WaPo editorial calls out “machinations… of the council’s far left wing” in trying to stop Goulet
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf. |
Anonymous
It's a pretty unrepresentative government. At least half the council is on the far left, and DC just isn't a far left city. These people only get elected but almost no one bothers to vote in primary elections. They win with a couple thousand votes in total and interpret that as a mandate to pursue all these silly policies that only a small fraction of voters actually want. |
Anonymous
You’re lying or you didn’t read the question. The question was a long, multipart question about how to create a racially and economically diverse Ward, given the low incomes of black residents and high costs (I’m paraphrasing). Goulet’s answer was to discuss the current program that is the source of diversity (vouchers) is not really closing the gap because it’s not connecting voucher holders to jobs & supports that would bring them into the middle class. And he did not spell this out but it is implied: programs that try to create diversity by parachuting in distressed Black families and give no further support, don’t serve the purpose of closing the income gap in DC. they value diversity in numbers alone, which doesn’t help anyone. |
Anonymous
If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology. |
Anonymous
You’ll never get it. This was a failed attempt at cancellation- just goes to show why we need to root out the dishonest progressives from the council. they literally do not gas about actual black people, just want to use false accusations of racism as a political tool. disgusting and disqualifying. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video. |
Anonymous
are black voucher recipients a source of crime? sounds like an empirical question to me. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
If that is all that it is, why are Goulet and the Chamber hiding it? Obviously, if you respond to a question about racial and economic diversity by saying that black voucher recipients are a source of crime, it's a bit more than an empirical question. |
Anonymous
Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like? |
Anonymous
| The question: "The Ward 3 population has approximately 82,000 residents, which reflects an 8.2% increase from 2010 to 2022. History tells us that black residents who make up 5% of Ward 3 residents with a median household income of $51,000 per year as compared to the 81% of white residents in Ward 3 with a median income of $170,000 per year. These black residents are more susceptible to displacement given the hardship associated with the increase in residential and commercial values. What is your strategy to balance the increase in affordable housing, increasing density in Ward 3, while protecting the property value of current homeowners? Moreover, how would you provide for neighborhoods that are racially, socio-economically, and generationally diverse?" |
Anonymous
your fixation on “release the video” is just as specious as “but her emails!” goulet pretty clearly went on the record saying he has concerns about crime in the voucher buildings. that’s a concern voiced by a lot of other sources. there’s nothing at all hidden about his view on crime and the voucher buildings. he says it outright here: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/ moreover, the implication here is that nobody is allowed to talk about crime and vouchers in Ward 3 - progressives forbid it! Pure cancellation material. I hope voters see right through it. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer? |
Anonymous
| Goulet's answer begins: "I think we need to start with an honest conversation about what is making this situation and skewing those stats. I think the issue right now is that there has been a significant increase in the housing voucher program which bring largely African American residents and families into the neighborhood without supports and really without any hope of then connecting to jobs and then getting in to DC's middle class . . . " |
Anonymous
Agreed. Goulet’s answer was very solid and communicates a grasp of the challenges between principles and execution in local administration. shipping voucher holders to Ward 3 and claiming you solved socio-economic diversity is worth a challenge. The question was long and multi-part. The most you can criticize Goulet about is that he focused only on the voucher program and not on other ways to made Ward 3 affordable… but overall it was a cogent and on tooic response critiquing the primary effort to increase diversity in W3 (vouchers) |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Okay, great! It now appears that you and I can both agree that Goulet responded to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher-holders being a source of crime. Obviously we don't agree about the implications of that, but at least we can agree that is what happened, right? |