Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arrogant? Probably. Corrupt? My view from working with DC (city) politicos indicates quite the opposite. In fact, one of primary causes of Fenty's political downfall was that he shunned the old guard of Campaign supporters, DC lobbyists and powerful interests. He pissed off a lot of people by not kissing certain rings; especially of powerful people who did a lot of work to support his election.
Fenty was single-mindedly bent on progress. The one accusation that can be honestly leveled against him is that he bypassed some 'good-government' processes in the interest of expediency. It was his way or the highway, and he either had blinders on to the political ramifications of that approach, or he believed in what he was doing so he didn't care.
The papers sold a lot of issues by weaving stories of corruption. Powerful interests interests that Fenty didn't bow to were more than happy to help draw those lines. Unfortunately, Fenty's lack of transparency and heavy handed approach to cutting through bureaucratic red tape didn't leave him with a solid foundation or many political friends to defend him.
The other perception problem Fenty had, was not putting enough effort into addressing the concerns of the black constituent community. The perception-wise he got elected as a community guy walking from door to door across the entire city, and he lost as a development guy who only cared about Ward 2.
I'm sorry I believe you have selective memory. There were a number of controversies that Fenty was involved in and it had nothing to do with weaving stories. How can anyone forget about the funding for the pool heater, going on vacation to Dubai, or the fact that he was constant caught up in rewarding business deals with his frat brothers? In some ways, he mishandled these situation because simply didn't know how to communicate with the public, but it still didn't change the fact that he had some questionable behavior. As a matter of fact Vincent Gray campaigned himself as being someone that wasn't anti-corruption, so if Fenty wasn't so corrupt why would a campaign ran off of that be so successful?
I'm sorry I believe you have selective memory. There were a number of controversies that Fenty was involved in and it had nothing to do with weaving stories. How can anyone forget about the funding for the pool heater
I could not think of a more profound example of what I was talking about than 'City Installs Heater in Mayors Pool'.
Whoever has the local network to be elected mayor is going to know a ton of people, their businesses and have substantial ties to the community. Inevitably, among the thousands and thousands of policy decisions, procurements, contracts etc, there is going to be intersections between the Mayor and these connections. An improvement is going to be made to an elected officials neighborhood, a contract is given to a campaign donor etc etc... This will happen in 100% of all administrations.
Inevitably, any number of stories will be written drawing lines between unavoidable circumstantial linkages, and irresponsibly suggest there is something inappropriate occurring. What in this story shows that Fenty directed this pool heater installation? What in this story proves that out of the thousands of projects happening in the district, he had any information about this one? Nothing. Not a thing.What was the follow up story on this suggested corruption? Where was the investigation into the Mayor directing resources to a project that would only benefit him? There was nothing because there was nothing real to the story in the first place.
So what does this example of yours show? Some circumstantial data points presented in a way to incite the base skepticism of an increasingly thoughtless audience eager to be outraged about something, in order to sell a story. Pretty much the perfect example of weaving a story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
going on vacation to Dubai,
And the corruption there? What did Dubai get out of it? If it was a bribe, why didn't Fenty negotiate the flights out there for his family as well, instead of paying for them himself? Or was it that Fenty is antisemetic because an Israeli tennis player was denied a visa to play in a tennis tournament out there? Silly questions for a silly story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
or the fact that he was constant caught up in rewarding business deals with his frat brothers?
I summed up my thoughts on that here: So what time do the yuppies start moving?
Nice sensational title to that particular article though: "Adrian Fenty Some Frat Buddies and 86 Million". Again, the sort of 'guilty by headline' stories I find to be irresponsible, but most people slop right up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
As a matter of fact Vincent Gray campaigned himself as being someone that wasn't anti-corruption, so if Fenty wasn't so corrupt why would a campaign ran off of that be so successful?
I don't quite understand that sentence, but a political challenger flinging corruption charges at an incumbent is neither unusual nor necessarily merit-based.
Of course, politicians at the federal, state, county and city levels who accept campaign donations from wealthy individuals and pro-corporate political advocacy groups will always put the interests of people first and they can be trusted to make independent and logical decisions with their policies. Right?
There's nothing corrupt about accepting campaign donations from businesses and wealthy people. It becomes corruption when a politician's vote is influenced by financial contributions from powerful interests. This happens with regularity at all levels of government. So your .1 percent corruption case number is just a weeeee bit off don't you think?
Calling out citizens as "lazy" and "stupid" when they object to a government bill or policy illustrates a certain amount of contempt against the plebeians and against democracy itself. Put all trust in our elected leaders because they have more information and knowledge than you Average Joe and Jane Schmucks. That's not how a healthy nation, state or city should function in the world. It's pretty hard to understand political decisions when deals are made behind closed doors and battalions of K Street lawyers work with Capitol Hill policy wonks to build monster 1,000 page bills with arcane language that even people with college degrees would have a hard time deciphering.
The average citizen does not have the leisure time to scrutinize policy proposals, amendments and bills. If a citizen is not kept "in the loop" of government activities then how do you expect him to react with complete acquiescence to authority when a government policy runs counter to his financial or personal interests? When American citizens are polled every year, they give harsh evaluations of Congress, the US President, State Governors, State Representatives and so on. Is this because these dissatisfied voters are "lazy" and "stupid" since they don't understand the public good created by politicians? Or could it be that the politicians and their elite policy advisers are so divorced from the economic realities of most citizens that it ferments a system of permanent mistrust (and hostility) between the elected leaders and the citizenry? A true democrat in the reformist mold is more concerned with the second question.
Your authoritarian elitist philosophy shows, man. And unfortunately, I think most people in "The Game" like yourself would rather keep the citizenry in the dark because there's too much money and too much power to lose if we had a real popular democracy in the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KStreetQB
The unfortunate reality is that at some point the government does things, and any time the government does something, there will be people who don't like it claiming corruption. In 99.9% of the cases, it's a lazy and stupid way to 1) complain 2) rationalize an outcome you don't understand or 3) sensationalize a story to sell it. The other .1%, it's corruption.
Edit: Talking about politicians overall... the DC city politicians may have a slightly higher ratio.
I could not think of a more profound example of what I was talking about than 'City Installs Heater in Mayors Pool'.
Whoever has the local network to be elected mayor is going to know a ton of people, their businesses and have substantial ties to the community. Inevitably, among the thousands and thousands of policy decisions, procurements, contracts etc, there is going to be intersections between the Mayor and these connections. An improvement is going to be made to an elected officials neighborhood, a contract is given to a campaign donor etc etc... This will happen in 100% of all administrations.
Inevitably, any number of stories will be written drawing lines between unavoidable circumstantial linkages, and irresponsibly suggest there is something inappropriate occurring. What in this story shows that Fenty directed this pool heater installation? What in this story proves that out of the thousands of projects happening in the district, he had any information about this one? Nothing. Not a thing.What was the follow up story on this suggested corruption? Where was the investigation into the Mayor directing resources to a project that would only benefit him? There was nothing because there was nothing real to the story in the first place.
So what does this example of yours show? Some circumstantial data points presented in a way to incite the base skepticism of an increasingly thoughtless audience eager to be outraged about something, in order to sell a story. Pretty much the perfect example of weaving a story.
And the corruption there? What did Dubai get out of it? If it was a bribe, why didn't Fenty negotiate the flights out there for his family as well, instead of paying for them himself? Or was it that Fenty is antisemetic because an Israeli tennis player was denied a visa to play in a tennis tournament out there? Silly questions for a silly story.
I summed up my thoughts on that here: So what time do the yuppies start moving?
Nice sensational title to that particular article though: "Adrian Fenty Some Frat Buddies and 86 Million". Again, the sort of 'guilty by headline' stories I find to be irresponsible, but most people slop right up.
I don't quite understand that sentence, but a political challenger flinging corruption charges at an incumbent is neither unusual nor necessarily merit-based.
Are you his frat brother? You are making excuses for him. I even said, especially with the Dubai trip, that part of his issue is the lack of communication with the public. But as far as giving city contracts to his frat brother, you don't see an issue with that? Conflict of interest, maybe?
No. I don't think excuses need to be made. I identified where he failed in my opinion. The thing i'm taking issue with is the eagerness of the public to wholesale buy in to any suggestion of corruption without anything more than circumstantial linkages to substantiate it. I take equal issue with the media being so willing to frame stories in a way that suggests corruption.
It's one thing to write/accept an article about a federal criminal investigation into serious campaign law violations garnering guilty pleas from individuals involved and suggesting/concluding there is something inappropriate occurring.
It's another thing to write/accept an article about a heater being installed in a pool that the Mayor uses sometimes and suggesting/concluding there is something inappropriate occurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
I even said, especially with the Dubai trip, that part of his issue is the lack of communication with the public.
I agree he didn't do a good job addressing these things publicly. I think that also played into the perception, true or not, that he was arrogant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
But as far as giving city contracts to his frat brother, you don't see an issue with that? Conflict of interest, maybe?
No I don't; and this is exactly the thing I'm talking about. You see a suggestive headline. You see a personal connection with the Mayor. Even the article has a picture subtitle that says "Grecian Formula: Fenty + frat pal Skinner + city contracts = embarrassing headlines." Your conclusion appears to be COI/Corruption.
But does it mean anything more than embarrassing headlines? Does it really mean corruption? Did Fenty just give the contract to his buddies?
Was it a no-bid contract? No.
Were there other bidders? Yes.
Did the approval of the contract go through a panel? Yes.
Did the panel unanimously select the contractor? Yes.
Did an investigation reveal that there was influence upon the panel? No.
Did the investigation confirm that the selected contractor scored the highest among all bidders? Yes.
Did any of the other bidders file a bid protest? No.
Were there quality of work complaints about the contract prior to it being terminated? No.
Was the contract terminated? Yes.
Did the city have to settle with the contractor for terminating the contract? Yes.
No. I don't think excuses need to be made. I identified where he failed in my opinion. The thing i'm taking issue with is the eagerness of the public to wholesale buy in to any suggestion of corruption without anything more than circumstantial linkages to substantiate it. I take equal issue with the media being so willing to frame stories in a way that suggests corruption.
It's one thing to write/accept an article about a federal criminal investigation into serious campaign law violations garnering guilty pleas from individuals involved and suggesting/concluding there is something inappropriate occurring.
It's another thing to write/accept an article about a heater being installed in a pool that the Mayor uses sometimes and suggesting/concluding there is something inappropriate occurring.
I agree he didn't do a good job addressing these things publicly. I think that also played into the perception, true or not, that he was arrogant.
No I don't; and this is exactly the thing I'm talking about. You see a suggestive headline. You see a personal connection with the Mayor. Even the article has a picture subtitle that says "Grecian Formula: Fenty + frat pal Skinner + city contracts = embarrassing headlines." Your conclusion appears to be COI/Corruption.
But does it mean anything more than embarrassing headlines? Does it really mean corruption? Did Fenty just give the contract to his buddies?
Was it a no-bid contract? No.
Were there other bidders? Yes.
Did the approval of the contract go through a panel? Yes.
Did the panel unanimously select the contractor? Yes.
Did an investigation reveal that there was influence upon the panel? No.
Did the investigation confirm that the selected contractor scored the highest among all bidders? Yes.
Did any of the other bidders file a bid protest? No.
Were there quality of work complaints about the contract prior to it being terminated? No.
Was the contract terminated? Yes.
Did the city have to settle with the contractor for terminating the contract? Yes.
So are you going answer the question, are you a Kappa?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
