Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My issue is he is not independent in any sense of the word. He is an extremely liberal democrat who did not think he could win in the primary. So the only real issues on the council become are we going to give our tax dollars away via corruption or expensive social programs with no mechanism to stop the corruption?
I would agree with this. Both independents on the Council are simply Democratic party members without the name. Heck some candidates have run both as Democrats and independents as it suited them. But some of us don't think that is such a bad thing...
I would argue that total domination of a government body by one party or the other is not a good thing for the people overall. Why even have independent seats if they are not truly independent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My issue is he is not independent in any sense of the word. He is an extremely liberal democrat who did not think he could win in the primary. So the only real issues on the council become are we going to give our tax dollars away via corruption or expensive social programs with no mechanism to stop the corruption?
I would agree with this. Both independents on the Council are simply Democratic party members without the name. Heck some candidates have run both as Democrats and independents as it suited them. But some of us don't think that is such a bad thing...
I would argue that total domination of a government body by one party or the other is not a good thing for the people overall. Why even have independent seats if they are not truly independent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My issue is he is not independent in any sense of the word. He is an extremely liberal democrat who did not think he could win in the primary. So the only real issues on the council become are we going to give our tax dollars away via corruption or expensive social programs with no mechanism to stop the corruption?
I would agree with this. Both independents on the Council are simply Democratic party members without the name. Heck some candidates have run both as Democrats and independents as it suited them. But some of us don't think that is such a bad thing...
Anonymous wrote:Vote to dump Grosso. Either that or give him a different committee. He's not helping schools.
Anonymous wrote:My issue is he is not independent in any sense of the word. He is an extremely liberal democrat who did not think he could win in the primary. So the only real issues on the council become are we going to give our tax dollars away via corruption or expensive social programs with no mechanism to stop the corruption?
Anonymous wrote:Vote to dump Grosso. Either that or give him a different committee. He's not helping schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are there specific reasons you're choosing cellnik? Those reasons don't seem compelling to me.
I'm not happy with the direction of DC Council..the transparency is a problem for me as well as the extreme tilt. A Republican would be a good counterweight - a good bridge for the SF liberal faction and the historical DC constituencies. Think of it as a voice for the rest of us,one voice. A needed voice.
Anonymous wrote:Are there specific reasons you're choosing cellnik? Those reasons don't seem compelling to me.
jsteele wrote:To tell you the truth, there is not a whole lot of choice. Luckily, among the choices are two very good candidates: Robert White and David Grosso.
Remember that you get two votes.
Anonymous wrote:Well, Grosso hasn't done a damn thing. So anyone would be better.
Anonymous wrote:DC can't levy a commuter tax on MD and VA residents, alas. Congress won't allow it. I wish.