I was prepared to vote for Marie Johns on September 12. She was the only candidate among the Big 4 that passed my smell test. Cropp went excessively negative and I have some blood lust for the Council Chair who presided over the stadium debacle. I want her head on an electoral stake. Orange is against gay rights and that automatically disqualifies him from receiving my vote. Fenty seems like a great Councilmember but I'm not convinced he'll be a great mayor. How often do "constituent services" come up in an executive position? And the whispers about his intelligence worry me. So does his inability to get the endorsement of even one fellow Council member. I don't get the feeling that Fenty plays nice with others.
I know I'm not really voting for Johns as much as I'm voting against everyone else. I'm not happy with it either. But DC is throwing is throwing these politically homogeneous candidates at me, the common voter, and it's really no fun doing anything above and beyond rudimentary research on the issues and candidates. I'm a terrible voter. Sorry.
So, hurray for Johns. The Washington Post's decision to endorse Fenty didn't faze me in the least. I know Fenty is going to win. Whatever. The Post endorsed Mary Cheh for Christ's sake, so I get the feeling that the Post editorial board consists of a bunch of front-runners. What got to me was The Washington Times's decision to endorse Johns.
I honestly don't think I can bring myself to vote for someone that's supported by Sun Myung Moon or his evil Republican minions. If the Moonie Times endorsed Kerry in 2004, I probably would have voted for Nader. I mean, this is the paper that employed Jen Waters. Everything they do and say is wrong.
Thankfully, their reasoning is pretty shoddy. Johns got the endorsement in part because her "faith is a light that guides her." Fenty and Cropp are godless! Perhaps they would have had a better shot at the endorsement if they accepted a certain white-collar criminal as their Messiah.