Let me just say that I believed in the idea that by "showing up" liberals could influence the DFL

[dpbrown]

The Chair of the Senate District 64 DFL (this is in the heart of the west side of St. Paul) voiced her intention to vote against IRV tomorrow on her Facebook page. I offered a couple of comments in support of IRV and opposing her stance. At first, she made a trite comment that my stance "cracked her up" but then she just deleted my future comments.

With Democrats like that, who needs enemies?

I thought that if liberals (progressives, whatever you want to call them) showed up, that they could help effect positive change. It's not to be. They "know better" than us. They "know better" than the voters. They "know better" than to trust voters with something as simple as a ballot.

There's nothing redeeming about the idea that the Democrats, who supposedly represent the more "populous" position in politics in Minnesota, would oppose a change that would put more power in the hands of the voters. Nothing. I have no sympathy for their future inability to hold onto power. A party can't run on "we're not George Bush" forever.

Idiots.

[dflprincess]

1. Dan, you can hardly be surprised that an party officer

would not support anything that might take power away from the major parties.

IRV could result in the eventual rise of a new populist party - maybe something like the Farmer Labor party. And the DFL likes to think it took care of that problem 50+ years ago when the Humphrey/Freeman people drove the last of the true Farmer Laborites out. I ran into someone (about my age) last year who was still defending this purge because the people driven out were "all Communists". :crazy:

[dpbrown]

5. Support for IRV passed the DFL convention

So shouldn't these bozos be bounced out of office for going against the party platform?

[krispos42]

2. IRV would, in my opinion....

...strenghten the number of liberals in legislatures but reduce the number of Democrats. Other political parties with variations of liberal and conservative viewpoints would emerge, such as an economically-liberal but socially-conservative party (e.g., anti-corporate, anti-abortion) and an ecnomicially-conservative but socially-liberal party (e.g., pro-business, pro-gay-marriage).

Passing legislation would then depend on specific issues and which of the numberous parties would side with or against it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. I guess they're following in the footsteps of the national party, you know,

the one that froze the Kucinich campaign out.

As for you, Dan, I truly think that Amy Klobuchar needs a primary challenger in 2010. I can't think of anyone who needs one more than she does.

If you're not willing, maybe Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is ready for another round.

[dflprincess]

4. I could certainly get behind either of the potential candidates LL mentioned

[dpbrown]

6. Well, you'd all have a hell of a lot of work to do :-)

Who needs these corporate lackeys in Congress?

[dflprincess]

8. When do we start the strategy meetings?

You'll need to really start campaigning the day after next year's election (Hey! that would be exactly 1 year from today). We'll have to you ready to go then.

[annm4peace]

7. Many would back Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer

but I don't know if he could stomach running again.

[dflprincess]

9. What became of Ford Bell?

currently, I'm supporting DPBrown :evilgrin: but should he decide not to run, I could support Bell again if Nelson-Pallmeyer isn't interestd.

[Scruffy1]

13. Jack

I'll back Jack

[goodhue]

10. Yeah, but luckily the liberals won.

So your unit chair will probably need to either change her tune, damper her opposition, or step aside.
Seems to me you would make a great chair.

[Echotrail]

11. All in favor of drafting Dan Brown for Congress say "Aye!"

:)

I would pledge a minimum of 10 hours a week to start.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. You're thinking too small

I was thinking as a challenger to Amy Klobuchar.