New Stadium for the Redskins being planned . . .

[KI Skins Fan]

The stupid politicians in the District of Columbia have once again put themselves in a bad position. Somehow, they felt the need to excoriate Dan Snyder over the "racist" name of his football team when they didn't need to say anything at all about it. They did it to enhance their liberal credentials, I assume. Now they find out that Snyder is looking to build a new stadium and they want it in D.C. Whoops!

What to do? It seems that they'd be willing to have an undeclared moratorium on protesting the Redskins name until the stadium contract is signed and the team is headed back to D.C. I suppose they think that once they get the deal signed they can jump right back on the name controversy bandwagon so they won't look like the hypocrites they actually are.

Wrong! Dan Snyder is not as stupid as they are. The D.C. politicians are going to have to agree to some sort of tacit, if not contractual, acceptance of the Redskins name in order to get the stadium deal.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

The stupid politicians in the District of Columbia have once again put themselves in a bad position. Somehow, they felt the need to excoriate Dan Snyder over the "racist" name of his football team when they didn't need to say anything at all about it. They did it to enhance their liberal credentials, I assume. Now they find out that Snyder is looking to build a new stadium and they want it in D.C. Whoops!

What to do? It seems that they'd be willing to have an undeclared moratorium on protesting the Redskins name until the stadium contract is signed and the team is headed back to D.C. I suppose they think that once they get the deal signed they can jump right back on the name controversy bandwagon so they won't look like the hypocrites they actually are.

Wrong! Dan Snyder is not as stupid as they are. The D.C. politicians are going to have to agree to some sort of tacit, if not contractual, acceptance of the Redskins name in order to get the stadium deal.

I would bet, not much cause I don't have much to lose , that if it came down to elections, and one candidate was running on bringing the Redskins, name and all, to the RFK site, and one candidate was running on the name change issue, barring any other obvious fatal flaws in either candidate, that the one who promised to get the Skins back would win the vote by a wide margin.

In fact it might be a way to bring the name issue to resolution, because both sides would probably be out in force, and if the DC electorate went one way or the other, it would give the politicians, media, and others a definitive outcome to hang their hat on.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would bet, not much cause I don't have much to lose , that if it came down to elections, and one candidate was running on bringing the Redskins, name and all, to the RFK site, and one candidate was running on the name change issue, barring any other obvious fatal flaws in either candidate, that the one who promised to get the Skins back would win the vote by a wide margin.

In fact it might be a way to bring the name issue to resolution, because both sides would probably be out in force, and if the DC electorate went one way or the other, it would give the politicians, media, and others a definitive outcome to hang their hat on.

If this was the early 90's or even 2000 you might be right. D.C. has been gentrified. It's full of yuppie transplants and gay folks. I would imagine paying for a stadium and bringing the Redskins to town isn't high on their priority list.