Eleanor Holmes Norton succession plan?

[Anonymous]

She’s sad. Just look at her recent interviews and meetings. Another example of someone who could have gone out on a high note but instead has turned into an embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread stinks of ageism.

No, it doesn’t. It stinks of hoarding power. No one thinks that somebody 87 years old should still be in Congress. No one with a cancer diagnosis and who is over 70 should run for reelection when we have a fascist in the White House. Congress is a physical & emotional demanding job. No one is entitled to power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread stinks of ageism.

No, it doesn’t. It stinks of hoarding power. No one thinks that somebody 87 years old should still be in Congress. No one with a cancer diagnosis and who is over 70 should run for reelection when we have a fascist in the White House. Congress is a physical & emotional demanding job. No one is entitled to power.

These people employ a staff that are basically unemployable anywhere else. Can you please think of others before you think of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread stinks of ageism.

No, it doesn’t. It stinks of hoarding power. No one thinks that somebody 87 years old should still be in Congress. No one with a cancer diagnosis and who is over 70 should run for reelection when we have a fascist in the White House. Congress is a physical & emotional demanding job. No one is entitled to power.

These people employ a staff that are basically unemployable anywhere else. Can you please think of others before you think of yourself.

What? So now we need to think
of their staff? Do you hear yourself?

They are not entitled to have a job. They are in public service! We have WAY too many people clinging to power yet not even using that power.

[Anonymous]

She was a waste of space when she was younger. Now . . .

As for a "succession plan," OP, it's called an election. She isn't some corporate executive who needs to make sure the business continues to thrive after she's gone, she's an elected official. They are leave office and are replaced all the time.

Besides, the last thing I want is her and her staff selecting her replacement. She's incompetent, and and checked out - why should she have a say in who fills that seat after her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are people who would like to run, but won’t dare cross the DC Dem machine. She should step down, but like the 15 other geriatrics is continuing to run. A mixture of hubris and her staff wanting to keep their jobs.

And no, she’s not mentoring anyone. these people think they’ll live forever.

People have tried to run against her before and lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going ot admit to being wholly self interested right now - with college age kids going to state school.

I used to think she was - as others have said on this thread - terrible and only performative for statehood and not in touch.

BUT. She is the sole reason DC Tag continues to exist. 10K a year does not cover the difference between in state and out of state tuition, but it sure helps a whole heck of a lot and would be a real loss. I have to believe it's on the chopping block right now and if there is one thing Norton has shown herself ot be good at, it's preserving that 10K.

I hope we have someone good who succeeds her and someone that can pull the strongs and make the connections she has. I really hope she has been grooming someone. Or that whomever takes her spot keeps the staff that have those relationships that can get this done.

She's not proven to be able to solve the stupid budget problem the House is refusing to fix. So maybe her mojo is waning.

Don’t forget that other states like the DC Tag too. It funnels out of state kids to their schools who pay twice the instate tuition. She’s no miracle worker. TAG should be $20k by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people who would like to run, but won’t dare cross the DC Dem machine. She should step down, but like the 15 other geriatrics is continuing to run. A mixture of hubris and her staff wanting to keep their jobs.

And no, she’s not mentoring anyone. these people think they’ll live forever.

People have tried to run against her before and lost.

Because the voters in this area are desperately afraid of any change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread stinks of ageism.

No, it doesn’t. It stinks of hoarding power. No one thinks that somebody 87 years old should still be in Congress. No one with a cancer diagnosis and who is over 70 should run for reelection when we have a fascist in the White House. Congress is a physical & emotional demanding job. No one is entitled to power.

These people employ a staff that are basically unemployable anywhere else. Can you please think of others before you think of yourself.

Is this a plea for sympathy or are you pointing out how ineffective she and her selected staff are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread stinks of ageism.

No, it doesn’t. It stinks of hoarding power. No one thinks that somebody 87 years old should still be in Congress. No one with a cancer diagnosis and who is over 70 should run for reelection when we have a fascist in the White House. Congress is a physical & emotional demanding job. No one is entitled to power.

These people employ a staff that are basically unemployable anywhere else. Can you please think of others before you think of yourself.

Is this a plea for sympathy or are you pointing out how ineffective she and her selected staff are?

It's a Choose Your Own Adventure.

[Anonymous]

No need, like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters she will be in office forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need, like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters she will be in office forever.

Misogyny much. How about Grassley, Risch, McConnell, Sanders, John Carter, Clyburn, and Hoyer.

[Anonymous]

Eleanor is the very REASON DC residents don’t have a vote in Congress today. They would’ve had it in 1995, if she’d agreed to Gingrich’s deal. A vote for DC, plus another seat in Utah, and DC gave up its ban on handguns. That was the deal. She wouldn’t go for it. Gun ban was more important to her than a vote in Congress. Then the Heller case went to the USSC in ‘04, and just nine years after she refused the deal to give the city a vote in Congress in exchange for doing away with the handgun ban, the handgun ban was overturned and a constitutional precedent was set. She could’ve prevented that case from ever happening AND got a vote in Congress if she’d just taken the deal.

It’s her ultimate legacy of failure.


Poetic justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need, like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters she will be in office forever.

Misogyny much. How about Grassley, Risch, McConnell, Sanders, John Carter, Clyburn, and Hoyer.

Boom.

[Anonymous]

Succession plan? What's the point?