Thursday, December 16, 2004

What is it about baseball the "other 6" hate?

You know with all this swirl going on about Linda Cropp, it occurred to me that no one is talking much at all about the 6 people that voted against baseball even with the private financing plan. In fact, given the vote that had occurred only two weeks prior, couldn't we see this coming? From that vote to Tuesday's vote, only one vote actually changed at all...Linda Cropp's in favor of baseball (with the switcheroo private financing amendment of course). With or without the amendment at least six of the 13 voters it appears were going to vote against bringing baseball to DC. Just seems odd that it barely merits a mention.

I also have to wonder about the three councilmembers who voted yes at the Nov. 30 vote, but then voted in favor of the private financing amendment before voting yes again. What were they thinking? Shouldn't they bare some responsibility as well? Yes, without their votes the amendment would still have passed 7-6 instead of 10-3, but I just don't get their rationale. Any thoughts out there?


At 4:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of points:

1. Cropp told the Council she would vote against the final legislation if it did not include her amendment. Given that she had literally scratched out the amendment with a pen on paper minutes earlier, it's easy to see how some of the yeah votes trusted Cropp's false claim that it was a friendly amendment and voted for it to secure her vote on the final package.

2. Nobody minds the six nay votes very much because they have been consistent and honest. Cropp has been erratic and highly dishonest, only voting "yeah" after she had so poisoned the bill that its passage would kill the deal. Considered objectively, Cropp was in fact opposed to the stadium deal and to bringing baseball to Washington, and at every turn she worked to sabotage the stadium deal she herself agreed to. But she made a big deal about claiming otherwise, even telling the mayor on Monday night that she was on board with the bill as it was. If Cropp hadn't been leading the chorus of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" in September before thrice sabotaging the enacting legislation in November and December, I suspect nobody would very much mind her opposition to the stadium. It's her cynical dishonesty people seem to mind. Cropp is like an activist leading a campaign to stop the clubbing of baby seals just so that she can use them for live-animal cosmetics testing. Cropp has just been odious, an absolute snake of a person in this little drama, acting in such revolting and exceptional bad faith (or maybe just plain incompetence, if Mark Plotkin's generous assessment is to be believed) that she has singled herself out as the villain of the piece. Which she is, far more than the other six anti-ballpark Council members. The other 6 just said "nay" from day one. Cropp out-Barry'd Marion Barry at his worst on this legislation.

At 5:54 PM, Blogger SuperNoVa said...

Anonymous, we are once again blessed by your post from the shadows. Your thoughts are welcome!

You so clearly hit the nail on the head on point #2 that we may very well elevate your comment to post status.

At 12:20 AM, Blogger El Gran Color Naranja said...

Anon hit the 6 point. On the second point, I think that most of the Council members feel slighted as they weren't really consulted on the original deal. To get in on the process, they are considering their meetings as part of the negotiation. To them voting for the amendment wasn't killing the deal, because in their minds, there is no deal until the council approves.

At 10:02 AM, Blogger DM said...

El Gran, you may be right that the other 6 feel slighted, but given their staunch opposition to any public funding (they even voted against the Cropp bill), simply involving them earlier would have just killed the deal earlier. This is where the Mayor's lack of political skills was revealed. A better politician would have worked with the 6 or secured the 7 -- he did neither, in part because the critical 7th (Cropp) is an irrational backstabber who can't be trusted.


Post a Comment

<< Home