![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerYOU GUYS, WE ARE ON THE HOME STRETCH.
John Charles Wilson (Lauraist Communist)
Cam Winton (Independent responsible inclusive), attorney
Stephanie Woodruff (DFL), software executive and Citizen Member of Minneapolis Audit Committee
Rahn V. Workcuff (Independence)
Christopher Robin Zimmerman (Libertarian)
Oh, this set is going to be fun. Let's get started.
John Charles Wilson (Lauraist Communist)
http://johnwilson4mayor.org/
https://www.facebook.com/johnwilson4mayor
John ran for Mayor of Minneapolis in 2009 as well (and makes it clear on his blog that running for office is his new hobby, which he likes a lot and intends to stick with.)
He seems to have moderated some of his positions in the last four years. In 2009, he said that he wanted to establish a Lauraist homeland that would be a piece of land with a 100 mile radius centered on Minneapolis; also, he wanted to restore all transit systems to the routes, fares, and schedules they had as of September 19th, 1970, but he says now that he no longer believes that this is "feasible, possible, or desirable."
He also believes that Laura Ingalls Wilder is God (it's been revealed to him in visions) and that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, and Andropov were prophets and saints "sent down by Laura to spread the economic/political portion of Her message." (Not mentioned: whether this makes Gorbechev the anti-Laura? Also, where exactly does Rose Wilder Lane -- founder of Libertarianism and daughter of Laura -- fit into this cosmology?)
Other items on his agenda: getting rid of age of consent laws (also laws against incest and bestiality), giving children the same civil rights as adults, not forcing people into treatment for mental illness, and -- okay, I'm going to C&P this from his Facebook page, because I'm not sure I'd do it justice if I tried to summarize: "I'm not some jerk who wants to take your precious soap away. I just think that people who choose not to waste their time and energy on cleanliness should have the right to equal enjoyment of public accommodations without being hassled by others. *Personal* hygiene should be a *personal* choice!"
...Right.
He actually gets into his biography on his website, a little (and his old website had a lot more detail). He had a series of "visions" as a teenager, and his parents responded to his new-found religious convictions by having him forcibly committed to a mental hospital. When he reached adulthood, they attempted to have him committed permanently; he fled and spent a number of years homeless, returning to a more stable life only after his parents died and could no longer try to force him into guardianship.
The issue of people with diminished capacity who don't want to be in guardianship -- or at least don't want to have their parents as guardians -- has been in the news lately. And just as Jenny Hatch has the right not to be forced into a group home and separated from the friends she's chosen, I think John Wilson has the right not to be forced into mental health treatment he doesn't want. The standard for involuntary care of adults is "a danger to yourself or others," not "convinced of really deviant religious beliefs" or "doesn't want to take showers."
That said, I think he'd be a really poor choice for mayor.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? If you share his belief that Laura Ingalls Wilder is God. Otherwise, no.
Cam Winton (Independent responsible inclusive), attorney
http://www.wintonformayor.org/
And now we come to the Republican.
Cam Winton is not running as a Republican. He's married to a Democrat, lots of his friends seem to be Democrats, he says nice things about Democrats, and he's pro-marriage-equality, to name just one stance that puts him radically out of step with much of his party, statewide. But he's the horse most of the local Republicans are backing, and most of the articles about him mention his affiliation. In one interview he got asked whether he had any larger ambitions and after hedging, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that if he started a trend toward Republican candidates who were fiscally conservative and not homophobic assholes, he can think of worse legacies.
He actually got excluded from an early forum because he's not endorsed by anyone; he threw a fit, and has been generally included since then. As he should be. He has a real chance of winning -- especially with IRV.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? Sure, although he hasn't held elected office before. He's a lawyer, and seems to have a pretty good grasp on what the mayor does.
2. Could he plausibly win? Yes.
3. Should you vote for him? Maybe.
So. I think it's worth noting that -- like Mark Andrew -- one of his claims to fame is that he's a green technology entrepreneur. Mark did solar, Cam did wind. Let me go through his issues, because as with all the major candidates... there's stuff I like here, and stuff I don't like.
1. Jobs. He notes (I don't think any of the other candidates noted this, which is weird) that Minneapolis has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation (which is awesome); he then also notes that there are some huge disparities between neighborhoods. He says he wants to "streamline the process for job-creators to start new businesses and expand existing ones within Minneapolis. Currently, people who want to start businesses in Minneapolis have to go downtown to obtain permission slips from a variety of city departments. That approach is out of date. The city can use technology to streamline and speed up the process, enabling job-creators to focus on turning their business ideas into reality rather than navigating the city bureaucracy." A couple of things to note about this. One is that it's nice to see the phrase "job-creator" used to refer to people who are actually creating jobs by starting up businesses, as opposed to people who have a pile of money that they might or might not be using to create jobs....but I have an almost pavlovian response to that phrase at this point, and I have to stop, breathe deeply, and pay attention to the fact that in this context, it is actually being used to talk about people who are starting businesses and thus should not elicit the usual hostility. I also like the fact that when he says he wants to streamline the process, he's specific about what he wants to do. (The "obtain permission slips from a variety of city departments" is something I've heard hair-raising stories about. Streamlining would be a good thing.)
2. Taxes. He wants to lower them. But, he gives a fairly specific plan for this: "Currently, the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County maintain many duplicative functions, including 911, information technology, human resources, finance, and procurement. By putting in place joint-services agreements (similarly to what St. Paul and Ramsey County have already done for some functions) and not filling positions as workers retire, Cam Winton will achieve savings for city residents and put the savings towards essential services and property tax relief." ....so, you know, that might be a really good idea. My main reason for hesitating is that they handed over the libraries to Hennepin County, and I hate basically everything Hennepin County has done to them. I consider the library merger an unmitigated disaster, and even before I moved to St. Paul, I'd switched over to the St. Paul library system because they were still well-staffed, still well-stocked with books, they still let their librarians sit down, and they still didn't charge fines on children's books. Anyway, most of what he mentions are actually internal services, so they might annoy city workers as much as the library merger annoyed me, but I think this is still worth considering.
3. Schools. He wants to make direct appointments to the school board (note: this would require a significant change in state law). He does at least restrict himself to saying that he will advocate for the other stuff he wants: longer school days & years, letting principals hire and fire, pay for performance to teachers, etc.
Yeah, good luck with that from the mayor's office.
I guess the up side here is that if you like his other stances but think that pay-for-performance is an absolutely ghastly idea, you can vote for him secure in the knowledge that the Minneapolis mayor has basically nothing to do with the schools. There's an independent school board that is elected separately (they don't even have IRV for school board races, that's how thoroughly it's controlled by the legislature), the School Superintendent is hired by the board, etc. The mayor can be a cheerleader or a complainer but that's really about it.
4. Essential services. He wants to add 125 police officers to the force; he wants to repave the roads on the recommended schedule ("Out of Minneapolis' total 975 miles of road, the city should be repaving 60 miles of road per year -- but we're barely paving half of that amount.") I'm totally for a better re-paving schedule. Even if he had to raise taxes to do this, most Minneapolis residents would come out ahead if the streets were in better condition, thanks to decreased wear and tear on their cars / bikes. (I know two people who wound up needing an expensive tow and a major tire repair after hitting the same pot hole on Cedar Avenue two winters back, I think.)
The police officers are a whole separate issue; see rant from earlier today about 400+ complaints against Minneapolis police officers and 0 disciplinary actions. (I'm not saying that there should have been 400+ disciplinary actions. But the number of legitimate instances of police misconduct in Minneapolis in the last 12 months is GREATER THAN ZERO.) Cam gets into this on his Facebook page; apparently he got asked about it in the MPR debate. Among other things, he says he'd like to have the offices wear cameras. I think this is a good idea, but he also needs to address the question of what you do when you catch misbehavior on camera. Do we pass it along to the committee that will sweep it under the rug?
(He also wants to expand bike patrols, because bike/foot patrols increase connection to the community. Also, I think, a good idea.)
5. Fuck streetcars. He wants to improve bus service: "Winton supports enhancing our current bus system by installing heated bus stops throughout the city, installing payment machines that enable payment before boarding and ingress via both doors, and improving the real-time delivery of bus arrival and departure information via smartphone and sign boards at bus stops. These enhancements would cost approx. $2 million per mile. In contrast, the proposed streetcar line would cost $40 million per mile."
I hate to say this, but I'm kind of with him on this. Light Rail doesn't move through traffic so it's fast and efficient and thus has a good excuse for being on rails. Streetcars combine the disadvantages of buses (they can get stuck in traffic, they can get stuck in snow) with the disadvantages of trains (if something catastrophic happens on the tracks, you can't just route around it). Yes, we had them back in the Golden Era of Public Transit; I'm deeply unconvinced that it makes sense to bring them back. $40 million per mile is a lot of money.
6. Bikes should get by with striping. Again, this is for financial reasons. He's all for striped bike lanes; he thinks fully separated bike lanes are a waste of money. I disagree with him really strongly on this. The Midtown Greenway is some of the best money the city's ever spent. It is the 494 of the bike community; heavily used by both bike commuters and recreational users. The bike lanes in Minneapolis genuinely take a lot of cars off the road because they make it feasible to use a bike instead; they're good for the environment, good for public health, good for the city.
I mean, living in St. Paul, OH MY GOD I WILL TAKE THE STRIPING. JUST GIVE ME A BIKE LANE, HOLY CRAP.
But I disagree strongly that the city can't afford cycleways. I don't think the city needs to build them everywhere, but I do think separated bike lanes, cycleways, etc., are a good use of resources and a valid priority.
So -- I have to admit that I like him a lot more than I expected. If you're a Republican, I definitely think he makes a good first choice. If you think streetcars are a stupid idea, he's your guy.
Stephanie Woodruff (DFL), software executive and Citizen Member of Minneapolis Audit Committee
http://www.woodruffmplsmayor.com/
1. Is there any reason to think she can plausibly do the job? She's a citizen member of the Minneapolis Audit Committee and people are treating her as a real candidate. So, apparently.
2. Could she plausibly win? It stretches plausibility a bit, but she's in the debates....yes, I guess so.
3. Should you vote for her? I'm going to go with "probably not."
From a quick look at her site, I'd describe her as a fiscally conservative lesbian. (She doesn't like streetcars either but AS IF she's going to join the Republican Party.)
Since she's in the debates, I feel like I ought to give her serious analysis, but I am allergic to diagrams that look like they belong in a PowerPoint presentation being delivered at a corporate meeting, like the one here. Especially when the diagrams say nothing whatsoever of substance. I mean, okay: her vision is that we should excel at education, public safety, economic development, transportation, and housing; we should provide taxpayers value for money; we should create win-win; we should increase employee productivity.
It is basically the World's Most Generic Political Platform.
The "Challenges = Opportunities STAR" (here) is basically Buzzword Bingo turned into something that might arguably resemble a political agenda. We should invest in "out-of-the-box" thinking! Investment builds growth! We need transparency!
The substantive and potentially controversial positions I found hidden under the pile of buzzwords: fuck streetcars, lower taxes. That's it.
No, don't vote for her. If you're a Republican and want a fallback from Cam Winton, go with Bob Fine (for one thing, Stephanie's going to get dropped before Cam does.)
Rahn V. Workcuff (Independence)
Remember Jesse Ventura? Remember how he was in the Reform Party and then kind of split off into the Independence Party? I looked at their party platform once while Jesse was still governor and remember thinking that it looked like a list of cranky complaints, not a coherent platform.
These days, they say that they stand for fiscal responsibility and social tolerance, so I'm going to hazard a guess that they haven't actually endorsed Rahn Workcuff. I can't find any current info on Rahn, but he's the guy who ran for Soil & Water Commissioner back in 2008 on an anti-gay platform. (From a candidate questionnaire: "I strongly agree that a marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of same sex marriages.")
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? No.
Christopher Robin Zimmerman (Libertarian)
https://www.facebook.com/CRZforMayor
Christopher stopped by yesterday to say that he is no relation to Dean Zimmerman (someone was speculating he was, based on his picture). I followed him back to his Facebook page and discovered that he's doing roughly the same thing I am, writing about each and every candidate....but in his case, he's comparing them to himself. Rather than alphabetical order, he's going in order of when people filed. So far he's done Gregg Iverson, Dan Cohen, and Ole Savior. It is totally worth clicking over to read his assessments as they're very funny (and he's a much more dedicated researcher than I am, when it comes to things like just how many times Gregg Iverson has run for stuff).
As far as his own views go...there's not much on the Facebook page other than that he's a Libertarian. Since he doesn't get into his specific views, I don't know if he's a hard-core "let's abolish public schools because parents should figure this stuff out for themselves" style of Libertarian or the "let's stop regulating restaurants; if someone's poisoning their customers, we'll eventually notice and they'll go out of business" sort of Libertarian, or the "really, I want people to leave me alone while I smoke my goddamn weed" type of Libertarian, or a Ron Paul "everything should be legal EXCEPT abortion because I'm opposed to government control except when I'm talking about women's bodies" sort of Libertarian or a "you know what, we should replace all police forces with private security forces; if you want a crime investigated, hire a goddamn investigator instead of expecting government to do it for you" barely-Libertarian anarcho-capitalist.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? If you're a Libertarian, you should totally vote for him. If you're a Republican who wants Cam Winton and who's unwilling to vote for anyone who describes themselves as a Democrat so really Cam Winton's your only plausible choice, you could use him to fill out your other two. Otherwise, nope.
DONE.
I've finished with this so early, I may do a few posts comparing the major candidates on some specific issues (like the "how do you want to deal with abusive police officers?" question I asked a bunch of people today, which got some interesting responses, and some non-responses.)
Election 2013 Index of Posts.
John Charles Wilson (Lauraist Communist)
Cam Winton (Independent responsible inclusive), attorney
Stephanie Woodruff (DFL), software executive and Citizen Member of Minneapolis Audit Committee
Rahn V. Workcuff (Independence)
Christopher Robin Zimmerman (Libertarian)
Oh, this set is going to be fun. Let's get started.
John Charles Wilson (Lauraist Communist)
http://johnwilson4mayor.org/
https://www.facebook.com/johnwilson4mayor
John ran for Mayor of Minneapolis in 2009 as well (and makes it clear on his blog that running for office is his new hobby, which he likes a lot and intends to stick with.)
He seems to have moderated some of his positions in the last four years. In 2009, he said that he wanted to establish a Lauraist homeland that would be a piece of land with a 100 mile radius centered on Minneapolis; also, he wanted to restore all transit systems to the routes, fares, and schedules they had as of September 19th, 1970, but he says now that he no longer believes that this is "feasible, possible, or desirable."
He also believes that Laura Ingalls Wilder is God (it's been revealed to him in visions) and that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, and Andropov were prophets and saints "sent down by Laura to spread the economic/political portion of Her message." (Not mentioned: whether this makes Gorbechev the anti-Laura? Also, where exactly does Rose Wilder Lane -- founder of Libertarianism and daughter of Laura -- fit into this cosmology?)
Other items on his agenda: getting rid of age of consent laws (also laws against incest and bestiality), giving children the same civil rights as adults, not forcing people into treatment for mental illness, and -- okay, I'm going to C&P this from his Facebook page, because I'm not sure I'd do it justice if I tried to summarize: "I'm not some jerk who wants to take your precious soap away. I just think that people who choose not to waste their time and energy on cleanliness should have the right to equal enjoyment of public accommodations without being hassled by others. *Personal* hygiene should be a *personal* choice!"
...Right.
He actually gets into his biography on his website, a little (and his old website had a lot more detail). He had a series of "visions" as a teenager, and his parents responded to his new-found religious convictions by having him forcibly committed to a mental hospital. When he reached adulthood, they attempted to have him committed permanently; he fled and spent a number of years homeless, returning to a more stable life only after his parents died and could no longer try to force him into guardianship.
The issue of people with diminished capacity who don't want to be in guardianship -- or at least don't want to have their parents as guardians -- has been in the news lately. And just as Jenny Hatch has the right not to be forced into a group home and separated from the friends she's chosen, I think John Wilson has the right not to be forced into mental health treatment he doesn't want. The standard for involuntary care of adults is "a danger to yourself or others," not "convinced of really deviant religious beliefs" or "doesn't want to take showers."
That said, I think he'd be a really poor choice for mayor.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? If you share his belief that Laura Ingalls Wilder is God. Otherwise, no.
Cam Winton (Independent responsible inclusive), attorney
http://www.wintonformayor.org/
And now we come to the Republican.
Cam Winton is not running as a Republican. He's married to a Democrat, lots of his friends seem to be Democrats, he says nice things about Democrats, and he's pro-marriage-equality, to name just one stance that puts him radically out of step with much of his party, statewide. But he's the horse most of the local Republicans are backing, and most of the articles about him mention his affiliation. In one interview he got asked whether he had any larger ambitions and after hedging, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that if he started a trend toward Republican candidates who were fiscally conservative and not homophobic assholes, he can think of worse legacies.
He actually got excluded from an early forum because he's not endorsed by anyone; he threw a fit, and has been generally included since then. As he should be. He has a real chance of winning -- especially with IRV.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? Sure, although he hasn't held elected office before. He's a lawyer, and seems to have a pretty good grasp on what the mayor does.
2. Could he plausibly win? Yes.
3. Should you vote for him? Maybe.
So. I think it's worth noting that -- like Mark Andrew -- one of his claims to fame is that he's a green technology entrepreneur. Mark did solar, Cam did wind. Let me go through his issues, because as with all the major candidates... there's stuff I like here, and stuff I don't like.
1. Jobs. He notes (I don't think any of the other candidates noted this, which is weird) that Minneapolis has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation (which is awesome); he then also notes that there are some huge disparities between neighborhoods. He says he wants to "streamline the process for job-creators to start new businesses and expand existing ones within Minneapolis. Currently, people who want to start businesses in Minneapolis have to go downtown to obtain permission slips from a variety of city departments. That approach is out of date. The city can use technology to streamline and speed up the process, enabling job-creators to focus on turning their business ideas into reality rather than navigating the city bureaucracy." A couple of things to note about this. One is that it's nice to see the phrase "job-creator" used to refer to people who are actually creating jobs by starting up businesses, as opposed to people who have a pile of money that they might or might not be using to create jobs....but I have an almost pavlovian response to that phrase at this point, and I have to stop, breathe deeply, and pay attention to the fact that in this context, it is actually being used to talk about people who are starting businesses and thus should not elicit the usual hostility. I also like the fact that when he says he wants to streamline the process, he's specific about what he wants to do. (The "obtain permission slips from a variety of city departments" is something I've heard hair-raising stories about. Streamlining would be a good thing.)
2. Taxes. He wants to lower them. But, he gives a fairly specific plan for this: "Currently, the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County maintain many duplicative functions, including 911, information technology, human resources, finance, and procurement. By putting in place joint-services agreements (similarly to what St. Paul and Ramsey County have already done for some functions) and not filling positions as workers retire, Cam Winton will achieve savings for city residents and put the savings towards essential services and property tax relief." ....so, you know, that might be a really good idea. My main reason for hesitating is that they handed over the libraries to Hennepin County, and I hate basically everything Hennepin County has done to them. I consider the library merger an unmitigated disaster, and even before I moved to St. Paul, I'd switched over to the St. Paul library system because they were still well-staffed, still well-stocked with books, they still let their librarians sit down, and they still didn't charge fines on children's books. Anyway, most of what he mentions are actually internal services, so they might annoy city workers as much as the library merger annoyed me, but I think this is still worth considering.
3. Schools. He wants to make direct appointments to the school board (note: this would require a significant change in state law). He does at least restrict himself to saying that he will advocate for the other stuff he wants: longer school days & years, letting principals hire and fire, pay for performance to teachers, etc.
Yeah, good luck with that from the mayor's office.
I guess the up side here is that if you like his other stances but think that pay-for-performance is an absolutely ghastly idea, you can vote for him secure in the knowledge that the Minneapolis mayor has basically nothing to do with the schools. There's an independent school board that is elected separately (they don't even have IRV for school board races, that's how thoroughly it's controlled by the legislature), the School Superintendent is hired by the board, etc. The mayor can be a cheerleader or a complainer but that's really about it.
4. Essential services. He wants to add 125 police officers to the force; he wants to repave the roads on the recommended schedule ("Out of Minneapolis' total 975 miles of road, the city should be repaving 60 miles of road per year -- but we're barely paving half of that amount.") I'm totally for a better re-paving schedule. Even if he had to raise taxes to do this, most Minneapolis residents would come out ahead if the streets were in better condition, thanks to decreased wear and tear on their cars / bikes. (I know two people who wound up needing an expensive tow and a major tire repair after hitting the same pot hole on Cedar Avenue two winters back, I think.)
The police officers are a whole separate issue; see rant from earlier today about 400+ complaints against Minneapolis police officers and 0 disciplinary actions. (I'm not saying that there should have been 400+ disciplinary actions. But the number of legitimate instances of police misconduct in Minneapolis in the last 12 months is GREATER THAN ZERO.) Cam gets into this on his Facebook page; apparently he got asked about it in the MPR debate. Among other things, he says he'd like to have the offices wear cameras. I think this is a good idea, but he also needs to address the question of what you do when you catch misbehavior on camera. Do we pass it along to the committee that will sweep it under the rug?
(He also wants to expand bike patrols, because bike/foot patrols increase connection to the community. Also, I think, a good idea.)
5. Fuck streetcars. He wants to improve bus service: "Winton supports enhancing our current bus system by installing heated bus stops throughout the city, installing payment machines that enable payment before boarding and ingress via both doors, and improving the real-time delivery of bus arrival and departure information via smartphone and sign boards at bus stops. These enhancements would cost approx. $2 million per mile. In contrast, the proposed streetcar line would cost $40 million per mile."
I hate to say this, but I'm kind of with him on this. Light Rail doesn't move through traffic so it's fast and efficient and thus has a good excuse for being on rails. Streetcars combine the disadvantages of buses (they can get stuck in traffic, they can get stuck in snow) with the disadvantages of trains (if something catastrophic happens on the tracks, you can't just route around it). Yes, we had them back in the Golden Era of Public Transit; I'm deeply unconvinced that it makes sense to bring them back. $40 million per mile is a lot of money.
6. Bikes should get by with striping. Again, this is for financial reasons. He's all for striped bike lanes; he thinks fully separated bike lanes are a waste of money. I disagree with him really strongly on this. The Midtown Greenway is some of the best money the city's ever spent. It is the 494 of the bike community; heavily used by both bike commuters and recreational users. The bike lanes in Minneapolis genuinely take a lot of cars off the road because they make it feasible to use a bike instead; they're good for the environment, good for public health, good for the city.
I mean, living in St. Paul, OH MY GOD I WILL TAKE THE STRIPING. JUST GIVE ME A BIKE LANE, HOLY CRAP.
But I disagree strongly that the city can't afford cycleways. I don't think the city needs to build them everywhere, but I do think separated bike lanes, cycleways, etc., are a good use of resources and a valid priority.
So -- I have to admit that I like him a lot more than I expected. If you're a Republican, I definitely think he makes a good first choice. If you think streetcars are a stupid idea, he's your guy.
Stephanie Woodruff (DFL), software executive and Citizen Member of Minneapolis Audit Committee
http://www.woodruffmplsmayor.com/
1. Is there any reason to think she can plausibly do the job? She's a citizen member of the Minneapolis Audit Committee and people are treating her as a real candidate. So, apparently.
2. Could she plausibly win? It stretches plausibility a bit, but she's in the debates....yes, I guess so.
3. Should you vote for her? I'm going to go with "probably not."
From a quick look at her site, I'd describe her as a fiscally conservative lesbian. (She doesn't like streetcars either but AS IF she's going to join the Republican Party.)
Since she's in the debates, I feel like I ought to give her serious analysis, but I am allergic to diagrams that look like they belong in a PowerPoint presentation being delivered at a corporate meeting, like the one here. Especially when the diagrams say nothing whatsoever of substance. I mean, okay: her vision is that we should excel at education, public safety, economic development, transportation, and housing; we should provide taxpayers value for money; we should create win-win; we should increase employee productivity.
It is basically the World's Most Generic Political Platform.
The "Challenges = Opportunities STAR" (here) is basically Buzzword Bingo turned into something that might arguably resemble a political agenda. We should invest in "out-of-the-box" thinking! Investment builds growth! We need transparency!
The substantive and potentially controversial positions I found hidden under the pile of buzzwords: fuck streetcars, lower taxes. That's it.
No, don't vote for her. If you're a Republican and want a fallback from Cam Winton, go with Bob Fine (for one thing, Stephanie's going to get dropped before Cam does.)
Rahn V. Workcuff (Independence)
Remember Jesse Ventura? Remember how he was in the Reform Party and then kind of split off into the Independence Party? I looked at their party platform once while Jesse was still governor and remember thinking that it looked like a list of cranky complaints, not a coherent platform.
These days, they say that they stand for fiscal responsibility and social tolerance, so I'm going to hazard a guess that they haven't actually endorsed Rahn Workcuff. I can't find any current info on Rahn, but he's the guy who ran for Soil & Water Commissioner back in 2008 on an anti-gay platform. (From a candidate questionnaire: "I strongly agree that a marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of same sex marriages.")
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? No.
Christopher Robin Zimmerman (Libertarian)
https://www.facebook.com/CRZforMayor
Christopher stopped by yesterday to say that he is no relation to Dean Zimmerman (someone was speculating he was, based on his picture). I followed him back to his Facebook page and discovered that he's doing roughly the same thing I am, writing about each and every candidate....but in his case, he's comparing them to himself. Rather than alphabetical order, he's going in order of when people filed. So far he's done Gregg Iverson, Dan Cohen, and Ole Savior. It is totally worth clicking over to read his assessments as they're very funny (and he's a much more dedicated researcher than I am, when it comes to things like just how many times Gregg Iverson has run for stuff).
As far as his own views go...there's not much on the Facebook page other than that he's a Libertarian. Since he doesn't get into his specific views, I don't know if he's a hard-core "let's abolish public schools because parents should figure this stuff out for themselves" style of Libertarian or the "let's stop regulating restaurants; if someone's poisoning their customers, we'll eventually notice and they'll go out of business" sort of Libertarian, or the "really, I want people to leave me alone while I smoke my goddamn weed" type of Libertarian, or a Ron Paul "everything should be legal EXCEPT abortion because I'm opposed to government control except when I'm talking about women's bodies" sort of Libertarian or a "you know what, we should replace all police forces with private security forces; if you want a crime investigated, hire a goddamn investigator instead of expecting government to do it for you" barely-Libertarian anarcho-capitalist.
1. Is there any reason to think he can plausibly do the job? No.
2. Could he plausibly win? No.
3. Is there any other reason to vote for him? If you're a Libertarian, you should totally vote for him. If you're a Republican who wants Cam Winton and who's unwilling to vote for anyone who describes themselves as a Democrat so really Cam Winton's your only plausible choice, you could use him to fill out your other two. Otherwise, nope.
DONE.
I've finished with this so early, I may do a few posts comparing the major candidates on some specific issues (like the "how do you want to deal with abusive police officers?" question I asked a bunch of people today, which got some interesting responses, and some non-responses.)
Election 2013 Index of Posts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-08-29 05:38 am (UTC)As far as what Libertarian I am...I think the best way to put it is I'm pretty casual about it. (I think I may have talked my way out of the party endorsement when I visited their booth at the State Fair today, but that's another story.) I have no kids, I've never smoked weed (no, REALLY), I will admit to being intrigued by some of what Mr. Anderson (err, Mark, not Merrill) said about over-regulation, and I caucus'd for Ron Paul in '08 and '12, managing to win a delegate slot both times despite not being a Republican. As for replacing our police force....you know, maybe we COULD do better than what we've got right now if we were to privatize....no, no, just kidding, but gosh, isn't it sad that that ALMOST sounds like a viable option given the reports we've been hearing lately?
no subject
Date: 2013-08-29 04:35 pm (UTC)Anyway, you seem smarter than Ventura, so that's a point in your favor.
I'd love to hear how you talked yourself out of a party endorsement.
Re the private police force idea.... you should totally go read the story I linked at the bottom of my Clown Car post, "Liberty's Daughter." Here, I'll link to it again.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-29 06:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-29 04:38 pm (UTC)To be fair, some of the stuff that happened at around the same time the county took over was put in the works by the local people well before the merger and was not really the fault of the county system, but due to timing, it's hard to correctly apportion blame. And the stuff done with overdue fines was absolutely the county, not the city. The current staffing situation is definitely something we can blame on the county. The decision to dump a lot of archived material from Central: county. Etc.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-03 11:39 pm (UTC)After the merger, there was great improvement in library access with libraries expanding their hours and reopening locations. I don't think it ever got as good as it had been before the Minneapolis library system started having trouble in the first place, or as good as the St. Paul library system, but it was a definite improvement on what had preceded it. So I think of the merger as a good thing. Is there any aspect I'm missing? I'm sure there are many aspects to running a good library system.
I've lived in Minneapolis most of my life, but have lived in St. Paul briefly as well as worked there for years. Right now I live close to libraries in both cities, and I always tend to use whichever library system is most convenient to me at the moment unless it doesn't have a book I want and the other system does.
no subject
Date: 2013-11-03 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-13 05:59 pm (UTC)What's more interesting about Cam's candidacy is what he's saying about other candidates. He's had distinct praise for Betsy Hodges and for Don Samuels, and he's been openly antagonistic with Mark Andrew. He will "respectfully disagree" with Don and Betsy, but not so much with Mark.
If you have the patience for watching candidate forums, The Uptake has video of one on environmental issues (http://www.theuptake.org/2013/06/25/minneapolis-mayoral-candidates-talk-green-issues/) (with Cam going right at Mark) and one on race issues (http://www.theuptake.org/2013/06/06/minneapolis-mayoral-candidates-address-race-issues/).
no subject
Date: 2013-09-26 02:32 am (UTC)It is true that I no longer advocate returning public transit to the state it was in 19 September 1970. However, I still advocate an independent Lauraist homeland centred on the Twin Cities.
More importantly, my parents did *not* try to have me committed. The story is much more complex than that. They were abusive power-trippers. They actually *opposed* my being committed because it took me away from *their* control. It was a three way war, me vs. them vs. the system. My autobiography, The Conscience of a Communist, is available from lulu.com for anyone who wants to know the truth.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-09 02:17 pm (UTC)I'd say the IP is about common sense solutions and fiscal responsibility. Simple enough.
UNmentioned in your write-up, I'm hearing from IP that the Party did endorse a candidate earlier this year: Stephanie Woodruff.
Maybe it doesn't matter though, since does not identify herself as IP in her campaign communications.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-09 02:31 pm (UTC)The fundamental problem with this sort of blogging is that I often get new information and I'm not sure where to stash it -- if I should edit the old post, or write a new post. It's why I did an Index link in all the election posts this year.
I also found out some rather nasty stuff about Bob Fine, who I initially liked quite a bit.
Stephanie's website has been significantly improved since my visit in August -- she's still overly fond of meaningless buzzwords but at least she doesn't have ghastly diagrams you'd expect to see in a PowerPoint presentation from some shill your boss hired to convince you to "work smarter, not harder!" or whatever.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-09 02:35 pm (UTC)I was probably in a negative mood when I wrote this, because I'd spent twenty minutes poking around their website trying to find out if they'd endorsed a candidate at all, and come up dry. (You're not a real candidate if you can't put together a website; you're not a real party if you can't manage to communicate to interested citizens what you stand for and which candidates you particularly recommend.) They've fixed that now! Here's the site: http://www.mnip.org/get-involved/2013-municipal-elections Apparently in addition to Stephanie, they've endorsed Blong Yang in Ward 5, Nate Griggs in Ward 10, and and Matt Steele in Ward 11.