Latest News

Emily Lindstrand • October 25, 2012

The line wound around George Mason University’s athletic field, filled with people eager to see President Barack Obama speak. They sat with energy drinks and made trips to the nearby Starbucks as they waited for the Oct. 19 event to start. Many were there as early as 3 a.m., but most agreed that lack of sleep was well worth it in exchange to see the president firsthand.

The wait was certainly worth it for Nicole Berg, a student from Germany at American University for the fall semester, who said, “Especially for an international student, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It was either grasp it or never have it again.”

People were able to enter the field at 8:45 a.m. Tickets were available for free online but did not guarantee admission, which was why many arrived early.

The excitement was palpable. Chants of “four more years” could be heard throughout the event. Obama took the stage around noon. It took him little time to increase the already high levels of enthusiasm that were present.

A crowd favorite – and a phrase that has quickly found its way online – was “Romnesia.”

“I mean, [Mitt Romney]’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping, we’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think it’s called “Romnesia,’” Obama quipped.

Throughout the morning, volunteers with Obama for America were emphasizing the importance of the days remaining before the election and encouraging people to sign up to participate in neighborhood canvassing or the phone banks.

This event was an important one for Obama, as Virginia is considered a swing state. Fortunately for the president, if those in attendance on Friday are any indication, many are skeptical of Romney and the profound case of “Romnesia” with which Obama has diagnosed him.
[gallery ids="101032,136008,136005" nav="thumbs"]

Emily Lindstrand • October 24, 2012

Vice presidential candidates — Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) debated for a lively 90 minutes last night. The exchange was moderated by Martha Raddatz of ABC News and focused on both domestic and foreign policy issues. Described by the New York Times as an aggressive quarrel, neither candidate hesitated to harshly criticize or scoff at the other.

Ryan and Biden’s clash of philosophies centered around multiple topics, including healthcare, Libya, tax cuts, the Middle East, defense cuts and Social Security. Throughout the night, there was little that the candidates agreed upon – Ryan made a strong case for conservative policies, whereas Biden sharply criticized Ryan’s proposals and advocated a liberal Democratic agenda.

Medicare in particular was a fiercely debated topic. Biden argued, “Their [Republican] ideas are old and their ideas are bad, and they eliminate the guarantee of Medicare.” Ryan countered that Democrats “got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for Obamacare.”

The candidates also contrasted sharply when Raddatz asked what role their Catholic faith had played in shaping their views on abortion. Ryan, who identifies as pro-life, made it clear that his faith and politics are intertwined, saying that he was not able to see how persons could separate their public life from their faith. Biden stated that although he has considered himself a practicing Catholic for his entire life and accepts the Catholic Church’s position that life begins at conception, he refuses “to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . [He does not] believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body.”

Foreign policy further emphasized the divide between the candidates. Ryan was critical of the way the Obama administration handed the terrorist strike in Libya, saying he was unsatisfied that “It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.” He questioned why the United States lacked protection for the diplomatic compound. When Ryan went on to further criticize the Obama administration’s response to the Middle East, Biden retorted that his criticisms were “a bunch of malarkey,” causing the phrase to significantly trend online.

Throughout the debate, Biden had no shortage of quips for his opponent, and his smirk at Ryan was a constant presence. As the New York Times wrote, “Mr. Biden showed no hesitation in hectoring, heckling and interrupting his challenger.” Biden’s sharp responses included “These guys bet against America all the time” and “But I always say what I mean. And so does Romney.”

Biden’s demeanor was a popular topic on social media. “Malarkey” was trending on Twitter, and images of the smirks he gave Ryan were prominent on Tumblr. Sam Youngman, a campaign correspondent for Thomson Reuters, tweeted, “People who like Biden will think this is the greatest debate ever. Folks who don’t will find him at his most obnoxious.”

While Biden definitely made a strong impression, polls were divided as to who won the debate. A survey by CNN declared Ryan the winner; another survey by CBS News called it a clear victory for Biden. The CNN survey stated that 48 considered Ryan the winner of the debate, while 44 percent said that Biden was the winner. CBS News found that 50 percent thought the night was a win for Biden.

Gary Tischler •

Before RGIII blots out the sports sun in Washington and maybe the world, let’s remember when baseball revealed itself to us, kissed us smack on the lips, and then like a feckless bride-to-be, left us standing at the altar, jilted for this time, the words “I do” already forming on our mouths, then stunned into silence.

Let us — before we succumb to our sporting lot in life, the yearly bout of Redskin mania, win-or-lose, and the startling charms of an astonishing rookie — one last time celebrate the coming of Natitude and appreciate the joys and sorrows of young Werth and the rest of the Nationals and the sunshine and sadness saga of the last five games of the astonishing 2012 season of baseball of the Washington Nationals.

The whole season exceeded all expectations by fans and the Nationals themselves, including the team’s first appearance in the post-season of any sort since the 1930s. The five-game series with the seasoned defending world champions St. Louis Cardinals further showed the dramatic rollercoaster ride baseball can provide for fans and players alike. As one baseball sage, oft-quoted, said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” He failed to mention that when it is over—perhaps when the fat lady sings on some other stage—the effect is stunning, like an unforgiving punch in the mouth from someone you love.

The billions and billions of dollars and high television ratings that professional football generates does not negate the fact that it is NOT America’s game, but it has successfully marketed itself as such. Sure, we all remember where we were and what we were doing when the Redskins won their first Super Bowl—drunk and disorderly outside of Nathan’s at Wisconsin and M, watching people spinning from lamp posts, jumping up and down the roofs of parked cars.

Except for Bertram Abramson and perhaps two or three more, none of us remember when the Washington Senators won the World Series in 1924, because most who saw it are–to put it impolitely–dead. But we do and can go to the records of the day, the Baseball Encyclopedias, the stories by the much beloved Shirley Povich. Baseball has its own literature—part poetry, part hard numbers—that are unmatched by any sport, except perhaps some still missing epic fragment describing the events of an Olympiad in ancient Greece. Baseball brings out the romantic in us, as well as the statistician and mathematician. We’re forever writing fall classic poetry and figuring out new combinations of numbers that will tell us with runners on third and first has started the most double plays by a short stop, or who has dropped the most throws to first base in the second inning of any game.

I think that both tendencies point to what we really think of baseball, that among all team sports, it can contain the closest thing to mystery—even now with staggering player salaries which tend to remove them further from us, and the steroid scandals, which make hash of the very numbers we find mystifying. Baseball is about winning and losing, to be sure, like any team sport, but it’s also about how we live life, daily breathing, rising and sleeping interrupted by spurts of drama.

Here is the essential differences between watching the Nationals and watching the Redskins. The action in a football game are a series of miniature explosions in which 22 men on the field, disguised in warrior-like outfits of helmets, bulky pads, gloves, shoes, sometimes painted against the sun, sometimes bristling with tattoos, rise up in unison, rush at each other with unnatural speed and power. The quarterback yells, the defenders yell at each other, the linemen take the stance, the gibberish of the count is hollered out, the ball is snapped, runners move or not, receivers run down the field, and defenders run after them, the linemen collide and a play unfolds—run up the middle, pitch to the outside, throw down the field, screen pass, or, as happened Sunday, the quarterback runs 76 yard down field in a matter of seconds and wins the game.

Baseball is a game of silence and stillness at its core. Each half inning begins the same way—players trot out to the field, the pitcher takes the mound, the catcher—the only one with major protective gear—squats. The outfielders and infielders wait, while the pitcher decides how to throw to the batter. Essentially, nobody is doing anything until the pitch. What ensues is a kind of dance in which most of the dancers don’t dance but react.

Baseball is the opposite of football—not in its lack of violence—but in its definition of teamwork and what a team is. On the field, every individual is naked in spite of their uniforms, every act of symmetry, speed, throwing, hitting and throwing and pitching is glaringly scrutinized, especially in the time of the jumbo tron, the big screen, not just on the field but on television. That’s why it all becomes at some point theater, drama and resolution, both modest and sudden.

The Nationals won two games in the series: one when a rookie managed a two-run single after all the star bats had gone silent; the other when the $100-million plus star Jayson Werth worked St. Louis pitcher Lance Lynn for 12 pitches—seven of them foul balls that were all potential outs—and hit a 96-miles-per-hour fast ball perfectly on the last pitch, winning the game, tying the series, saving the day. “Walk off, play on,” read the Washington Post headline. Jubilation, unreasonable but worthy, ensued, accompanied by its unnatural outcome, hope unquestioned.

The day for which the game was saved came the next day, and it illustrates an entirely different aspect of baseball. It will break your heart, make you breathless and sadden and sour your days and nights for a year. If Jayson Werth felt the joys of victory, Drew Storen, one of the Nationals’ most effective relief pitchers, felt the uncommon, crushing, tantalizing despair of defeat, along with thousands of Nats fans. He was, to put in terms of how it was described, a strike away from victory, from the last out, from moving on to the National League championship series.

“Closed for the season,” cried the headline. Storen had given up four runs, three hits, allowing the Cardinals to come back from what was once a 6-0 deficit to a 9-7 victory. There is no explaining such a thing. It’s like coming home from a wedding to find your house has burned down. Only minutes before all this happened, one local broadcaster had eagerly and confidently said “and when we win tonight.” Baseball invites things like that and never lets you forget them.

These things do pass: we in Washington have found a baseball team to cheer for not because we must but because they’re good, better than good. The loss doesn’t mean they’re suddenly a mediocre team, but a heartbroken team which failed at a critical moment, an inch ago, days before in the series. It will still be the same team next year, and so, we follow the most enduring cry of baseball: “Wait ‘Til Next Year.”

That’s part of baseball, too. It hinges equally on the most amount of success and the least amount of failure, because a .333 batting average is a success, which means you succeed in only a third of your at bats. It also matters when you succeed. The Nationals’ last game was a matter of when. Brutally, it wasn’t then.
[gallery ids="101020,135603" nav="thumbs"]

Gary Tischler •

That Woody Guthrie, he’s some big-time feller, even at a hundred.

Women loved him, and he stood up and spoke up and rambled across the country in the Dust Bowl and Depression days. He had the love of friends, whole generations of musicians, the good folks of this country, which has never abated, even though he passed away in 1967 at the age of 55 of Parkinson’s disease.

He sang about vigilantes and deportees, and people who got hit over the heads by riot police and scabs, and he sang the most innocent, playful songs written for his kids, and he rode the rails where the sun hit him all the time, and he sang about unions and he railed against fascists, homegrown or monstered overseas. He wrote the songs, and they spread into other hands and singers and musicians. This year, just about everybody who ever heard of him sang his songs, in his homegrown Oklahoma, in a place called Skid Row in Los Angeles, in New York and small towns, celebrating this year which was his 100th year, had he lived that long.

He’s alive as you or I. I can vouch for that because that was a mighty lively little hootenanny they threw Oct. 14 at the Kennedy Center’s Concert Hall called “This Land Is Your Land—The Woody Guthrie Centennial Celebration” for which a couple of thousand people showed up and in the end wound up jumping up and down on demand and singing their feelings. They looked pretty much like each other. I suppose you could call them baby boomers for want of a better cliché. They dressed down, lots of blue jeans, lots of less—less hair, less glitter, less polish, less ties, less tony jewelry, less socks, but lots of memories, it seemed.

There was lots of music and musicians—and most of them were of a certain age, too, and some of them had heard Woody sing, or collected his songs. One had lived with him for a time, and another was his daughter. (His son Arlo Guthrie did not attend because that morning his wife Jackie died of cancer.)

They all had something in common: they played his music, it seems, a ton of times during their time of singing others’ songs; his songs were the first music some of them heard or, in John Mellencamp’s case, the first two songs he played on a guitar.

So, they all came together, marched on stage between tunings. They sang their songs and sang his words. They were as different as they could be, but they shared some things: banjos, guitars, drums, ukuleles, strings and fiddles along with a dusty glamor. They marched on by and by, singing and strumming, fiddling and whistling, and picking and wailing and clapping and tapping their cowboy boots, and often, fiddling around as in “less guitar, less vocals,” or the other way around for the techies backstage, who would come out like ninjas between musicians.

And it was grand. At turns, the proceedings resembled a tent meeting, an oft-described hootenanny, those folky get-togethers of the 1950s and 1960s and big-time concerts led by the likes of Pete Seeger and Joan Baez, but those two weren’t here. Sometimes, it sounded like a union rally, which must have seemed heartening for the much beleaguered laborites of these times, the working stiffs, government and private. Every time “unions” were referenced in a Woody song, and that happened often, there were cheers from the audience, because unions rattled in Woody’s songs as much as ramblers and gamblers and trains and fascists and migrants and laborers. Politics, those of the Dust Bowl and Depression, the war(s) and big government and big business and such, simmered in the songs like hot pepper and a bitter taste, like the melancholy that made the love songs delirious.

Out they came, and there was the Old Crow Medicine Show, singing Woody’s greeting song “How Do You Do,” inviting, pickled with banjo and accordions and it went from there. Actor Jeff Daniels popped out periodically to read from Guthrie’s writings, songs and letters.

Folks like Jimmy LaVave and Joel Rafel, both acknowledged Guthrie experts and followers and singers, sang things like “Reckless Hobo” and “Hard Traveling,” the music of the folks Guthrie had eulogized, celebrated and bled for, being one of them to his holy shoes full of holes. More and more instruments came, the guys with the harmonica hooked to the guitar, the accordions and their endless rolling sounds and the wonder of the c-note, the ukulele.

D.C.’s Sweet Honey in the Rock appeared in Dashiki chic, singing “I’ve Got to Know,” and Donovan, the sunshine-through-my-window man, rock star, poet and artist by way of Scotland in the 1960s sang a children’s song that Guthrie had written and said that Ramblin’ Jack Elliott had introduced him to Guthrie’s music. People just sort of admired the hell out of each other, outdoing their love for Woody by way of music.

Judy Collins, one of the folk queens of the 1960s along with Baez and Joni Mitchell, came out like a startling, still beautiful witchy woman, dressed in shiny black jacket, black boots and slacks and hair as white as a page of paper, but wilder. Yet other sang Woody’s ode to Pretty Boy Floyd, where he was a kind of Robin Hood, and the main crooks were the bankers, as in “some people rob you with a gun, some people rob you with a fountain pen.” Ani DeFranco, folkie supreme, sang “Deportee,” which sounds as modern as gunfire on the Arizona border, saying, “This here is a shoutout to Mitt. This song’s for you, Mitt.”

Out came Coot Ryder, who long ago provided the evocative banjo-guitar ripping and running soundtrack to “The Long Riders,” the best of all Jesse James movies, and he sang the powerful “Vigilante” and played powerfully, too. There was the remarkable Lucinda Williams, one of the most wayward, in-your-honest-face female singers today. She sang an uncompleted song about “a woman who folks here at the Kennedy Center might not want to hear about a prostitute who wants to teach a man some things his wife never done,” and she sang it with verve and in a style and eye-and-ear popping fashion all hers.

John Mellencamp—our modern troubadour of the men who work in mills and farms and such—sang, and so did Jackson Browne, who sang for about 15 minutes or so with back ups a delirious love songs that came out of a letter Woody had written to his first wife, about falling in love and first meetings and impressions. It went on and on like the kind of dance you never want to finish.

Finally, Ramblin’ Jack himself came out—thin, all of 81, with a voice as wrenching as ever, cowboy hat, boots, bandana and red shirt. He sat down and said, “I heard of this guy named Ramblin’ Jack, and I think he died.” Not yet: Elliott sang a powerful rendition of “1913 Massacre,” marking him as the grand old man of musical story-telling.

We and they, all together—you could have too—sang together “Bound for Glory” and, of course, “This Land Is Your Land,” led by the powerful-voiced Bob Morello of Rage Against the Machine. He got people to jump up and down like kids who cared about it all.

Later in the dark of the night, you dreamed you heard the sound of a train whistle, the wheels chugging like a woman beating sheets on a wash line.

Gary Tischler • October 22, 2012

In the days after Mitt Romney ran over a seemingly passive, even docile President Barack Obama in the first debate between the two candidates not to mention moderator Jim Lehrer the GOP candidate seemed to bask in the after-glow and poll gains of his victory. Publicly, on the stump, and in his ads, he allowed that he enjoyed himself in the first debate.

In the second debate Wednesday, Romney was still enjoying himself at the outset brisk walk, big smile, happy to hear from the young man worried about finding a job after college, chatting him up per his plan to look more accessible, down-to-earth and personable.

But here’s a fair bet: I’d bet that Romney won’t be talking about this town-hall format debate moderated by CNN correspondent Candy Crowley in terms of how much he enjoyed it any time between now and the next debate of the century, which comes smartly on Monday. It might be that Romney expected the meek and mild version of Barack Obama to show up again. He didn’t. Obama came ready to spar and fight, a little too much so early on, then later, much more in a more measured, self-assured, but still combative way.

Romney once again tried to ramrod his way into taking up more than his share of time by not answering questions and repeating his oft-told tale of the failures of the Obama presidency and touting his five-point jobs plan. Somehow, that didn’t work so well, as could be seen from his early big, and smug smile, turning into a slight smirk, and then, in the end disappearing altogether, his face becoming tense and drawn. He remained, it should be said, aggressive throughout and challenged the president often, especially on his claims on energy issues.

The difference was that the president was no longer staring at his shoes with every Romney assertion. He fought back from the get-go. This debate while getting into new territory and new issues not covered in the previous two debates was not especially substantive, but was special because it revealed the differences between the two candidates as stark in terms of issues as in temperament and personality.

Obama was no Biden, neither Romney nor Clinton, but he stood strong and made it clear that he was passionately fighting for re-election and that this was a battle between two different philosophies of governance. More than that, in this debate, Obama had size, he had passion and he had the gravitas a president should have.

While his supporters claimed that he looked “presidential,” Romney at times had the face of a bully denied a walk in the park. He sounded and looked tense, frustrated and peevish, going so far as to argue with Crowley at one point. He stopped trying to engage the questioners, an interesting lot of 50 individuals who were supposed to be as yet undecided.

One of them brought up the potentially hazardous for the president issue of what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. Romney blasted Obama for going to Las Vegas for a fund-raiser the day after the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens. Obama blasted Romney for making critical statements before the facts were known then took umbrage at the idea that his administration had politicized the events. Obama said that he had on the following day called it “an act of terror.” Romney jumped and all but called him a liar, while Obama repeatedly said, “Check the transcript.” Crowley then corrected Romney and said that the president had indeed used the phrase, “an act of terror,” but that the administration had not responded for two weeks in that manner.

The exchanges left Romney frustrated and not a little embarrassed. Because the exchanges on this point were somewhat pivotal, they’re still being argued about in the media and by Romney reps who said Crowley was essentially biased in what she did.

Not so biased were the new forces in the land on the Internet, the Facebook commentators, the twitterers and texters who latched on to such less earthshaking matters as “binders full of women,” a phrase used by Romney to explain how he had tried to make sure there were more women in his cabinet when he was the Governor of Massachusetts. It was while answering a question on equal pay for women in the workforce that Romney brought up his use of flex time to help female workers, a subject he had never broached through the entire campaign.

Romney repeated his five-point plan to create 12 million jobs ad infinitum. Obama shot back with “He doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan.” What also seemed obvious was Romney’s charting his way toward the moderate middle as best as he could, saying that he would not cut taxes on the wealthy (although continuing or making permanent the Bush tax cuts would do exactly that) and that he wanted to create a path to citizenship for some of the illegal immigrants, although he could not back out of the haunting phrase “self deportation,” which he tried to paint as something benign and innocuous.

What was apparent was that these two men did not like each other even a little. This debate often resembled a bullfight between two bulls they pointed at each, they argued loudly, they tried to steal time, they got into each other’s space, if not face, stopping only at stomping their feet on the floor. For Romney, the aggressive pushing for time was nothing new. For Obama, it was a turnabout he seemed to come out of a deep coma-like sleep and he came out energized which was exactly what he needed to do. He may have stopped the bleeding in the polls, and he may even have started some on the other side. Conservative pundit Gary Wills called it a strategic win for Obama and declared the debate the best presidential debate ever.

Asked as a closer in what way they were misrepresented or misunderstood, Romney brought up the point that he’s been painted as not caring for regular folks, for the common man, the working families. “I care passionately about 100 percent of the American people,” he asserted.

Obama said he was seen as a man who thinks that government can solve all the problems and said the he was not. And then, after Romney’s “100 percent claim,” Obama played the card he’d had all night. He brought the number down to the “47 percent,” which Romney had so easily dismissed in a speech made early in the campaign before a closed-door audience of supporters.

Catch your breath, folks, pollsters and spinners. The third debate comes up Monday, Oct. 22, a debate which many commentators had not considered to be an urgent matter, but has now suddenly became very urgent. It is here we go again the debate that could decide the election. It will concern itself with foreign affairs, which is to say you can expect to hear Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will no doubt be great television, and it appears now that this election was really about four debates. All the money spent by both sides on disheartening negative ads, Romney’s primary campaign and the two conventions were essentially meaningless exercises—on the road to four of the highest-rated reality shows ever staged. I guess the first three were the playoffs, and Monday is the Super Bowl. But will the fat lady sing?

Georgetowner •

2nd Annual “Get Hitched in Georgetown” Competition

October 18th, 2012 at 06:00 PM | FREE | Event Website

Georgetown BID is organizing Get Hitched in Georgetown, where on October 18, 75 engaged couples will compete for the ultimate wedding prize package valued at over $10,000…A few highlights include a wedding gown from Hitched, stationery from The Dandelion Patch and Haute Papier, a day at the spa at the Ritz-Carlton Georgetown and much more!

Address

Grace Church (lawn); 1041 Wisconsin Ave. NW

Victor Horta and Brussels Exhibit

October 19th, 2012 at 06:30 PM | Free | Tel: 571.312.1237 | Event Website

The SIGAL Gallery will hold a free opening ceremony for their new exhibit The Cradle of Art Nouveau: Victor Horta and Brussels. The exhibit will be staged in French, Dutch, English and German.

Register for the event at aiadc.com.

Address

The SIGAL Gallery at the District Architecture Center; 2012 AIA|DC 421 7th Street NW

Making Strides DC

October 20th, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Donations Requested | Event Website

Join the American Cancer Society for the 9th annual Making Strides Against Breast Cancer DC 5K walk at 10am Saturday, October 20, starting at the Sylvan Theatre on the National Mall. Since 1993 Strides events nationwide have raised $460 million to fight breast cancer. And the American Cancer Society spends more money on breast cancer research than any other cancer type. Half of American women diagnosed with breast cancer turn to the American Cancer Society for help. Be the change. Make Strides.

Address

15th Street and Independence Avenue SW

Oatlands Participates in the Loudoun County Fall Color Tour

October 20th, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Tel: 703-777-3174 | Event Website

Explore the historic grounds of Oatlands during the Loudoun County Fall Color Tour. Visitors can walk the grounds, visit the historic Carriage House and learn about vintage carriages and farm equipment on display. Ayrshire Farm in Upperville, Va., will also exhibit their heritage breed farm animals under the trees at Oatlands. Additional paid activities, such as tours of the house and garden, are available for guests.

Address

Oatlands Historic House and Gardens, 20850 Oatlands Plantation Ln., Leesburg, VA

Yoga for Homeless

October 20th, 2012 at 01:00 PM | $30 adult (26 and over); $20 youth | Tel: 202.338.8301 | Event Website

in conjunction with Fannie Mae’s Help the Homeless program, Georgetown Ministry Center will host a yogathon to benefit homelessness. Multiple sessions with local instructors will be featured, and yoga mats will be provided.

Address

Grace Church; 1041 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Where to Start: Site Analysis and Design Thinking for Public Art

October 21st, 2012 at 02:00 PM | Free | info@wpadc.org | Event Website interested in sharpening their skills preparing for public art commissions.

RSVP by Thursday, October 19 to Christopher Cunetto at ccunetto@wpadc.org. Seating is limited.

Address

National Building Museum, 401 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20001

Gary Tischler • October 16, 2012

Four of seven candidates for the two open At-large City Council seats showed up for an Oct. 4 debate at St. John’s Church, sponsored by Georgetown Business and Professional Association. Two of them were faces so familiar that it seemed like déjà vu all over again. Two were brand new faces, more or less, on the political scene. One of them was a Republican, the other was a self-styled, newly minted independent.

It was an afternoon with At-large Councilmembers Michael A. Brown and Vincent Orange and challengers Mary Brooks Beatty and David Grosso.

The two incumbents—Brown and Orange—share a long history of familiarity in the District and have often run for office, not always successfully. Brown, son of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, has instant name recognition and a big personality. “I haven’t been around that long,” he said to us when we caught up with him at the forum. “It just seems that way.” In fact, Brown ran for Mayor in 2008 but dropped out near the end of the campaign and threw his support to Council Chairman Linda Cropp, who lost to Adrian Fenty. Brown also ran for the Ward 4 seat, vacated by Fenty, but in a candidate-heavy field he lost to the Fenty-supported Muriel Bowser, who is up for re-election this year. Four years ago, Brown, a live-long Democrat if there ever was one, ran for the At-large Council spot, once held by Republican Carol Schwartz, perhaps one of the last of the generally moderate-liberal GOP politicians around. Schwartz, who had lost her primary to Patrick Mara, ran as a write-in but both she and Mara lost to the newly-minted independent Brown. District law requires that at least two of the at-large seats be held by non-Democrats.

Orange also seems to have been around longer than he actually has in terms of his political presence. He first ran unsuccessfully for a Ward 5 seat, then won two terms in the seat most recently vacated by Harry Thomas Jr. Orange ran for mayor the same year that Brown did, but also lost in the Fenty sweep. He then ran in a pitched battle against Kwame Brown for the council chairmanship in 2010 but lost despite an endorsement by the Washington Post. Orange then ran for Kwame Brown’s old at-large seat which had opened with his move to Council Chair and won in a close race over Sekou Biddle and Republican Patrick Mara. (Kwame Brown resigned from the District Council this year.)

The new faces are Mary Brooks Beatty, the personable and veteran advisory neighborhood commissioner from Capitol Hill, who was a past president of Women in Government and helped spark the H Street Corridor revival, and David Grosso, the 41-year-old who has been a staffer for former Ward 6 City Council member Sharon Ambrose and counsel for Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, working on the D.C. statehood issue.

Both Beatty and Gross seem more optimistic than most newcomers in a year when the D.C. government and mayor are not being held in high regard: the council chairman has been forced to resign, another councilman is in prison and the mayor’s 2010 campaign remains under a cloud of suspicion and investigation. Incumbents like Brown and Orange—both of whom have had issues on campaign fundraising—are vulnerable to attack and voter backlash. Brown recently reported that a large amount of his campaign funds had been stolen by a trusted aide, and it was reported that Orange had received campaign contributions from a developer who came under investigation for his part in the mayor’s campaign finances.

At the forum, Orange said flatly that he was in favor of term limits, a popular idea given that the District Council is heavy in long-serving members. “Of course,” he said, “you could serve two terms on the council, maybe move on to at large seat, go on to the chairmanship, and who knows maybe run for mayor.”

Brown was attacked by Grosso for his financial affairs, which he dismissed. “Look, in politics, you have people whom you trust and when they break your trust, it happens. People will steal. That’s a fact, and that’s what happened, nothing else.”

Georgetowner •

On Friday, October 12, members of NYRA (the National Youth Rights Association) rallied in Washington, DC at Judiciary Square to demand a lower voting age and an end to voter ID laws. Founded in 1998, the National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) is America’s largest youth rights organization.

The National Youth Rights Association is dedicated to defending the civil and human rights of young people in the United States and believe certain basic rights are intrinsic parts of American citizenship and transcend age or status limits. As the world’s leading democracy, the United States should not lag behind other nations in granting first-class citizenship to its young people.

For more information, visit youthrights.org.

Nico Dodd • October 15, 2012

Georgetown University administrators, alumni and others gathered Oct. 4 on the fourth floor of Regents Hall to dedicate the new science building. The five-story, 154,000-square-foot facility was finished at the end of this summer. The new building is the home of Georgetown’s biology, chemistry and physics departments. It also houses numerous student lounges and a café.

The building is named for the university’s board of regents, a group of 100 individuals who disperse information about the university and build upon both new and existing relationships to galvanize support for Georgetown University.

The ceremony opened with a performance by the Georgetown Chimes, a men’s a capella group.

During his invocation, Rev. Kevin O’Brien, S.J., the university’s vice president of mission of ministry, called for a moment of silence in remembrance of the Whiting-Turner employee killed during the construction of the building in March 2011.

University president John DeGioia welcomed attendees, and Chester Gillis, dean of Georgetown College, remarked on the new building. “Georgetown is serious about science,” Gillis said.

Jane Dammen McAuliffe, a former dean of Georgetown College and the current president of Bryn Mawr College, remarked on her efforts as dean to make the building a reality.

The new building is the most environmentally friendly structure on campus. The university is seeking its first LEED Gold certification.

A reception followed the ceremony with catering by Susan Gage. Laboratory beakers and multicolored cocktails were served in keeping with the spirit of the dedication of the new science building.
[gallery ids="101012,135187,135185" nav="thumbs"]