True or False: Catania raises money for Bush's re-election?

[Anonymous]

I have read on here several times that Catania raised money to re-elect GWB, which I consider to be pretty much unforgivable (doing it the first time, ok... but not the second time). But I can't verify that anywhere. Bowser comes off as kind of dumb, and even though I'm a Democrat, I think Catania would better serve my interests, but the Bush thing, ugh. I am currently not planning to vote.

Anyway... is this actually true? I googled but couldn't figure it out.

[Anonymous]

What the f%ck do you give a shit for if you ain't gonna vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the f%ck do you give a shit for if you ain't gonna vote?

Must not have been clear. I would vote for Catania if this weren't true. If it is true, I don't think I can get past it. Probably irrational but there you have it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I have read on here several times that Catania raised money to re-elect GWB, which I consider to be pretty much unforgivable (doing it the first time, ok... but not the second time). But I can't verify that anywhere. Bowser comes off as kind of dumb, and even though I'm a Democrat, I think Catania would better serve my interests, but the Bush thing, ugh. I am currently not planning to vote.

Anyway... is this actually true? I googled but couldn't figure it out.

Here is the deal, while Bush was serving his first term, Catania raised money for the reelection campaign. However, he left the Republican Party in September 2004 and opposed Bush's November 2004 reelection. Catania had quit the local Republican Party a few months earlier, in May 2004, and at that time was already opposing Bush's reelection.

While I opposed Bush as much as anyone and would rather that Catania had not raised money for him, I am more concerned about what he will do in the future than what he has done in the past. But, if you are concerned about the past, it is easily demonstrated that he has a far more progressive legislative record than Bowser.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read on here several times that Catania raised money to re-elect GWB, which I consider to be pretty much unforgivable (doing it the first time, ok... but not the second time). But I can't verify that anywhere. Bowser comes off as kind of dumb, and even though I'm a Democrat, I think Catania would better serve my interests, but the Bush thing, ugh. I am currently not planning to vote.

Anyway... is this actually true? I googled but couldn't figure it out.

Here is the deal, while Bush was serving his first term, Catania raised money for the reelection campaign. However, he left the Republican Party in September 2004 and opposed Bush's November 2004 reelection. Catania had quit the local Republican Party a few months earlier, in May 2004, and at that time was already opposing Bush's reelection.

While I opposed Bush as much as anyone and would rather that Catania had not raised money for him, I am more concerned about what he will do in the future than what he has done in the past. But, if you are concerned about the past, it is easily demonstrated that he has a far more progressive legislative record than Bowser.

+1. And most folks DID inhale in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the f%ck do you give a shit for if you ain't gonna vote?

In life, you can be a moron, or you can be a bitch, but you can't be both. Time for you to pick.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read on here several times that Catania raised money to re-elect GWB, which I consider to be pretty much unforgivable (doing it the first time, ok... but not the second time). But I can't verify that anywhere. Bowser comes off as kind of dumb, and even though I'm a Democrat, I think Catania would better serve my interests, but the Bush thing, ugh. I am currently not planning to vote.

Anyway... is this actually true? I googled but couldn't figure it out.

Here is the deal, while Bush was serving his first term, Catania raised money for the reelection campaign. However, he left the Republican Party in September 2004 and opposed Bush's November 2004 reelection. Catania had quit the local Republican Party a few months earlier, in May 2004, and at that time was already opposing Bush's reelection.

While I opposed Bush as much as anyone and would rather that Catania had not raised money for him, I am more concerned about what he will do in the future than what he has done in the past. But, if you are concerned about the past, it is easily demonstrated that he has a far more progressive legislative record than Bowser.

Thanks Jeff, this is helpful. -OP

[Anonymous]

Catania was active in the Main Street Republican Partnership which was a group of Republicans pushing the party to be more centrist and to create an urban agenda. When he left the party he endorsed John Kerry in 2004. He then endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008, then Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

[Anonymous]

Even though he supported HRC and Obama (twice?!?) I voted for him absentee already. Those two shows of support are pretty much unforgivable in my book but I too like his legislative record for the city.

Signed,
Conservative

[jsteele]

The Post has an interesting profile of Catania:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/david-catanias-passion-cuts-two-ways-as-he-runs-for-dc-mayor/2014/10/12/f37dd558-48af-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html

I enjoyed this quote of Council Member Jim Graham who is a Bowser supporter:

"One gets things done with a few broken bones, and the other doesn’t get things done."