There is a lot at stake in this year’s election and the choices are stark.
Candidate A has put forward thoughtful proposals on how to tackle the most insidious problems facing our neighborhoods. Candidate B is driven by a passion for our community that has captivated the attention of voters who are often disengaged.
Both candidates would do fine in the office they seek, but we have to choose one to endorse. There was only one candidate who supports more of the pet issues that the columnists and editors who make up this Editorial Board hold dear, has had a congenial relationship with this newspaper and didn’t fuck up the endorsement interview.
For these reasons, we urge you to vote for Candidate B.
Candidate B hit the right note on charter schools, urban biking, police cameras, food trucks and criminal justice reform. You may have noticed that those issues get a lot of space on this page. The same people who worry about esoteric facets of those topics in 750 word columns twice a month constitute a majority of the group that decides which candidates to endorse.
A minority of the Editorial Board appreciated Candidates A’s focus on public art, support for rubber sidewalks and staunch opposition to indexing Social Security to the chained CPI. In the end though, it was the fact that the publisher thinks we’ll win a pulitzer if we keep “driving the discussion” on criminal justice reform, something Candidate A rarely even name checks.
Candidate A’s relationship with this paper has sometimes been rocky. Not returning phone calls and spitting in the face of a cub reporter sent to get a reaction quote about the sudden death of a local sports legend might be acceptable behaviors in the rough and tumble Washington, DC portrayed in House of Cards, but we still consider humility to be a virtue.
An hour before our interview with Candidate A was supposed to begin, three campaign staffers arrived at our offices and demanded to inspect the conference room. We let them in only to watch with utter incredulity as these poorly groomed millennials inspected every crack and crevice for what we assumed to be recording devices. That was pretty weird and it left an impression.
When Candidate A arrived – ten minutes late – a reporter noticed that he was wearing two different socks. They were the same color, but definitely a different tone. Not something we support.
Candidate B came to the interview with a dozen bagels, a jug of coffee and no staff. And let’s be honest, starting off the meeting with an adorable story about how his youngest child’s first words were his campaign slogan was a pretty slick move. We swallowed the hook, line and sinker.
In a time when our nation faces the sharpest political divide in its history, voters must be smart when they head to the polls in November. Never has a decision like this mattered so much to so many.
We urge you to study the policy proposals of these candidates closely and make an informed decision, because that’s not at all what we did.