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.

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.

I did do one debate which Bfrank overlooked. I debated my rivals before the rank and file of the AFL-CIO labor committee. Mary Cheh later on said, "If Rees went into this matter hoping to come across as the populist candidate, then he succeed at it nicely". Mary thinks that I am a very good debater and cannot understand why I shun them. At this one debate, Erik Gaull was bashed again and again for his anti-labor stances.

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.

IT IS CALLED GRANDSTANDING

There are 8 candidate which means there will be 1 winner and 7 losers. It will be an interesting election but one thing is sure, you're already a loser and you are not running.

Sorry Bfrank but I gave Rick Rosedall my word that I would not do as you are asking but rather just take my allegations about what Sam Did to the voters as I already have via email.

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

SAM BROOKS SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT. I would have never know that Sam Brooks a so called champion of GLBT rights had accepted money from notable homophobes like Jack Quinn and his friends if it was not for being tipped of to it by Councilman Jack Evans. What happened was, after Brooks filed his January 2006, OFC filing of contributors, I saw a contribution from a JACK PAK on Brooks list of contributors and assumed it came from Jack Evans old JACK PAK. I wrote Evans about that and Jack Evans said that he had closed down his JACK PAK in agreement with the DC OCF and that the JACK PAK that had contributed to Brooks was a JACK PAK that belongs to retired Congressman Jack Quinn. I wrote Brooks and Brooks emailed me a copy of that check from JACK PAK to prove it was from Jack Quinn and not JACK EVANS. Later, I received an anonymous call saying that Brooks has opened himself to being called a traitor to all GLBT people, and that he would receive emails shortly telling him how Brooks did that but mainly, Brooks was being heavily financed by HOMOPOBES. Within a few days and anonymously, I started receiving emails linking him to Jack Quinns record of homophobia voting, links to the history of those associated with Quinn and contributors to Brooks of being homophobes and a strong recommendation that this fact would be a superb tool to take to voters to show that Sam Brooks is the ultimate hypocrite and opportunist. This is how this all came to be.

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.

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.

Last night, 28,900 of ward 3's, 29,000 Democrats did not attend the candidates' debate, had no interest in doing so nor care what happened. While my rivals were appealing to 100 voters at best, my team distributed in the Palisades 2,000 fliers to the homes of Democrats and spoke to around 170 people face to face. Again, each candidate has their own style of selling themselves and there is no right or wrong way just a platform of what they want to do for voters that voters will ultimately decide upon.

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.

My political campaign consists of: 1) over 11,000 E-mail addresses to ward 3 voters, 2) mini flyers and 3) a force of Latinos who distribute them with me every day in Ward 3. I do not and will not accept money from any, organization, corporation, or PAC directly or indirectly, as I refuse to whore myself and sell out the voter John Q. Public down the road. I only want to owe the voters, not organizations, corporations, or PACs, as that is a sell out of the people who voted. My web site has had over 15,500 hits since I started. I do not rub shoulders with the Democratic party elite, I do not attend political socials, I do not ask for any help of those already in power and I will not debate my rivals but take my position on the issues and what I want to do to voters (one on one) at my own expense and hard labor. While I am 51 years old, I walk five miles every night up and down the streets of Ward 3 distributing my mini flyers and I will not stop until September 12, 2006. My vision of America/DC is for a city council that is for the people by the people and not for organizations, corporations, or PACs or by the organizations, corporations, or PACs. Every candidate has her/his own approach to reaching voters and selling them on their candidacy and each works out fine but to varying degrees but what wins it for most is which platform is most appealing to voters and not how it is presented!

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.

I LOVE CATS!!!

My my my Bfrank but I am not banned anywhere as I am in all those list servers but..... you figure it out. So who are you to judge who is a real candidate and who is not? I consider all 8 of the people who filed to be real candidates and to be taken seriously as real candidates.

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.

FINALLY PROOF THAT WARD 3 CANDIDATE SAM BROOKS SELLS OUT GAY PEOPLE. Sam Brooks a candidate for the ward 3 city council seat says he supports the GLBT people but that has proven to be a lie! Can anybody deny that Ward 3 city council candidate Sam Brooks did not take over $10 grand from well know homophobe Jack Quinn a retired US Congressman and his homophobic employees? The proof is contained within Sam Brooks own 01/31/06 campaign finance filing? Go to his rival Rees website and look at Brooks filing but specifically for all contributions from Jack Pak, Jack Quinn and all persons using the mailing address of Cassidy & Associates and their spouses using other addresses. Brooks is attacking his rivals like a pit-bull dog out of anger for being exposed as a liar and enemy of all Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Transgender people and this is making him go nuts that he cannot stop lying and attacking his rivals. He has attacked Jonathan Rees for a long time, he has attacked Professor Mary Cheh, he has attacked former DDOT candidate Bill Rice and only God knows whom else he has attacked. I am not ashamed to admit that I assisted others opposed to my rival Sam Brooks but their cause was just! If you are a true champion of GLBT rights then you do not do what Sam Brooks did and that is to accept over $10,000.00 from America's most notorious homophobe and his followers. Sam Brooks did this and that make what he claims a hypocracy plain and simple. See the proof >>>>>> http://rees-for-citycouncil.com/homophobe.pdf[/size]

WASHINGTON POST REPORTS CANDIDATE SAM BROOKS HATES OLD PEOPLE It is time that Sam Brooks stop lying to the GLBT community and admit to the terrible thing he did behind closed doors with Jack Quinn or finally come out of the closet!!!!! TRUTH > http://thelyingeyesofsambrooks.blogspot.com/ It is time that Sam Brooks stop insulting older people with his hateful remarks as reported by Elissa Silverman of the Washington Post. Crossing Connecticut Ave. into the Twilight Zone by: Elissa Silverman, Post Reporter At a Ward 3 candidate forum Monday night, Sam Brooks tried all night to stand out from the seven others sitting on the John Eaton Elementary stage. Every time he answered a question, he jumped out of his seat, walked around the table, and spoke to the audience talk show host style. But Brooks made his biggest splash during his closing remarks, which almost got a Jerry Springer reaction from the audience. First, the 26-year-old candidate talked about how many Ward 3 residents were excited to elect someone with the "best years ahead of them." That got some laughs, even from the young at heart crowd. A few sentences later, Brooks contrasted himself with the other candidates--who range in age from 29 to 64--by saying: "I'm not running for office at the twilight of my career." Several in the audience booed.

Because it is free pubilicity!

Ramon was at the debate but I was not. I didn't miss a thing.

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.

After having to live with Candidate Rees, his loving and loyal cat Max finally hit the bottle one time too many and has recently had to check into a rehab clinic in the Maryland suburbs.

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