Saturday, September 04, 2010
At-Large MoCo Council Debate at the 4H in Chevy Chase
Thirteen candidates showed up in Chevy Chase tonight for the second to last candidate forum--or so I am told--of the at-large campaign season. The debate was sponsored by a panoply of municipalities and organizations from around the area. Channel 16 covered it so you should be able to watch it. Here are my impressions on how candidates struck people--less about the specifics of what they said and more about style.
As mayor, I got to introduce the candidates--a great example of a politician taking credit of the hard work of others in putting the forum together and Charles Duffy for moderating it. The candidates looked like they were ready to throw me off the stage when I suggested that elections are like reality TV in that you actually get to vote people off the island--a thought I admit was inspired by viewing of Top Chef last night and perhaps by a post on the delegate race in District 18 inspired by Project Runway four years ago. Perhaps I was on firmer ground when I spoke about all the important decisions they get to make.
George Gluck (Green) lost me when he said that the solution to the economic crisis in a nutshell is that we all need to stop shopping at Barnes and Noble in Bethesda and go to the Cricket Book Shop in Ashton instead to keep money and jobs in the County. Reinforced the impression of Greens as well-meaning but utterly impractical and a bit kooky.
Duchy Trachtenberg (D) had one really good theme that resonated well and one that sounded a little tinny to me. The good theme is making tough choices in tough times. In short, it makes a virtue out of Duchy's loss of political support from unions--a smart and sensible response to the choices she has made in office that fits the mood of the times--not to mention the Post. In contrast, Duchy recitation of Ike's endorsement and how we can only trust experienced hands now rang false as it left me wondering why one should have supported her four years ago.
Despite starting off the debate by complimenting his fellow incumbents, George Leventhal (D) quickly lost any chance of taking home the Mr. Congeniality statuette. A bull in a china shop, George is tough and argumentative rather than pleasant and controlled, and sometimes clever instead of convincing. His tone is the one I try to keep out of my classroom teaching--the one that suggests you're a real idiot if you disagree with me--reinforced with a frown and crossed arms. Folks, we even nearly had a Saturday Night Live moment brought to life when he went after Jane de Winter. But hey, I guess you can't argue with George's electoral success.
In contrast, Nancy Floreen (D) came across as an adult who has firm convictions and a grasp of the facts but keeps her head. Like George, Nancy has strong opinions and defends them armed with a quick mind and grasp of the issues.. However, she managed to make her points, and even correct people, without looking like she was berating them or being unpleasant. Not an easy balance but one Nancy carried out with conviction. Looked like a Council President.
Jane de Winter (D) benefited from being George's target and having a sense of humor about it as she turned George's attack on her fiscal sense and her advocacy for education into a family anecdote about an adult handling a child. One can debate about who won the point but the optics of standing up to a bully were good as Jane held her own as she made an impression--something challengers have to do. Seated wrongly as a "W" instead of a "D", de Winter got to sit in the center of the pack.
Raj Narayanan (D) came across as an outsider with economic knowledge but lost credibility when he urged the audience to vote for him and Marc Elrich--mainly because it looks weak and because he apparently urges support for himself and a different incumbent at each forum. Nonetheless, he was a fresh face to me and I enjoyed his contribution.
Hans Riemer (D) was the candidate who really gets that debates are not just about what you say but the impression you make. Though younger than the other Democrats, he came across as calm, likable, and knowing the notes he wanted to hit, particularly reinforcing the message of his recent mailer on seniors. Though some will ask where's the beef? his competitors did not press this point as at other forums.
Becky Wagner (D) had an ability to relate governmental problems to both her past experience and to make clear points on complex issues. As with Jane de Winter, I got the impression of someone who has worked hard in the community and earned her spot up there. Becky came across as clear-eyed even if one wondered about her stands on issues as her responses sometimes could be read a number of ways--not necessarily a bad thing when one is trying to corral voters with diverse opinions.
Marc Elrich (D) must have been good in the classroom. He has clear views but also looks like someone who is practical, knows a lot, is willing to talk calmly with others, and thinks that politics is about bringing people together to solve the community's problems. In short, another grown up. He elicited the only applause for the night when he mentioned his bus-rapid transit proposal.
Fred Evans (D) seemed like a nice enough fellow but did not leave much of a memory--bad news for any candidate, I'm afraid.
Robert Dyer (R) wanted you to know that he is the man with the fiscal plan. Very intense. I confess I don't know what to make of Republicans with pony tails. The repeated references to Fantasy Island didn't help. I resisted urges to stand up from the back of the auditorium and shout: "The plane! The plane!"
Mark Fennell (R) brags about being a tea-party candidate in his literature but oddly sounded more interested in making sure that developers pay their fair share for infrastructure in addition to standard Republican fiscal concerns. I preferred the guy on stage to his written materials. Mark is sort of an inverse Bob Ehrlich who looks great in his ads but really should never be allowed to debate.
Brandon Rippeon (R) woke me up with a resonant voice and a passionate presentation but then disappointed with his anodyne attack suggesting that increasing gang violence indicates that the county council has provided bad value for its money. Like Hans, Brandon is a young, fresh face but has a very different style.
Note: I have endorsed Marc Elrich and Jane de Winter. I apologize for any votes this loses them.
Forehand: "I Didn't Quit When You Needed Me"
In a blast email sent out yesterday, District 17 Senator Jennie Forehand condemned challenger Cheryl Kagan for using "some truly twisted facts" in her mailers and walking away from her constituents after two terms. Following is the email.
I'll Stand by You
Dear Friends:
As a parent and a working woman, I learned that you can't walk away when people are counting on you. Now, I have to count on you for help on primary election day.
In the Democratic race for the District 17 Senate nomination, my opponent got nervous and went on the attack with some truly twisted facts.
I understand why she got the events wrong. She wasn't there when they happened.
That's because my opponent walked away after only two terms while I stayed and fought for my constituents.
I fought to balance the budget in a tough economy, to combat the gang problem, to make sure our schools had adequate funding, to bring jobs to our region, to help those facing foreclosure, and to repeal the death penalty.
But to keep working for you, I need your help. Will you e-mail to volunteer on primary election day?
I was involved in the death penalty repeal from the beginning to the final vote, as the Chairman of the Senate Committee will attest.
And, it was my bill that repealed the computer services tax within months of it becoming law and kept high tech firms from fleeing Maryland. It was through my efforts that this ill-advised tax--passed as part of the State's budget during an emergency special session--was delayed so it could be reconsidered.
Early voting starts today at the Executive Office Building in Rockville. Polls are open 10 am to 8 pm from September 3rd to September 7th (excluding Sunday). By voting early and giving up an extra hour, the time you'd have spent voting on September 14th could be spent at the polls supporting my campaign.
I didn't quit when you needed me. I hope I can count on your help now so I can continue to stand up for you. Please e-mail my campaign and find out how you can assist on primary day, Tuesday, September 14.
Sincerely,
Jennie
P.S. Together with the whole District 17 Team -- Delegates Kumar Barve, Luiz Simmons, and Jim Gilchrist -- hope to see you at the polls on September 14!
Friday, September 03, 2010
SEIU Bashes Exum Again
The fine print that is not visible shows this return address:
SEIU Maryland and DC State Council
15 School Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
The authority line reads:
This message has been authorized and paid for by the SEIU MD/DC State Council, Mays Chapel, Marie Cuttitta, Treasurer. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate of candidate's committee.
Illegal Sample Ballot Goes Out in Prince George's County
Prince George's State's Attorney candidate Angela Alsobrooks has filed a complaint with federal and state prosecutors over an illegal sample ballot that has been mailed and distributed in Prince George's County. The ballot claims to be "an official Democratic ballot," but contains an authority line of a political committee that is not registered with the state and is, in any event, not from the county party.
Here's the sample ballot. Note its claim to be "an official Democratic ballot" and its authority line of "Citizens for Change, Charles Summers, Treasurer." No committee matching that name and Treasurer is registered with the State Board of Elections. And note how the ballot claims to be "official" but contains no indication that it came from any entity affiliated with the county party.
Here is Alsobrooks' letter to prosecutors. She rightly notes the county's history of fraudulent conduct during elections and asks for immediate enforcement. We agree.
Did Marc Elrich Break the Ethics Law?
The Montgomery County Attorney is currently reviewing whether Council Member Marc Elrich broke the county’s ethics law when he submitted an affidavit as part of an application for a restraining order to stop the Fillmore project.
Section 19A-14(g) of the County Code states the following:(1) A public employee must not with respect to a particular matter represent another person, or provide advice to another person that would qualify as an expert opinion in a court, if:
Seth Hurwitz (owner of the 9:30 club) and his company, IMP Inc., filed suit against the Comptroller, the the state’s Secretary of Management and Budget and the Governor to block construction of the Fillmore on 6/16/10 (Anne Arundel Circuit Court, Case No. 02C10153243). On 8/31/10, Hurwitz and IMP added County Executive Ike Leggett and the county’s Director of Procurement to the suit and, on the same day, filed an application for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the groundbreaking. Elrich’s affidavit was filed as part of that application. In the affidavit, Elrich stated his opinion that “The County Administration has not sought or received an additional appropriation from the Montgomery County Council to fund the Silver Spring music hall cost overrun. The County Administration must seek such an appropriation from the Montgomery County Council if it intends to use Montgomery County funds to pay for the cost overrun.” Hurwitz and IMP relied on Elrich’s opinion in their application for the Temporary Restraining Order, which was rejected by the presiding judge.
(A) a County agency or the County is a party to the matter and the person being assisted has a position adverse to the County agency or the County; or
(B) the County agency or the County has a direct and substantial interest in the matter that is adverse to the interests of the person being assisted.
(2) This subsection does not apply to a public employee who renders assistance to:
(A) another public employee if the matter involves a personnel action;
(B) a member of the public employee’s immediate family if the public employee renders the assistance without compensation; or
(C) a person for whom the public employee serves as a guardian, trustee or other personal fiduciary.
(3) This subsection does not apply to:
(A) a public employee while carrying out the employee’s official duties; or
(B) a member of a board, committee or commission if:
(i) the member is not compensated by the County;
(ii) the matter does not relate to the responsibilities of the board, committee or commission; and
(iii) the board, committee or commission solely performs an advisory function.
(4) In this subsection "represent" means to act on behalf of another person, and includes acting as an agent or attorney for the other person. (1990 L.M.C., ch. 21, § 1; 1994 L.M.C., ch. 25, § 1; 1997 L.M.C., ch. 37, §1.)
The suit is clearly adverse to Montgomery County since the county government is listed as a defendant. Elrich clearly offered advice, if not an expert opinion, that was used by the plaintiffs in the course of their lawsuit against the county.
Accordingly, the County Attorney is now reviewing whether Elrich’s conduct violated county law. If it did, that may be fertile grounds for an ethics complaint.
Kagan Responds to Forehand's Negative Mailer
District 17 Senate challenger Cheryl Kagan has issued the following response to Senator Jennie Forehand's negative mailer on ethics. Interestingly, Kagan includes a quote from Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
VAN HOLLEN COMMENDS KAGAN FOR “LIMITING EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS” IN POLITICS
(ROCKVILLE, September 3, 2010) - U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen today commended District 17 State Senate candidate Cheryl Kagan for her initiatives to “limit the excessive influence of special interests” in politics. Kagan kicked off her campaign last year with a “Clean Seventeen” pledge to accept only half the maximum amount of campaign contributions allowed under law, as well as voluntarily close the so-called “LLC Loophole” that allows wealthy interests to skirt the law entirely. She has since returned money that exceeded her self-imposed limit.
“I commend you for your campaign finance initiatives to limit the excessive influence of special interests in the legislative and political process,” Van Hollen wrote in a letter to Kagan. “It is essential that we take action at the federal, state and local levels to ensure that the people’s interest triumphs over well financed special interests.”
“I’m so gratified by Chris’s kind words about my work on ethics and campaign finance reform,” said Kagan. “We share a desire to reduce the influence of big money in politics. I hope to continue my work to strengthen state campaign financing laws in the State Senate just as Chris is working in Congress to improve the federal system.”
Ironically, Van Hollen’s praise came as Kagan’s opponent, incumbent senator Jennie Forehand, launched a puzzling attack that in essence complained that her challenger was too diligent in following ethics laws 14 years ago.
“Jennie seems confused,” said Kagan, who represented the same district in the House of Delegates for eight years. “The point of the story she’s raised in her attack mailer is that I followed not just the letter of Maryland’s ethics laws, but the spirit of them as well. In fact, I was praised for doing so by the media.”
The basis of Forehand’s distorted charge: long before she met and married her husband, Kagan dated a man who happened to be a lobbyist. All but $40.50 of the total referenced in Forehand’s attack mailer were the expenses of their dates, which Kagan disclosed even though she was not required to do so. She even voted against her then-boyfriend’s top client!
While Kagan was busy assiduously following ethics and campaign finance laws, over the past 10 years Jennie Forehand has hidden the sources of more than one-fifth of her campaign contributions-- over $35,000-- in so-called “lump sum” amounts. Voters have no way of knowing who contributed how much when the money is stashed in these catch-all accounts. Forehand is the “Lump Sum Leader” in Montgomery County, secretly bundling more than four times as much as any other Montgomery County legislator.
Maryland Politics Watch, the respected political blog that reported on Forehand’s abuse of the lump sum system, described her as “on a different level” than any other candidate when it came to squirreling away money. It called her single biggest lump sum report “remarkable.” “...[W]hen a candidate employs [lump sums] to shield one-tenth, one-fifth or more of his or her donor base from identification, that creates the possibility of abuse,” MPW noted (http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/11/follow-money-part-six.html).
Lump sum reporting is supposed to represent groups of small donations (less than $51 each), and even so is discouraged by campaign finance authorities because it robs the public of important information as to who funds candidates’ campaigns. Forehand’s use of lump sum reporting doesn’t add up: for all of the individual donations that make up her $36,251 lump sum category to be under $50 each (with no repeat givers), she would need over 700 donors. She’s had fewer than 250.
“I hope Jennie will reveal all the sources of her campaign money, just as I and all accountable and responsible candidates do, and as the law requires,” said Kagan. She made the same request to Forehand directly at a recent Rockville debate.
Kagan has just created a new page on her web site called “Check the Facts!” with more information and links.
# # # #
Saqib Email: "Nancy King is Lying"
District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali issued a mass email yesterday denouncing Senator Nancy King, saying, "Nancy King has gone too far with her numerous attack mailers. She wants to win this Senate race at any cost, even if it means telling lies." Following is Ali's email.
Nancy King is Lying
Dear Friend:
Nancy King has gone too far with her numerous attack mailers. She wants to win this Senate race at any cost, even if it means telling lies.
Over the past few days I have received no less than 5 pieces of campaign mail from Nancy King. You probably have too. Usually when people get campaign mail, they expect a discussion of issues or a clear contrast of ideas. However Nancy's entire campaign is based 100% on a false smear that I have slept through votes in Maryland's Assembly. She has even created an attack website dedicated entirely to reinforcing this untruthful claim. Nancy is lying, plain and simple.
The truth is that I work long hours in Annapolis on your behalf. Sometimes 12 hours or more. During breaks in this action, people go out for pizza, socialize or rest. I was sacked-out on a couch during one of these breaks when someone snuck a photo of me without my knowledge. Nancy got a hold of that photo and is now sending them to you to convince you that I'm lazy. It's dishonorable, despicable and it must stop. One might expect to see these tactics amongst Republicans in South Carolina, but not Democrats in Montgomery County.
I urge you to ask yourself the following question: "Why would a sitting state senator behave this way instead of discussing the issues that Marylanders care about?" The answer to this question is becoming increasingly clear. Nancy King is trying to distract and deceive voters to prevent an honest debate about the issues. She is doing this because she knows that her position on many issues is far out-of-step with District 39. And she is doing it to avoid answering questions that many voters keep asking.
Here is a list of those questions:
1. Why were you the only Board of Education Member to vote against common-sense sex education for MCPS students?
2. Why do you remain a member of an election committee that used money from tobacco behemoth Phillip Morris to fund a telephone smear campaign against Saqib Ali?
3. Why did you lead the charge to extend corporate tax loopholes so that corporations like Wal-Mart can continue to avoid paying state taxes?
4. Why did you chose the alcohol lobby over Mothers Against Drunk Driving when you voted to loosen restrictions on sugary, alcoholic beverages commonly consumed by teenagers?
5. Why did you vote against common-sense safety legislation to ban hand-held cell phone usage while driving?
On each of these issues, Nancy King stood with Republicans and special interests instead of siding with Democrats. That's why the Washington Post call her "an old-school pol."
Please don't let Nancy King deceive and distract her way out of answering these questions. It's time to hold her accountable. You can do so by spreading this email amongst your friends, family, co-workers and any community email lists. We deserve a state senator who will represent us honestly and will not sink to this level. I promise I will be exactly such a senator.
The election is on September 14th. Only 12 days away. We can make a difference.
- Saqib
P.S. For a comprehensive rebuttal of Nancy King's smears, visit www.Ali4Senate.com/FightTheLies
Elrich Comments on Fillmore
Council Member Marc Elrich sent us the following remarks on our post this morning about his cooperation with a lawsuit to stop Silver Spring's Fillmore project.
#####
Just to be clear. I wanted the issue of additional funding to come before the Council. A day after the groundbreaking for the library, I read, in the paper, that the SS Library is getting it's capital program reduced by $3 million. Money for a rock club, not for a library? We found excess capital funds and are spending them on a rock club instead of the library, which we're cutting. Not my priority. In addition, some of the "found" money came from projects that came in at lower costs, but some of it came from reducing another project to shift the money to Filmore.
We have lots of competing projects for capital funds and we made some hard decisions. Normally, this would have come back to us, apparently not a legal absolute, but as I was told by County staff, it would have been the normal procedure. I wanted to have that discussion and I wanted to understand how this project could be $3.2 million over budget.
We were told, not a dime more than $4 million in County money. If the estimates were so old as to be useless, how could we told with such certainty.
We were told that they were sure that there would be no cost overruns and the free rent provision, a mere safety valve, would not be triggered.
We were told to look at the pro forma, based on the county income, and see what a good deal it was. Getting almost half the 20 years rent free kind of changes the "good deal."
We were told that Live Nation would pay for all the cost overruns over $8 million. Instead the county is paying for at least $2.5 million of those costs.
Live Nation has an obligation to play less than 3 shows a week and we were told that they would rent it on the other nights and that the rent would be on the order of $6000 a night - and the County gets a total of $7500 a month. Giving a multi-billion dollar corporation a deal like this is mind-boggling.
I was done with this after the Council voted for it. I figured, you win some, you lose some, life goes on and it's not the end of the world. Only when I heard these new numbers come out, and only after I talked to staff who reaffirmed my belief that bringing this back to us for additional appropriation was the normal course of action, did I get upset. I was asked if I'd sign an affidavit saying that I believed it was supposed to come back to the Council, and since I believed that, I didn't see the harm in saying as much.
I doubt this would have killed the Filmore, but it would have forced a public discussion. And if a public discussion and examination of how we got here would have killed the deal, then you've got to ask, "How good a deal was it?" If this thing can't stand the light of day, perhaps there's a problem.
I would have been happy with a renegotiated deal, that gave the County a bigger cut of the income stream.
As for heat, I've been taking heat on the cost overruns since these facts came out. I've had people ask if "we're nuts" to keep giving Live Nation this much money and why won't anyone on the Council stand up to this. On the other hand, I'm sure I'll get heat from people who think that this is more important than libraries or rec centers.
Forehand Slams Kagan on Lobbyist Gifts
Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) has responded to three negative mailers from challenger Cheryl Kagan with this piece on Kagan's acceptance of lobbyists' gifts and her vote against a 2001 bill on lobbying reform.
Forehand brought up this issue at a recent candidate forum in Rockville. Here is how Kagan answered it.
OK guys, so we are asking you all for a favor. Remember that tragically premature post we wrote calling the District 17 Senate race the "classiest" in MoCo? Can you just forget that we wrote that? Pretty please?
Blog Coverage
In the heat of primary season, I get a lot of questions and heat about coverage here on Maryland Politics Watch. I thought I'd use this post for a little demystification:
(1) Do you and Adam coordinate your posts?
Adam's posts are Adam's posts, and David's posts are David's posts. I don't oversee, edit, or preview Adam's posts. As Adam gets paid the same as I do to write here (read: nothing), it hardly seems fair to edit him, especially since he does the vast majority of the work. On occasion, we consult but it is far more rare than common. We disagree on a variety of issues. Please ascribe credit and blame accordingly.
(2) How do I get more blog coverage?
Send us your stuff. In other words, if you have a new mailer or press release, send us a copy. That's how most campaign material gets up. We don't post everything--or promise to do so--but we try to give most Democratic campaigns a break. We sometimes cover endorsements as well.
Unfortunately, some campaigns send us more than others, so posts can lean more toward one campaign than gives me comfort at times. One can get the mistaken impression that MPW supports one campaign or another as a result.
I am concerned that the race between Sen. Nancy King and Del. Saqib Ali in District 39 may be an example of this as Del. Ali has sent in quite a few video clips and other material that Adam has posted, though lately we are seeing quite a lot from Sen. King so perhaps that has changed.
Of course, we may comment on material sent to us--as we often do on anything in the public domain. In District 39, for example, I have not supported either candidate, though I did express my peeves about Saqib quoting a post analyzing the race completely out of context on a flyer. Adam can speak for himself (see #1).
Anti-Floreen Activist Speaks Out
On Tuesday, we reported that a civic activist had launched an anonymous campaign to prevent Council President Nancy Floreen from being reelected. That activist subsequently contacted us and has gone on the record about his effort to oust Floreen. Following is his email to us along with our comment.
From: David Reile
To: acp1629@hotmail.com
Subject: Rumor Blog
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 13:24:01 -0500
Dear Mr. Pagnucco:
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am David Reile, (a.k.a. the “anonymous civic activist” mentioned in the Rumors section of your Blog entry Tuesday, August 31, 2010).
I am the treasurer of Ethically Responsible Government/EIGPAC.com, a grass roots organization whose mission is to hold elected officials in Montgomery County accountable in their service to our citizens. We are registered with the Maryland State Board of Elections. Though our website was initially marked with a placeholder page, it now includes contact information and is in full conformance with all county and Maryland law. There was never any intention on our part to “hide.” It was just a matter of competing life priorities.
As to the “illegally-placed road signs” that you mention, we have made every effort to place our signs in close proximity to the signs placed by candidates running for elected office in Montgomery County, including the Floreen campaign. Further, you may note the presence of hundreds of signs placed throughout the county by home builders and developers.
Next, we are not tied to or coordinating with ANY political party, campaign, or politician. This includes Marc Elrich. It is true that we like Marc Elrich and believe that he has been and will continue to be good for Montgomery County. For some perspective, we have also contributed to the campaigns of Nancy Navarro and Sharon Dooley. We financially supported Marc Elrich and attended his campaign kick off long before the PAC (Ethically Responsible Government) was formed or even thought of.
For the record, I/we do not “despise” Nancy Floreen. I/we do oppose many of her actions and decisions, including her excessive ties with the development community and her apparent antipathy toward civic associations and Montgomery County citizens in favor of large scale, over development of residential and rural communities outside of the Agricultural Reserve.
We believe that Ms. Floreen has not earned another term on the County Council or in any other elected office in Montgomery County.
As to the other “rumors,” we are delighted to know that our efforts to send Ms. Floreen home this election are being noticed. You may notice that there are other organizations which believe similarly. You reported on how Police, Firefighters, and MCGEO are working to support three at-large candidates. Who is conspicuously absent from that list? Nancy Floreen! We hope that she is absent from the County Council next year as well. We will add our support to any effort to make that a reality.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like additional information on our organization.
All the best,
David M. Reile
#####
At the time that we wrote our post, Reile's website had no identifying information on it and his PAC had no registration record on the State Board of Elections' website. The website now identifies the PAC's officers and the PAC is now registered.
Even More Sleepy Saqib
Elrich Cooperated with Suit to Shut Down Fillmore
The Gazette reported in June on a lawsuit filed by 9:30 Club owner Seth Hurwitz to stop construction of the state- and county-financed Fillmore project in Downtown Silver Spring. Since then, revelations of big-time cost overruns, which would ultimately reduce the amount of rent to be paid by Live Nation to the county, have raised doubts about the project. On August 31, Hurwitz filed for a temporary restraining order to halt construction, which was due to break ground on September 2. The judge turned down the order, but the application was interesting for one reason: it contained an affidavit in support from Council Member Marc Elrich.
Following is a copy of Elrich’s affidavit in support of the restraining order to cease construction. Elrich contends that the County Executive was required to seek an additional appropriation from the County Council to cover the cost overruns and did not do so.
We do not offer an opinion on the merits of Hurwitz’s lawsuit or on Elrich’s argument on behalf of the restraining order. But our sources find it remarkable that one County Council Member participated in an effort to stop the Fillmore when the County Executive, the County Council as a body, the county’s statehouse delegation, the state government and the landowner had all reached an agreement to proceed. Marc Elrich is one of the smartest people in county government and usually acts on good reason, but he is going to take a LOT of heat for this.
Primaries to Watch V, Part Five
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are the Top Two Primaries to Watch!
2. District 19 State Senate
Previous Rank: #2
Marc
When Delegate Roger Manno first challenged incumbent State Senator Mike Lenett, there was lots of talk about dueling slates and in our last “Primaries to Watch” installment Adam talked about a possible endorsement by Ben Kramer. But it turns out that most of the other folks on the ballot in District 19 do not want to touch this increasingly bitter personality clash with a ten foot pole. I am going to act similarly and leave it at that.
Adam
Take two starving animals, file their claws to razor sharpness, throw them in a cage with a small piece of meat and pull up a seat. But first, have them watch Mike Lenett and Roger Manno so they can see what a real fight looks like.
This race has seen it all: baseball bats, a slime website, an independent mailer and even firearms. Lenett and Manno have almost identical policy positions, so as David Lublin told the Gazette, races like this “become highly personal because the difference between these candidates is relatively small.” Both men finished first in their respective races last time and each has a chance to win, but my sources are starting to lean towards Lenett. Here’s why.
1. Lenett is the incumbent and Manno needs to state a compelling reason for why voters need to kick him out. Saqib Ali and Cheryl Kagan are going after the incumbents they are challenging on the basis of their votes. Manno’s two negative pieces slam Lenett for allegedly stealing other people’s ideas. This is an inside-Annapolis argument that may not resonate with voters.
2. Leisure World HATES negative mail, a fact that was on full display in last year’s Council District 4 special election. In 2008, Don Praisner beat Nancy Navarro in Leisure World by 476-323 votes, or a 47-32% margin. In 2009, Navarro sent out three negative mailers against Ben Kramer and he raised hell over them. Kramer lost the race, but he walloped Navarro in Leisure World by 798-280 votes, or a 67-24% margin. Yes, there were other reasons for Kramer’s performance, but every spy I had who had knowledge of Leisure World said Navarro’s negative mail backfired there. Manno’s baseball bat mailer could backfire there too.
3. MCEA is going to be out in full force on primary day passing out Apple Ballots with Bonnie Cullison’s name on them. Those Apples are also going to promote Lenett. Manno has the Post endorsement, but extra help from MCEA will benefit the incumbent.
4. While both candidates have lots of money, Lenett has a little more, and he could very well swarm the mailboxes at the end.
5. Delegate Ben Kramer has a much better personal relationship with Manno than Lenett. If he had endorsed Manno, he could have helped Manno win Leisure World and Kemp Mill. But Kramer has stayed out of the Senate race, depriving Manno of important help.
Manno’s supporters make some good points on behalf of their candidate. They say that the Post endorsement might mean more in District 19 than the Apple, especially in Leisure World. They believe that Manno’s very likable personality will wear better on voters than Lenett. And they point to Manno’s maniacal door-knocking, substantial grass-roots base and his backing by Delegate Hank Heller, former Senator Len Teitelbaum and former Delegates Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold.
All of this is true, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests every so slightly that the race may be headed Lenett’s way.
1. District 39 State Senate
Previous Rank: #1
Marc
You have to laugh when you hear Delegate Saqib Ali and his supporters complain about Senator Nancy King going negative. The challenger has run a relentless three-year campaign against King, sometimes based on legitimate policy differences but always designed to promote his inevitable State Senate candidacy. King is getting ample support from Mike Miller and friends. Her message in the mailboxes is much better than her message at little-watched, though highly analyzed, debates. King is no doubt right that Ali would be an outsider in the State Senate, but Ali is more in touch with Democratic Primary voters than King on specific votes.
We will see on September 14th who can pull themselves out of the gutter and head back to Annapolis. If it is Nancy King, does anyone want to take bets on when Ali’s 2014 campaign begins?
Adam
It’s worth remembering a few things about Saqib Ali and Nancy King before this contest went the way of Big Daddy and the Seven Dwarfs.
Saqib Ali ran a brilliant campaign in 2006, knocked out incumbent Delegate Joan Stern and was the freshest of fresh faces when he arrived in Annapolis. Most politicians present a bland persona to the public, seeking to display themselves in the least offensive way so as not to make enemies. Ali’s genius is that he understands that voters prefer politicians who act like real, live, appealing people. As he reached out to supporters, friends and well-wishers through social media, he attracted allegiance from people who felt that he was one of them – not just in terms of his progressive positions, but also as a human being who was willing to listen and willing to laugh. Despite his unpopularity in Annapolis, I have always liked Saqib Ali for these qualities and his ability to bring new people into politics.
Nancy King is not one of those people who was determined to run for office straight out of the womb. She worked her way up the ranks, from the Montgomery Village Foundation and the PTAs to the Board of Education and then on to Annapolis. If P.J. Hogan had not retired, King would have been perfectly content to serve as Delegate until her time to leave had come. As a legislator, she has been anything but the conservative Republican portrayed by Ali’s campaign. If she was, she would never have been endorsed by MCEA, SEIU, Equality Maryland and other progressive organizations. Sure, Ali is more liberal, but that does not make King a conservative – she is indeed a moderate Democrat. Finally, while I like Ali, I also like Nancy King very much. She is responsive, forthright and unpretentious – an unusual combination for a politician.
So am I going to scold these two for going negative? Absolutely not. Both candidates know exactly what they’re doing and are making their choices with eyes wide open. They understand the risks and benefits of their attacks. They probably understand the damage that each of their reputations will suffer in the eyes of some voters. But they have decided to do what it takes to win, and damn the consequences.
So who will survive? The race will turn on two questions. First, will Ali’s ground game be enough to make up for King’s deeper roots in the district? Or will he be so distracted by her mail that he will lose his focus? And second, whose negative attacks will be more effective? King seems to have the edge on both counts right now, but low turnout, ferocious mail and huge resources on both sides make this contest a bit unpredictable.
No matter who wins, this will go down as one of the nastiest MoCo races of all time!
Ali's Education Contrast Mailer
Here's a contrast mailer on education sent out by District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali against Senator Nancy King.
This is a more respectable piece than anything involving Disney characters, but we do have one observation on it. Ali says, "Saqib's tireless work also helped to save $23 million for Montgomery County Public Schools," and cites HB 223 2010, a bill to waive MoCo's $23 million maintenance of effort penalty. That bill was lead-sponsored by Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20) and co-sponsored by MANY other Delegates, of whom Ali was just one. While HB 223 passed, so did SB 476 2010, which also waived the penalty. That bill was lead-sponsored by none other than... Senator Nancy King.
Duchy Slaps Riemer, Wagner
In an email sent to supporters on Monday, Duchy Trachtenberg's campaign manager, Woody Brosnan, had this to say about challengers Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner. No, he did not name them, but his targets were obvious. This sort of talk is normally supposed to occur under the radar, but thank Heavens we have blogs to air these kinds of things!
The Week Ahead
By Woody Brosnan, Campaign Manager
Next Friday marks the start of Maryland’s first experience with early voting in person. From 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and from Sept. 3 through Sept. 9—even on Labor Day—voters can go to one of five locations to vote. (Those locations are listed below, at the end of this piece.)
Is there any reason to wait until Sept. 14? Is there going to be some startling new bold innovation to spring forth from one of Duchy’s challengers?
Probably not.
One of the challengers says vote for him because he would be a “fresh face” on the Council. Now when I was covering Congress for various newspapers and heard that argument I always that meant there wasn’t much behind the face. Then too, a face can always change depending on the audience.
Another says she’s a “consensus builder” but a consensus for what isn’t exactly clear because she won’t offer specifics on the county’s tough budget choices.
One thing I have to admit is that Duchy is not a new face. For two decades, she’s been around Montgomery County and Maryland, and in the halls of the Capitol fighting for women’s rights, improvements in the care of the mentally ill, and critical needs for our community.
Duchy is a consensus builder too; but what sets her apart is that she starts with an idea, like creating a Family Justice Center for victims of domestic abuse, or banning the use of trans fat in restaurants in the county, or envisioning a long-term fiscal plan that makes sense and then selling the idea to her colleagues on the Council.
Her record of success is pretty good too. To learn more, visit www.voteduchy.org.
So just go ahead and vote early, and mark your ballot for Duchy Trachtenberg, Councilmember At-Large.
Here are those Early Voting Locations:
Silver Spring Civic Building, 8525 Fenton Street, Silver Spring 20910
Montgomery County Executive Office Building, 101 Monroe Street, Rockville 20850
Bauer Drive Community Recreation Center, 14625 Bauer Drive, Rockville 20853
Germantown Recreation Center, 18905 Kingsview Road, Germantown 20874
Marilyn J. Praisner Community Recreation Center, 14906 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville 20866
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Forehand vs. Kagan at Rockville Library
Following are the closing statements of Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) and challenger Cheryl Kagan at the 8/31 forum at Rockville Library. See how Forehand compares herself to former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd(!) and Kagan criticizes her handling of the Rockville Courthouse issue.
Seniors for Sam
In a district that includes Leisure World, this sort of mailing is virtually mandatory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
