If you thought DC politics sucked, just wait until you see Sunday's Post

[jsteele]

Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/05/AR2011030504378.html

It's beyond embarrassing to have leaders like we do.

[Anonymous]

Jeff,

Doesn't your reaction to the article depend on assuming that Brown is telling the truth? While that's possible, it seems to me quite paossible that he is lying. Shouldn't we withhold judgment until there is some concrete evidence?

My neighborhood has some issues we'd like Gray to help us on, but he has so far been unresponsive, so I am not in the Gray cheering section, even though I voted for him. But I don't want to rush to judgment on this thing. If nothing else, I can't believe they thought Brown's idiotic campaigning affected anyone's vote.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I voted for Fenty.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

Doesn't your reaction to the article depend on assuming that Brown is telling the truth? While that's possible, it seems to me quite paossible that he is lying. Shouldn't we withhold judgment until there is some concrete evidence?

My neighborhood has some issues we'd like Gray to help us on, but he has so far been unresponsive, so I am not in the Gray cheering section, even though I voted for him. But I don't want to rush to judgment on this thing. If nothing else, I can't believe they thought Brown's idiotic campaigning affected anyone's vote.

Brown's claims should obviously be taken with a grain of salt. But, there is enough smoke that I have to believe there is a fire. First, there are a lot of calls and text between Brown, Gray, Green, and Brooks. That's suspicious by itself. Then, Gray's text saying they haven't beached any agreements. That means there were agreements of some sort. Finally, the fact that the guy did get hired. It's not too hard to connect those dots.

Campaign dirty tricks are obviously not uncommon. Both the Democrats and Republicans on the national level have routinely quietly supported third parties that would drain votes from their opponents. But, this is really amateur hour. Brown was never going to get votes. His sole purpose was simply to attack Fenty and allow Gray to stay above the fray. And, then, giving the guy an actual job in the Healthcare Finance Department? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

This was my reaction as well. It sounds like even Gray is admitting that he promised an interview, and that sounds pretty much like code for job, especially as it doesn't seem like he was very qualified for the position he received.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

Doesn't your reaction to the article depend on assuming that Brown is telling the truth? While that's possible, it seems to me quite paossible that he is lying. Shouldn't we withhold judgment until there is some concrete evidence?

My neighborhood has some issues we'd like Gray to help us on, but he has so far been unresponsive, so I am not in the Gray cheering section, even though I voted for him. But I don't want to rush to judgment on this thing. If nothing else, I can't believe they thought Brown's idiotic campaigning affected anyone's vote.

Brown's claims should obviously be taken with a grain of salt. But, there is enough smoke that I have to believe there is a fire. First, there are a lot of calls and text between Brown, Gray, Green, and Brooks. That's suspicious by itself. Then, Gray's text saying they haven't beached any agreements. That means there were agreements of some sort. Finally, the fact that the guy did get hired. It's not too hard to connect those dots.

Campaign dirty tricks are obviously not uncommon. Both the Democrats and Republicans on the national level have routinely quietly supported third parties that would drain votes from their opponents. But, this is really amateur hour. Brown was never going to get votes. His sole purpose was simply to attack Fenty and allow Gray to stay above the fray. And, then, giving the guy an actual job in the Healthcare Finance Department? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I voted for Fenty.

Me too. I was amazed that Gray has the support he did and that he won. I wish Fenty had recognized the iMportance of the human side of leading this city.

[Anonymous]

A fascinating lesson in applied civics. The problem, in my view, is that once the level of corruption in a system reaches a certain point, it crosses an "event horizon" and it is impossible to recover because anyone who can rise to any position of power in the system that can effect change is already hopelessly corrupted by that point. A particular problem when the career civil service bureaucracy was operated as a patronage system for many years and those bureaucrats cannot be removed in quantity and can also resist top-down efforts effectively. (I don't know this for sure about the District, but it seems a reasonable assumption.) A tough nut to crack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A fascinating lesson in applied civics. The problem, in my view, is that once the level of corruption in a system reaches a certain point, it crosses an "event horizon" and it is impossible to recover because anyone who can rise to any position of power in the system that can effect change is already hopelessly corrupted by that point. A particular problem when the career civil service bureaucracy was operated as a patronage system for many years and those bureaucrats cannot be removed in quantity and can also resist top-down efforts effectively. (I don't know this for sure about the District, but it seems a reasonable assumption.) A tough nut to crack.

This ignores Tony Williams. I prefer a more mundane explanation - a large segment population felt left behind, and voted for the candidate they felt would remedy that. Unfortunately for the city as a whole, that candidate is steeped in the tradition of patronage-as-jobs-bill governance.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I voted for Fenty.

Me too. I was amazed that Gray has the support he did and that he won. I wish Fenty had recognized the iMportance of the human side of leading this city.

I think Gabe Klein nailed the "respecting the human side of the city" dynamic with this tweet:

"I hope people understand now that Adrian Fenty's perceived "arrogance" by DC's old guard because he didn't "play ball" was ethics in action"

Fenty wouldn't play ball, so the Old Skool grifters of this town mobilized the poor and uneducated on one hand, and the (frankly) credulous on the other against him. Now we've got four years of ineffectual governance AND corruption to look forward to. Best of both worlds!

[jsteele]

I'm kind of scratching my head about this quote of Gray in the article:

"I want to make sure there's no sunshine here. I didn't ask anybody to do it. I didn't tell anybody to do it. I didn't authorize anybody to do it."

This is peculiar on so many levels. Why doesn't Gray want sunshine? He claims not to have done several things. However, he doesn't say there weren't payments and he doesn't say that he didn't know about any payments. So hypothetically, Green could have said, "Vince, we are going to start giving Sulaiman Brown paper bags full of cash" and Gray merely replied with, "How about those Redskins?"

Which, of course, explains why Gray doesn't want sunshine.

The silver lining to this cloud is that I we now have great nicknames for our two highest ranking local elected officials: Sunshine and Fully Loaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A fascinating lesson in applied civics. The problem, in my view, is that once the level of corruption in a system reaches a certain point, it crosses an "event horizon" and it is impossible to recover because anyone who can rise to any position of power in the system that can effect change is already hopelessly corrupted by that point. A particular problem when the career civil service bureaucracy was operated as a patronage system for many years and those bureaucrats cannot be removed in quantity and can also resist top-down efforts effectively. (I don't know this for sure about the District, but it seems a reasonable assumption.) A tough nut to crack.

This ignores Tony Williams. I prefer a more mundane explanation - a large segment population felt left behind, and voted for the candidate they felt would remedy that. Unfortunately for the city as a whole, that candidate is steeped in the tradition of patronage-as-jobs-bill governance.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Right, but the Old Skool Gang wouldn't have had the numbers to depose Fenty had it not been for the incredibly naive middle-class good government types who clearly got rooked into believing that Gray would be Williams/Fenty but without any scandal whatsoever.

Heckuva job guys!

[jsteele]

My attempt to see the funny side of DC politics:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2011/03/06/sunshine-fully-loaded

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I think Gabe Klein nailed the "respecting the human side of the city" dynamic with this tweet:

"I hope people understand now that Adrian Fenty's perceived "arrogance" by DC's old guard because he didn't "play ball" was ethics in action"

As I replied to Klein, Fenty's "ethics in action" would have been more convincing had he not had his own ethical problems.

Gray and Brown's ethical issues in no way excuse Fenty's ethical issues. Or vice versa.

[Anonymous]

he incredibly naive middle-class good government types who clearly got rooked into believing that Gray would be Williams/Fenty but without any scandal whatsoever.

I feel, especially as a parent, that it's important to admit and own your mistakes. I am exactly as described above. I got rooked, I think.

[I still do not believe Fenty was purity and snow, however]

[Anonymous]

Right, but the Old Skool Gang wouldn't have had the numbers to depose Fenty had it not been for the incredibly naive middle-class good government types who clearly got rooked into believing that Gray would be Williams/Fenty but without any scandal whatsoever.

Heckuva job guys!

Absolutely right.