor's DFL endorsement call itself progressive?  It can't and it shouldn't.  I find it false advertising"

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:21:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (0.00 / 0)

the Republicans called Barack Obama arrogant.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.  Thanks for trying to shift the blame but I just call it as I see it.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:29:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What is a moderate progressive? (0.00 / 0)

Is that an oxymoron like compassionate conservative?

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 00:05:18 AM CST

Please define progressive (0.00 / 0)

Is there a litmus test?
Do they have to meet list of criteria?
Do they have to be 100% in compliance with your list, or is it an 8/10 or 7/10 thing?

I personally think all the candidates are progressive. Even moderate Bakk is progressive on labor. Maybe Marty is the most progressive. I'd love him as governor. I'd love Entenza too. Health care is the civil rights issue of our time, ad Marty's got it. The environment is the issue, overall, of our time, and it seems Entenza is the best on that.

---

by: Alec @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:41:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dear Alec (0.00 / 0)

Please define moderate progressive.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:30:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dear progressivesunite (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea what a moderate progressive is. I didn't coin the term.  

---

by: Alec @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:54:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Alec (0.00 / 0)

I didn't either, it appeared in the article above and I questioned what it meant.  If you look further down the thread you will find a post by "Grace Kelly" that aptly describes the phrase.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:14:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Continue the conversation (0.00 / 0)

I am having a bit of a problem with the idea that most of the uncommitted delegates are for reNEW.mn and that from those they are ONLY suppose to elect one of the three candidates that are on reNEW.mn's list.  That to me seems quite wrong.  Because it sounds to me like reNEW.mn has set in motion the probability that only their selected candidates could win, leaving a really good progressive like John Marty out of the running.  The last writer states that John Marty is a good progressive candidate, yet, John Marty was left out as one of the candidates that could have been among them.  

Given that outcome, I do question exactly what is going on with reNEW.mn.  I think the uncommitted delegates should have just as much of an opportunity to consider John Marty and any other candidate as much as anyone else.  After all an uncommitted delegate is an uncommitted delegate.  Yet if they are only committed to selecting one of reNEW.mn's candidates, are they really uncommitted? An uncommitted delegate I would think would also have the room to possibly select other candidates including those who are not necessarily one of the three chosen by reNEW.mn. So, is uncommitted still uncommitted?

---

by: BearBudMN @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:18:22 AM CST

reNEW.MN's delegate count (0.00 / 0)

I think that reNEW.MN will end up with around 50 named subcaucuses.  As I pointed out in my post on the MN-GOV race, they may not have control over all of them, but I don't find that all that surprising considering the nature of what they are trying to pull off.

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:59:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

The number of named subcaucuses is not indicative of the total amount of support. There are probably going to be closer to 150 total delegates committed to the reNEW vision and process.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:14:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So ... (0.00 / 0)

You are willing to put your kung fu on the line for this'n, MinnesotaBulldog? :)

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:26:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kung fu? (0.00 / 0)

Not sure what kung fu I have on the line, but since there are already about 120 reNEW supporters lined up (see Eric Black's article yesterday), it's not too much of a stretch to get up to 150.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:29:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, Marty DID come very close.... (0.00 / 0)

....in the ReNEWmn process, something like 10 or 12 votes shy.

Yes, MN DEFINITELY can elect a BOLD progressive this year. Historical circumstances are right for it. There are times when the economy is humming along and everything else is just "hunky-dory" that you might not want somebody who "rocks the boat". Now is NOT one of those times. We need someone to not only rock the boat, but maybe even tip the damn thing over.

Paul Wellstone lost his first endeavor into state-wide electoral politics in 1982. Will people ever forgive John Marty's "sin" of losing to the most popular governor in MN history in a year that was HISTORICALLY great for Republicans? Hell, at the rate Arne Carlson is going with his recent endorsements the last few elections I would NOT be suprised if he endorsed Marty this time around   ;-)!

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:01:17 AM CST

The sin (3.00 / 1)

wasn't losing to Carlson.  It was running perhaps the most incompetent statewide campaign in the history of the DFL.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:08:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Um, no. Arne Carlson IS still the most.... (0.00 / 0)

...popular governor in modern MN history. No DFLer was going to win in 1994, and whoever was the nominee would lose badly. But, hey, why let historical facts get in the way of your smear.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:41:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Carlson was probably going to win, but that doesn't mean that Marty's campaign wasn't completely incompetent.  Sorry, but when a guy runs TV ads with the theme "that darn Arne," there is no smear involved.  It was an absolute embarassment, and a lot of DFLers remember that.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:02:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Really, one commercial and you... (0.00 / 0)

...."rest your case" (I am certainly glad you're NOT my attorney). And that is supposed to be the evidence of an incompetent campaign? I am not a psychologist but I think you are projecting. You accuse Marty supporters of having "holier-than-thou" attitudes when you are engaged in such arrogance yourself. To say the 1994 campaign was incompetent and that Carlson was only "probably" going to win shows a complete lack of knowledge of history or what 1994 meant nationwide. But then again, you are only interested in smears. And even if we were to, for the sake of argument, agree that 1994 could have been run better, can't people learn from mistakes???

Again, HISTORICAL FACT (something that you don't seem to acknowledge very well) backs me up. Like the obscure Illinois state senator who ran in a Congressional primary in 2000 and lost badly. Or the future senator who in 1982 lost a race for state auditor. Or that same year another future senator who lost a senate race. Or the Southern governor who lost his re-election bid in 1980. Or the former Governor of CA who ran for president and lost in 1976.

Maybe you should look those up. You will see that people have lost in the past and made comebacks, especially if there are circumstances favorable to that candidate. Someone like John Marty was ahead of the curve in 1994. Issues like single-payer health care and clean, PAC-free campaigns are relevant to this day, if not more so. So keep living in 1994 if you must, be close minded if you must, but as a PROGRESSIVE, I MOVE FORWARD and not mire myself in the past.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:42:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

YouTube is the greatest (0.00 / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I rest my case.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:12:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Get over it (0.00 / 0)

There is a big difference between John Marty and the other candidates. It's in the degree of willingness to put concrete, progressive solutions on the table. Health care? He wrote the bill. GLBT? He wrote the bill. Clean government? He wrote the bill.
He is gaining delegates as more people come to realize this, as BearBudMN did. It's a slow process not because of Marty but because of us.
We progressives have had a loser-complex since Reagan's election in 1980. The accusation that this 24-year Senator from a Republican-leaning district "can't win" says more about our mind set than real politics. It says "If I like him, he can't win because my side loses."
Get over it. Get comfortable with your policy preferences. If you don't, and we fail to elect John Marty as Governor, the downhill slide BearBudMN describes will continue. We can do it and the first challenge is our own attitude.

---

by: joel @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:03:59 AM CST

Right here. (0.00 / 0)

"If you don't, and we fail to elect John Marty as Governor, the downhill slide BearBudMN describes will continue."

What incredible arrogance.    

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:25:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rachel Nygard (0.00 / 0)

This is what I am talking about:

"If you don't, and we fail to elect John Marty as Governor, the downhill slide BearBudMN describes will continue."

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:20:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dan (0.00 / 0)

You seem to have a lot of pent up anger at the Marty supporters.  Are you upset that they speak truth to power?  That they have a candidate who is easy to represent as a progressive because he has a proven track record of enacting progressive legislation?  Calling Marty supporters arrogant is a cop out and a tactic tried by the Republicans in 2008 against Barack Obama.  Are you a Republican troll residing on the MPP boards?

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:39:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh (0.00 / 0)

"Are you upset that they speak truth to power?"

Well, now I am annoyed at having been subjected to the world's lamest political cliche.  

Being arrogant isn't a partisan issue and the fact that Republicans tried it with Obama has nothing to do with Marty supporters.    

---

by: Dan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:24:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Calling people arrogant (0.00 / 0)

is a cop-out.  We are all dedicated to making Minnesota better and we see whatever candidate we are supporting as the "best" candidate.  When I hear from Rybak supporters and TakeActionMN members that Rybak is the most electable and therefore should receive the endorsement, am I supposed to interpret that as arrogant?  Who has determined that he is the most electable?  To me the this entire idea of electability seems like the Rovian whisper campaigns.  Nobody really knows where it started or how it started but there it is.

Want to know why I think John Marty is the most electable?

 He has authored almost every progressive legislation and has successfully guided progressive legislation through the legislature.  He knows the people within the legislature and he knows how to make things happen.  

He has authored the Minnesota Emergency Employment Development which was a glowing success back in 1983.

 That idea alone may get him elected because it resonates with all of Minnesota; Democrats, Independents and Republicans.  

He will only accept individual contributions and does not accept PAC or lobbyist money.

 That stance resonates very well with independent voters and along with his prior work on campaign finance reform and his current work on closing the revolving door will win over the majority of independent voters.  

He has authored and is committed to getting the Minnesota Health Plan enacted into law.

 This issue will excite the inactive members of the Democratic Party and will bring people out to support John Marty and the Democrat candidates when they know they have someone who will not only just sign the bill but will actively work to get it enacted.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:15:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Back to the Issues (0.00 / 0)

For what it's worth, the above pretty well articulates exactly why I've decided to support John Marty for Governor.  I appreciate that the above is a post about electability framed by issues, which have to come first, and not by some other amorphous and vague concept of 'electability' that we nervous Dems seem to get wrong all the time anyway.

As for 1994, maybe I'm wasn't paying enough attention at that point to share this odd fixation on it that some people seem to have. Personally, I don't give two rips.  I'm sure there were plenty of mistakes, and lord knows plenty of circumstances that exacerbated those mistakes. I'm sure there was bad advice, staff turnover, goofy DFL politics, and missteps from the candidate.  Heck, I have a hard time imagining that Marty himself wouldn't agree with all of the above, especially since I think I just described every campaign.

You know what else was missing, though?  Sufficient vocal, effective and organized support from people who agreed with him on the issues.  A well run campaign is important, but at the end of the day, isn't this what really matters?

Of course, I'm not suggesting that everyone has to agree with me that John Marty is best on the issues.  But if you do happen to agree, isn't the question of electability just as much about us, our friends and neighbors, and the current political climate (not the climate in 1994) as it is about John Marty?  Is there enough support out there to support a bold progressive agenda?  Do we want to find out?  Or is that too scary given the last couple terms we just suffered through.  It is scary.  No doubt.  But imagine what it would be like if we endorsed an agenda setting progressive, not just another candidate.

---

by: JT @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are missing the point (0.00 / 0)

I don't have a problem with claiming your candidate is the best candidate or most electiable candidate.  The problem is claiming that your candidate is the ONLY answer, and that is what I see from the Marty supporters.  That is what is holier-than-thou.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:46:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

some of us dropped out on renew mn (0.00 / 0)

i am a delegate and a marty supporter.  go people!

---

by: prettygirl @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:57:29 AM CST

Here is a secret (0.00 / 0)

Do you want to know what turns a lot of people off of John Marty?  The holier-than-thou attitude of his supporters - the claim that Marty is the only real progressive in the race.  And the claim that ReNew (or any other group) can't be progressive because they didn't pick Marty?  Usually you only see that kind of arrogance from Republicans.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:23:26 AM CST

I don't think I'm holier-than-thou as a Marty supporter... (0.00 / 0)

Dan, you could say that about any fervent supporter of ANY candidate. Supporters that so fully believe in a candidate are usually those that do volunteer and voice their opinion on matters.
I don't think Marty is the ONLY progressive and I like many of the candidates.  I actually signed up to volunteer for another campaign before I finally decided to support Marty.  What really sets Marty aside from many of the other candidates is actual ACTION, not talking about acting, but acting on the issues.  

You can tell that the renew folks are working very hard to get delegates to state, I just wish they wouldn't say uncommitted...maybe uncommitted* and then add some fine print at the bottom of the sign?  

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:43:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

A fervent supporter of any candidate would claim that their candidate is the BEST candidate.  What sets a lot of Marty supporters apart is the belief that their candidate is the ONLY qualified candidate. Read the other comments on the thread here - you may think that Marty is not the only progressive - but some of the others here say just that.  There are comments saying that groups cannot call themselves progressive because they didn't pick Marty.  You don't think that is holier-than-thou?

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:56:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the only person who said that was you...(from what I could find). Questioning progressive issues and methods isn't the same. (0.00 / 0)

I also don't think Marty supporters believe that he is the only 'qualified' candidate.  All the DFL candidates are exceptionally qualified.  

Many Marty supporters want a candidate who ACTS on their issues (single-payer system/meaningful health care reform, GLBT/marriage equality, environment and women's issues/sexuality education).

What qualifies as a 'progressive' has really expanded to anything left of center, so I don't doubt the other candidates 'progressive' cred.  

I'm voting on my issues and for the candidate who I think will fight the hardest for them. That person happens to be John Marty. I asked many other candidates in various forums what their stances are and they didn't quite stand up to the 'yes, I support that AND I authored the bill' coming from John Marty.

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:13:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

WTF? (0.00 / 0)

Do you have some reading comphrension issues?  Seriously, do you need me to point them out to you?

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:19:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seriously? (0.00 / 0)

WELL Dan, as I'm working on my PhD currently, I sure as hell hope I don't have a reading comprehension issue.  But great job taking the route of least resistance and going for the attack instead of civility and discussing the issues.  Nice.  

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:29:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

The reading comprehension suggestion was the alternative to just calling you a liar.  The comments are right there, but you chose to ignore them.  Its pretty rich for you to be talking about civility.  But then again you aren't one of those fake progressives in Renew, but a supporter of the second coming, John Marty.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:07:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dan! (0.00 / 0)

That's pretty snotty.

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:40:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The comments are there (0.00 / 0)

Marty supporters questioning Renew because they didn't pick Marty and claiming that Marty is the only answer.  Rachel chose to ignore those and essentially called me a liar.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:08:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chill pills for the both of ya ... (0.00 / 0)

Seriously...
Dan ... ease up.
Rachel ... relax, please?

Both of you please remember that at some point in the future you will both be on the same side of the issue.  Don't make enemies of each other.  We are all on the same side.

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I support Marty's vision -- that's why I'm voting for Thissen at the convention (0.00 / 0)

John Marty has been a tireless advocate for universal health care long before many of the other candidates even entered elective office.  John Marty is a bold politician with a bold vision, but unfortunately John Marty the candidate has not had great success this cycle.  As I am sure John Marty would say, our cause is much bigger than John and or any other one candidate.  We need to find a vehicle through whom we can press Marty's goals to victory.  FAR more than any other candidate, Paul Thissen has joined in and pressed for John Marty's goals (the two are chairpersons of the health and human services committees in their respective chambers).  Paul Thissen has shown a capacity to excite folks around the state, and has demonstrated the ability to WIN this election.  Paul Thissen has accumulated more donors than any other candidate in the race, and he is the one candidate that everyone likes.  I am confident that a vote for Paul Thissen is a vote for carrying John Marty's health care vision to fruition.  I urge John Marty's supporters to vote for Paul Thissen so that we can finally achieve victory!

---

by: GordonT @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:11:57 AM CST

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

"John Marty is a bold politician with a bold vision, but unfortunately John Marty the candidate has not had great success this cycle."

Yeah, Thissen is sure kicking Marty's ass.  

Uncommitted: 369
R.T. Rybak: 143.5
MAK: 137.5
Paul Thissen: 58.5
John Marty: 49
Tom Rukavina: 41
Matt Entenza: 25
Tom Bakk: 20  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:16:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In fact (0.00 / 0)

Thissen has chunk of the uncommitteds via reNew, and also have loads of second choice support from the Bakk and Rukavina camps.  Marty does not.

---

by: GordonT @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:22:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Funny (0.00 / 0)

Marty supporters are holier-than-thou and Thissen supporters are delusional.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:09:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ease up, Dan (0.00 / 0)

Seriously.  

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:13:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dan (0.00 / 0)

Do you always perform ad hominem attacks when the candidate you are endorsing is not mentioned?  Why don't you come out and clarify who you would like to see win in November and why?

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:45:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

It wasn't meant to be an ad hominem attack, but rather a description of the inflated sense of Paul Thissen supporters about how well their candidate is doing.  Thissen, who is abiding by the endorsement, fared very poorly in the straw poll and is a distant third in the delegate count.  Yet here (and elsewhere) his supporters are claiming he is viable while Marty is not even though he is barely beating Marty.  

I actually really like Paul Thissen and would gladly support him if he got the endorsement.  That just isn't likely to happen.

I supported Rybak at the caucus, and will support him in the primary if he gets endorsed.  I think he has been a good mayor and a good progressive who knows how to organize and get elected.  I would support Thissen in the primary if he gets endorsed.  If anyone else gets endorsed, I probably would support Dayton in the primary, but that could change.  My biggest fear is that Kelliher gets the endorsement, because I don't find her appealing at all.    

---

by: Dan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:08:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm hoping we can elect a bold DEMOCRAT (0.00 / 0)

democrat

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:40:45 AM CST

A Bold Progressive Governor (0.00 / 0)

is going to have to be able to be really strong against right wing organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic church and the MN Family Council to name a few.  Because when the time comes that Minnesota passes marriage equality for example, NOM (National Organization for Marriage) and the others will threaten the new Governor, they may very well sue the Governor, and they will do everything in their power to remove the Governor. A truly bold progressive Governor is going to have to be able to stand strong and do marriage equality, bold progressive tax reforms, health care and the like with a determination unlike we have had before.  

I think there is the possibility that those who are saying that John Marty is not electable, may be saying so because of his outspoken support for marriage equality.  There are lots of so called progressives that are for marriage equality, but will back down when faced with the idea that it will happen. John Marty talks about how much flack he gets for it in out of State Minnesota. Yet, he tells people, no, we are going to pass marriage equality one way or the other.

Just because reNEW.mn's folks are in the top lead, to me, doesn't mean that's necessarily the right thing to be doing.  And with over 300 uncommitted delegates and supposedly those are suppose to be reNEW.mn's uncommitted people, are also supposed to go with one of the three candidates at the State Convention, I still wonder how are they uncommitted if they cannot consider John Marty as a potential candidate?  An uncommitted delegate should be given the option of choosing to go with any candidate that manages to get the votes at the State Convention, whether that be MAK, Rybak, Thissen, Marty, Entenza, Rukavina, or Bakk.  

John Marty is very electable. John Marty is in the same place that Paul Wellstone was, when he started campaigning they said that Wellstone was not electable and look what happened?  We had one of the strongest people in our congress.  I think we could have again one of the strongest Governors. And I disagree with reNEW.mn's vote that did not include John Marty.  I personally think it is a big mistake.

---

by: BearBudMN @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:06:27 PM CST

A Bold Progressive Governor (0.00 / 0)

is going to have to be able to be really strong against right wing organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic church and the MN Family Council to name a few.  Because when the time comes that Minnesota passes marriage equality for example, NOM (National Organization for Marriage) and the others will threaten the new Governor, they may very well sue the Governor, and they will do everything in their power to remove the Governor. A truly bold progressive Governor is going to have to be able to stand strong and do marriage equality, bold progressive tax reforms, health care and the like with a determination unlike we have had before.  

I think there is the possibility that those who are saying that John Marty is not electable, may be saying so because of his outspoken support for marriage equality.  There are lots of so called progressives that are for marriage equality, but will back down when faced with the idea that it will happen. John Marty talks about how much flack he gets for it in out of State Minnesota. Yet, he tells people, no, we are going to pass marriage equality one way or the other.

Just because reNEW.mn's folks are in the top lead, to me, doesn't mean that's necessarily the right thing to be doing.  And with over 300 uncommitted delegates and supposedly those are suppose to be reNEW.mn's uncommitted people, are also supposed to go with one of the three candidates at the State Convention, I still wonder how are they uncommitted if they cannot consider John Marty as a potential candidate?  An uncommitted delegate should be given the option of choosing to go with any candidate that manages to get the votes at the State Convention, whether that be MAK, Rybak, Thissen, Marty, Entenza, Rukavina, or Bakk.  

John Marty is very electable. John Marty is in the same place that Paul Wellstone was, when he started campaigning they said that Wellstone was not electable and look what happened?  We had one of the strongest people in our congress.  I think we could have again one of the strongest Governors. And I disagree with reNEW.mn's vote that did not include John Marty.  I personally think it is a big mistake.

---

by: BearBudMN @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:06:36 PM CST

DAN (0.00 / 0)

I will try and get a chance to comment on each place where you, so nicely, inserted my name, but I am in the middle of three experiments so can't spend unlimited time posting comments on MPP.  Just didn't want you to think I was done.

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:27:52 PM CST

maybe it's not worth it (0.00 / 0)

If Dan can pick on you (kind, thoughtful Rachel) of all people, maybe it's not worth it.

---

by: Holly Cairns @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:36:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I'll wait for your responses.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:14:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive (0.00 / 0)

I do like that people are arguing for the word "progressive".

I do agree that moderate progressive is trying to combine two opposites. Moderate means compromise of principles, it means caving into the Republicans even when we don't have to, it means passing a bill without the money to enforce it, it means corporate interests, so "moderate" progressive really means NOT progressive.

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:11:13 PM CST

Grace Kelly (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the post because those were my thoughts exactly but I couldn't find the right words to express myself.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 22:48:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

reNEW.mn (0.00 / 0)

Just a couple quick clarifications about reNEW:

1) BearBudMN implied that the 300 or so uncommitted delegates are all reNEW delegates. That isn't true by a long shot, as much as I'd love that to be true, as I'm a reNEW supporter.

2) reNEW uncommitted delegates are uncommitted as to whether they will support Margaret, RT, or Paul. And some of those may have distinct preferences for one or two of those three.

3) Other uncommitted delegates also probably have narrowed down their choices from the wide array before them. They may be deciding between two or three, or four or five, or whatever. I certainly wouldn't say that it's unfair they're not considering the candidates they're not considering. That's their call.

4) It's also true that of those uncommitted delegates, a bunch are not actually uncommitted at all, but committed to candidates who were unable to form a subcaucus, because they couldn't get viability, or because they thought they could only get a certain number of delegates from named subcaucuses, and thought they could get a few more through uncommitted subcaucuses. And that all can't be attributed to campaigns doing something nefarious: individuals who want to go to the convention that have distinct candidate preferences have to make their call about the best way to accomplish that. I guarantee you that a number of those uncommitted delegates are Marty delegates.

5) reNEW held an open process when selecting the candidates to endorse. They had screenings with each of the candidates for 45 minutes each. People who couldn't attend could watch them on YouTube (and so can you!). And additional screenings were held around the state, from Red Lake to Rochester, addressing many different communities. And for the voting, people could vote in person or online. There were no reNEW overlords dictating who the candidates would be. People expressed their preferences for their top three choices, and Marty came just shy of being in the top three, by only 10-15 votes or so from Margaret.

The people involved in the reNEW campaign come from a broad spectrum, so I think to categorize reNEW people as being this or that is silly. What I love about the reNEW process what that it didn't start with a candidate, it started with a vision for Minnesota. It came from talking to people across the state about what they valued, and putting those values into words. And then, through discussions with candidates, figuring out who would be the best torchbearers for that vision, as well as who we thought had a plan to win, and who would work with us after the election was done. Individuals made their personal judgment about who those candidates were.

It's not a perfect process. It's a new thing. But I've found it exciting. It's putting vision first, rather than candidate first. It's such a wide field at this point, that the convention is going to be chaotic and open to manipulation. By trying to get a big group of people who at one point can swing behind one of three good progressive candidates, we have a better shot that one of those three will get endorsed and can then go on, with our help, to win the primary and then the election in the fall.

As for it being disingenuous for subcaucuses to be called uncommitted, it would just be a very long subcaucus name to say "Uncommitted Between Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Paul Thissen, and RT Rybak, reNEW, environmental justice," for example. reNEW has tried to get the word out about what their campaign is and inform senate district delegates about which candidates they are supporting. They're not trying to hide this or be nefarious about it. And ultimately, if delegates aren't sure what this reNEW subcaucus means, all they need to do is ask the person who called the subcaucus to get the answer.

I have a great deal of respect for John Marty. The concerns I had, which I think others shared, is that based on his past campaigns, whether or not he can put together a winning campaign this fall. Not because he's bold or progressive, but because I just don't see the organized campaign team that can accomplish that goal.

Anyhow, those are just my thoughts. I'm just one reNEW supporter, and there are probably others out there that have different thoughts than mine. Just wanted to clear a few things up.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:12:09 PM CST

Wow, this comment thread is a mess... (0.00 / 0)

Dan, I have about 5 min and tried to look for all the spots where you noted be but don't have the time for the hunt.

You want to think people are arrogant, fine.  Just don't clump everyone together.  And if you want to talk policy and issues great! Start writing some posts, I couldn't find any of yours.  Do you have a blog elsewhere? If you would like to discuss further, you can email me.

Like I said earlier...
"I'm voting on my issues and for the candidate who I think will fight the hardest for them. That person happens to be John Marty. I asked many other candidates in various forums what their stances are and they didn't quite stand up to the 'yes, I support that AND I authored the bill' coming from John Marty."

This is how I (personally) think everyone should vote.

---

by: rachel_nygaard @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 14:55:06 PM CST

OK (0.00 / 0)

Rachel, I have no problem with your position and no problem with enthusiastic supporters of candidates, including John Marty.  When I criticize supporters of John Marty for being arrogant, I am not referring to you or to people who share your attitude.  I wish all John Marty supporters were like you.  To the extent my comments came across as attacking your position (and for my lack of civility generally), I apologize.

I do stand by my criticism of (some) Marty supporters.  That criticism is of Marty supporters who are convinced that Marty is not simply the best candidate for governor, but the only candidate that should be considered.  Its comments like this that I have a problem with:

"How can an organization that doesn't support the most progressive candidate in the governor's DFL endorsement call itself progressive?  It can't and it shouldn't.  I find it false advertising and I think TakeActionMN should just come out and say it really is a front for the Minnesota DFL and that they created this group to avoid the long drawn out endorsement process at the state convention."

The attitude by this Marty supporter is that if this group doesn't pick Marty, than they can't call themselves a progressive group.  That is, only John Marty is good enough.  What is worse is that TakeAction Minnesota is not just a front group, but an organization that has been around for a long time and has had significant involvement in a lot of campaigns.  These are people who are knocking on doors and making phone calls - doing the hard work needed to get progressives elected.  To write them off as fake progressives or a front group because they can't or didn't pass the John Marty purity litmus test is a real slap in the face.  That is the "holier-than-thou" attitude that I have a problem with, and an attitude that I have found is not unique to the comments on this thread.

Here is another one: "If you don't, and we fail to elect John Marty as Governor, the downhill slide BearBudMN describes will continue."  Its not, if we fail to elect a DFL governor, but rather if we fail to elect John Marty.  Thissen or Rybak or Entenza or whoever is not good enough -only John Marty can save us. That is the arrogant "holier than thou" attitude I have a problem with.

Again, you aren't the problem.  John Marty would be well served if all his supporters shared your attitude.  And the fact that they don't is hurting his campaign.  

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:38:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You misinterpreted my comment. (0.00 / 0)

I have no problem with TakeActionMN endorsing certain candidates.  I have no problem with TakeActionMN endorsing Republicans, if they so desire.  However, please, please don't call your organization progressive.  A progressive organization would have supported single payer health care from the start of the health care reform debate in Congress to the end.  In fact, many progressive organizations have done just that and they have won over the hearts and minds of progressives.  Therefore, my comment wasn't meant to say that John Marty is the only candidate that TakeActionMN members should have selected.  It was meant to say that TakeActionMN shouldn't call itself a progressive organization when the most progressive candidate was not selected.  If you call that arrogant, then so be it.  However, as a moderate righty turned progressive lefty, I see the entire spectrum and understand the nuances of the political "game" and, in my humble opinion, I believe your organization is "not" progressive.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:02:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think I did (0.00 / 0)

You just said the same thing again.  You think that because TakeActionMN did not endorse John Marty, they aren't a progressive organization.  And yes, I consider that pretty arrogant.  

---

by: Dan @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:21:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why don't you call TakeActionMN (0.00 / 0)

liberal or democratic?  In my opinion, those are the words that I think of when I hear TakeActionMN.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:18:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressives unite? (0.00 / 0)

I mean this half in jest, but your moniker is a bit ironic. Are progressives only allowed to unite if they support John Marty?

John Marty is a great guy, but he does not have a monopoly on the word progressive. You don't get to hand out little cards that say "I'm a progressive!" to Marty supporters and withhold them from people who may respect Marty a great deal, but just aren't voting for him.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Marty had gotten 15 more votes during the reNEW endorsement vote, you would have been just fine with calling reNEW and Take Action a progressive organization. But since Marty fell a bit shy, suddenly Take Action and reNEW aren't progressive? You didn't say that, but that's the sense I get from comments you've left on this post.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:33:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (0.00 / 0)

Even if TakeActionMN members had supported John Marty for their reNewMN campaign, I still wouldn't consider TakeActionMN a progressive organization.  Before I would consider TakeActionMN a progressive organization I would need three things.  First, I would like to know from where most of their funding comes.  Second, take strong stands on progressive issues like single-payer health care.  Don't support the "public option" at the federal level.  Instead support Medicare for all.  Third, support another progressive stance such as marriage equality.  

BTW, here is an example of TakeActionMN's position stance on health care reform.  

Guaranteed, Affordable Health Care for All

TakeAction Minnesota is working to move a bold, progressive agenda to achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone in Minnesota.  This year, we are building a broad coalition behind real health care reform, working to get health care moving the right direction at the Minnesota Legislature, and organizing thousands of Minnesotans across the state to join the fight to make the health care system work better for all of us.

 To me, it sounds ambiguous and liberal.  I realize they use the term bold and progressive but do the words really say "bold, progressive" or do they say "ambiguous, liberal".

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 15:00:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Public option not progressive? (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, but you're losing me here. I'd love to see single payer. That would be fantastic. But the best option on the table for national health care reform has been getting a strong public option. Take Action has been working hard on rallying support for that for the past year. If you think doing so makes an organization **not** progressive, then I hereby revoke **your** progressive card.

Which is of course silly.

As is your implicit claim that you or anyone have the right to determine who is progressive and who is not.

This is why Dan is getting annoyed.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:16:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So by your account (0.00 / 0)

George W. Bush was progressive because he instituted No Child Left Behind which was progress in the educational realm to hold teachers more accountable.  

In my opinion, progressives don't go half-assed into any policy decision.  They shoot for everything and, hey, if they come up short, at least they have reasonable and practical results.  Liberals shoot for what is "pragmatically possible" which means they give away their best negotiating position from the very start and then settle for something that doesn't even resemble for what they started fighting.  

Case in point, liberals gave up on Medicare for all because it wasn't "politically possible".  Who said it wasn't?  Since their starting position in the negotiations was already weak, we have ended up with a bill that has no public option and a mandate for everyone to buy private, for-profit insurance with $1000/month of your taxpayer money going to said corporations.  As a progressive, do you like giving $1000/month of taxpayer money to a Wall Street firm?  Is that progressive legislation?  If you think it is, then I think you need to have your "progressive" card suspended until you grow a spine and start demanding the most from our politicians.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 18:42:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah ha (0.00 / 0)

So your position is that the definition of progressive is somebody that always insists that the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You are using this word progressive, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Or I at least do not accept that your definition of the word has any validity.

I'm a proud progressive, whether you like it or not.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:52:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes! (0.00 / 0)

"Are progressives only allowed to unite if they support John Marty?

John Marty is a great guy, but he does not have a monopoly on the word progressive. You don't get to hand out little cards that say "I'm a progressive!""

That is the exact attitude of some Marty supporters, and I find it to be very arrogant and off-putting.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:50:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ReNEW.mn's process very questionable (0.00 / 0)

Even after reading the latest reply, I still find reNEW.mn's process to be questionably fair. I also find the conclusion that John Marty cannot put together a good campaign just because he lost once in 1993 to also be inappropriate.  When Paul Wellstone ran for Senate they said he wasn't a viable candidate either, but he was elected and he changed Washington for the better.  I think reNEW.mn was too quick to pass up John Marty for all the wrong reasons.

As I posted in another place, I think in the future to avoid such problems that reNEW.mn should avoid the process of uncommitted delegates soley for the purpose of electing their preferred candidates.  That sounds too much like a backroom deal to me.  A better process, a much more democratic process would be to put out all of the bold progressive candidates and let the uncommitted choose among them for themselves.  The response to my last post didn't clarify the process one bit.  

---

by: BearBudMN @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:39:46 PM CST

Response (0.00 / 0)

BearBudMN, just a clarification: "I think reNEW.mn was too quick to pass up John Marty for all the wrong reasons."

I think it's completely fair to say something along the lines of that you wish more people involved in reNEW (about 10-15 more to be exact) had supported John in the endorsement vote. The way you phrased it, to me, feels like some reNEW board whispered in secret and decided against John, which isn't true at all.

The entire point of reNEW is to try to get our preferred candidates elected. If John had been endorsed, we'd be trying to get him elected. It's not a backroom deal: it's a conscious effort by hundreds of people to work to get elected candidates that we like. And it was done in about the most democratic process possible, by asking several hundred people to select their top three candidates, looking at all the votes, and then endorsing the top three vote-getters. About as democratic and non-backroom as you can get. And the people who agreed that this was a good idea have every ability to select between the candidates that they agreed to endorse. If people were really dissatisfied with the endorsements made, they also had the choice to not move forward with trying to be a reNEW delegate (although that's not totally sporting, that's that individual's call).

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:04:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

MinnesotaBulldog (0.00 / 0)

I have three questions for TakeActionMN and its reNEW campaign.  Is it true that people could join TakeActionMN's campaign right up to and including the day of voting?  Is it true that certain campaigns could have done a GOTV campaign to get themselves selected for the reNEW campaign?  What consequences does a candidate face if they don't follow the reNEW pledge?

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 23:07:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm just a volunteer (0.00 / 0)

But no, people could not join up to the final day of voting. I believe people could join until about January 15 or so. Online voting was something like January 22-2 9 and in-person voting was January 29. Or something like that. If you want to get detailed, I can check my emails. But that's the gist.

Could campaigns have encouraged their supporters to become Take Action supporters? I didn't see that happening, but if they did, that's organizing. If John Marty is putting together a fantastic campaign (and again, I have nothing against John Marty: I have an enormous amount of respect for him), then his campaign could have done so as well.

I don't remember anything about candidates taking some sort of reNEW pledge. Delegates are asked to support the reNEW process, but nobody's going to hunt somebody down if they become a reNEW delegate and vote for a non-reNEW candidate, just as there is nobody hunting down people who join a named subcaucus and then eventually switch their support away from that candidate. That's up to an individual as to what they feel obligated to do.

It's not easy to lose a vote. It's really rough. That John came a smidge away from being endorsed by reNEW is a bummer. There were a lot of reNEW people who supported him. I wouldn't be surprised if some are no longer reNEW people.

John has done a lot of fantastic things, and his bold stances have encouraged other candidates to follow suit. It's still possible that because of that, he could get the endorsement.

But this isn't about any one candidate. it's about having a vision for Minnesota that is more inclusive, more just and that lives up to our values. And having elected officials, in this case a governor, who can get elected, enact that vision, and work together with the people who helped make that happen, even after being elected.

In my opinion, you do a great disservice to the candidate you support by implying that no other candidate out there is what you deem progressive. Or at least not as progressive as your candidate.

I've listened to all of these candidates, and they all have incredible strengths:

* John Marty has indeed taken on issues that weren't popular and fought for them and has enacted important campaign finance reform legislation. He continues to be one of the strongest advocates for what many would consider ideal progressive policy positions.

* Paul Thissen does an excellent job at framing issues and talking about what makes Minnesota great. Whenever there is a picket line, I see him there, standing strong and taking action. He's a smart guy and has come up with ways to do things like expand health insurance for children, even during a budget crisis.

* Tom Bakk is blunt and plain-speaking. He comes across as an average guy with a big heart and an excellent understanding of our system of taxation and how to make it both more progressive and better for businesses.

* RT Rybak has executive experience well-suited to the role of governor. He has proven his grassroots organizing abilities. He is charismatic, able to light up a room with a good speech, and connect with people on a personal basis in a way that motivates people.

* Tom Rukavina is, well, refreshingly honest. He has the best sense of humor of any of the candidates and is a common guy with an uncommonly big heart that has stood up time and time again for the little guy. Or gal.

* Margaret Anderson Kelliher has done her darndest to conduct the House in a more open, transparent manner. She has passed important legislative priorities, such as the transportation bill and the climate change bill. She is also warm and caring in person.

* Susan Gaertner brings her experience on the working class side of the East Metro. I have found her words talking about LGBT rights compelling.

* Mark Dayton took his silver spoon and decided to serve soup to others with it. He has dedicated his life to helping those less well off than him. He speaks from the heart and is authentic.

* Matt Entenza stood up to Pawlenty and won. His vision for a green Minnesota is compelling.

I could probably find negative things to say about each of these candidate's campaigns as well. There are downsides to each of their candidacies. And I think that Marty supporters should recognize there are downsides to John's candidacy, even if they feel the benefit is well worth overcoming those challenges, which is an understandable position.

I've worked with the people involved in reNEW for the past year, and there are some true gems. The staff at Take Action are marvelous. If you've ever been to a Take Action meeting, you know what a treat it is to see something that is well run, with volunteers' time and efforts treated with respect. Take Action has been working hard on behalf of health care, both in encouraging support for the national reforms as well as for addressing GAMC. I know a lot of the people involved with Take Action support single payer. So do all of the reNEW endorsed candidates, though not perhaps in the same way as John does.

But really, what's with all the hostility? Seriously. The people involved with reNEW are giving up a lot of their time and energy because they really care about getting a progressive governor elected. Maybe the process isn't perfect, but this is the first time it's been tried, and I think it's been pretty good. The proof will be in the pudding, in whether or not we get a good endorsed candidate.

With nearly a baker's dozen candidates out there, there is no way that every supporter of every candidate is going to end up happy. So rather than criticizing other's efforts, I'd highly suggest doubling down and putting in the work necessary to get your candidate endorsed. And if that candidate isn't endorsed, then I highly encourage you to see the best in the candidate who is endorsed, and work your hardest to get him or her elected. I guarantee that each of these candidates is miles better than Tom Emmer or Marty Siefert. "Better than" is not a standard that is sufficient to me, but that is why I'm supporting a process that I believe has the best chance to get an acceptably awesome outcome.

We have six weeks left here. By all means, work hard to do what needs to be done, fight hard for your candidate, but recognize that any one candidate is not perfect, that others are good as well, and that we will all need to work together at some point.

Best of luck.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:52:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I love the positive comments (0.00 / 0)

and I so agree that all of our candidates have strengths!

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:48:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please explain (0.00 / 0)

how I dissed any of the candidates when I said that TakeActionMN should not call itself progressive?  Can't they use other words like liberal or democratic and achieve the same results or have those words been corrupted?  

I agree that TakeActionMN has done wonderful things and is continuing to do wonderful things.  I think their efforts on the national health care reform scene were misguided but it is their organization and the leadership can do what they want with it.  I truly believe they are a great organization and fully support their process of selecting the top three candidates.  I just don't like the fact that they call themselves progressive.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My Opinion (0.00 / 0)

My take is that reNEW MN will have a huge impact on the endorsement. I predict that either Rybak or Thissen will end up with the endorsement. Then the Primary. Will Rybak or Thissen be better able to beat Dayton and Entenza? And who will be best able to win the General in November? Thissen is the one with the least baggage. Entenza has baggage and Dayton has a ton of it. Dayton's is not really baggage of his own, though, but that which the GOPPERS have dumped on him. Even so, his bad press is all over the place. Yet he still has a ton of supporters all over the state.

Rybak has a bit of baggage, mostly what the GOPPERS have invented for him. There's nothing at all on Thissen, though, unless they're going to make a big deal out of that Holy Angels reward that was taken out of his grasp because of his pro-choice stand.

So we not only have to hope we get a great DFL endorsement pick, but that the candidate who wins the Primary will be the best candidate to win in November.

Who do you think can best beat the GOPPERS in November? Dayton? Entenza? MAK? Thissen?

What will each of these candidates do to refute what the Republicans throw at them?

Don't cook your own goose.

---

by: MsTigerHawk @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 16:56:20 PM CST

I think (0.00 / 0)

that your esteem for Dayton has blinded you to the perceptions of him which are out there.  And they are not all stuff the Republicans have "dumped on him."  Some of it is his own fault.  

Some of the things he has said and done make me very very concerned about his ability to win this race (should he be our DFL candidate) and his ability to be a good governor (and for more than one term).  For example, at the time he left the Senate, he said that he hated raising money and that he couldn't self-fund his reelection campaign.  Has that changed?  Does he either now have more money he can use to run a campaign, or does he hate raising money less?  A lot of money is going to have to be raised, both for this election and for any reelection campaign.  And I don't want to have a governor who elects not to run in 4 years.

---

by: mtullius @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:49:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What About (0.00 / 0)

the reality that the majority of those who are volunteering and working on John Marty's Campaign are people that used to be involved in reNEW.mn but no longer are?  I have heard a lot of complaints about how reNEW.mn handled the voting process and then in their minds, reNEW.mn went with the weaker of the progressive candidates.  However popular someone might appear it does not change the fact that a bold progressive candidate was badly over looked and reNEW.mn needs to work on their selection process.  

As I was helping out at a convention last week, all of us who are helping out at Marty's campaign agreed that the conversation about reNEW.mn and Take Action Minnesota is one that needs to continue.  

As far as our concern it is really about a strong, bold,progressive candidate that was unfairly over looked.  No matter how it is said, John Marty was unfairly over looked and should be included among your candidates.  Just because he lost in 1993 when democrats were loosing big time, does not mean he couldn't win in 2009.  And from what I understand that was part of the criteria, and I think that was unfair political bargaining.  

---

by: BearBudMN @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:18:34 AM CST

Clarification. (0.00 / 0)

Forgive me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your post.

Renew Minnesota held a vote for it's members to decide on three candidates one of which they will eventually throw their weight behind (or this is how I understand it).

John Marty lost by 10-15 votes (so say other people) to be the third candidate on the list, and according to your post he was overlooked?

I have heard a lot of complaints about how reNEW.mn handled the voting process and then in their minds, reNEW.mn went with the weaker of the progressive candidates.

So, are you just basically saying that Marty supporters were disappointed with the result of the Renew balloting because their candidate did not make the final three?  That, of course, is understandable.  If I vote for something I believe in, and it is defeated, I'd be disappointed too.  This I can understand.

However, what I think Dan is trying to say, that how some people may interpret posts in this particular thread, alluding to the fact that somehow renew Minnesota as an institution has wronged John Marty because the members didn't vote for him.

I'm not a renew member, I'm just someone out here that likes to understand all pieces of an argument.

And I am an uncommitted uncommitted.

Also, why do you keep referring to 1993 and 2009?  He lost in 1994, and this is 2010.

---

by: JacobGrippen @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:34:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

JacobGrippen (0.00 / 0)

You are correct; this is 2010 not 1994 but many DFLers want to believe that 2010 is just like 1994, which it is not.  Therefore, they believe that John Marty is not electable.  I beg to differ and would like to know where that whisper campaign began.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:30:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Remember, the DFL nominee will not.... (0.00 / 0)

....be facing a moderate, popular, long serving the state in various capacities, INDEPENDENT Republican like Arne Carlson. They will be facing a teabagger (or teabagger-lite) who comes from the party of an unpopular governor (if the polls can be believed). We need someone who will offer real contrasts and vision to the Repulbican nominee (many of the DFL candidates fit that bill) instead of echoing them.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 12:54:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]