Will Fenty win the DC mayoral primary against Gray?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...Want any toppings on that?

As an outsider to this spat, the only topping I would like is for Jeff to divert this sub-thread to a new thread (or new forum) called something like "Spit-n-spat, tit for tat". Since other threads often contain similar sub-threads, perhaps they could be moved to the same place.

[Anonymous]

Spoil sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spoil sport.

There I was, advocating a special arena for the competition so you'd know where to go to enjoy it, and you don't appreciate it. Why don't you and I go off to Spit-n-spat and have some real fun?

[Anonymous]

I think I raised a legitimate question. Do you want the kind of government advocated by the crazy chick? Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Fraud, theft and more incompetence is what District residents can hope for with Fenty 2.

His director, K. Valentine, for the Office of Risk Management has been diverting all kinds of lucrative contracts to family and friends. On top of that she has taken or mishandled millions of dollars in disability insurance. Government workers who paid their portion of insurance premiums to the District found out later they were not covered. It is seems as though Valentine and company did not forward the premiums to the appropriate venders. If this is true, where is the money. Upon making the Examiner news, Fenty decided to replace Director Valentine with his General Counsel. The General Counsel is supposedly the same attorney who represented Fenty before the DC Bar Association for legal malpractice. Well, it seems as if the Washington Examiner has scooped WaPo again in breaking news. Apparently, the new Director of Risk Management and former GC is the same person the DCBar slapped for failure to pay child support. He is more than 28K in arrears in child support. But, the mayor is entrusting him with billions, or maybe just millions of your money. And you people say he is someone you can trust. That is Fenty, that is. LOL

[Anonymous]

Citations please.

And as for his General Counsel being the same lawyer who represented him in a malpractice hearing (assuming that is indeed the case): What is your objection to that? It's a political position. He can appoint anyone he wants. Lots of politicians bring their own people with them. If that is corruption, everyone in government is guilty, and apparently very brazen, too, as they've made no effort to hide the fact that they've brought their people with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I raised a legitimate question. Do you want the kind of government advocated by the crazy chick? Yes or no?

Another outside poster here. These arguments are really getting lame. Take it outside please folks or go to another thread as the earlier poster suggested.

[Anonymous]

Link to Valentine story:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/07/agency_director_placed_on_leav.html

Horrible, horrible, mayoral choices. Fenty is a thug---with his friends who are corrupt, incompetent, or both.

Gray doesn't stand for anything except a protest vote against Fenty. And the six pages of rantings by the pro-Gray poster about getting even with all the "privileged" people doesn't exactly help Gray's cause. When reading the rants (don't ask me why) I kept wondering where I had heard that "privileged" jargon before. And then I remembered---it was from a Post article about the head of Child Services a couple of years ago who continued to advocate for the prosecution of a young Capitol Hill family even after a judge had found them innocent of child abuse charges. The DC bureucrat's vendetta seemed to have a lot to do with her perception of the couple as "privileged". http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/02/a_bump_a_panic_two_babies_torn.html

"Privilege" is code in DC for white and middle class, and seems to be used as a justification for sticking it to that demographic whenever possible by bureaucrats whose poor work habits would get them immediately terminated in the private sector.

Fenty and Nickles, while arrogant in the extreme, have at least tried to get some of these incompetents fired---though the entrenched public employee unions---which are backing Gray---have made that difficult. To wit, the ambulance driver whose gross negligence and misconduct contributed to the death of New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum managed to get herself reinstated on a technicality.
http://dcist.com/2008/11/21/rosenbaum_emt_reinstated.php

I'd love to hear Gray's thoughts on THAT case, and whether he would support renegotiating the union contracts that enable such travesties of justice to occur.

[Anonymous]

I like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like you.

Cool. If you could expand on that it might justify a Hug-n-kiss board to balance the Spit-n-spat board. 8)

[Anonymous]

You did a good job with your analysis of "privilege" and your post comes off more anti-Gray than anti-Fenty, whether you meant it to or not. I'd kiss your dick if I could.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Beleaguered-D_C_-Risk-Management-head-ousted-97627694.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Citations please.

And as for his General Counsel being the same lawyer who represented him in a malpractice hearing (assuming that is indeed the case): What is your objection to that? It's a political position. He can appoint anyone he wants. Lots of politicians bring their own people with them. If that is corruption, everyone in government is guilty, and apparently very brazen, too, as they've made no effort to hide the fact that they've brought their people with them.

Yeah, you can appoint whomever you choose to political positions, but why on God's green earth would you want a man who refuse to financially support his offspring to handle some of the city's finances. Now that's fucked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link to Valentine story:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/07/agency_director_placed_on_leav.html

Horrible, horrible, mayoral choices. Fenty is a thug---with his friends who are corrupt, incompetent, or both.

Gray doesn't stand for anything except a protest vote against Fenty. And the six pages of rantings by the pro-Gray poster about getting even with all the "privileged" people doesn't exactly help Gray's cause. When reading the rants (don't ask me why) I kept wondering where I had heard that "privileged" jargon before. And then I remembered---it was from a Post article about the head of Child Services a couple of years ago who continued to advocate for the prosecution of a young Capitol Hill family even after a judge had found them innocent of child abuse charges. The DC bureucrat's vendetta seemed to have a lot to do with her perception of the couple as "privileged". http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/02/a_bump_a_panic_two_babies_torn.html

"Privilege" is code in DC for white and middle class, and seems to be used as a justification for sticking it to that demographic whenever possible by bureaucrats whose poor work habits would get them immediately terminated in the private sector.

Fenty and Nickles, while arrogant in the extreme, have at least tried to get some of these incompetents fired---though the entrenched public employee unions---which are backing Gray---have made that difficult. To wit, the ambulance driver whose gross negligence and misconduct contributed to the death of New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum managed to get herself reinstated on a technicality.
http://dcist.com/2008/11/21/rosenbaum_emt_reinstated.php

I'd love to hear Gray's thoughts on THAT case, and whether he would support renegotiating the union contracts that enable such travesties of justice to occur.

Not unusual for DCUM, but you really have your facts wrong about the Selena Walker case. Her case had nothing to do with her being a member of the union and everything to do with the District Personnel Manual. The DPM needs to be changed. But, if you would deny Ms. Walker her due process for her claims to be heard in a timely manner, how many other people would you deny due process.

BTW--you really have a hard-on for unions. What exactly do you have against union employees. I am not in a union, but I accept their right to exist. IF you decide to pack your bags and move to MC, PG, HC, VA, etc you should beware that their teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, trash collectors and collection officers are also unionized. Based on your writings you believe yourself to be above these people, but they do the hard work. The work that you would not do. They do the work to keep your arse safe and your streets cleaned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citations please.

And as for his General Counsel being the same lawyer who represented him in a malpractice hearing (assuming that is indeed the case): What is your objection to that? It's a political position. He can appoint anyone he wants. Lots of politicians bring their own people with them. If that is corruption, everyone in government is guilty, and apparently very brazen, too, as they've made no effort to hide the fact that they've brought their people with them.

Yeah, you can appoint whomever you choose to political positions, but why on God's green earth would you want a man who refuse to financially support his offspring to handle some of the city's finances. Now that's fucked.

Gee, genius, let's ponder this one. Until today, this man was not handling the city's finances. He was the Mayor's General Counsel, with whom he has a long-standing attorney-client relationship. Fenty is entitled to a lawyer he likes; the attirney's personal failings in his personal life are not relevant to his ability to be a good lawyer to Fenty.

As to the new finance job, it's simple: this man has been loyal to Fenty, and Fenty wants loyal people around him. Whether this man has been loyal to his family is not relevant to his ability to do a good job for Fenty.

Why don't you go back to telling us about how much we all need to be stripped of our unearned privilege?

Have you found a therapist yet?