Isn't he also running for Ward 3 Council? That's weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NW DC and really like him. I encourage everyone to take a serious look at him as Ward 3 Council candidate against Frumin.

Are you good with the letter posted in the tweet above?

The 1000s of actual rent payers who live in those buildings are good with it. Trust me.

Anonymous wrote:I live in NW DC and really like him. I encourage everyone to take a serious look at him as Ward 3 Council candidate against Frumin.

Are you good with the letter posted in the tweet above?

Anonymous wrote:I live in NW DC and really like him. I encourage everyone to take a serious look at him as Ward 3 Council candidate against Frumin.

He saw 1/6 and said, "I want to join THAT GOP"
He has embraced the GOP. That means he is anti-Choice and pro White Nationalism. He clearly has no issue with Trump's naked crimes against the USA and his traitorous actions.

So yes, that is just want we want and deserve in Ward 3

I live in NW DC and really like him. I encourage everyone to take a serious look at him as Ward 3 Council candidate against Frumin.

But hey, lets vote for this guy because bike lanes or something.

Anonymous wrote:I guess the word we are looking for is....deplorable.

Yikes.

I guess the word we are looking for is....deplorable.

I'll be interested to learn more about him! I was born here and oppose statehood as well.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of worrying about which political tribe people may secretly belong to, you should instead worry about the quality of governance.

It’s a little Orwellian that people are busily trying to root out “secret Republicans” from local politics.

How is it Orwellian that in the course of researching a candidate in order to make a fully-informed voting decision - one of the cornerstones of the democratic process - somebody found some strong evidence that Krucoff was a Republican who was pretending not to be a Republican, and, as it turns out, is definitely a Republican?

What a weird thing to be upset about.

Anonymous wrote:“Ties to” is such a hilarious, bad-faith accusation. I have “ties to” so so many orgs, left and right, by your definition.

Yes! I'm LOL-ing at OP! Not worth reading!

Anonymous wrote:If you are for DC Statehood ask yourself if you would still be for it if DC were predominantly Republican. Of course you wouldn’t. It is a Democrat power grab plain and simple.

I would. I live in DC and am probably more conservative than the majority of people in DC. I am a registered Dem because so many races are decided at the primary level but have been a registered Republican in the past in other places I have lived. I am well aware that any rep elected in DC would likely be much further left than I would like but that doesn't mean that I don't think DC should be a state. It is just so silly to suggest that people only want representation because of what political party it is.

Do people who live in areas of the country where their reps are not the same party as them think that they would be better off with no representation at all? No other state or area of the country has its right to representation conditioned on the dominant local party. Eg would republicans in CA give up the right to have a senator at all if that was the only way to not have a democratic senator represent them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you insane?

The only reason why Krucoff has any ties to AEI is that they've allowed him to speak at meetings.

Krucoff has also taken the time over the past two years to speak to every single ANC. I doubt Eleanor even knows they exist.

If speaking to republicans = ties then he has ties but beyond that...

Want to know the truth? Many of the democrats that claim they support DC Statehood don't. Krucoff organized Douglass County the only logical alternative to statehood.

I met Eleanor Holmes Norton at an ANC meeting. She's quite sharp and I happily voted for her again this election.

She is not that sharp. I desperately want someone to beat her - just not him.

Anonymous wrote:If you are for DC Statehood ask yourself if you would still be for it if DC were predominantly Republican. Of course you wouldn’t. It is a Democrat power grab plain and simple.

Projection. Republicans used to widely support full Congressional representation for DC and it was part of their platform for decades. It’s the Republicans who have changed.
“The issue of representation for the people of D.C. has not changed at all,” says Perry O’Brien, the organizing director of Common Defense and a member of the Defend American Democracy coalition, who has compiled a history of past GOP support for various proposals on the issue. “What has changed is if the Republican Party was ever seriously concerned about preserving our basic democratic institutions, they clearly are not any longer.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/republicans-used-back-dc-statehood-what-changed/619221/
That list is here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5db9d9e198db5517dd0e9eb4/t/60ca960afb70df3f190dfc52/1623889418620/210608-Conservative-Voices+on-Statehood.pdf