Missions Stated And Unstated – Part III

So the “debate” among the DFL candidates for the non-partisan Minneapolis mayor’s race took place yesterday.

What happened?  Probably nothing all that newsworthy; it was a debate of DFL candidates.  

For a non-partisan race.

Of course, Cam Winton – who is running as a fiscal conservative and social moderate – was left out of the debate since he’s not a DFLer (anymore).

There’s been a flurry of emails between Winton and the Humphrey Institute.  And I personally wrote Dr. Larry Jacobs and the Humphrey Institute to get clarification on the debate about the debate.

The debate looks a little like this – and I’ll paraphrase both sides, since the email trail is a long one:

Winton: The Humphrey Institute should not be running partisan debates for a non-partisan race.  It violated the Humphrey Institute’s mission.  And shunting him to the separate “losers debate” with the likes of Leslie Davis and, I dunno, Howling Cat LeLouche and Fancy Ray McCloney and having a DFL-only debate is a straight up sign of bias.

Jacobs:  The Humphrey Institute is aware that there is intense competition for the DFL endorsement – and this debate is analogous to the intra-party debates in the run-up to, say, the Presidential or Gubernatorial primaries.  The Humphrey Institute invites plenty of Republicans to marquee events, and Winton is going to be the subject of a separate event with plenty of media coverage [other than the “Losers’ Debate”]

Perhaps Jacobs’ explanation – that the partisan debate is a nod to a traditional endorsement process  – makes sense, in and of itself.  Maybe.  The Minneapolis mayor race is officially non-partisan, so the “endorsement” should be meaningless – but we all know that in Minneapolis, it’s not.   It’s an important bit of PR in Minneapolis, a city full of people who vote party first and foremost.

And that’s the part that sticks in my craw.

So here’s a question for Dr. Jacobs: since the DFL-only “debate” is designed to inform voters in advance of an endorsement that is…

  • officially meaningless, but…
  • worth much in terms of intra-party public relations,

then it follows the entire exercise of the debate is a DFL PR event.

Yes, kudos to Dr. Jacobs and the Humphrey Institute for doing the “make-up” appearance with Dr. Jacobs.  It was the right thing to do, certainly.

But I’ll stifle my endemic snarking about the DFL mien of most regional pseudo-government institutions (like Humphrey) and ask, seriously – why does the Humphrey Institute carry on with an event that the changes in Minneapolis’ electoral system has turned into nothing but a DFL campaign event?

9 thoughts on “Missions Stated And Unstated – Part III

  1. Please proof-read this. Either there are quite a few typos & tranposed names or I am just a really confused fellow.

  2. Mr. Berg,
    With Mr. Winton branding himself as a “fiscal conservative and social moderate”. Winton would possibly generate voter enthusiasm as a crossover candidate. The downside for him (as you alluded to in a previous post) is whether Winton is able to get any traction (“is he conservative enough”) within the republican party. I also doubt Mr. Winton would garner much support among the Tea Party wing of the GOP with his liberal views. Although the Tea Party would see their power reduced significantly if the GOP supported Winton despite their opposition.

    As an aside; who do you consider to be the GOP contenders in the Mpls mayoral race?

  3. Emery, I’m going to just assume you really are as dense as that comment leads us to believe, and do you a favor by way of explaination.

    Minneapolis is completely infested with the very worst manner of wankers, weasels, tossers, terrorists, perverts, connivers, liars, reptiles and reprobates the leftist fever swamp is capable of producing. The few decent human beings (aka real Americans) that, for *whatever* reason choose to live there, are much too busy buying anti-bacterial hand cleaner and/or keeping track of their kids to worry about which lunatic is running the asylum.

    And, as relates to Minneapolis, so it goes for the MN GOP; Tea Party and all.

    As long as any Republican candidate brave enough to step up doesn’t make statements the left can use as evidence of “bi-partisan support” for the asshat dance du jour being served from Plato Ave., we could really care less how conservative that candidate is.

  4. Swiftee, you forgot to remind remind Emery that the Tea Party is a fiscal issue movement. While there are social cons within it, the focus is spending, taxes and overall government scope. A fiscal conservative, social liberal would fit in just fine with that group. Your point that anything is an improvement is accurate. Also, Mpls GOP is very much RP territory. Cam’s biggest issue may be in being too fiscally liberal for some of the hardcore ideologues.

  5. Humphrey is DFL Valhalla, where the former great, good and faithful retire to Liberal immortality. (it’s not a perfect paradise though – they do let an occasional “moderate” Republican slip through)

  6. As with most major metro areas, a mayoral election isn’t about conservative or liberal orthodoxies – there are none. It’s a process of crowning your most devious bastard stepchild as King. In truth, most major city mayoral elections are nothing short of a barnyard beauty contest.

    One of the reasons Mpls is my FORMER hometown.

  7. “GOP can’t win [in Minneapolis]”

    Close enough for our special needs student.

    Even though your brain fart didn’t last long enough to complete the thought, I’d put a big gold star on your pointy little noggin Emery.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.