Montgomery County at Large Seats

[Anonymous]

I'll definitely vote for Alboronz, and maybe Glass. Definitely not Hucker, Jawando, Brooks. What do folks know about Sayles, Goldberg, and Gassaway?

[Anonymous]

Albornoz and Glass for me.

Goldberg as well. I agree with him on business, housing, and public safety. I am not a huge fan of huge climate change work at the county level. But everyone is pushing that right now.

Sayles is the other person I'm looking at. I would like more up county representation. But her priorities are not my priorities. So I'm trying to figure out how she will actually approach policy in general.

Definitely voting against Jawando and Hucker.

[Anonymous]

WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

h

The At Large endorsements are fine. But there are a lot of questionable endorsements in there, like almost all of them. Ginsburg, Pope, and Fani-Gonzalez would all be terrible choices. Like the absolutely terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

h

The At Large endorsements are fine. But there are a lot of questionable endorsements in there, like almost all of them. Ginsburg, Pope, and Fani-Gonzalez would all be terrible choices. Like the absolutely terrible.

I don't know the others very well, but Pope is a surprising choice, and he keeps popping up in odd places. Like Moderately MoCo endorsed him. And he's not moderate. At. All.

I'm a big Omar Lazo fan for District 6. He's very progressive but he's also a businessman and gets the hellish nightmare of trying to run a business in this County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

h

The At Large endorsements are fine. But there are a lot of questionable endorsements in there, like almost all of them. Ginsburg, Pope, and Fani-Gonzalez would all be terrible choices. Like the absolutely terrible.

I don't know the others very well, but Pope is a surprising choice, and he keeps popping up in odd places. Like Moderately MoCo endorsed him. And he's not moderate. At. All.

I'm a big Omar Lazo fan for District 6. He's very progressive but he's also a businessman and gets the hellish nightmare of trying to run a business in this County.

Pope is an Annapolis lobbyist and political fundraiser! How can people not read between the lines about what that means in practical terms?

[Anonymous]

Ginsberg would be a he'll of a lot better than the former mayor of Takoma Park, who is said to be in the lead, but personally, I am going with Carr.

The problem is they made one district out of North Bethesda and Takoma Park/Silver Spring. No way for one person to represent both when they often have competing interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I'm guessing because there are 4 seats so they felt they needed 4 endorsements?

[Anonymous]

Usually the Post endorsements are a strike against candidates in my book but I will probably vote for most of those at large

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I think the post was off base in that criticism. Jawando actually believes these things. The only one who listens to the loudest voices is Riemer, which is one reason you can never trust him. I don’t agree with Jawando all the time but he’s smart and takes reasoned positions. That’s about all you can ask for in a council member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I think the post was off base in that criticism. Jawando actually believes these things. The only one who listens to the loudest voices is Riemer, which is one reason you can never trust him. I don’t agree with Jawando all the time but he’s smart and takes reasoned positions. That’s about all you can ask for in a council member.

Well at least in public safety stuff, if Silver Spring Justice Coalition tells him to jump, he says how hi. They just tried to get him to kill a violence prevention initiative a few weeks ago and he got a real beat down from the rest of the Council. I assumed that’s what the Post was referring to. Since it was so recent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I think the post was off base in that criticism. Jawando actually believes these things. The only one who listens to the loudest voices is Riemer, which is one reason you can never trust him. I don’t agree with Jawando all the time but he’s smart and takes reasoned positions. That’s about all you can ask for in a council member.

I don’t see reasoned, thorough decisions coming from Jawando. He completely disregarded the voice of ALL high school principals, who wanted SROs to remain. It’s awfully arrogant to think you know more about a school’s needs than the people who work in them. I listened to the virtual council sessions about SROs and was appalled by the disjointed, unbalanced “evidence” considered valid by Jawando and Reimer. Those sessions were proof that both of them listen to the loudest voices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I think the post was off base in that criticism. Jawando actually believes these things. The only one who listens to the loudest voices is Riemer, which is one reason you can never trust him. I don’t agree with Jawando all the time but he’s smart and takes reasoned positions. That’s about all you can ask for in a council member.

I don’t see reasoned, thorough decisions coming from Jawando. He completely disregarded the voice of ALL high school principals, who wanted SROs to remain. It’s awfully arrogant to think you know more about a school’s needs than the people who work in them. I listened to the virtual council sessions about SROs and was appalled by the disjointed, unbalanced “evidence” considered valid by Jawando and Reimer. Those sessions were proof that both of them listen to the loudest voices.

I have several friends who tried to testify during those bill public hearings, who were pro-SRO, and even if they signed up as soon as possible, the list was filled with the anti-SRO speakers. Multiple times. The same ones made it on the speaker lists, time and again, from the same little group of anti-police activists. As if someone at the Council was stacking the speaker list intentionally And then surprise, surprise, those same anti-police activists were put on the Rice and Jawando committee to again review what police presence on campus should look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo just came out with their endorsements. Albornoz, Glass, Goldberg, and Jawando. And Jawando with reservation. Their analysis of him is spot on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/montgomery-county-maryland-council-primary-endorsement-2022/

So the more I think about this, why did the Post endorse him in the first place? He can't really advertise this endorsement because he gets slammed with the backhanded compliment.

Our endorsement of Mr. Jawando comes with a reservation. We admire his advocacy for racial equity, his support of libraries and his dedication to public service. However, his tendency to listen to the loudest voices has resulted in ill-advised stands, such as his campaign against school resource officers and his support for rent control legislation that would stifle the production of sorely-needed housing.

I think the post was off base in that criticism. Jawando actually believes these things. The only one who listens to the loudest voices is Riemer, which is one reason you can never trust him. I don’t agree with Jawando all the time but he’s smart and takes reasoned positions. That’s about all you can ask for in a council member.

I don’t see reasoned, thorough decisions coming from Jawando. He completely disregarded the voice of ALL high school principals, who wanted SROs to remain. It’s awfully arrogant to think you know more about a school’s needs than the people who work in them. I listened to the virtual council sessions about SROs and was appalled by the disjointed, unbalanced “evidence” considered valid by Jawando and Reimer. Those sessions were proof that both of them listen to the loudest voices.

I have several friends who tried to testify during those bill public hearings, who were pro-SRO, and even if they signed up as soon as possible, the list was filled with the anti-SRO speakers. Multiple times. The same ones made it on the speaker lists, time and again, from the same little group of anti-police activists. As if someone at the Council was stacking the speaker list intentionally And then surprise, surprise, those same anti-police activists were put on the Rice and Jawando committee to again review what police presence on campus should look like.

Sounds about right. The Board of Ed’s “stakeholder study” included 3 students. 3… out of a student population of 160,000. They had the nerve to suggest others didn’t respond. Really? How hard did you try to get a variety of voices? This is the “data” that informed decisions?

A strong council member who wanted to take an honest look at the issue would have demanded a much more comprehensive review of the issue.