Earlier this evening I received the endorsement of the Washington City Paper in the April 23 D.C. Council special election. Arguing that I'm the best choice for D.C. voters, the newspaper said that I know "the budget inside and out, after years watchdogging D.C. government for the press and advocating for progressive priorities with the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute."
The City Paper knows D.C. like no other local outlet. I am truly proud to receive the endorsement of a paper that District residents trust to tell it like it is.
After expressing reservations over whether a City Paper alum could be fit for office (I worked for the paper in various roles from 1998 to 2004), the endorsement went on to praise my thoughtful positions on “pre-K in every school, affordable housing citywide, and sensible transportation policies.” City Paper also noted my work on reforming ethics in District government and lauded me for applying those same high ethical standards to my own campaign.
This endorsement is a great part of the momentum my campaign has been building over the past several weeks. I’m grateful for the City Paper’s strong praise.
I have to say, however, that I'm a bit surprised at the criticism included in the endorsement. The paper expressed concern that the “aggressive skepticism” I developed in my reporting days could pose an obstacle to “consensus-building” on the Council. As a former Loose Lips columnist, I think most District residents would agree that our Council could use a little bit less consensus and a little bit more "aggressive skepticism.”