CANDIDATE JONATHAN REES NEW CAMPAIGN FLYER

[Psycho]

IT IS TIME TO TAKE THE HANDCUFFS OFF THE TAXPAYERS!

 

 

Rees has been circulating this flyer all over the Internet and to the homes in Ward 3.

 

In my view, it is his best yet as far as artistic appearance.

[Luke_Wilbur]

What candidates do you endorse if any?

 

What will you do for your ward different than other candidates?

 

A good leader can shed off insults and be a model citizen for the younger members of the community. Can Jonathan Rees do that?

[Psycho]

One of the many problems that DC faces in order to build a better city for our young is, we have chased off the middle class.

 

As a result, we have lost a possible tax base that could have contributed to new programs geared toward making our young people more a part of our city, offer more activities and things to do and learn.

 

As such, the young who happen to have parents who can afford to send them to private schools, after school programs or off to summer camp or other self-help programs do but many cannot.

 

A good candidate is one who works toward building up the city in a way where all of us contribute to being a role model for our young and not rely on just one person.

 

by: Jonathan R. Rees

 

 

What candidates do you endorse if any?

 

What will you do for your ward different than other candidates?

 

A good leader can shed off insults and be a model citizen for the younger members of the community. Can Jonathan Rees do that?

[bfrankdc]

Luke,

 

Clearly you haven't seen the post here:

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...k.html#comments

 

At 6:57. Is this true, or yet another fabrication?

 

As evidenced by his lack of participation at candidate forums, his fabricated attacks on various candidates (or as he likes to refer to them, rivals), and his erratic online behavior, it is clear that Mr. Rees is not a serious candidate for office. I am beginning to believe the sociopath discussions, as his behavior models that of the various resources I have read to a tee.

 

B. Frank

 

What candidates do you endorse if any?

 

What will you do for your ward different than other candidates?

 

A good leader can shed off insults and be a model citizen for the younger members of the community. Can Jonathan Rees do that?

[Psycho]

Where is it written that to be a serious candidate that one has to participate in any debate?

 

Consider that ward 3 has 29,000 voting Democrats and 28,900 don't bother to attend debates.

 

Debates are things of the past and the turn out at them continue to decline.

 

Debates are not the best means by which to reach voters and most who attend them are supporters or employees of the candidates.

 

 

Luke,

 

Clearly you haven't seen the post here:

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...k.html#comments

 

At 6:57. Is this true, or yet another fabrication?

 

As evidenced by his lack of participation at candidate forums, his fabricated attacks on various candidates (or as he likes to refer to them, rivals), and his erratic online behavior, it is clear that Mr. Rees is not a serious candidate for office. I am beginning to believe the sociopath discussions, as his behavior models that of the various resources I have read to a tee.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Unlike the debate at John Eaton, last nights debate was attended mostly be uncommitted voters. These are the people who make up their minds when seeing all of the candidates on one platform, where they can compare and contrast styles and answers.

 

Of course, the only word of mouth about candidate Rees is very unflattering. The mention of the name last night caused quite a stif of laughter within the audience, and there were a smattering of conversations afterwards about his posting style, etc.

 

It is also interesting when sitting councilmen show up at functions such as last night and at Eaton. Hearing their opinions of the discussions, and which candidates they think they can work with is very enlightening. A mention of Rees' name to any of them who were at either prompted a simply roll of the eyes.

 

Tom Sherwood and other members of the press were present last night, and at the Eaton event. The comments by members of the 4th estate about the candidate were, well, validating much of what has been posted here and elsewhere about the candidate. I can't wait until one of the publications decides to go with the full story!

 

No, I do not thing anyone other than Rees and his merry band of aliases believes he is a real candidate for the office.

 

B. Frank

 

Where is it written that to be a serious candidate that one has to participate in any debate?

 

Consider that ward 3 has 29,000 voting Democrats and 28,900 don't bother to attend debates.

 

Debates are things of the past and the turn out at them continue to decline.

 

Debates are not the best means by which to reach voters and most who attend them are supporters or employees of the candidates.

[Psycho]

Bfrank, I am surprised that of all people you did not figure it out long along that there are a good number of people who are disgusted by what Sam has done and they want an explanation from him.

 

Sam has refused to address his selling out the GLBT people.

 

Luke,

 

Clearly you haven't seen the post here:

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...k.html#comments

 

At 6:57. Is this true, or yet another fabrication?

 

As evidenced by his lack of participation at candidate forums, his fabricated attacks on various candidates (or as he likes to refer to them, rivals), and his erratic online behavior, it is clear that Mr. Rees is not a serious candidate for office. I am beginning to believe the sociopath discussions, as his behavior models that of the various resources I have read to a tee.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Well then why don't you or Ramon address it? Ramon said he was going to at Eaton. I went to see it, and see his response, but alas, no Rees and no Ramon.

 

If he was there last night as you claim, he had ample opportunity to address Mr. Brooks in front of a room full of active democrats.

 

No, I do not think there was a Ramon there last night, and I do not think anyone else other than you care about this.

 

It certainly hasn't come up with any of the candidates or voters that I have spoken to.

 

B. Frank

 

Bfrank, I am surprised that of all people you did not figure it out long along that there are a good number of people who are disgusted by what Sam has done and they want an explanation from him.

 

Sam has refused to address his selling out the GLBT people.

[Psycho]

Ramon was there last night and so were a few others I know and they said the only notable press person in attendance was David Kennedy of the Northwest Current but nobody else.

 

The debate was civilized, none of the candidates made any bloopers to give the Washington Post a chance to write about it as they made fun of Brooks errors at John Eaton.

 

According to Cathy Wiss and Mary Cheh, the number of people there that were not affiliated with the candidates was about the same number as was at John Eaton which was nothing to boast about.

 

You seem to think that debates are a make it or break it for candidates but I do not.

 

 

 

Well then why don't you or Ramon address it? Ramon said he was going to at Eaton. I went to see it, and see his response, but alas, no Rees and no Ramon.

 

If he was there last night as you claim, he had ample opportunity to address Mr. Brooks in front of a room full of active democrats.

 

No, I do not think there was a Ramon there last night, and I do not think anyone else other than you care about this.

 

It certainly hasn't come up with any of the candidates or voters that I have spoken to.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

I guess Ramon missed Tom Sherwood, and a few others.

 

I think there were a couple of bloopers, but nothing such as what was covered from last time.

 

I don't claim to think that debates make or break a candidate, but to not show up is weak.

 

You can think you are running as a man of the people, but in reality, no one takes you seriously.

 

B. Frank

 

Ramon was there last night and so were a few others I know and they said the only notable press person in attendance was David Kennedy of the Northwest Current but nobody else.

 

The debate was civilized, none of the candidates made any bloopers to give the Washington Post a chance to write about it as they made fun of Brooks errors at John Eaton.

 

According to Cathy Wiss and Mary Cheh, the number of people there that were not affiliated with the candidates was about the same number as was at John Eaton which was nothing to boast about.

 

You seem to think that debates are a make it or break it for candidates but I do not.

[Psycho]

That is your biased opinion Bfrank as there are a lot of people out there who like me which may come as a surprise to you.

 

Obviously you have never run a campaign before and your head is trapped in the old mode of doing things.

 

I will do it my way and that is that.

 

 

I guess Ramon missed Tom Sherwood, and a few others.

 

I think there were a couple of bloopers, but nothing such as what was covered from last time.

 

I don't claim to think that debates make or break a candidate, but to not show up is weak.

 

You can think you are running as a man of the people, but in reality, no one takes you seriously.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

I am not a politician, nor have I run or conducted a campaign.

 

That said, if you get more than 15 votes, I will be surprised.

 

B. Frank

 

That is your biased opinion Bfrank as there are a lot of people out there who like me which may come as a surprise to you.

 

Obviously you have never run a campaign before and your head is trapped in the old mode of doing things.

 

I will do it my way and that is that.

[Psycho]

Never be too sure what somebody may get.

 

Your arrogance is why you sit at home all day long a lonely person wasting your life away posting all over the internet.

 

 

I am not a politician, nor have I run or conducted a campaign.

 

That said, if you get more than 15 votes, I will be surprised.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

If you only knew....

 

B. Frank

 

Never be too sure what somebody may get.

 

Your arrogance is why you sit at home all day long a lonely person wasting your life away posting all over the internet.

[Psycho]

Since I do not know who you really are other than you might live in the apartment building across the street from McDonalds on Wiscosnin Ave, I judge by the fact that you are online almost 16 hours a day. Not much time for a real life is it.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

If you only knew....

 

B. Frank

[Luke_Wilbur]

bfrankdc.

Besides speaking about Rees. What were the main issues in the debate? Who in your opinion won the debate?

[Psycho]

Luke,

 

Cathy Wiss said the highlight of the questioning was over the stadium issue.

 

 

bfrankdc.

Besides speaking about Rees. What were the main issues in the debate? Who in your opinion won the debate?

[bfrankdc]

Luke,

 

The debate covered a wide range of issues: Comp Plan, Development, Education, Agency Reform, historic preservation issues, etc., probably about 20 questions total.

 

The forum format wasn't really designed to create a "winner", but rather provide an opportunity for each candidate to breifly disinguish themselves, given the number of legitimate candidates in the race.

 

Given the innate support for candidates Gordon, Wiss and Rice, I thought the three of them were collectivly the flatest, and offered very little in terms of new ideas or vision for the city. Indeed, Wiss must have mentioned her success in working through the city to get aboiler for the Tenley library at leat 5 times. Some consultant must have told Rice to pound "school reform" as his main message. He was able to incorporate the phrase into just about every answer for the last half of the discussion. Quite frankly, I was embarrassed for him. He sounded out of touch and really had no answers for the questions posed, so consistently re-set to the school reform "issue". It was also stunning to me to see him taking credit (as a spokesman) for the successes at DDOT. I mean really, he was a press flack, not a policy administrator. Gordon was simply taking up space. He mentioned his School reform in Iraq numerous times. However, he had very little in unprepared remarks to add, and clearly was not nimble enough to speak from the heart or head. That wouldn't portend to being a good councilman, in my opinion.

 

I am very surprised, because of all of the candidates, these are the three I would have figured to be gaining the most momentum at this stage of the race. However, hvng seen them now in two forums, I can definately cross each off my list. They simply do not have the energy, creativity or vision to be in the Council.

 

I came away most impressed with Cheh, Goulet and Strauss. I thought all three brought different areas of expertise and vision to the discussion. Each was very well spoken, and had distinct ideas. Goulet's work with Evans clearly makes him the candidate with the most legislative experience in this race. He was able to clearly define the goals and objectives of different pieces of legislation and how they work within the broader framework of the city.

 

There are policy distinctions and priority differences between the three, but in my opinion, the race should come down to one of them.

 

I am not even going to bother say anything about Sam Brooks. I throw the flag up on this forum, given Mr. Rees's chilling of open discussion.

 

I will say that of all the candidates, Sam is the one who is bold enough to make his vision known, and make his willingess for difficult choices known.

 

He and Strauss had the two best lines of the night. Strauss was explaining how he brought the best of all of the candidates into one neat package, except for Sam's looks (In guess Brooks was named second most sexiest young politician in some publication). Brooks with the "I look forward to working with the Senator on this issue when I am in the Council".

 

I guess I should say something about Gaull. He is well spoken and seems to be focused on Emergency Services. I think he would make a better Director of DC Emergency Services, rather than a Councilman. I understand he works for the DC Chamber of Commerce, but is not even getting their endorsement. That is telling to me.

 

I could go on, but it was an interesting discussion, and certainly is helping me make distinctions among the candidates as the Primary nears.

 

It would be helpful, if Rees considers himself a serious candidate, to attend these forums, so he can be put on the record about issues of concern to the residents of the Ward. Instead, he vilifies people here and elsewhere on the internet, and is framing his issues in his way. This is why I don't think he will get many votes. There is no basis for comparisons to other candidates, and people generally do not pick a candidate based on one interpersonal meeting.

 

Certainly the press is not giving Rees any positive ink. Note the closing line from the NW Current coverage of the Eaton debate. It is laughable, but on the other hand, I think he has helped voters in the Ward focus on the fact that there is an election in the fall.

 

B. Frank

 

bfrankdc.

Besides speaking about Rees. What were the main issues in the debate? Who in your opinion won the debate?

[Psycho]

Mary Cheh and Cathy Wiss both agree that the ward 3 race will not be won on the issues or where the candidates stand because 99% of the voters do not participate in the debate process, theyt have zoned out the campaign process and elections today are won more on sound bytes than issues.

 

Mary Cheh said expanding on that, "The winner of the ward 3 race, will be the candidate who does a better job of marketing themself to the voters at large".

 

Bfrank fails to understand why I see debates as being worthless from a marketing standpoint.

 

I agree with Bfrands analysis of the debate and while I respect and like Eric Goulet, many feel that he is not ready for the awesome task and needs more experience inside and outside of the council.

 

I worked on The Hill for Royal Ahold but even I would say that was not enough to give me a shot at Congress.

 

Again, Bfrank needs to understand that my background is marketing and my campaign is based upon the reality of the way most voters now a days think.

 

Debates are noble things but since too many voters ignore them and other sapects of a campaign and have reduced campaigns to who has the best smile, I am going with the trends not what is other.

 

Luke,

 

The debate covered a wide range of issues: Comp Plan, Development, Education, Agency Reform, historic preservation issues, etc., probably about 20 questions total.

 

The forum format wasn't really designed to create a "winner", but rather provide an opportunity for each candidate to breifly disinguish themselves, given the number of legitimate candidates in the race.

 

Given the innate support for candidates Gordon, Wiss and Rice, I thought the three of them were collectivly the flatest, and offered very little in terms of new ideas or vision for the city. Indeed, Wiss must have mentioned her success in working through the city to get aboiler for the Tenley library at leat 5 times. Some consultant must have told Rice to pound "school reform" as his main message. He was able to incorporate the phrase into just about every answer for the last half of the discussion. Quite frankly, I was embarrassed for him. He sounded out of touch and really had no answers for the questions posed, so consistently re-set to the school reform "issue". It was also stunning to me to see him taking credit (as a spokesman) for the successes at DDOT. I mean really, he was a press flack, not a policy administrator. Gordon was simply taking up space. He mentioned his School reform in Iraq numerous times. However, he had very little in unprepared remarks to add, and clearly was not nimble enough to speak from the heart or head. That wouldn't portend to being a good councilman, in my opinion.

 

I am very surprised, because of all of the candidates, these are the three I would have figured to be gaining the most momentum at this stage of the race. However, hvng seen them now in two forums, I can definately cross each off my list. They simply do not have the energy, creativity or vision to be in the Council.

 

I came away most impressed with Cheh, Goulet and Strauss. I thought all three brought different areas of expertise and vision to the discussion. Each was very well spoken, and had distinct ideas. Goulet's work with Evans clearly makes him the candidate with the most legislative experience in this race. He was able to clearly define the goals and objectives of different pieces of legislation and how they work within the broader framework of the city.

 

There are policy distinctions and priority differences between the three, but in my opinion, the race should come down to one of them.

 

I am not even going to bother say anything about Sam Brooks. I throw the flag up on this forum, given Mr. Rees's chilling of open discussion.

 

I will say that of all the candidates, Sam is the one who is bold enough to make his vision known, and make his willingess for difficult choices known.

 

He and Strauss had the two best lines of the night. Strauss was explaining how he brought the best of all of the candidates into one neat package, except for Sam's looks (In guess Brooks was named second most sexiest young politician in some publication). Brooks with the "I look forward to working with the Senator on this issue when I am in the Council".

 

I guess I should say something about Gaull. He is well spoken and seems to be focused on Emergency Services. I think he would make a better Director of DC Emergency Services, rather than a Councilman. I understand he works for the DC Chamber of Commerce, but is not even getting their endorsement. That is telling to me.

 

I could go on, but it was an interesting discussion, and certainly is helping me make distinctions among the candidates as the Primary nears.

 

It would be helpful, if Rees considers himself a serious candidate, to attend these forums, so he can be put on the record about issues of concern to the residents of the Ward. Instead, he vilifies people here and elsewhere on the internet, and is framing his issues in his way. This is why I don't think he will get many votes. There is no basis for comparisons to other candidates, and people generally do not pick a candidate based on one interpersonal meeting.

 

Certainly the press is not giving Rees any positive ink. Note the closing line from the NW Current coverage of the Eaton debate. It is laughable, but on the other hand, I think he has helped voters in the Ward focus on the fact that there is an election in the fall.

 

B. Frank

[Psycho]

I have no respect for Davis Kennedy of the Northwest Current because she has already shown that he has a bias in favor of Robert Gordon and has callously let the other candidate know it.

 

Thus the NW Current is not to be taken seriously on the ward 3 race.

 

 

Luke,

 

Cathy Wiss said the highlight of the questioning was over the stadium issue.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Slick Willie

[bfrankdc]

I have no respect for Davis Kennedy of the Northwest Current because she has already shown that he has a bias in favor of Robert Gordon and has callously let the other candidate know it.

 

Thus the NW Current is not to be taken seriously on the ward 3 race.

[Psycho]

When a publisher of a newspapers says who he prefers and puts in in the context that why are you running when you have no chance, that disturbs me and Davis Kennedy said this to several of the candidates not me.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Slick Willie

[bfrankdc]

So Davis Kennedy and I agree on something. If you made some sort of effort, other than spamming people and pissing them off, you could have a chance. If you don't get into arguements with yourself on neighborhood listserves, then maybe you would have a chance ( you cannot deny the behavior unless you think Yahoo IP trails aren't public and infallable). If perhaps you elucidated some sort of policy platform (what you have had on your website for the past year hardly constitutes same) perhaps you would have a chance.

 

B. Frank

 

When a publisher of a newspapers says who he prefers and puts in in the context that why are you running when you have no chance, that disturbs me and Davis Kennedy said this to several of the candidates not me.

[Psycho]

Bfrank,

 

You are out of touch.

 

Davis Kennedy has been a long time friend of Robert Gordon and he told each of the candidates but ME that they have no chance of winning.

 

To the contrary to what you have said but, Mr. Kennedy feels I am the biggest threat to Gordon winning as he told some of the other candidates.

 

I have never spoken to Mr. Kennedy but the other candidates all say the same thing was told them when they interviewed with the NW Current.

 

So if true that Mr. Kennedy feels I am a serious threat then that would dispel your belief that I may not even get 15 votes.

So Davis Kennedy and I agree on something. If you made some sort of effort, other than spamming people and pissing them off, you could have a chance. If you don't get into arguements with yourself on neighborhood listserves, then maybe you would have a chance ( you cannot deny the behavior unless you think Yahoo IP trails aren't public and infallable). If perhaps you elucidated some sort of policy platform (what you have had on your website for the past year hardly constitutes same) perhaps you would have a chance.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Well if you have never spoken to Davis Kennedy, then how could he tell you what he has supposedly told all of the other candidates?

 

Based on the performances in the two forums I have attended, I just don't see where Gordon provides any excitment or vision for the Ward. He is a one-trick pony in terms of 'rebuilding the schools in Iraq'. He has claimed to be responsible for the Avalon Theater. I think Eric Goulet would have more claim to that distinction than Gordon.

 

If the NW Current wants to give its endorsement to Gordon, that is fine, but I am not seeing it with him.

 

B. Frank

 

Bfrank,

 

You are out of touch.

 

Davis Kennedy has been a long time friend of Robert Gordon and he told each of the candidates but ME that they have no chance of winning.

 

To the contrary to what you have said but, Mr. Kennedy feels I am the biggest threat to Gordon winning as he told some of the other candidates.

 

I have never spoken to Mr. Kennedy but the other candidates all say the same thing was told them when they interviewed with the NW Current.

 

So if true that Mr. Kennedy feels I am a serious threat then that would dispel your belief that I may not even get 15 votes.