Will Fenty win the DC mayoral primary against Gray?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... So really, people, if this is what you want, go vote for Vincent Gray. You'll get exactly what you deserve, and then some. And you heard it from one of his own people, right here.

This is meant not just for the poster of the above snippet, but for everyone on both sides:
Don't confuse the statements of supporters with those of the politician. If Fenty and Gray had to depend on you to get their messages out, Leo Alexander would be a shoo-in!

Don't be so sure. This particular poster seems intimately acqainted with Gray and his message. "Cling to your privilege while it slowly, thankfully slips away."

The poster started a class war, and Gray certainly hasn't renounced those sentiments, even though they've been made known to him.

Same way he didn't denounce those who voted for him at a Ward 3 straw poll under an assumed name or address.

Same way he said that he didn't say that he'd definitely fire Michelle Rhee.

Character.
Accountability.
Leadership.

Vote Vincent Gray. So what if test scores are up and crime is down and we enjoy better services under Fenty. He's not friendly and he won't share his travel schedule and he tried to hog some baseball tickets. Get rid him, and see how much better things will be.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I need to step back in to defend myself. I am, in on way, affiliated with Gray. I'm not even THAT familiar with his stances. Rather, I am referring to the PP who took issues with Gray's "squishy" (read: PP assigning his own meaning outside of what Gray meant) statements regarding how he would handle SOME issues in Ward 3 and offered reasons why I would support Gray on that.

I love how people act as if stripping away privilege is some crime against humanity. The attainment of unearned privilege is the true problem. But, nah, let's not address THAT.

And, despite examples both I and another poster offered you STILL hold the contention that it is better to be LOSING than to be WINNING. SERIOUSLY!?!?!? That is just such absurdest nonsense. You dismissed most of our examples, explaining the leading/winning candidate was simply too strong. No one denied that there are comeback wins in politics or argued that early leads were guarantees of victory. But if you REALLY want to argue that LOSING is a better predictor of success than WINNING, I just don't see how you'll be able to do that by providing a few anecdotes of come from behind wins (or come from ahead losses).

There are lots of good reasons to vote for Gray and lots of good reasons to vote for Fenty. But to act as if there is no justification for Gray's SUPPOSED position on increasing support to needy wards is simply nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion on what your Ward needs. But you are NOT entitled to increased protections/services from the government. There is a little thing called the equal protection clause. It's possible you've had and enjoyed this relationship in the past and may continue to do so in the future. But it is wrong, legally, ethically, and morally. Again, stripping away the benefits of privilege is the correcting of a wrong. Ideally, we would extend the benefits of that privilege to all, but that is not always the case.

You've gotten yours for a while, most of it undeserved. Others are gonna get their's sooner or later. You can cry about it or you can recognize genuine pursuits of equity and social justice.

[Anonymous]

From the local In Shaw blog:

I had several long evening walks this week east and north from me on Ninth and it would appear that on on some blocks, particularly where homes are less renovated, Gray signs prevail. There are very few, if any, Fenty signs. I suspect Gray will be our next mayor due to apathy from the self-absorbed, unregistered, new busy young moderns who've moved here but think DC politics are immaterial to or just too beneath them.

Gray will usher back in the good old days of Barry Third World politics where constituent services will be tightly controlled and allocated by having to petition the big man at neighborhood meetings to have your trash cleaned up, the police patrol your block, have a water leak or a pothole repaired, and an error in your tax bill remedied. Don't expect any services unless you can prove your bona fides -- at least third generation Black DC resident. Expect the return of long, long lines in the DMV with surly inspectors and clerks. Construction will stop as developers will again flee when the pols demand kickbacks and jobs for the indolent and insolent. Expect real "gentrification" taxs for more worthless "programs" for PG county bourgeiois friends of the mayor that make "Peaceaholics" look like an effective crime-fighting operation. Expect the police to spend more time writing tickets (church people exempted) instead of catching criminals. Neighborhood rule by preacher will return. Teachers will no longer be compelled to teach and students freed from having to learn. Go Gray and bring back the good old days of DC politics.

Whatever Gray's actual intentions are--which we can't know, since he won't actually come out and define himself--it's pretty clear his strategy is to *imply* a return to the "good ole days" while saying nothing that could scare off middle-class voters. It's a tough needle to thread, but he seems to be doing it so far...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:From the local In Shaw blog:

Just to be clear, those observations are from someone described as "Longtime resident and grumpy old guy Ray". I would like to know more about Ray's basis for making such observations. I will not vote for either Gray or Fenty as neither is worthy of my vote. However, I am surprised at how widespread the "Gray is the new Barry" meme seems to be. Can someone cite any sort of evidence other than some kind of "feeling" you happen to have?

[Anonymous]

Depends on whether your point is that Gray will be a) corrupt like Barry, or b) like Barry, focused at delivering services to the poorest residents by cutting services that drive middle-class population growth, and economic growth generally.

I doubt Gray will be any more or less corrupt than the average big city mayor. But the premise of his entire candidacy resides in "b". Or are you suggesting that his base of support east of the river and elsewhere comes from an interest in transparent government?

I think we've seen quite balanced (and amazingly vigorous) growth in DC over the last couple of decades. Gray's candidacy succeeds or fails to the extent that he can convince DC's poorest residents that they've gotten a raw deal--and that he is the man to rectify it.

Now Gray may or may not be on the level on this, but if not, he's going to have a heck of a lot of pissed off supporters over the next 4 years...

I will not vote for either Gray or Fenty as neither is worthy of my vote.

That's all very noble, but the fact remains that--when the dust clears--one or the other of Gray or Fenty will be mayor.

I can respect the position that "I won't vote because my an individual vote is worthless--it has no impact." But I could never understand the argument of those who say, essentially, "I won't vote because my vote is *so* valuable, I refuse to squander it on one of two undeserving candidates."

[Anonymous]

I think the perception of Gray as a "Marion Barry redux" started when he announced his mayoral run with long-time political operative Vernon Hawkins at his side. According to the Washington Examiner, Mr. Hawkins, who was a DC government employee for over 30 years, and was a Marion Barry agency head of DHS at the time the Control Board took control of DC in the mid-90s. DHS was one of the most grossly fiscally mismanaged agencies and the Control Board demanded his dismissal.

The fact that the public employees union was also quick to endorse Gray has also created the perception that Gray would be a return to the Barry philosophy that hiring as many government workers as possible is an economic development strategy in and of itself---unfortunately, the concept of linking the noun "job" to the verb "to work" was not---under Barry--a part of that strategy.

But as far as the Shaw blog's comment on Gray being a return to the days of kickbacks to pols---Fenty pals Omar Karim and Sinclair Skinner are at the top of the heap in that department. Those guys have spent the last four years blackmailing the real estate industry in this town to include their alleged "companies" as part of the developer's team in order to be considered for any city-decided RFP.

Our mayoral choices both leave a lot to be desired.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether your point is that Gray will be a) corrupt like Barry, or b) like Barry, focused at delivering services to the poorest residents by cutting services that drive middle-class population growth, and economic growth generally.

It's not my point. You are the one that posted "Ray's" analysis. According to Ray, Gray will return us to the "good old days" when nothing in the city worked and you had to turn to Barry for handouts. Do you agree with Ray? If so, what basis do you have for that belief?

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Gray will be any more or less corrupt than the average big city mayor. But the premise of his entire candidacy resides in "b". Or are you suggesting that his base of support east of the river and elsewhere comes from an interest in transparent government?

I have heard politician after politician campaign on promises to extend prosperity and economic development beyond Northwest. Williams was actually moving city services to poorer areas as a means of achieving economic development. He even wanted to move UDC to Anacostia. So, to some extent, he was actually doing what he said he would. Fenty campaigned on building a "world class city" and emphasized affordable housing. He talked about providing services to those who had been left out and was even endorsed by Marian Barry. So, campaigning on promises to help the "have nots" is nothing new and I'm not sure it should be taken seriously. That Barry endorsement of Fenty does make Fenty supporters' claims that Gray is the next Barry kind of ironic, however.

Anonymous wrote:

I will not vote for either Gray or Fenty as neither is worthy of my vote.

That's all very noble, but the fact remains that--when the dust clears--one or the other of Gray or Fenty will be mayor.

I can respect the position that "I won't vote because my an individual vote is worthless--it has no impact." But I could never understand the argument of those who say, essentially, "I won't vote because my vote is *so* valuable, I refuse to squander it on one of two undeserving candidates."

There are times when you choose the lesser of two evils and there are times when you simply can't decide which is less evil. I'm in the second position. Fenty is not even close to being the mayor he campaigned to be and I have no better expectations for Gray.

[Anonymous]

17:04: While your problems may be many, your poor writing skills, inability to follow the course of this thread, as well as your inability to discuss the Equal Protection Clause in its proper context, combined with the fact that you've admitted to owning a home on which you pay high property taxes, gives me a lot of insight as to why you keep harping and carping about stripping away unearned privilege: You feel guilty and suffer from low esteem. And you should since, as you have done such a fantastic job at showing all of us, any privilege that has come to you has, indeed, been unearned.

What modicum (and I do mean modicum) of privilege I have has been hard won and highly earned. Heck, I've even read and understand the Constitution of the United States, and I understand what the Equal Protection Clause, as contained in that document actually means. The way you've referenced it belies your ignorance.

I suggest you seek some serious form of therapy and that you work through your issues, instead of attacking the accomplishments and hard won attainments of people you don't know as unearned, and argue that the fruits of their hard labor should be stripped from them in order to conform with your shallow (and I grant you that term as a compliment) understanding of the "common good".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carter had the lead over Reagan until the end of the campaign.

You're really going to use Reagan v. Mondale as an example??? Really? He was only THE MOST IMCUMBENT PRESIDENT EVER, but I'll toss you a bone there.

Aleady addressed Clinton v. Dole. The SEOND MOST POPULAR INCUMBENT PRESIDENT EVER. Another bone.

Bush I had a lead over Clinton for quite some time.

Mcain came within a whisker from taking the whole thing fro
Bush II -- what are you talking about???

Can't comment on Williams v. Schwartz so I'll give it to you.

I believe Cropp had a small lead over Fenty for awhile, too.


Bush II Republican primaries, a whisker is not good enough. 99.5% just will not do!. McCain did not win and Bush did. Bush maintained his lead.
Yes, you can make excuses for Clinton and Dole, but an excuse can be provided to anything.
Cropp never really had a lead over Fenty. The two were either locked in a dead heat or Fenty was in the lead. Let me give you another Fenty example however, Fenty vs. Jarvis.
Carter vs. Ford
Reagan vs. Bush I
O'Malley vs. Erlich 2006
Jed Bush vs. Buddy McKay
Schwazzanegger (sic) vs. Davis Lt. Governor (do not recall his name as 99.5% does not give you the win

Point is it's early. And many, many times in political history, we see lots of candidates lose their advantage. Early polls are very soft.

To wit: After people have a chance to recognize Gray's principles, as outlined by the poster above who appears to be connected to his campaign, they will become disillusioned with him quickly. Right now people are liking anyone who is not Fenty. It won't last.

[Anonymous]

Bush II Republican primaries, a whisker is not good enough. 99.5% just will not do!. McCain did not win and Bush did. Bush maintained his lead.
Yes, you can make excuses for Clinton and Dole, but an excuse can be provided to anything.
Cropp never really had a lead over Fenty. The two were either locked in a dead heat or Fenty was in the lead. Let me give you another Fenty example however, Fenty vs. Jarvis.
Carter vs. Ford
Reagan vs. Bush I
O'Malley vs. Erlich 2006
Jed Bush vs. Buddy McKay
Schwazzanegger (sic) vs. Davis Lt. Governor (do not recall his name as 99.5% does not give you the win

[Anonymous]

See again, 17:04, that at least 20:46 gets it? He or she has not misunderstood me to say that it is "better" to losing early in a campaign than it is to be winning early in a campaign. Rather, what I said was that having an early lead in a campaign -- even a large one -- is not a particularly good indicator that you will actually win the election. And I gave some concrete examples, ranging from Obama and Clinton coming from behind in the primaries, to Bush I overcoming a huge early lag against Dukakis, and the fact that Obama did not attain a lead over McCain until about two weeks prior to the election.

And someone other than you (of course) came up with some examples of candidates who held on to a lead from early in an election right until the end. I disagree as to whether all of these examples are valid, but that's another discussion for another day. But at least 20:46 understood my point and addressed it with appropriate counter-points.

You, on the other hand, demonstate a deficit in your reading comprehension skills by bombasticslly misstating me in capital letters. No, there is nothing per se "better" about having low numbers early in a political contest. Only a simpleton such as yourself would interpret my point in such a way. My point is simply that history has shown that an early lead in a political contest is not a good predictor of an ultimate victory, and that those of us whose candidate may be enjoying an early lead should not feel like fat cats.

Do you get it now? Most likely not. Because you've demonstrated that you are undereducated and not particularly intelligent. Which, again, is why you suspect that anyone who has attained success has done so as a result of being a long- term beneficiary of unearned privilege. Because when you look in the mirror, that is what you see. And so, as a result of your feelings of inferiority and shame, you misguidedly project the same notion onto those of us who are intelligent, educated, and hard-working.

It's textbook stuff that you really should be working on privately in therapy, instead of continuing to embarrass yourself here. You're actually making me feel sorry for you. Your understanding of even moderately complex concepts is wholly inadequate to intelligent duscussion. You see everything in stark terms of black and white. Ironically, shades of "gray" are lost on you

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the local In Shaw blog:

Just to be clear, those observations are from someone described as "Longtime resident and grumpy old guy Ray". I would like to know more about Ray's basis for making such observations. I will not vote for either Gray or Fenty as neither is worthy of my vote. However, I am surprised at how widespread the "Gray is the new Barry" meme seems to be. Can someone cite any sort of evidence other than some kind of "feeling" you happen to have?

I'm almost starting to think this is some kind of Gray troll. I mean, it's so insulting to people's intelligence that I think it will actually make more people vote for Gray. I mean, really, is this all that some of you Fenty supporters have -- an appeal to some scary boogy man? Wow, that's really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See again, 17:04, that at least 20:46 gets it? He or she has not misunderstood me to say that it is "better" to losing early in a campaign than it is to be winning early in a campaign. Rather, what I said was that having an early lead in a campaign -- even a large one -- is not a particularly good indicator that you will actually win the election. And I gave some concrete examples, ranging from Obama and Clinton coming from behind in the primaries, to Bush I overcoming a huge early lag against Dukakis, and the fact that Obama did not attain a lead over McCain until about two weeks prior to the election.

And someone other than you (of course) came up with some examples of candidates who held on to a lead from early in an election right until the end. I disagree as to whether all of these examples are valid, but that's another discussion for another day. But at least 20:46 understood my point and addressed it with appropriate counter-points.

You, on the other hand, demonstate a deficit in your reading comprehension skills by bombasticslly misstating me in capital letters. No, there is nothing per se "better" about having low numbers early in a political contest. Only a simpleton such as yourself would interpret my point in such a way. My point is simply that history has shown that an early lead in a political contest is not a good predictor of an ultimate victory, and that those of us whose candidate may be enjoying an early lead should not feel like fat cats.

Do you get it now? Most likely not. Because you've demonstrated that you are undereducated and not particularly intelligent. Which, again, is why you suspect that anyone who has attained success has done so as a result of being a long- term beneficiary of unearned privilege. Because when you look in the mirror, that is what you see. And so, as a result of your feelings of inferiority and shame, you misguidedly project the same notion onto those of us who are intelligent, educated, and hard-working.

It's textbook stuff that you really should be working on privately in therapy, instead of continuing to embarrass yourself here. You're actually making me feel sorry for you. Your understanding of even moderately complex concepts is wholly inadequate to intelligent duscussion. You see everything in stark terms of black and white. Ironically, shades of "gray" are lost on you

Blah, blah, blah. You refuse to respond to a single of my points, instead trotting our nonsense rhetoric on and on and on. You made ad hominem attacks and retort the tired and utterly useless, "Dur, you spelled words funny!" as if that is, in any way, relevant to the conversation. You make failed appeals to authority ("I read the Constitution!") and otherwise rely on blather, hyperbole, innuendo, and gross generalizations instead of facts. Again, you haven't even addressed my points, instead engaging in straw man arguments that suit the few talking points you've memorized.

Good for you. You're trying. A for effort. At this point, I'm done with this thread. I only ventured back in because I saw blatant lies being posted about me, which wouldn't be the end of the world, but also risked implying impropriety on behalf of Gray's thread, which is simply unfair to him, as he is ultimately not involved in this. So, enjoy your online rants. Enjoy pretending you know anything about me. Enjoy pretending you've worked hard yet offer no evidence that you somehow deserve privilege. I'll let you win the pissy little DCUM feud as I'm sure you'll continue to yell at your computer long after I'm gone. That's cool, man. Get it out. All the better, especially if Gray were to win and you became another one of those whackos demanding their country back and flying planes into buildings. Dick.

[Anonymous]

Oh, sweetie, please don't go. Stay around for a long, long time. It's so much more fun around here with you to entertain us.

Honey, you didn't make any points. You're neither capable of articulating an idea of your own nor of understanding those beautifully articulated by others. I had to take extra time last night to break a concept down for you. Just as I do for my children.

Lovey, I never insulted your spelling. Not once. That would be like pointing to an elephant in the room. I said that you have demonstrated poor writing skills. But I was being kind. The truth is that you cannot write proper English beyond the third-grade level. You are not merely unintelligent, but unintelligible.

And yet somehow, you own a home on which you pay high property taxes (or so you claim -- for all we know at this point you're probably confusing them with your utility bill). Be that as it may -- you clearly have profound issues with the privilege you have that you have done nothing to earn. You've proven it to all of us: You cannot write, read, analyze or even spell. It's hard for me to imagine you actually earning your keep. And this bothers you. My assertion of having earned what little bit of privilege I have does not need any further proof beyond what I've already shown in this thread: I am educated and intelligent. I write very well -- people can actually understand what it is that I say. Instead of misinterpreting me or putting words in my mouth, they can engage me in a discussion as to what I have actually said. My spelling mistakes are few and can mainly be attributed to typos. I am quite familiar with the Constitution and do not refer to the Equal Protection Clause in a manner that makes intelligent people cringe. Actually, I'm somewhat expert when it comes to the Constitution, but nevermind. It certainly should be evident to anyone who reads me that I am more than capable of holding a job that affords me a modicum of privilege. Key words for you: Job ( i.e., earn), and modicum (look it up).

So first, you need therapy. Then maybe find someplace to finish high school and, as Charles Krauthammer once advised Sarah Palin, be quiet for a couple of years and read things. Then you can come back and play politics with the big boys. Or you can hang around as-is. You're great fun.

[Anonymous]

Another thing interesting about this chick is that, while she proclaims that Vincent Gray is no Robin Hood, and accuses those who view him as such of fearing some big black socialist, it is clear that she strongly favors a Robin Hood style of governance, and clearly believes that Vince is the man to deliver it:

the system is set up to perpetuate the advantages those people enjoy, many of which are ultimately unearned and the result of systemic privilege.

Being bitter and imagining yourself a victim after being a long-term beneficiary of unearned privilege is SO pathetic.

Take a deep breath, be thankful for all that has been bestowed upon you, and don't get angry when other people get a chance in the winner's circle every now and then. It's very unbecoming of a high-and-mighty Ward 3 resident. Barf.

Keep trying to maintain your privilege as it slowly, and thankfully, slips away.

I love how people act as if stripping away privilege is some crime against humanity. The attainment of unearned privilege is the true problem.

There is a little thing called the equal protection clause. It's possible you've had and enjoyed this relationship in the past and may continue to do so in the future. But it is wrong, legally, ethically, and morally. Again, stripping away the benefits of privilege is the correcting of a wrong. Ideally, we would extend the benefits of that privilege to all, but that is not always the case.

You've gotten yours for a while, most of it undeserved. Others are gonna get their's sooner or later. You can cry about it or you can recognize genuine pursuits of equity and social justice.

This woman is deeply conflicted and inconsistent on a number of issues. But she's also quite transparent. The above quotes -- all hers -- reflect her perception of what Vincent Gray will deliver. And it may be the only issue on which she and I agree: this is exactly what Vincent Gray will deliver.

Want any toppings on that?