WaPo editorial calls out “machinations… of the council’s far left wing” in trying to stop Goulet

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Not her fault she has completely woke council members either vetoing stronger attempts or advancing soft on crime bills.

Expert on legislative procedure right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest “machinations” indicate that these two groups may actually have a very good understanding of Ward 3 voters. We’ll find out on Election Day.

Was it a "machination" when Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden? That's politics. In a crowded field, the candidate of out of state millionaires and Maryland commuters could win with a minority of the vote. Rather than splitting their votes, the candidate opposed to outside influence are uniting so that their candidate can get a majority.

That’s not what happened though, right?

We can acknowledge Silverman’s intervention, attempt to consolidate power and play king maker in Ward 3?

If Bowser/Mendelson tried to pull something like this, the howling would be audible from space, as we can see from the reaction to DFER.

It’s a bit of a double standard at play by the far left, which is indeed politics.

The only thing she did was talk Tricia Duncan out of the race.

Even if that is all that she did, that’s a pretty big “only”.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

It has not been just that one thread though. There has been an obvious and orchestrated campaign. You seem cool with it because you are ideologically aligned. It’s your site, so you are free to do what you want.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

I completely agree with you that Goulet's exact statements should be clarified and he should have a chance to respond. Sadly, the Chamber of Commerce has refused to release the video of the event so we have to rely on reports of those who were there.

According the The Washington City Paper:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

such a video might be especially damaging to the Washington Post’s newly minted endorsee in the Democratic primary: Eric Goulet,

...

Goulet apparently managed to offend attendees by turning a moderator’s question about how to make the ward more diverse into an answer about Black housing voucher holders in new homes along Connecticut Avenue NW.

Of course, this could easily be clarified if the video were released.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

It has not been just that one thread though. There has been an obvious and orchestrated campaign. You seem cool with it because you are ideologically aligned. It’s your site, so you are free to do what you want.

Supporters of all candidates have posted in this forum. This thread was started by a Goulet supporter. I have removed well over 20 posts about Beau Finley -- someone I know nothing about, have no relationship with, and more than likely have nothing political in common. But, his supporters have reported inappropriate posts. Goulet supporters seem to be primarily offended by the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The Post's editorials about DC are written by someone who doesn't live in DC. The perspective provided may accurately reflect that of suburban commuters, but not necessarily the views of DC residents. Just like the outside funds coming from DFER, we get outside opinions from the Post.

Yeah, no.

It reflect my opinion of a resident of SE DC who wants more establishment types. Even more moderate types, but that’s a pipe dream.

You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

Also, crime is rising, so I applaud the post for sticking with bowser, as she can read the tea leaves, see voters frustration and sees that maybe folks like Charles Allen and his Yourh rehab act and wasted millions on violence interruptors that do nothing for crime, aren’t that popular. I love that wapo is taking a more moderate approach. I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t pulled for the more of the Uber progressive candidates.

Do you even understand the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

There is a whole thread about this, go read it and the links provided in it.

He was asked about how to attract and retain people of color to live in Ward 3, and his response was about how all the black people in the Ward are on vouchers.

It was brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They reiterate their endorsements of Bowser, Mendelson and Goulet, reminding voters.

“The District has been blessed with sober, stable leadership, but voters should remember it was not that long ago that its government was in dysfunction and its finances in disarray. It would be a mistake to return to those days.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/15/washington-dc-democratic-primary-endorsements/

I like it. It’s good that the Post is helping to clarify what this is all about. On the one side you have a responsible candidate endorsed by Tony Williams. In the other side you have an orchestrated opposition backed by the far left faction of Silverman and Allen.

Based on that juxtaposition, I expect Ward 3 voters will make the right choice.

[Anonymous]

That does it. Sick of soundproof your home if you don’t like shooting on your street council people. Was gonna vote differently but now I’ll hold my nose and go Goulet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I mean the whole thing is so obvious. The city is half haves and half have nots. The have nots have strong voting power and can ensure weak on crime bills and vote for weak on crime candidates.

This is racist dog-whistle bullsh*t. Talking points straight from Fox News.

I've lived in DC for over 30 years. I've lived in the rich part of town and I've lived in the poor part of town. Guess what? The people in poorer parts of town actually care more about crime than the people in the richer parts do. Because crime affects them more, and they don't have the resources to insulate themselves from it. But they also have a lot more interaction with law enforcement and see with their own eyes that a lot of it isn't effective at fighting crime and is even counterproductive. So no, more of the same isn't appealing. But it's not because people are rooting for the criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They reiterate their endorsements of Bowser, Mendelson and Goulet, reminding voters.

“The District has been blessed with sober, stable leadership, but voters should remember it was not that long ago that its government was in dysfunction and its finances in disarray. It would be a mistake to return to those days.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/15/washington-dc-democratic-primary-endorsements/

I like it. It’s good that the Post is helping to clarify what this is all about. On the one side you have a responsible candidate endorsed by Tony Williams. In the other side you have an orchestrated opposition backed by the far left faction of Silverman and Allen.

Based on that juxtaposition, I expect Ward 3 voters will make the right choice.

The "responsible" candidate is the only one in the race who wants to throw millions into the money-hole that is RFK Stadium to bring the Commanders football team back to DC. Come on. Tony Williams, DFER, DC Realtors, Washington Charter Alliance, and other PACs have spent millions trying to get Goulet elected over Frumin (who has built a grassroots campaign off of his decades of service to the ward), so they can have a pawn for big-business on the city council.

[Anonymous]

For every person that got called a racist every time they complained about anything people didn’t like such as crime whether White or not, we are quickly devaluing that currency till it’s meaningless.

I go on facts and direct quotes from now on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist.

This is richly ironic, and I guess it must be accidental.

To the second point first, Goulet has the full tape of his remarks, but has chosen to release only an edited snippet. If you want to know exactly what Goulet said demand that he release the entire tape.

To the question about "mysterious people," that's rich considering the hundreds of thousands of dollars of dark money that have flowed into Ward 3 in support of Goulet. Mysterious people indeed.