August 30, 2006
Another Michael Brown in DC Politics
A couple years ago, D.C. had two Kwame Browns in the news, a local politico and a mediocre hoopster, which might have caused a few people to comment how it was great that a pro athlete was getting involved in local politics. Thankfully for the Wizards, one of those Kwame Browns moved on.
However, D.C. now has two Michael Browns in local politics. The other day we saw this poster on the street, which confused us — Michael Brown for shadow senator. Mayoral candidate Michael Brown had just said he wasn't bowing out of the race, so what was this sign about? Is he hedging his bets? Is it some kind of dirty trick? We checked the website on the sign and learned this is a second Michael Brown, Michael D. Brown, who's running for shadow senator. (Interestingly, that Wikipedia article says D.C. as a state would be called New Columbia.) The mayoral candidate is Michael A. Brown, and to his credit, his bio says Michael A. Brown numerous times. To clarify, to the confusion, the Michael D. Brown running for shadow senator is not the same Michael D. Brown who did a heckuva job and resigned from FEMA after Hurricane Katrina. Phew.
We have a suggestion to make this easier — somebody go by "Mike." Or at least do your name in H. Ross Perot style.
|
Does Shadow Senator get to wear a cape? Does he have any superpowers? Does his alter-ego take the preppy route or the ghetto route in ordinary life? Inquiring minds want to know!
What about this: "the last Shadow Senator you'll ever need"? Ever? I don't know if he gets a cape, but obviously he's some kind of vampire. Unfortunately for M. Brown, I have a strict no-immortals policy when it comes to my voteless representatives.
I would love to see either Fenty or Cropp stand up and say that order of business #1 in their admnistration will be to eliminate these stupid shadow positions. If and when DC gets full Congressional representation, it will have more than enough time to hold a special election for the real people to hold these real seats. Until then, the entire shadow process is a giant exercise in civic masturbation by a city that can't get its traffic lights to work in the rain or figure out a way to run a decent school system.
Swester,
Doing that would require integrity, backbone, and independent thinking; qualities that tend to be in short supply on the DC City Council.
I'm Just Sayin',
HR
I would agree that the shadow senator position seems a little unnecessary, but I understand completely indifference to the position. What confuses me, however, is the outright hostility. I won't assume that the hostility has more to do with whatever one's position is on the statehood question, but it's tempting. In any case, how many points could a candidate for mayor score on something like this, versus the points he would lose? It is, at best, a marginal question that would (and ought to) elicite yawns.
On the matter of the name "New Columbia," that long been the unofficial proposal for the state that would be formed. Personally, I think it's not very creative. If it weren't for the negative connotation associated with it (by some anyhow), I would think Anacostia is a much more geographically sound and aesthetically pleasing name.
#1 in their administration will be to eliminate these stupid shadow positions.
Yes, that's the most important issue for the mayor to deal with. Eliminating an unpaid job that fights for DC voting rights.
Before I go any further, I have to disclose that I am on the Democratic primary ballot for the "Shadow Representative" position, which is like the Shadow Senator but for a two-year term.
These jobs are not a "giant exercise[s] in civic masturbation" (although that's quite an image to put in everyone's head, thanks.) but are volunteer jobs that advocate DC representation in Congress.
These shadow positions serve as reminders of our lack of real representation. Wikipedia has a good entry on the whole history of the position.
Nobody running for these jobs should have any delusions of grandeur. Beyond being an elected lobbyist, they have no real clout on the Hill. There are no floor privileges, no votes on anything, and there's no real budget to speak of either - so unlike most lobbyists in DC, you don't even have the carrot of campaign contributions to dangle in front of legislators.
So what can you do? Well, I think the role of the job is to be creative in getting the word out OUTSIDE of the District of Columbia about our lack of Congressional representation. I've done a few things on this already including starting the "District of Columbia Olympic Team" and the "Taxation Without Representation Field at RFK Stadium" campaign last year.
I'm running for this job, as it would be great platform to continue this work from.
Two of the three Shadow spots are up for election this time, and both will have some new blood. Michael Brown and Phillip Pannell are running for Shadow Senate, and both will bring a ton of energy to the job, as will I if I win the Shadow Representative position.
If you want to learn more about all of us running, Mark Plotkin is having us all on the his show next Thursday, September 7th at 7 PM on 1500 AM and 107.7 FM
You can find out more about me at http://www.mikepanetta.com
The Shadow Senator "Michael D. Brown" used to go by "Mike Brown" (which is the name he used when he filed his original campaign papers). Seems that he figured out that calling himself "Michael Brown" would gain him more traction...
I also wonder why Swester is so exercised about something that costs nothing.
Let's not forget the other confusingly familiar name on the ballot (for Republicans, and presumably in November): Tony Williams is running for council in Ward 6. He not only gets the fake recognition from sharing a name with the mayor, but he has a famous father, political commentator Juan Williams.
And New Columbia is a bad name for a lot of reasons, not least because the postal abbreviation "NC" is already taken. It would be a fine name for a place settled by immigrants from Columbia, but that's not what it is. How about just plain "Columbia"? What's new about it? Of course, Columbus has suffered a drop in reputation since the New Columbia name was originally suggested, so I imagine the name choice will be revisited if the time ever comes when there's a need for it.
I just looked at Michael D. Brown's website -- why isn't there a photo?? It might help folks figure out which Michael Brown he is...
Good point, Steve, Brown's primarfy opponent, Philip Pannell, has his photo on his site, which has been up for a while (Brown's just went up Monday).
Rees must be the non-viable candidate for City Council that was referred to in today's Washington Post.
It's so strange to have a pack of candidates where one stands out as being completely unelectable and about whom nobody wants to write.
A correction to the above post by Mike Panetta:
The 1 hour live debate will be on Wed. Sept 6th at 7 PM..NOT on Thursday the 7th....and is hosted by Mark Segraves, not Plotkin. Although I will allow Plotkin to ask some questions.
If you are interested you can email questions for the candidates ( prior to the show) to comment@washingtonpostradio.com
or call in live at 1-877-POST-1077.
The debate will be delayed broadcast on NewsChannel 8 as well.
I see Mark Segraves beat me to the punch on the correction. Sorry for the confusion!