Just to make sure it's clear before the horde of comments start flowing in both now and in the future... is "we" referring to just the author, Jamie? Or to the greater GGW legion of writers?

by Bossi on Apr 21, 2011 2:34 pm  

Given the depth of the field and vote strategy issues, I was hoping for more from the GGW endorsement. The problem in this race has never been finding a good candidate (by GGW standards). It's been finding the best candidate. The nature of this election means if I vote for Weaver, I'm not voting for Mara or Biddle or any of the other candidates. This article doesn't go into why I shouldn't vote for any of the other candidates. In fact, it makes no comparisons at all. It just states that Weaver is a great guy (which I'll concede, but are none of the other candidates great guys?)

Secondly, would Orange, who is the presumed front runner, be generally beneficial or detrimental to the goals of GGW? If he would be detrimental, should we be backing a less ideal candidate who has a better chance of winning (which would probably be Biddle)?

by Steven Yates on Apr 21, 2011 2:56 pm  

@Steven Yates, I believe the facts surrounding whether this is a Jamie endorsement or a GGW endorsement are a bit unclear.

That's bossi's point.

by HogWash on Apr 21, 2011 3:08 pm  

@HogWash

Yes, I'd say the clarity of that point is an issue too (and since Bossi brought it up I didn't bother). But even if this is just Jamie's endorsement, I would have still liked to see him go into some depth on the issues I mentioned.

by Steven Yates on Apr 21, 2011 3:10 pm  

Steven Yates: For what it's worth, there have been discussions about the other candidates and strategy before on GGW. This being the endorsement, a focus on why to vote for the candidate seemed to be the appropriate thing to focus on here.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Apr 21, 2011 3:24 pm  

Just wanted to make sure that you knew that the numbers cited in this article about violent juvenile offenders is actually wrong. Last year there were about 550 arrests of juveniles for violent offenses. The 2000 number is actually meant to represent the total number of youth in our juvenile justice system overall, most of whom are actually under the care and supervision of Court Social Services, which is not even a District agency (CSS is part of the court system). The number of youth that actually get committed to DYRS is closer to 300. I like Mr. Weaver and have been impressed by his breadth of knowledge and his commitment to youth. But if you are going to endorse someone because of a stance they take on an issue, you should at least understand the issue. We demonize our youth in this city by making them out to be more violent they really are and more violent than youth were in the past. Neither is true and we are not going to move forward with effective juvenile justice reform until we stop playing politics and instead continue to focus on good policy.

by Fact Check on Apr 21, 2011 4:13 pm  

I really, really like Bryan, but I don't think any informed observer believes he has a chance. The thought of waking up to a Councilmember Orange on the 27th gives me the heebie jeebies, so I'm going with Biddle.

by Kinda HL on Apr 21, 2011 4:22 pm  

We've got ourselves something of a prisoner's dilemma here. If I knew who the top two finishers were going to be, I'd know who to vote for.

by David C on Apr 21, 2011 4:28 pm  

@Kinda HL

This logic frustrates me to no end. If everyone who thought this, and from what I can tell there are quite a few of you, voted for him Bryan would stand a much better chance of winning. The nice thing about a low turnout special election is that traditional rules are hard to apply. A candidate has a chance to win by knocking on the most doors(Lopez), pulling in the most money (Orange), garnering the most endorsements (Biddle), or tapping into a small but passionate base of support (Mara and yeah, Weaver)

Vote for the best candidate. The seat is up for election again in a year, be cynical then when the field probably won't be as strong.

by Matt Rumsey on Apr 21, 2011 4:48 pm  

I'm tired of the blackmail. Douglas Adams coined it best in Hitchhikers with his discussion of the planet of people, ruled by lizards. Why? Because if you don't vote for "your lizard" then "the other guy's lizard" will get in.

Stop voting for lizards. Vote for the best person. In this case Bryan.

by John on Apr 21, 2011 5:11 pm  

This logic frustrates me to no end.

Which logic? Mathematics?

A vote for a lower ballot candidate is a 1/2 vote for whichever of the top two you like least. It's not my fault there is no runoff (instant or otherwise) and I think it's reasonable - even smart - to vote strategically within the game that is created. Being strategic is not the same as being cynical.

Part of Weaver's job in the race is to convince me that he could win. He hasn't done that yet.

by David C on Apr 21, 2011 5:19 pm  

It's pretty clear that the top two finishers will be Orange and Biddle, probably in that order because of this kind of thinking. The people who are following the Nader-esque suicide logic of this endorsement need to to figure out that their "perfect candidate" is the enemy of the "good" and will lead to by far the worst choice.

A vote for anybody other than Biddle is effectively a vote for Vincent Orange. And in a year, when this seat is up again, if Vincent Orange is the incumbent he'll be just that harder to beat, so we need to keep him off the council now.

Maybe Weaver's awesomeness will get him into double digits, maybe even into 3rd place, but Vincent Orange will still be on the damn council. Politics is about winning, and until we get a non-partisan run-off system like healthier cities, you need to vote reality and vote for Biddle as the best anti-Orange vote you can make.

by PS on Apr 21, 2011 5:37 pm  

Lots of lizard supporters here.

by John on Apr 21, 2011 5:59 pm  

Go, GGW! I've voted for many candidates out of hard-headed pragmatism, but in a special-election with a very small turnout, it makes sense to vote for the best candidate. If the same % of voters turn out next Tues as voted in our last special election, only 30,000 people will show up. That means 15,000 voters may decide this election.

by Kesh Ladduwahetty on Apr 21, 2011 6:14 pm  

I agree with the calculus that results in a Biddle vote. He has STRONG support in Wards 3 and 4 - probably the cradle of the highest number of votes. If anyone is going to defeat him, it is Orange, which is simply not acceptable.

You can see the Vince Orange video on Youtube as but one reason why he is a non-starter. The topic is same-sex marriage

by William on Apr 21, 2011 7:17 pm  

In order for me to strategically vote for Biddle, Biddle needs to persuade me that VO is evil. And he hasn't sold that. I don't like Orange as much as the others, but I don't hate him. So +1 for Weaver.

by ADW on Apr 21, 2011 7:43 pm  

Vincent Orange has been underwhelming at most of the forums that I have attended. He was unaware of the bag fee revenue, and unwilling to address the cuts made necessary by his no-tax-increases stand. Weaver is good on some issues, but just doesn't seem as experienced as Biddle. Biddle has integrity. I like that he is a supporter and user of multi-modal transportation, and he has the best experience to continue guiding school system reform, reform that is essential if the city is going to retain families. I don't view him as tarnished just because the DC DSC had a less-than-transparent nominating process.

by DCster on Apr 21, 2011 9:29 pm  

hmm. I cast my vote for Sekou Biddle a few days ago. (I'll be out of town next week). There are a number of good candidates, but I want to vote for someone whose positions I can agree with and might actually win.

As for Orange...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrJfyT8p3I&feature=youtu.be
Good grief. ass hat.

by zilla on Apr 21, 2011 10:21 pm  

What are his credentials besides running a basketball program?

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 7:52 am  

With the games being played with Gray and Kwame DC needs someone who is not tied to this embarrasing administration and will ask the questions about managing DC affairs. Vincent Orange will ask the questions, get the answers and wants fiscal responsibiity from this government. Weaver is not up for that kind of problem solving. Biddle is the puppet of Gray, Kwame and many of the council see him as the yes man. Biddle also only has experience with the DC schools, there are more issues to deal with and he is not going to correct this administration.

by Bill on Apr 22, 2011 8:33 am  

Right choice! Bryan is a straight shooter whose genuinely in this because he wants to make our city a better place to live.

by Mike Jelen on Apr 22, 2011 8:39 am  

TGEoA: I'm going to reply to your snarky trolling, but I reserve the right to ask you a snarky rejoinder first. What difference is it to you, because you live in Arlington and can't vote one way or the other, right?

Now, to be serious, Bryan was an ANC commissioner for 8 years in Adams Morgan, chairing the commission for part of that time. His non-profit is not just a "basketball program," as you so dismissively put it. I'll just steal straight from his website for a description:

Hoops Sagrado takes at-risk youth from Washington D.C. to the highlands of Guatemala every summer for a 5-week program of basketball (training, clinics and tournaments), cultural exchange, leadership development and mentoring, Spanish immersion, English tutoring and community-building activities. Hoops Sagrado, a 501(c)(3), also gives scholarships to Mayan teens interested in finishing high school and going on to college. Through Hoops Sagrado, Bryan is committed to developing leadership skills, self-confidence, and a sense of community service in at-risk youth using the game of basketball as a tool to experience a different country and culture.

On his own time, Bryan has taken on several mentoring roles for youth in Washington D.C. from serving as a tutor at Good Shepherd’s Teen Learning Center, to coaching high school basketball for Hyde Leadership Academy and The Adams Morgan Knights, to volunteering to help other D.C. nonprofit organizations help young people stay off the streets and in school.

He's involved in the city, on a personal, professional, voluntary, and elected level. Does that meet your requirements for public service qualification?

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Apr 22, 2011 8:58 am  

@David C

Bored at work so I'm gonna explain myself further. The logic that Orange is 1 or 2 is what frustrates me (although as PS said, it might have become a self fulfilling prophecy, in which case big ups to Biddle's communications staff). I don't believe that Orange is a mortal lock for several reasons:

1)Money. Orange has always been a good fundraiser. In 2006 he raised half a million bucks for a mayoral bid that was doomed from the start. He then got press for paying an absurd amount of $ for a big shiny sign to hang on his office. He also thought that handing out oranges outside metro stations was the best way to victory. Last year he was too focused on putting signs on every utility pole downtown to, you know, run a field campaign. At this point I see no reason to believe Orange will spend the money he's raised for this race in an effective way.

2)Name Recognition. Yeah, Orange has the highest name rec. of all the candidates. But, he's known as a loser. He won ward 3 last year as a protest vote. His name recognition matters little in a low turnout election that features 4 other compelling candidates.

3)I believe that he's weaker in ward 5 than people think. Orange couldn't even beat Kwame in Ward 5, his home ward. Yeah, everyone knows him and he's fairly popular. But, Harry Thomas Junior is MUCH more popular and has endorsed Biddle. I don't think he gets as many votes there as he needs. Also, Weaver and Lopez have put in a fair amount of time in the ward and will pull some votes away from anti Kwame types. which leads to...

4)Orange is competing with Weaver and Lopez for swing votes as much, if not more so, than Biddle is. Orange is running as the Anti-Kwame voice of experience. Weaver is running as the Anti-Kwame Liberal-Realist, and Lopez is running as Fenty II. All these things appeal to a fairly similar demographic of possible swing voters. As hard as he's tried, Biddle has had trouble shaking the Kwame brand.

5))East of the river. Orange performed very poorly EOTR in 2010. Kwame and Gray are still popular over there too, which helps Biddle. Orange got lucky when Jacque Patterson endorsed him, but I don't see it as being enough. Also, Lopez hasn't been afraid to campaign EOTR and will siphon off some votes from both Biddle and Orange.

Anyway, I could be wrong about all of this, but I'd rather vote for a candidate I believe in than give into what I see as a false narrative.

by Matt Rumsey on Apr 22, 2011 9:27 am  

Lots of lizard supporters here.

You're begging the question. Lot of folks who respect the work Weaver has done with city youth, etc... don't necessarily think he's the better candidate. It's the same fallacy the Naderites had in 2000: Gore was both more electable *and* would have made a better president.

Frankly, I think the charges that Biddle is some sort of "handmaiden to the Gray and Brown (and Barry, and Wells for that matter)" is ridiculously overblown.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2011 9:30 am  

Vincent Orange will ask the questions, get the answers and wants fiscal responsibiity from this government.

Unless you don't want him to. Then he won't. Whatever you want him to be, that's what he is. He just wants your vote.

Biddle is Gray's man. Vincent Orange is Everyman's man.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2011 9:32 am  

@Hatchard

In response to your snotty rejoinder, as a property owner in DC I have a vested interest in the affairs of the elected government. And IIRC GGW contributors that are DC residents have endorsed Virginia officials and programs in the past. Does that make your comment a precedent for others to tell them to mind their own business in the future?

Now is Weaver qualified? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meets the guidelines to be on the council, but I asked about his credentials. And while taking a handful of kids out of a city of 600k on a month long holiday and getting scholarships for non-residents is all fine and dandy, it hardly gives him the experience needed to help run a government.

And not stated in the endorsement, is what he accomplished during his ANC tenure, which is far more germane with respect to a seat on the council.

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 3:25 pm  

TGEoA: You're more than welcome to go to the campaign website and email your questions from there. Have a fantastic weekend.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Apr 22, 2011 3:29 pm  

TGEoA, what kind of credentials are you looking for? Usually that refers to some sort of proof of ability issued by a 3rd party - like a university diploma or security clearance. Along those lines he has a BA from Howard. From his website:

"Bryan served as a Field Representative and Organizer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 500. He has served as Press Secretary for The Body Shop, USA and Assistant Press Secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He has worked as a communications consultant and contractor for progressive campaigns and causes such as the Education Trust – a national think tank dedicated to education policy, the Stand Up for Steel Campaign and the 2004 Athens Olympic Committee Bid. Bryan began in in politics as an aide to the late Senator Paul Wellstone and as an aide to Reverend Jesse Jackson."

Is that what you're looking for? That seems like more than running a basketball league, no? And it took me like 12 seconds to find. ArlingtonDirt must be an awesome blog. Does anyone actually read it?

by David C on Apr 22, 2011 3:33 pm  

Wait, I went to your blog. One post in December. I guess that answers my question.

by David C on Apr 22, 2011 3:37 pm  

Hang on, everyone, this is definitely starting to be ad hominem. How many posts TGEoA has on his blog or how many people read it is not a criterion for criticizing someone; also, it's true that we have a clear policy that anyone is welcome to comment on issues regardless of where they live.

I think TGEoA's comments are usually somewhat low on content and often seem to be geared to get a rise out of people, but that's not an excuse for attacking him directly or his right to participate.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2011 3:40 pm  

How many posts TGEoA has on his blog or how many people read it is not a criterion for criticizing someone

It is if my criticism is that he's too lazy to look up simple answers.

by David C on Apr 22, 2011 3:44 pm  

David: I can't agree. No matter how annoying people might be, it's against our rules to start attacking them for their background, place of residents, or calling them lazy.

This is the flip side of those people who attack other commenters saying, "You aren't doing your research" or "You should go read more papers on this topic" and not posting what they think. The comments are, among other things, a place for people to educate others about subjects by explaining information others might not know.

It's not appropriate to attack someone for asking for information or even making a statement based on little information by saying they're being lazy and not looking things up. If there's something they are missing, show them the error of their ways by posting better information in other comments.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2011 3:48 pm  

@DavidC

Yes, those are indeed credentials. Negative creds IMO (especially the SEIU), but creds nonetheless. And for the life of me I don't see why someone would write an endorsement and not list these, which was basically the point of my initial question.

And thanks for visiting my blog. I use it to refer Arlingtonians where their elected representatives live, and how much they pay in property taxes. Many people have found it very interesting.

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 3:49 pm  

@dalpert; " think TGEoA's comments are usually somewhat low on content and often seem to be geared to get a rise out of people". Ah, I'm glad to see your time in Washington is being well spent. Learning the ancient art of death by complimenting is a fine art around here.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2011 3:51 pm  

I've been a lock for Weaver since the day he announced, but I'm hoping Biddle and Mara and Lopez keep running for stuff. And I hope this is Orange's last hurrah. We need to move beyond his brand of politics.

by Matt W on Apr 22, 2011 3:52 pm  

@David C

Perhaps you should be directing your ire at Jaime Scot. If I ever decide to write an endorsement you can be sure I won't pull an Obama and just say "see my website". Linking is lazy.

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 3:59 pm  

Oboe: If you think flip-flop Biddle is the best candidate, by all means go for it. I'm speaking to the large numbers of Biddle pushers who only argument is "he's the only one who can beat Orange!" (BTW - Before Orange was the big scary goblin the same people substituted Mara.)

Sorry, this time I'm not voting for your lizard to keep their lizard out.

by John on Apr 22, 2011 4:15 pm  

@charlie

Bless your heart

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 4:32 pm  

@TGEoA

Thanks for reading. We believe Bryan Weaver has the best solutions to some of the issues facing this city. As the endorsement says, his attention to juvenile justice reform, tax reform and development contracts are critical for the District.

He does have 8 years experience as an ANC commissioner in Adams Morgan. Again, as the endorsement says, he effectively negotiated deals with developers to secure community benefits that had enforcement clauses. Many times in the District, a developer will promise to hire local workers, provide community space or other benefits, then fail to do so without repercussion.

Bryan may not have the 8 years of council service like Orange, but that doesn't mean he's not qualified or won't be a good councilmember. His work with Hoops Sagrado demonstrates a willingness to tackle a serious issue in an innovative way. That's what the city needs right now: a councilmember who has worked in the community and has new solutions to long-standing problems.

Bryan's belief in reform and accountability in government, his policy positions, experience as a community activist, and his 8 years as an ANC commissioner are what earned him this endorsement.

by Jamie Scott on Apr 22, 2011 4:34 pm  

And for the life of me I don't see why someone would write an endorsement and not list these

It's pretty simple. Where Weaver went to school has little to do with why Jamie Scot supports him. It doesn't look the Post mentions Mara's credentials. Can you show us an endorsements that rises to the high standards of TGEoA and includes the credentials you so desperately need to protect your property interests?

by David C on Apr 22, 2011 4:41 pm  

I have removed a comment by TGEoA because, right after chastising David C for certain comments over the line, TGEoA went and said the same things, showing once again that he is not looking to have a thoughtful conversation. Just because I defend one person when another goes too far does not give that person the right to do the same.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2011 5:41 pm  

@Alpert

My comment to David C was simply a response to his question about endorsements -- as well as a "thank you" to Jaimie for elaborating on his endorsement which you also deleted. I fail to see why you removed them.

As for not attempting to have "a thoughtful conversation", I couldn't disagree with you more. I knew nothing about Mr. Weaver before reading this article and didn't walk away with the impression that I learned much more after finishing it, hence my comments about the threadbare credentials.

However thanks to the comments David C's link to WaPo's endorsement did mention the this about Mr. Weaver

Mr. Weaver is well informed, but his approach to government is unbendingly liberal, with increased taxes seemingly his only solution.

by TGEoA on Apr 22, 2011 6:29 pm  

The Post's editorial was correct in saying that Weaver is unbendingly liberal. He's a progressive Democrat who has been involved with progressive politics for his entire career.

The editorial fails to mention that Weaver's proposed tax reform would also provide tax relief for many District residents. It's an entire overhaul of the system, not a simple "let's raise taxes to pay for stuff!"

While I am glad that people are demanding better and asking for qualifications for city council, I think some people may have expectations that are incredibly difficult to meet. For me, the primary and most important qualification is that someone has a deep understanding of the city and is willing to look at new ideas to move us all forward. Weaver has demonstrated both of these qualities (which was recognized by the Post, calling Weaver knowledgable, as well as by the Current newspapers which said he was "the most knowledgable.").

I have supported Bryan since before he entered the race for those reasons. He believes we can do better for everyone in the city, and is willing to work with everyone to make sure we get it done.

I am glad that GGW came out with a strong endorsement. Bryan is the best candidate to help the city progress.

by Dave Stroup on Apr 22, 2011 6:49 pm  

GGW should stick to wonking and leave the endorsing to the pundits.

Self-importance diminishes the value of this site.

by GeeGeeDubya on Apr 23, 2011 9:51 am  

Brian Weaver is a great candidate; I'm happy to see this endorsement.

by Tim H on Apr 23, 2011 7:51 pm  

Bryan would make an excellent Council Member. I just find the logic of the endorsement odd and as disjointed as Post endorsements have become.

In general GGW support policies that are anti-youth and families with children, especially when it comes to housing. GGW basically aligned itself with a politician most concerned with the perks of office and things like Verizon Center tickets, Graham. And as I have said before, aligned itself by its silence with developers who work against pedestrian safety infrastructure improvements. I actually believe the anti-Orange rhetoric has little to do with Orange, but is symbolic of something else.

by W Jordan on Apr 24, 2011 9:33 am  

W Jordan, would you care to expand? It's hard to address your concerns without, specific examples. Where has GGW aligned itself with policies that are anti-youth, anti-young families? Which issues should they have addressed with respect to pedestrian safety infrastructure improvements?

by David C on Apr 24, 2011 10:35 am  

Re anti-youth: how about for starters that you incorrectly claim that DC has 2000 violent youth offenders? This unfairly perpetuates the myth that youth in this city are violent and out of control when in reality almost 99% of all DC youth between the ages of 10 and 17 do NOT commit a violent offense last year. Your perpetuation of this myth keeps people wanting to spend money on locking up more youth (policies which cost a ton and are proven ineffective), which sucks resources away from evidence-based youth development and delinquency prevention programs that would actually reduce crime (as opposed to just punishing youth when crime happens). To make our communities safer and stronger, we need to keep stop demonizing our youth, invest in them earlier and more effectively, and continue moving forward with juvenile justice reform instead of swinging back to the failed policies of the past.

Also, if you all at GGW need numbers/data/research to back this all up so that you can change your post to accurately reflect reality, feel free to email me.

by Fact Check on Apr 24, 2011 6:34 pm  

I'm going to get hammered for this one, but:

This unfairly perpetuates the myth that youth in this city are violent and out of control when in reality almost 99% of all DC youth between the ages of 10 and 17 do NOT commit a violent offense last year.

I think this is something almost everyone agrees on, and is in fact the basis for my belief that penalties (where there's a conviction) for violent crimes committed by minors need to be harsher--not more gentle.

You're incorrect when you say that 99% of all DC youth between 10 and 17 do NOT commit a felony offense last year.

Surely the number of law-abiding DC youth is at least a couple of orders of magnitude higher than that. The problem is that there *is* a small, extremely violent minority who are overwhelmingly likely to commit serious acts of violence. Anyone who reads the newspaper knows this. And the victims of that violence are in almost all cases their peers. As you see from all the bullshit "crew beefing", etc..., this violence acts like a virus, infecting other kids in the form of retaliatory violence, and in general rewarding kids who are violent by giving them status and security.

But aside from young black kids being the primary target of youth violence, these kids are doubly victimized because--quite rationally--everyone treats young black boys and men as a threat. If you're going to be mugged, beaten up, or shot in this city, there's about a 99.99% chance that it'll be at the hands of a young black boy or man. There's nothing more ridiculous than suggestions on various neighborhood email lists that a woman walking home from the Metro who sees a group of fifteen year old black kids walking towards her is a racist if she crosses (or even thinks about crossing) the street.

Hell, until a couple of years ago, all the old-timers in my neighborhood walked in the damn street for safety, and they certainly didn't avoid the sidewalks because they were afraid of that 45-year-old woman walking her collie.

So basically, the 99.99% of young black youths who are not violent criminals are doubly victimized. But the "youth advocates" pretty much ignore their plight, and concentrate on the tiny fraction of kids who are actually dangerous. The squeaky wheel gets the grease--whether in school, or on the streets.

Furthermore, the kids who are violent criminals are almost *always* serial offenders, but are rarely caught. So the crimes for which they're actually caught (and convicted of) represent a tiny sliver of the crimes they've committed. But we must never quarantine them, because "What about their future?" Frankly, if that single violent teen is going to "infect" dozens of others, we have an obligation to take them out of society.

To make our communities safer and stronger, we need to keep stop demonizing our youth...

This is just an empty platitude, for the reason I touched on before. The problem is that *overwhelmingly* young black men and boys are law-abiding. But nearly every single person who commits a violent crime in this town is a black male. You can't just wave your hand and make everyone--rich and poor, white and black, male and female--forget one of the plainest facts of daily existence in DC.

In a city with lots of violent crime, mostly committed by youths and young men, almost all of them black, to say, "we need to stop demonizing our youth" is useless. The way you do that is provide lots of services to youth (which we do, but could get better at), and take the very few 15+ year olds who we can manage to convict of serious violent crimes and put them away for a very, very long time.

by oboe on Apr 25, 2011 10:22 am  

@David C

The net accumulative affect of many of the policies supported by GGW including the way inwhich they are implemented are anti-youth, family and etc.. As they are designed to sacrifice the already weak infracture designed to support youth to build what I can an Urban Disney infrastructure. An example would be the implementation of the Woodly/Adams Morgan Circulator which cannabilizes investment in improving overall bus service. Our even how the biking infrastructure was implemented in Columbia Heights to undermind pedestrian improvements. While it does not have to be zero-sum GGW in general supports a zero-sum approach.

by W Jordan on Apr 25, 2011 12:19 pm  

@W Jordan. I guess I don't see it that way. I don't see one bus as being pro-youth and another bus as anti-youth. Nor do I see cycling and pedestrian issues on opposite sides of the youth issue. And I don't think the cycling infrastructure in Columbia Heights undermines the pedestrian experience. So, I disagree.

by David C on Apr 25, 2011 12:27 pm  

Thanks, Weaver, your amazing 4th place finish certainly moves DC politics forward. What a great victory for shining progressivity and magically delicious candidates!

Every single damn vote for Weaver was a waste, as expected, and led to the least progressive candidates coming in 1st/2nd. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and idealism has no place in the voting booth in first-past-the-post winner-take-all systems, period.

Biddle + Weaver's wasted votes = a win. How many endorsement mistakes is GGW going to make before they pay attention to politics as it really is, not how they wish it was. If they can help move us to a Chicago-style non-partisan plus runoff system, or a San Franciscan instant-runoff system, then they won't have to devote their political capital to endorsing bad candidates who can win (Gray) or good candidates who can't (Weaver). How about it, let's be a voice for system reform and not for bad endorsements.

by PS on Apr 26, 2011 11:37 pm