Chamber of Commerce suppressing Ghoulet's racist comments

[Anonymous]

We have our answer to why the Chamber of Commerce is protecting Eric Goulet:

Less than 24 hours ago Goulet announced that his new campaign co-chair is the past president and CEO of the Chamber for 12 years. https://twitter.com/EJGoulet/status/1526725785662287872

At least we know WHY they were protecting him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread just manufactured outrage? Read the City Paper article. He basically regurgitated Federal statistics on voucher holders and then noted there have been issues with the homeless voucher holders that have been moved into Ward three apartment buildings.

And if you read this article, maybe concerns over housing homeless people isn’t that overblown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Basically this entire thread feels like a campaign by some staffer for an opposing candidate to drum up drama and outrage. It’s good politics, but really it all seems overblown. These comments are not racist, at least looking at this from a high level, and it seems like a bunch of bs to find some scandal prior to election time. People can quote legitimate statistics and they can voice and address concerns without being racist.

Yup. Totally orchestrated campaign from a bunch of campaigns pissed off about the Post endorsement.

Agreed.

Racism is objectively terrible.

But this is a comment no one has really seen that is snowballing on social media. Also if it was out of context then that’s a whole other thing.

So let’s see how it actually come out.

Meanwhile, can we elect someone who can actually tackle the 25% rise in overall crime and the 67% increase in car jackings? Wouldn’t that maaaaybe be a little more important?

Being a successful councilmember is about building relationships with others on the council, with the mayor, and with the executives of city agencies. Goulet’s statement - and, even more so, his unabashed defense of it - suggests that he would be absolutely terrible at that. Others would distance themselves from him and that would be bad for Ward 3 and issues that concern Ward 3 residents (very much including the rise of crime). This is politics after all. If you care about getting these issues resolved, you will elect someone with a bit more tact.

And the reality of DC politics is that a white councilmember representing the whitest part of the city has to be particularly mindful of racial dynamics in order to be effective. If nothing else this episode is disqualifying for Goulet just because of his cluelessness. I can't believe the guy worked in DC government for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread just manufactured outrage? Read the City Paper article. He basically regurgitated Federal statistics on voucher holders and then noted there have been issues with the homeless voucher holders that have been moved into Ward three apartment buildings.

And if you read this article, maybe concerns over housing homeless people isn’t that overblown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Basically this entire thread feels like a campaign by some staffer for an opposing candidate to drum up drama and outrage. It’s good politics, but really it all seems overblown. These comments are not racist, at least looking at this from a high level, and it seems like a bunch of bs to find some scandal prior to election time. People can quote legitimate statistics and they can voice and address concerns without being racist.

He literally said that most people of color in Ward 3 are on vouchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread just manufactured outrage? Read the City Paper article. He basically regurgitated Federal statistics on voucher holders and then noted there have been issues with the homeless voucher holders that have been moved into Ward three apartment buildings.

And if you read this article, maybe concerns over housing homeless people isn’t that overblown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Basically this entire thread feels like a campaign by some staffer for an opposing candidate to drum up drama and outrage. It’s good politics, but really it all seems overblown. These comments are not racist, at least looking at this from a high level, and it seems like a bunch of bs to find some scandal prior to election time. People can quote legitimate statistics and they can voice and address concerns without being racist.

Yup. Totally orchestrated campaign from a bunch of campaigns pissed off about the Post endorsement.

Agreed.

Racism is objectively terrible.

But this is a comment no one has really seen that is snowballing on social media. Also if it was out of context then that’s a whole other thing.

So let’s see how it actually come out.

Meanwhile, can we elect someone who can actually tackle the 25% rise in overall crime and the 67% increase in car jackings? Wouldn’t that maaaaybe be a little more important?

Being a successful councilmember is about building relationships with others on the council, with the mayor, and with the executives of city agencies. Goulet’s statement - and, even more so, his unabashed defense of it - suggests that he would be absolutely terrible at that. Others would distance themselves from him and that would be bad for Ward 3 and issues that concern Ward 3 residents (very much including the rise of crime). This is politics after all. If you care about getting these issues resolved, you will elect someone with a bit more tact.

And the reality of DC politics is that a white councilmember representing the whitest part of the city has to be particularly mindful of racial dynamics in order to be effective. If nothing else this episode is disqualifying for Goulet just because of his cluelessness. I can't believe the guy worked in DC government for 20 years.

Yep. I don’t have any problem with the broader point he was making about housing vouchers not being a solution by and of themselves, but the way he chose to express himself on the issue would make him an instant pariah on the DC Council. That would not be good for anyone in Ward 3, least of all those who don’t like the way the city is currently being run.

And it’s not just this one statement. Goulet has also endorsed a deceptive campaign run by a guy who has opposed public schools in his neighborhood regardless of whether they use existing or new buildings and made blatantly misogynistic comments to a Washington Post reporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread just manufactured outrage? Read the City Paper article. He basically regurgitated Federal statistics on voucher holders and then noted there have been issues with the homeless voucher holders that have been moved into Ward three apartment buildings.

And if you read this article, maybe concerns over housing homeless people isn’t that overblown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Basically this entire thread feels like a campaign by some staffer for an opposing candidate to drum up drama and outrage. It’s good politics, but really it all seems overblown. These comments are not racist, at least looking at this from a high level, and it seems like a bunch of bs to find some scandal prior to election time. People can quote legitimate statistics and they can voice and address concerns without being racist.

Yup. Totally orchestrated campaign from a bunch of campaigns pissed off about the Post endorsement.

Agreed.

Racism is objectively terrible.

But this is a comment no one has really seen that is snowballing on social media. Also if it was out of context then that’s a whole other thing.

So let’s see how it actually come out.

Meanwhile, can we elect someone who can actually tackle the 25% rise in overall crime and the 67% increase in car jackings? Wouldn’t that maaaaybe be a little more important?

Being a successful councilmember is about building relationships with others on the council, with the mayor, and with the executives of city agencies. Goulet’s statement - and, even more so, his unabashed defense of it - suggests that he would be absolutely terrible at that. Others would distance themselves from him and that would be bad for Ward 3 and issues that concern Ward 3 residents (very much including the rise of crime). This is politics after all. If you care about getting these issues resolved, you will elect someone with a bit more tact.

And the reality of DC politics is that a white councilmember representing the whitest part of the city has to be particularly mindful of racial dynamics in order to be effective. If nothing else this episode is disqualifying for Goulet just because of his cluelessness. I can't believe the guy worked in DC government for 20 years.

Yep. I don’t have any problem with the broader point he was making about housing vouchers not being a solution by and of themselves, but the way he chose to express himself on the issue would make him an instant pariah on the DC Council. That would not be good for anyone in Ward 3, least of all those who don’t like the way the city is currently being run.

And it’s not just this one statement. Goulet has also endorsed a deceptive campaign run by a guy who has opposed public schools in his neighborhood regardless of whether they use existing or new buildings and made blatantly misogynistic comments to a Washington Post reporter.

I think he was also trying to make a point about how the statistics on wealth distribution are skewed by housing vouchers.

But I guess we won't know until the tape is released...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this thread just manufactured outrage? Read the City Paper article. He basically regurgitated Federal statistics on voucher holders and then noted there have been issues with the homeless voucher holders that have been moved into Ward three apartment buildings.

And if you read this article, maybe concerns over housing homeless people isn’t that overblown: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

Basically this entire thread feels like a campaign by some staffer for an opposing candidate to drum up drama and outrage. It’s good politics, but really it all seems overblown. These comments are not racist, at least looking at this from a high level, and it seems like a bunch of bs to find some scandal prior to election time. People can quote legitimate statistics and they can voice and address concerns without being racist.

Yup. Totally orchestrated campaign from a bunch of campaigns pissed off about the Post endorsement.

Agreed.

Racism is objectively terrible.

But this is a comment no one has really seen that is snowballing on social media. Also if it was out of context then that’s a whole other thing.

So let’s see how it actually come out.

Meanwhile, can we elect someone who can actually tackle the 25% rise in overall crime and the 67% increase in car jackings? Wouldn’t that maaaaybe be a little more important?

Being a successful councilmember is about building relationships with others on the council, with the mayor, and with the executives of city agencies. Goulet’s statement - and, even more so, his unabashed defense of it - suggests that he would be absolutely terrible at that. Others would distance themselves from him and that would be bad for Ward 3 and issues that concern Ward 3 residents (very much including the rise of crime). This is politics after all. If you care about getting these issues resolved, you will elect someone with a bit more tact.

And the reality of DC politics is that a white councilmember representing the whitest part of the city has to be particularly mindful of racial dynamics in order to be effective. If nothing else this episode is disqualifying for Goulet just because of his cluelessness. I can't believe the guy worked in DC government for 20 years.

Yep. I don’t have any problem with the broader point he was making about housing vouchers not being a solution by and of themselves, but the way he chose to express himself on the issue would make him an instant pariah on the DC Council. That would not be good for anyone in Ward 3, least of all those who don’t like the way the city is currently being run.

And it’s not just this one statement. Goulet has also endorsed a deceptive campaign run by a guy who has opposed public schools in his neighborhood regardless of whether they use existing or new buildings and made blatantly misogynistic comments to a Washington Post reporter.

Yeah, cozying up to the FCCA crazies is disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Goulet posts a partial video:
https://twitter.com/EJGoulet/status/1526981806859223040

[Anonymous]

Goulet’s closing remarks at the TENAC Forum were horrendous. For God’s sake man, stop digging!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Goulet posts a partial video:
https://twitter.com/EJGoulet/status/1526981806859223040

That's a really awful way to answer "how to make Ward 3 more welcoming to Black people"

So I suppose the first step is electing the opposite of this ghoul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Goulet’s closing remarks at the TENAC Forum were horrendous. For God’s sake man, stop digging!

The TENAC video is here:
https://www.facebook.com/jim.mcgrath.3344/videos/2084016801776866

His closing remark begins at about 1:51. Basically he tries to blame the other candidates and make himself the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Goulet posts a partial video:
https://twitter.com/EJGoulet/status/1526981806859223040

That's a really awful way to answer "how to make Ward 3 more welcoming to Black people"

So I suppose the first step is electing the opposite of this ghoul.

Was that the question? For some reason the video he posted leaves off the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Goulet posts a partial video:
https://twitter.com/EJGoulet/status/1526981806859223040

That's a really awful way to answer "how to make Ward 3 more welcoming to Black people"

So I suppose the first step is electing the opposite of this ghoul.

Was that the question? For some reason the video he posted leaves off the question.

It seems like a really amateur spin job to release a partial rather than have the organizers release the full.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that, when you're in a race of a hundred odd people, any publicity is good publicity and looking like a complete ass is going to help your electoral chances provided that you draw attention to yourself in the process.

Bergmann, Brown, Cohen, Duncan, and Finley all seem like good people, but I'll be damned if I can find any meaningful policy differences between them. Four of those five need to find a way to get out of the way - by drawing straws if they need to - and unite behind a common candidate.

The alternative is that their egos make Goulet the next Councilmember for Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Why is it Duncan isn't as these forums? This is at last 2 she has missed.

And on Goulet, he doesn't release the question and he doesn't show the responses from the others.

You have to hear the question to understand why the answer was so horrendous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that, when you're in a race of a hundred odd people, any publicity is good publicity and looking like a complete ass is going to help your electoral chances provided that you draw attention to yourself in the process.

Bergmann, Brown, Cohen, Duncan, and Finley all seem like good people, but I'll be damned if I can find any meaningful policy differences between them. Four of those five need to find a way to get out of the way - by drawing straws if they need to - and unite behind a common candidate.

The alternative is that their egos make Goulet the next Councilmember for Ward 3.

Why did you skip Frumin?

He is the one who has the most community experience and direct experience with the affordable housing and education communities.