Anonymous wrote:

However, once in, she impressed me with her knowledge of the issues, her public demeanor, her near immediate reaction to postings on local listservs, her energy in supporting local groups on issues of importance to them, her willingness to engage with people she knew were not supporters, and, last but not least, a staff that also displays the above qualities.

I have had no interaction with her personally. However, I have heard from people that I trust that both she and her staff have been heavy-handed and arrogant in the performance of their public duties. Again, this is not first-hand experience, so I will have investigate myself.

I have also heard some complaints about non-responsiveness, but my own experience and the predominance of reports I have heard have been positive.

As one who expects to vote for her, all I am asking is that we not make her into a saint or sleazeball, and not call people moronic assholes because they plan to vote differently than us. The City will survive whichever mayor we choose in 2014.

However, once in, she impressed me with her knowledge of the issues, her public demeanor, her near immediate reaction to postings on local listservs, her energy in supporting local groups on issues of importance to them, her willingness to engage with people she knew were not supporters, and, last but not least, a staff that also displays the above qualities.

I have had no interaction with her personally. However, I have heard from people that I trust that both she and her staff have been heavy-handed and arrogant in the performance of their public duties. Again, this is not first-hand experience, so I will have investigate myself.

takoma wrote:
However, once in, she impressed me with her knowledge of the issues, her public demeanor, her near immediate reaction to postings on local listservs, her energy in supporting local groups on issues of importance to them, her willingness to engage with people she knew were not supporters, and, last but not least, a staff that also displays the above qualities.

I concur with you on these items. She has been responsive to neighborhood concerns and generally pretty good at constituent services. But, I'm not sure this is enough to earn the right to be mayor. Her legislative record is dismal. She is deeply compromised by her campaign finance situation. I had multiple conversations with her about Initiative 70 which would have prohibited direct corporate contributions to candidates. She would not recognize that there was anything wrong with accepting contributions from multiple LLCs controlled by the same individual. She agreed to do an interview for DCUM, but then did not respond when provided the questions in advance (most of which dealt with campaign finance). When I asked her directly why she didn't respond, she said she wanted to wait until her campaign finance bill was ready. Guess what? It's still not ready.

Her other area of vulnerability is schools. She is going to campaign as a candidate of education reform based on her association with Fenty. Yet, her record is nearly empty where education is concerned. The Ward 4 schools are among the least reformed in the City. The two DCPS high schools are an embarrassment and the last middle school in the Ward is going to close (leaving "education campuses"). I really don't see how she is going to differentiate herself from Gray on education given that Gray has a relatively strong record on education. Her attempts so far have been almost funny in their ineffectiveness (in her Post interview she criticized Gray for being slow and setting up too many committees, then proposed setting up a committee).

I don't think I'm the best spokesman for Muriel. I first met Jeff during the special election that put her in Fenty's open Council seat. We were both unhappy with the way Fenty anointed her, and I, for one, preferred several other candidates. So I was certainly primed to see the faults in her handling of the job.

However, once in, she impressed me with her knowledge of the issues, her public demeanor, her near immediate reaction to postings on local listservs, her energy in supporting local groups on issues of importance to them, her willingness to engage with people she knew were not supporters, and, last but not least, a staff that also displays the above qualities.

I still wish she had a different stance on development, and especially on developers' campaign contributions, but overall, as I said in another posting, I would call myself a green-teamer nowadays.

I have no problem if you don't support her because of the issues or her legislative record. I just don't see why it's necessary to attack her personally.

Anonymous wrote:You don't like that you are getting two Walmarts, but are not willing to blame your councilmember who is almost single handedly responsible?

In throwing that comment into this discussion, I thought I was expressing some disapproval of her stand on Walmart, and development in general. However, I think it is an exaggeration to claim she has so much responsibility.

The one over near Fort Totten is actually, I understand, quite welcome in the neighborhood, and their reps on the ANC and in citizens' groups would probably like some of the credit. As for the much less popular one on Georgia Ave, that is a matter of right, and would probably be there even had she not supported it. But she has been open about her support, and has not tried to claim otherwise even among constituents openly hostile to WM. So even while disagreeing with her about it, I respect the way she has handled it.

Anonymous wrote:You don't like that you are getting two Walmarts, but are not willing to blame your councilmember who is almost single handedly responsible?

Also, the Walmarts are her one accomplishment. (I don't consider that toothless ethics bill that fails to substantively address a significant problem while giving the Council the fig leaf of cover to say "we addressed ethics!" an accomplishment.) So if you don't like her one accomplishment, why do you like her?

You don't like that you are getting two Walmarts, but are not willing to blame your councilmember who is almost single handedly responsible?

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has absolutely no experience at ANYTHING. She is about as interesting as a wet noodle, and has the personality of a slug. No thanks.

This sounds like a personal issue that has nothing to do with politics.

DP, but I agree with the poster who says that she is as interesting as a wet poodle. I don't know Bowser to make it personal. But, can you really name accomplishments from Bowser. She has been sitting on the council for almost eight years now, and then only thing going for her is Walmart.

I have no problem with mentioning a personal reaction in a substantive posting like this last one. But the first one above seemed like it ought to be in an off-topic thread called Personal Takes on Local Pols, or something similar.

FWIW, I really dislike the fact that my ANC will get TWO Walmarts!

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has absolutely no experience at ANYTHING. She is about as interesting as a wet noodle, and has the personality of a slug. No thanks.

This sounds like a personal issue that has nothing to do with politics.

DP, but I agree with the poster who says that she is as interesting as a wet poodle. I don't know Bowser to make it personal. But, can you really name accomplishments from Bowser. She has been sitting on the council for almost eight years now, and then only thing going for her is Walmart.

Anonymous wrote:She has absolutely no experience at ANYTHING. She is about as interesting as a wet noodle, and has the personality of a slug. No thanks.

This sounds like a personal issue that has nothing to do with politics.

She has absolutely no experience at ANYTHING. She is about as interesting as a wet noodle, and has the personality of a slug. No thanks.

Grey
Evans
Wells






Bowser.


She would be worse than Sharon Pratt.

I think she is sharp, articulate, and rarely loses her cool. She is also very cautious, which may well explain why she has not put forth a lot of legislation. I happen to like her a lot personally, so I may not be an objective judge, but I admit I always thought the contributions were her Achilles heel. She appears comfortable that she is not influenced by them, and I can believe that she would hold the same positions without the contributions, but being pro-development and getting a lot of developer money arouses suspicions no matter whether there is a causal relationship or which way it goes.

While I certainly don't always agree with her, I don't recall being misled about where she stands, even if she knew her audience would be unhappy with her position. At this point, I guess I'm a green-teamer.

You are closer to her than I am, so what is your feeling about her intellectual heft? I've always thought she was very nice and she has proven to be a hard worker. I really can't complain about constituent services. But, from what I've seen from a bit of a distance, her reputation as an empty suit is not undeserved. Her major legislative achievement has been the ethics bill which seems to be deeply flawed. The ethics board it created is already requesting more power. It didn't cover campaign finance at all. She likes to criticize Gray for moving too slow, but look how she dealt with campaign finance -- slow walked it until it became someone else's problem.

Also, only in DC can accepting multiple contributions from LLCs controlled by the same individuals and having Walmart's lobbyist as your major fundraiser -- while getting two Walmarts in your ward -- be considered "scandal free". No wonder she wasn't too interested in campaign finance reform.

Here is Alan Suderman's report of his travels with Muriel: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/44232/muriels-vetting-who-is-muriel-bowser-and-is-she-ready/. The comments are pretty rabid.