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.
KStreetQB's right on this. Fenty's problem was that he couldn't connect the dots in terms of percetion vs reality, as good of a mayor as he was. He was simply not political in that sense. But with Gray, it's just flat out obvious how corrupt his administration is, even to the point that you could tell before he ousted Fenty this wasn't going to be good. The sad part is that I don't think Fenty would even bother running again considering Gray probably won't get re-elected (I say that, but this is Barry-ville).
You are completely, irrecoverably and embarrassingly lost if you think that is the question, but no, I'm not.
It's not a matter of being lost. In my opinion I believe you are being defensive of Fenty, so I'm calling your partiality in this discussion into question. You mentioned these things:
Quote:
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.
To me this was a head scratcher because this seemed as though you have a lot more details than was given out. Where is the proof of this information? Why should I believe any of these things you say are true if you don't have a source to reference them. Of course, unless you have some connection to the situation which is why I called your allegiance into question. I mean you should know, especially on this part of the website, that you can't throw out this type of information without having some sound, concrete resources to back you up.
To me this was a head scratcher because this seemed as though you have a lot more details than was given out. Where is the proof of this information? Why should I believe any of these things you say are true if you don't have a source to reference them. Of course, unless you have some connection to the situation which is why I called your allegiance into question.
Everything I have said has been in articles written during that controversy, and is public record now. In my prior post, I linked to my thoughts on the issue from September 2009 raising my skepticism about Mayor Fenty's widely-presumed guilt based on some of the same facts I just listed.
If you demanded proof and references before you concluded that the Mayor was corrupt, these 'details' (if you can call fundamental facts, details) wouldn't have eluded you. If you're attracted to headlines like "The New Cronies: Adrian Fenty, some frat buddies, and $86 million in city spending", and don't expend any energy lending a critical eye to what you're being presented with, you're probably not going to get that information.
Anyway,The DC City Council opened an independent probe to investigate, among other things, the involvement of Mayor Fenty, and produced a report of their findings. I feel like boiling the report down to a quote would be helpful here: "Our investigation uncovered no wrongdoing on the part of the Mayor."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
I mean you should know, especially on this part of the website, that you can't throw out this type of information without having some sound, concrete resources to back you up.
If only you needed to have sound, concrete resources to back up accusations of corruption...
Everything I have said has been in articles written during that controversy, and is public record now. In my prior post, I linked to my thoughts on the issue from September 2009 raising my skepticism about Mayor Fenty's widely-presumed guilt based on some of the same facts I just listed.
If you demanded proof and references before you concluded that the Mayor was corrupt, these 'details' (if you can call fundamental facts, details) wouldn't have eluded you. If you're attracted to headlines like "The New Cronies: Adrian Fenty, some frat buddies, and $86 million in city spending", and don't expend any energy lending a critical eye to what you're being presented with, you're probably not going to get that information.
Anyway,The DC City Council opened an independent probe to investigate, among other things, the involvement of Mayor Fenty, and produced a report of their findings. I feel like boiling the report down to a quote would be helpful here: "Our investigation uncovered no wrongdoing on the part of the Mayor."
The article that I posted was just a reference to the situation. You are caught up on the title, semnatics and nuances of the article, which I understand, but the point that was being made was his decisions were being called into question because of his dubious relationships with certain individuals. Something that you have even admitted is Fenty's inability to address concerns that people have with his actions and his inability to allow himself to be held accountable. What's so hypocritical about this, is the same reasons that you consider Fenty innocent is the same reasons why this thread is made about Gray. Remember Gray hasn't been founded to have done anything but his association with individuals and his inability to address these situations is what has given him the label as being corrupt. The fact is, you are a public official who is paid by the public's tax dollars and neither one of these men felt the need to explain their actions, but you don't see that as an issue? You think that just because a politician doesn't disclose everything, that it doesn't make him corrupt, but to me the very fact that it require this investigation to uncover this information (which by the way did lead to people losing jobs and being further investigated) and the mayor did very little to clear things up, raises red flags? Does corruption mean he's always guilty, no? But if he knows something, or if he is associated with the people involved in the acts, without knowing more, what are we left to conclude?
I don't know. I think it's simpler than that. It's "us versus them". Fenty represented "them". He lived in a well to do neighborhood in NW. He was pro bike lanes. Bike lanes seem to be this "only white people enjoy them" barometer that the anti-gentrification crowd dispise. Bike lanes? There goes the neighborhood! Vincent Gray represented "us". He lives in a nice to-do neighborhood too but with the "real" Washingtonians in SE. Fenty represented too much change and Gray was about going to the old ways. His entire campaign seemed to run on the premise I'm not Fenty.
That's how I see it.
Scandal and DC politics do seem to run hand-in-hand which is a darn shame.
The article that I posted was just a reference to the situation. You are caught up on the title, semnatics and nuances of the article, which I understand, but the point that was being made was his decisions were being called into question because of his dubious relationships with certain individuals.
I'm caught up on the lack of due diligence people undertake prior to taking a position on something and I'm caught up on people's eagerness to embrace suggestions of corruption without substantiation. Among the fundamental issues that I have a problem with, I don't understand how you come away with the idea that I'm caught up in the semantics and nuances of your articles; you just happened to provide excellent examples of the very things I take issue with.
Perhaps you can provide some sort of substantiation that he a) was even involved in the decision or b) that the relationships were dubious. I know it was suggested. In my opinion, it was suggested without proof, and subsequently disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
What's so hypocritical about this, is the same reasons that you consider Fenty innocent is the same reasons why this thread is made about Gray. Remember Gray hasn't been founded to have done anything but his association with individuals and his inability to address these situations is what has given him the label as being corrupt.
That is a trainwreck of a thought. It would only be hypocritical if I were calling Gray corrupt without any substantiation (which I have not). The reason I consider Fenty innocent is that on the contracting issue an independent probe found him to be. On the other issues, I never saw anything even approaching the substantiation of corruption.
Now there are some not-so-subtle differences between Grays situation and Fenty’s situation. One being the federal criminal investigation that has discovered profound campaign finance fraud, has garnered multiple guilty pleas and granted immunity to several witnesses (not given out lightly to catch the small fish). Slightly more substance to work with there than ‘OMG, pool heater, corruption!’.
So what I have said, is that I think Mayor Gray is going to be indicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
The fact is, you are a public official who is paid by the public's tax dollars and neither one of these men felt the need to explain their actions, but you don't see that as an issue?
What actions exactly do you think Fenty had to explain that he didn’t? In the absence of action, it seems hard to explain an action. Fenty did address the issue honestly, he didn't run away from the fact he knew the parties involved, but he didn't have anything to do with the award of the contract to a specific contractor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
You think that just because a politician doesn't disclose everything, that it doesn't make him corrupt,
This is the most asinine thought that you have misattributed to me so far. Care to qualify that? I think that if a politician hasn’t engaged in willful corruption he isn’t corrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
but to me the very fact that it require this investigation to uncover this information (which by the way did lead to people losing jobs and being further investigated) and the mayor did very little to clear things up, raises red flags?
Insofar as Mayor Fenty's involvement was concerned, the investigation uncovered zero additional information than what was initially disclosed. As far as whether an investigation was 'required' or not, i'm a little skeptical, but certainly the public characterization of corruption may have forced a politically sensitive Council's hand (keep in mind, it was a DC Council investigation, not a federal criminal investigation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
Does corruption mean he's always guilty, no?
I do not even know what you’re saying here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
But if he knows something, or if he is associated with the people involved in the acts, without knowing more, what are we left to conclude?
You could at least do your due diligence before you conclude anything. You were neither aware of basic information available at the time of the controversy, nor the findings of the independent investigation since then.
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.
