counter statistics

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Stonewall DFL Screenings

The Screening committee met today, and screened the following candidates:

The recommendations were:

3rd District:
Ashwin Madia A, Terri Bonoff B, Jim Hovland B.

Note: I was surprised by this, because I found all three candidates to be exceptional on Gay Issues. It's also worth noting that Hovland was the only candidate to mention this issue on his website, and when talking to the mainstream press. Perhaps Madia had an edge because he had attended the Stonewall DFL Halloween Fundraiser and worked the crowd, and the other candidates did not. That was probably due to ignorance of the event.

6th District:
Elwyn Tinklenberg B, Bob Olson A.

US Senate:
Franken - initial vote: 9Bs, 7As, then 3 proxies from board members came in, and it was 10 As to 9 Bs.

Ciresi - overwhelmingly A. The Bs were all from Franken supporters.

Nelson-Palmeyer - A.

The board meeting next week will be VERY interesting.

I'm hoping to get electronic copies of the candidate questionnaires, and will post those when I get them.

In general I was impressed by the process and would like to thank the Stonewall DFL Chair and board members for being so welcoming to me. There was a Republican tracker at the event. She made a point of telling me that she worked for the State Republican Party, not Michael Brodkorb.


Ozium said...

Eva -- I have to say, I find it incredibly stupid of the Stonewall DFL to allow you, an avowed Republican, as well as a Republican tracker, into their screening. Jeez, these people are stupid. Were you there as an observer, or did you actually participate? Either way, I think they're stupid for letting you in. I like your blog, but partisan politics is partisan politics. You had absolutely no business being there.

Markh said...

Why should the Stonewall DFL screenings be a dark secret?

Is there some reason they'd be embarassed about their process?

Two years ago I attended the screenings, so that I could post a report on this blog. I am not now nor would I ever be a member of the Stonewall DFL, but that doesn't mean I wasn't interested in what they were doing.

Markh said...

Further, as I recollect the results of the screenings and the visibility of Stonewall in the general election process, their decisions and follow up work didn't turn out to be very relevant.

There's nothing magical about that process.

Ozium said...

Mark -- I'm not saying the process should be done in the dark, but they are a caucus, which means that the process should be closed to those who are MEMBERS of the caucus. If a DFL caucus is going to be stupid enough to allow a Republican blogger to participate in their endorsement process, as well as be stupid enough to allow a Republican tracker in the room, then the DFL should have their charter revoked. What a joke of an organization.

Ozium said...

And the fact that they let you attend a couple years back in order to blog just tells us all that they've been this stupid longer than just this cycle.

lloydletta said...

Mark did an excellent just the facts report on the Stonewall Endorsements a few years ago. At that same time, Michael Krause wrote a very negative column about the process for Lavender Magazine. Krause was a Democrat.

Stonewall decided to make their screenings public in the interest of transparency. It's an example that would be nice to see for other groups that do endorsements.

lloydletta said...

Part of the reason they allowed the Republican tracker, was they said they have "nothing to hide".

Ozium said...

You don't keep a Republican tracker out of the room because you "have anything to hide," you keep them out because this is a partisan activity and the tracker is there to harm to your eventual party candidate, period. god these people are idiots. And to the earlier point about Lavender, I'm not suggesting that only Dem reporters be allowed in there - I think no reporters should be allowed in a screening, only DFL Stonewall caucus MEMBERS. To do anything else is to open up your process for people who are not well-intentioned to harm your process. People like Republicans, and Republican trackers.