Maryland Politics Watch: August 2006

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Gansler and Simms on Kojo

You can hear the candidates for attorney general spar politely on streaming audio of the Kojo Nnamdi Show earlier today (Real Audio / Windows Media).

Junior members of the minority party don't usually get much foreign press coverage but the minor fracas over Rep. Van Hollen's letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to have caused a columnist for Haaretz, a major Israeli daily, to make an exception:

Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, ran into a problem - he unintentionally found himself in the camp of Israel's enemies. All he wanted was an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. A few weeks ago, as the war raged, he sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and asked her to do something. He was trying to take aim at the Bush administration - which is what a Democrat is expected to do on the eve of elections - but it turned out that this is not how Israel's friends saw things. Van Hollen was called in for a little chat with officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Some accepted his explanations - he did not apologize, just clarified his statements - but others thought that was not enough and that Van Hollen had crossed the red line.

At the root of the American administration's support for Israel lies the assumption that this is not a subject of controversy. One can attack George W. Bush, but not at Israel's expense. Van Hollen's district in Maryland is very pro-Democrat, and is also populated by many Jews. Some of them may reconsider their congressional choice.

I suspect neither AIPAC nor Van Hollen appreciate this sort of press coverage which is more blunt than the average op-ed in an American newspaper but about par for the course in Israel. However, Van Hollen can at least take comfort in the fact that the author thinks he will be a member of the majority party when the next Congress convenes.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Financial Times

The Gazette has published a campaign finance update for the delegate race in District 18 as of the August 15th pre-primary report. I'll sum up the numbers here and fill in a few additional bits of information from the campaign finance database.

Dan Farrington leads in the money race. He has raised $115,756 of which $30,000 is a loan from himself to his campaign. The Gazette reports that Dan spent a lot of his money on consultants. He had $58,363 left in his account when the report was filed.

At $113,309, Jeff Waldstreicher is not far behind Dan in terms of money raised, though $79,025 was donated by the candidate to his own campaign. Jeff is clearly committed to this race as he made these contributions as donations rather than as a loan. Jeff had $90,441 left in his account when his treasurer filed his last report so he had significant more cash-on-hand than Dan even if Dan outraised him by around $2400.

Dana Beyer has raised $98,071 of which $75,000 is a loan from herself to her campaign. Dana had $51,401 left in her account when her campaign filed the report.

James Browning, who has made public financing of campaigns one of his major issues, has raised a total of $42,720 of which $4000 is a loan to his campaign. James had $20,167 left in the kitty at the time the report was filed.

Al Carr reported a total of $23,620 in contributions of which $15,000 is a loan to his campaign. Al has been husbanding his bank account and had $17,880 left to spend on his campaign when his treasurer filed the report.

Calculating the money raised and spent by the incumbents, Ana Sol Gutierrez and Jane Lawton, is a bit tricky because they have their own campaign funds as well as a combined slate treasury. Nevertheless, even including the state's funding, they together lag behind the top four candidates in terms of recent fundraising. On the other hand, they both have reserves which leave them in better shape that the Gazette's focus on recent contributions would make matters appear. The District 18 Slate (which also includes Senate candidate Rich Madaleno) has raised a total of $21,235 of which $8460 remained in the bank at the time that the slate's treasurer filed the report. None of the contributions to the slate was in the form of a loan. Jane Lawton has raised a total $11,640 of which $5000 is a loan. However, Jane had $18,467 remaining in her account when the report was filed due to earlier fundraising efforts. Ana Sol Gutierrez has raised a total of $5920 of which none is a loan. Ana had $16,720 left in the bank thanks to previous fundraising.

Noah Grosfeld-Katz has raised a total of $7204 of which $200 is a loan. Noah had $6433 remaining in the bank when the report was filed.

The final pre-primary campaign finance reports are going to be issued tomorrow. Indeed, a few have already popped up on the net.

Disclaimer: I have been volunteering for the District 18 Slate. If any candidates think I inaccurately reported their numbers here, please let me know. I'm not sure late night posts are conducive to accurate typing.

On the Maryland Politics Hour

Want to hear the candidates but just can't make it to a political event? You can listen to streaming audio from the Kojo Nnamdi Show.

The noon segment of the Maryland Politics Hour (RealAudio / Windows Media) featured:

Peter Franchot, a candidate for comptroller;

Donna Edwards, challenging incumbent Al Wynn for Congress;

Ida Ruben, the incumbent senator in District 20; and

Jamie Raskin, challenging incumbent District 20 Sen. Ida Ruben.

The 1pm segement of Maryland Politics Hours (RealAudio / Windows Media) featured:

Jack Johnson, the incumbent Prince George's County Executive; and

Rushern Baker, challenging incumbent Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson.

Franchot's Advertisement

I thought I'd put up Peter Franchot's commercial since I had put up one for Janet Owens. Franchot's advertisement is harder hitting, undoubtedly because he is down in the polls. Franchot claims the poll is worthless because the pollster worked for Owens in the past. Owens, who is running close behind Schaefer, has a positive feel-good piece on the air. If anyone knows of an available Schaefer commercial, let me know.

Seeing Purple in District 18

Most Montgomery County politicians claim to support building the Purple Line. Indeed, Steve Silverman hopes to ride his promise to build it to the County Executive's office. As I've mused in earlier postings, I wonder if the debate over the proposed light rail system between Bethesda and New Carrolton is somewhat academic because the money may not exist to pay for it and Montgomery cannot afford it without massive state and federal dollars.

However, the Purple Line is controversial in District 18 as most of the Montgomery County portion of the line would cut through the district. People who live in homes and communities close to the tracks are especially concerned about how light-rail would affect them. Of course, many users of the current trail also live in the district.

Some opponents of the Purple Line think that supporters have unfairly used pictures of Metro cars and Metro maps in their literature even though light rail would be different from Metro. Supporters of the Purple Line are similarly peeved that opponents have gathered signatures against on the Capital Crescent Trail across from Barnes and Noble in Bethesda which would not be affected by the Purple Line.

As one delegate candidate who I happened to run into this morning pointed out, the MSM has made little effort to distinguish the positions of candidates on the Purple Line, though you can learn more on your own if you are willing to wade through the candidate answers to questions on the Gazette website as well as Action Committee for Transit's scorecard, though one doesn't always get exactly the same report from all sources.

Here is my perception of the positions of the candidates on the Purple Line:

Dana Beyer, James Browning, and Ana Sol Gutierrez favor building the Purple Line.

Jane Lawton and Jeff Waldstreicher favor building the Purple Line if it is underground.

Al Carr, Dan Farrington, and Noah Grosfeld-Katz oppose building the Purple Line (at least on its proposed route on the trail). This is also the position of Rich Madaleno who is unopposed for the senatorial nomination.

If anyone thinks I've got their position wrong, let me know. As always, I should mention that I have been volunteering for the District 18 slate.

And the Post Picks Edwards Over Wynn

The Washington Post has endorsed insurgent challenger Donna Edwards over incumbent Al Wynn for Congress. According to the Post, Wynn has championed the wrong conservative causes and spent too much time trying to dominate county politics:

REP. ALBERT R. WYNN has represented Maryland's 4th Congressional District since 1993, and in that time he has never faced a serious challenger. This year, in Donna Edwards , he does. Ms. Edwards, a lawyer and foundation executive with a distinguished record of civic activism, is Mr. Wynn's opponent in the Sept. 12 Democratic primary. Tough, articulate and knowledgeable, she is one of the smartest and most impressive newcomers in Maryland politics.

The 4th District, comprising parts of Prince George's and Montgomery counties, is heavily Democratic, a profile that meshes with Ms. Edwards's long involvement in liberal causes. She has championed a higher minimum wage, campaign finance reform and an array of environmental issues, and she fought for legislation to curtail domestic violence. Locally, she was an ardent opponent of National Harbor, the multibillion-dollar development underway in Prince George's, but she came around to supporting it when she was satisfied that it would include a balance of commercial, entertainment and residential components. Her assent removed one of the project's last major hurdles -- a fact that testifies both to her skill as an advocate and her openness to reasonable compromise.
Ms. Edwards worked for Mr. Wynn as a clerk in the 1980s, when he served in the Maryland House of Delegates. Initially she backed him for Congress, but since then, she says, Mr. Wynn has betrayed the principles that first got him elected. In making that point in a debate with Mr. Wynn this month, she left him out of sorts and on the defensive.

No wonder. As we've noted in the past, Mr. Wynn has often seemed more involved in playing the role of a kingmaker in Prince George's than in his duties in Congress. On key federal issues, he has cast himself as the most bipartisan member of Maryland's congressional delegation. That's great in theory, but too often his votes have been at odds with good government and the interests of his constituents. He has backed the estate tax repeal, a measure that benefits the richest Americans at the expense of the poor and middle class. He supported the Bush administration's energy bill in 2003, offering subsidies to oil and gas companies even as they were headed toward record profits. He has flip-flopped on fuel efficiency standards and opposed campaign finance reform. And he has tried to clear the way for casino gambling in Prince George's. All in all, it is a lackluster record.

On the war in Iraq, Ms. Edwards has scored points by attacking Mr. Wynn as Maryland's Joseph I. Lieberman -- a supporter of the war portrayed as too close to the Bush administration. Mr. Wynn backed the war at the outset, but he has since recanted, saying he was misled by bad intelligence. More to the point of today's debate, both candidates are calling for a U.S. withdrawal, a scenario that we believe would leave chaos in its wake.

Mr. Wynn insists he has been a successful pork-barrel politician; we suspect Ms. Edwards, razor-sharp and relentless, would be at least as effective. We disagree with her on some important issues, but we are convinced she would be the more forceful, principled and effective representative. And while her insurgent candidacy is an uphill battle, it should put Mr. Wynn on notice that voters expect quality representation in Congress, not just a local political boss.

The Post validates the belief of many disgruntled liberals that Wynn is all too willing to support Republican causes that do not benefit his district. It is still an uphill battle for Edwards but this is becoming an interesting race. I just wish every challenger would stop calling themselves the next Ned Lamont. Personally, I think Donna Edwards is more quick-witted and less wealthy than the Connecticut Democratic senatorial nominee even if she hopes to follow in his footsteps by defeating a seemingly entrenched incumbent in the primary.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Gazette Endorses for State Legislature

The Gazette has published its endorsements for the state legislature and has lobbed a few surprises, especially in District 18. The districts it covers vary from edition to edition so you need to check out the online edition to get the whole county.

Here is a quick late-night rundown:

District 14: All of the incumbents were endorsed.

District 15: The general election is the real battle here as there are no primary battles in Montgomery's one marginal district.

District 16: All of the incumbents were endorsed, including Del. Marilyn Goldwater.

District 17: The Gazette encourages the reelection of Del. Kumar Barve and Del. Luis Simmons. For the third seat, they endorse Laura Farthing Berthiaume.

District 18: This district is the real shocker as neither incumbent Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez or Del. Jane Lawton was endorsed. Instead, the Gazette picked newcomers Al Carr, Dan Farrington, and James Browning. I believe that these are the only cases in which the Gazette did not endorse the incumbents who were not mentioned in the short editorial.

District 19: In the three-way senate race, the Gazette recommends Del. Carol Petzold for the open senate seat. For the House of Delegates, they suggest incumbent Del. Hank Heller as well as Roger Manno and Alec Stone.

District 20: In the County's nastiest state legislative race, the Gazette ultimately picked incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben over challenger Jamie Raskin. For the delegate slots, they endorsed incumbent Del. Sheila Hixon as well as Takoma Park Councilwoman Heather Mizeur and Lobbyist Tom Hucker.

District 39: The Gazette endorsed all four incumbents for the House of Delegates, including incumbent Del. Joan F. Stern who was not included in the district slate by her colleagues. Bet it could be awkward next session if they get their way and challenger Saqib Ali doesn't replace Stern.

Van Hollen Responds to Concerned Constituents

Columnist Robert Novak didn't exactly do Rep. Chris Van Hollen a favor when he characterized him as a "critic" of Israel based on a letter that Rep. Van Hollen sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. As I explained in an earlier post, I thought Van Hollen's letter was a lot friendlier to Israel and far more nuanced than Novak's quick characterization of it even if I disagree with him on some points. Most critically, I think the letter came from the perspective of a concerned friend rather than an unblinking critic.

Rep. Van Hollen has sent letters explaining his position further to constituents who wrote to him expressing their concern about his letter to Secretary Rice. Due to the controversy, it seems worthwhile to repeat that letter to constituents here even if it is a bit long for a blog entry so that Rep. Van Hollen gets a chance to speak for himself:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with my July 30, 2006 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Like you, I take this matter extremely seriously and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on issues that have been raised regarding the letter.
First and foremost, I hope you will read the letter in the context of my deep-rooted support for the State of Israel. I have always stood proudly in solidarity with Israel, and supported every pro-Israel resolution in the Congress. I understand that Israel faces determined enemies that seek its total destruction, and I have been and remain totally committed to fighting to ensure the security of Israel. That commitment is based on my personal conviction regarding the strong historical, moral, and strategic ties that bind us together. Supporting a strong Israel is in the best interests of America. I have repeatedly made the point that on 9/11 Americans experienced the kind of terror that Israelis must confront on an ongoing basis. The United States and Israel have common values and share a joint determination to prevail in the war on terror. I have said that many times before and it is in that spirit that I wrote the letter to Secretary Rice.

Israel is under siege. As I stated in my letter to Secretary Rice, Hezbollah rocket attacks “have fallen indiscriminately in Haifa and other population centers.” They are fired with one purpose – to kill innocent people and terrorize the community. Israel is once again fighting a foe, armed by Iran, both of whom would like to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is fighting for its life and I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that America continues to stand with it in this struggle. I recognize the absolute gravity of the situation and certainly did not intend for my letter to the Secretary to cause any anxiety to those most affected by the crisis. Indeed, it was intended to address issues vital to the security of Israel and the United States.

The overarching theme of my three-page letter to Secretary Rice was a critique of what I believe to be the consequences of the Bush Administration’s failed policies in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, especially the war in Iraq. I believe those policies have severely diminished our influence in the region at a critical moment. The war in Iraq has inflamed anti-Western sentiment and boosted the most radical Islamic forces in the region. The biggest beneficiary has been Iran, which has successfully exploited the chaos and instability in neighboring (and, like Iran, predominantly Shia) Iraq to expand its influence in the region, including through its support of Hezbollah. My letter to Secretary Rice also addresses the internal tensions in the way in which the Administration has pursued its democracy promotion efforts (i.e., pushing for elections at the same time that our policies – like the war in Iraq – are bound to produce governments hostile to Israel and America). It also addresses the false claims the Administration made regarding the positive impact the war in Iraq would have in advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. (I raised this issue not in the context of the current crisis with Hezbollah, but as another example of claims made by the Administration regarding the benefits of going to war in Iraq that have not been borne out by subsequent developments.)

That is the overall framework and purpose of my letter to Secretary Rice. I believe many Bush Administration policies have failed to advance the shared interests of the United States and Israel. I am sorry if my strong criticism of the Bush Administration’s failures has been interpreted as a criticism of Israel’s conduct in the current crisis. That was certainly not my intention.

A key issue addressed in my letter to Secretary Rice is how to best isolate, disarm and defeat Hezbollah. I have long held that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that needs to be defeated, including most recently in a July 28, 2006 letter that I sent to the European Parliament along with some of my congressional colleagues. I believe the Bush Administration and the international community should have been much more proactive prior to the current crisis in working to effectively implement Security Council Resolution 1559. It was absolutely clear that the Lebanese government and army did not have the military capability to confront Hezbollah (even if they had the will). Yet we did little to strengthen those capabilities or assist them in interdicting arms shipments to Hezbollah from Iran via Syria. That failure helped precipitate the current crisis.

I also believe that in the current crisis the Bush Administration missed an opportunity to exercise effective leadership. You may disagree with that conclusion, but let me explain the basis for this belief as I address misinterpretations made by some regarding two points in my letter to Secretary Rice – one relating to the scope of military force used by Israel and the other relating to the issue of a cease-fire.

Scope of Military Force: My letter to Secretary Rice makes four things absolutely clear. First, that “Hezbollah precipitated the current crisis in the region.” Second, that “Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself.” Third, that “Israel is entirely justified in using the maximum force necessary to hit Hezbollah military targets.” And fourth, that “Hezbollah is undeniably the culprit” for the killings of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure, not only in Israel, but in Lebanon. My letter is absolutely clear that Hezbollah bears responsibility for all those losses. Moreover, I endorsed and supported that view when, on July 20, 2006, I voted for H. Res. 921 that “condemns Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including homes and mosques.” Obviously, when we are fighting a war of this nature there will be civilian deaths despite Israel’s best efforts to avoid them. Therefore, and I want to make this crystal clear, I have never suggested that Israel’s military actions are not justified. Nor have I suggested that anyone, except Hezbollah, was culpable in the loss of civilian lives and infrastructure in both Israel and Lebanon. For that reason, I have rejected the charge made by many that Israel has used disproportionate force in Lebanon. I intentionally did not use that phraseology in my letter because I believe the extent and level of force used have been justified.

The point I made in my letter is more narrow and practical. It does not have to do with whether the level and extent of force used by Israel is justifiable. It is. The issue I raised was whether the Bush Administration had an opportunity to help resolve the crisis at a moment when most of the world had turned against Hezbollah by, among other things, asking Israel to temporarily slow down parts of its justifiable military offensive. By all accounts there was a point in time when the majority of people in Lebanon, including Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, blamed Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into the conflict. At that juncture, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, as well as the Arab League, issued unprecedented denunciations of Hezbollah. I believe that was a moment when effective American diplomacy -- combined with the ongoing threat of Israeli military action -- could have politically isolated Hezbollah and made it easier to neutralize them and focus united international pressure on Syria and Iran.

I may be wrong about that. We will never know. What we do know is that at some point in time many Lebanese people opposed to Hezbollah concluded that they were becoming the victims of the war. The tide of public opinion has now turned. Hasan Nasrallah, the man who was seen as putting Lebanon at risk, has now been hailed in the Arab, and much of the Muslim world, as the protector of Lebanon. We must now work tirelessly to ensure that the end result of the current course of action is not a Hezbollah that wields even greater influence in the region.

The Cease Fire Issue: On this issue, I believe some ambiguity in my letter has created understandable confusion. I want to make it clear that I deliberately declined to co-sponsor the legislation (H. Con. Res. 450) introduced in the Congress calling upon the President to push for an immediate cease fire and commit U.S. diplomats to multi-party negotiations “with no preconditions.” As I stated in my letter, any such cease-fire must be accompanied by “the rapid deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon.” Moreover, the cease-fire I envisioned in the letter would allow Israeli forces to stay in place in southern Lebanon until the deployment of the international forces, a matter that is now a subject of debate at the United Nations. Obviously, it makes no sense for Israeli forces to withdraw only to have Hezbollah fill the void.

As I stated later in my letter, the international forces deployed in Lebanon must have a “strong mandate” and the “starting point should be the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for the dismantling of all independent militias in Lebanon.” I intentionally did not call for the deployment of United Nations forces. History, as well as the current crisis, has demonstrated their inability to prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel. In addition, I expressly raised reservations about the ability, and, increasingly, the willingness of the Lebanese army to confront Hezbollah and implement Resolution 1559. A viable and effective international force will be required to ensure that Hezbollah can no longer attack Israel.

I also believe that international forces should be deployed along the Lebanese-Syrian border to block the re-supply of rockets and other armaments from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. That must be a priority. As I stated in my letter, “The United States must do more to rally international efforts to pressure Syria and Iran to end their support for Hezbollah and Syria.” It was for that reason that I was an original co-sponsor of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. That legislation gave the Bush Administration a full array of tools to use to apply greater pressure on Syria. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has failed to exercise many of its authorities under that legislation. For that reason, on August 1, 2006 I joined with some of my colleagues in Congress in sending a letter to the President urging him to take tougher action.
Conclusion
As I stated at the outset, I remain resolute in my support for Israel. My letter to Secretary Rice was sent in the firm belief that policies of the Bush Administration in the Middle East and Southwest Asia have unfortunately failed to adequately address serious security challenges faced by the both the United States and Israel. I am sorry that my letter to the Secretary has caused misunderstandings. I hope this letter has addressed your concerns or, at the very least, distilled the points of disagreement. You may dispute certain policy conclusions that I reach, but I hope you won’t question my motivation. While we may disagree on certain points, we share the common goal of ensuring that the United States and Israel will prevail in the war on terror and in guaranteeing the long-term survival and vitality of the State of Israel.

Sincerely,

Chris Van Hollen
Member of Congress

I should also probably mention that Rep. Van Hollen made a trip to Israel in the wake of the recent war with Hezbollah. You can find out more about his thoughts about U.S.-Israel relations on his campaign website.

Perez Backs Simms

The Baltimore Sun reports that Perez announced his support for Stu Simms at an event in Montgomery County. The report also said that Simms has been trailing in the polls. Doug Gansler's campaign has been buoyed by support from the editorial boards of the Post and the Gazette. His spending advantage has allowed him to run television advertisements. See also this report in the Washington Post which says that Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight is now backing Gansler since Perez has been forced out by the recent court decision.

Owens Advertisement

Like so many of you, I've discovered YouTube. I've been watching YouTube clips on other people's blogs for sometime. I was amazed to discover how easy it is to embed these clips. I promise to try not to go overboard though I thought I'd put one up. However, as we discovered with Sen. George "Macaca" Allen, a reality-based YouTube can have a greater impact than a thousand campaign advertisements.

No on Signing Bonuses

Democrat Martin O'Malley has proposed paying school principals a signing bonus of $200,000 over four years in order to attract high quality principals to troubled schools.

I've generally been impressed by O'Malley's political moves but this one strikes me at first blush as a bad one from both a policy and a politics viewpoint. It would further expand the gap between administrators who are already relatively highly paid and the teachers in the trenches. Moreover, even the best principal cannot do much good if they have little latitude to operate and make changes without approval from the school district.

It is a bad political move because it smacks as a quick fix and a gimmick rather than a serious attempt to continue Maryland's work to improve the schools. It reminds me of Dan Snyder's repeated desperate hiring of new coaches for the Redskins at astronomical prices. Though I suppose the Redskins did make the playoffs last year for the first time in eons.

Maybe O'Malley can modify his idea to more broadly apply the stronger idea of incentives at the heart of the proposed initiative to pay signing bonuses to principals. Continuing to increase teacher pay will help spur the best people to enter into teaching and that our good teachers can afford to stay at it. We can also use incentives to attract teachers as well as administrators to schools which have had difficulties.

Of course, fixing the schools is going to require a lot more. And we can't afford to get a failing grade on this one.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Elections Board Asks to Keep Perez's Name on the Ballot

The State Board of Elections has filed a motion with the court to allow Tom Perez's name to remain on the ballot because it is impossible to prepare an entirely new ballot before the September 12th primary. The Board proposes placing prominent signs explaining that Perez is ineligible to serve and votes for him will not be counted.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

No More Than Eight

Montgomery County has steadily gained state legislative districts ever since the Supreme Court ruled that severe malapportionment among state legislative districts violated the federal Constitution in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims. It may surprise some to learn that this period of rapid growth in representation of the County in Annapolis is drawing to a close even as the County grows toward one million residents.

In 2000, Maryland had about 5.3 million residents so each of the state's 47 legislative districts would have had around 112,700 people if the districts were equally populated. Montgomery had 873,341 people according to the 2000 Census and was entitled to 7.75 districts. In the end, we received eight full districts. This was quite the redistricting coup since the eighth district could have instead straddled the county line with a subdistrict drawn so that the neighboring county would elect one of the three delegates.

As of 2005, the Census estimated Montgomery's population at 927,583 out of a total state population of just over 5.6 million. Montgomery's population suggests an allocation of 7.78 districts, still below the current eight. If Montgomery and the state continue to gain population at the same rate, the County will deserve around 7.82 districts in 2010. Consequently, Montgomery can hardly expect to receive a new district during the next redistricting round though it will be closer to meriting the eight it holds now.

However, relative population shifts are nevertheless happening within both the County and the state as a whole. Baltimore City received six complete districts in 2000 even though its population indicated an allocation of 5.78 districts. The 2005 population estimates suggest that it would now receive 5.34 districts. If the 200o to 2005 trends are repeated in the 2005 to 2010 period, Baltimore City would deserve only 4.89 districts and probably end up losing one of its current five districts.

Who will gain from Baltimore City's loss? Unlike in the past, it won't be Montgomery. (District 39 which is now located in Montgomery County moved here directly from Baltimore City after the 1990 Census which explains the out of sequence numbering of the County's eight districts.) Instead, the fast-growing exurbs will benefit. Frederick and Carroll Counties together will gain around one-half of one district. The other half will go to the southern Maryland counties of Charles, Calvert and St. Mary's. Most of these counties tilt Republican though Charles is becoming increasingly Democratic as the African-American share of its population is growing at a fast pace.

Within Montgomery, the districts with new developments will tend to shrink at the expense of districts growing at a slower pace. In the past, this has tended to mean that the Upcounty districts grow smaller. Montgomery politicians may find it harder to negotiate new district boundaries now that the pie is no longer growing. On the other hand, the failure to gain new districts may allow for relatively small boundary adjustments.

Someone Should Warn Kojo!

The Maryland Politics Hour on WAMU 88.5 will feature both District 20 senatorial candidates, incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben and challenger Prof. Jamin Raskin on Wednesday at noon. Hopefully, Ruben and Raskin will join Kojo Nnamdi by phone so he doesn't have to worry about getting any of the mud that has been flying in this campaign on himself or the microphone. I suppose one shouldn't criticize Raskin and Ruben too much. The District 20 campaign may be ugly but it sure isn't boring!

Del. Peter Franchot will also be on for good measure. I hope WAMU also invited the two other comptroller candidates, Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens and incumbent Comptroller William Donald Schaefer, even if they declined to participate. I really enjoy Kojo Nnamdi's show and really like his style. Kojo manages to be open and allow guests to say their piece without leaving the key questions unasked like syncophant Larry King. However, Kojo's show could sometimes do a better job making sure they have representatives from both sides of an issue or campaign.

Maryland Court Rulings Cause Serious Problems

I don't like the impact of the Friday's state court rulings. I favor early voting and think Perez should be on the ballot. However, the court has yet to release its opinions yet so I cannot judge their interpretation of our state constitution which is a rather long and ponderous document. My favorite article involves off-street parking in Baltimore City. One should point out that a majority of the judges on the Court of Appeals, our state supreme court, were appointed by Democrats so one should be careful not to label it a partisan machination by manipulative Republican judges. I don't know yet if the judges are being cramped in their interpretation of the constitution. However, they are certainly moving deep into the political thicket. The Court of Appeals voided portions of the state redistricting plan not so long ago.

The ruling on early voting causes very serious problems for Maryland's upcoming election. The first absentee ballots went out last week. Candidates have already mailed literature to absentee voters to solicit votes. I have been working for a candidate who mailed literature to one absentee voter in Vanuatu the other day. It is unclear how the state will deal with this problem. One idea is that they will allow people to submit another absentee ballot if they so choose. Others think they may need to remail all ballots because Perez voters may not hear of the decision and should have to take an active step to reclaim their vote. The state also needs to reprint all of the absentee ballots yet to go out and reprogram all of the state's voting machines. It is a mystery to me how they plan to accomplish this in a timely fashion.

Tom Perez was probably going to come in a respectable third in the primary for attorney general. I served as the moderator in the first attorney general debate and can assure you, however, that he was a serious candidate and certainly qualified by any reasonable measure. He teaches and has practiced law and is currently the Montgomery County Councilman from District 5 which has around 180,000-200,000 residents and has served as President of the Council of this County of nearly 1 million people.

He is one of the most important and promising Latino elected officials in the state. He also has a good sense of humor. When I checked on how to pronounce his name, I mentioned that I didn't want to confuse him with the former Israeli Prime Minister. Without missing a beat, he replied, "You mean cousin Shimon?" I bet he did just fine in the Jewish precincts of his district.

Amending the constitution to allow early voting or weaken the requirements to hold the office of attorney general requires a fair amount of consensus as it requires a three-fifths majority in both houses of the General Assembly before it goes before the voters. The initiative does not exist in Maryland though some laws can be petitioned to referendum, something that mercifully does not occur with great regularity. While we usually have a few relatively dull state constitutional and county charter amendments on the ballot, we do not have anything like the situation in California where voters confront pages of ballot initiatives. When abortion became a big issue in the 1970s, changes were made by booting out pro-life Democrats instead of through the initiative. We did get to vote on gun control directly once.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Cardin Kicking it Up a Notch

In a much earlier post, I chastized Rep. Ben Cardin's mysterious absence from the Washington metro area. I wondered how this Baltimore representative expected people in the Washington metro area to get to know him.

However, I think we can now safely say that the man, who has after all been in politics for forty years, has some idea what he is doing. His "Barbecues for Ben" successfully helped generate buzz for the candidate. He is running television advertisements which will continue until the primary. The bottom appears to have fallen out of the small support for Josh Rales since Cardin began running his advertisements.

Most impressively, his supporters were out in force door knocking around Montgomery today. I was knocking on doors for the District 18 slate in Woodside and ran into people who had already knocked on most of the precinct's doors for Cardin. When I arrived home about four miles away, I discovered that someone had knocked on my door while I was out. An enviable degree of organization in a county that, while receptive to Cardin, is hardly his home base.

Let's hope Cardin has the general election as methodically planned out. Lite Gov. Michael Steele is running very good advertisements that would make you think he is an independent reformer rather than a flip-flopping shill for Bush who has never won office in his own right. Cardin's commercials nicely emphasize issues and his experience but hardly break the mold. Click on the links in this paragraph to watch for yourself and see what I mean.

Passing of Pioneer Lena Lee

Former Del. Lena Lee, one of the first African-American women in the General Assembly, died at the age of 100 yesterday at her home in Baltimore City on Thursday. She founded the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus in 1970. Read about her life in the Baltimore Afro-American and the Baltimore Sun.

Leggett and Silverman Mix it Up

The leading candidates for Montgomery County Executive are starting to kick up a bit of sand as their competition for the Democratic nomination. As reported in the Washington Post, Steve Silverman has sent out flyers attacking the record of Ike Leggett, his opponent:

This week, Silverman sent out two new mailers targeting Leggett.

"Ike Leggett would support using state funds to pay for private-school textbooks and busing private-school students," one reads.
Another notes that Leggett voted against the Purple Line, a proposed light-rail link between Bethesda and New Carrollton. "Now he claims to support it," it reads.
"That's a mischaracterization," said Leggett, who faulted Silverman's tactics and said he was running a positive campaign.
Said Silverman: "Rather than defend his positions or statements, he is personally attacking me and my integrity, and it's unfortunate that a man of his distinction should turn around and personalize this campaign."
Leggett told an audience of private-school parents in May that he would consider using public money for private-school textbooks if it were constitutional. In recent weeks, he has said he would never support that. As for the Purple Line, he voted against a version of it as a council member in 2001 and 2002.

Leggett in turn claims that Silverman has been using push polls (see also the discussion in Free State Politics):

The candidates also sparred over a Silverman campaign poll. Leggett called it a "push poll," referring to a technique in which interviewers spread negative information about a candidate under the guise of conducting a poll. Silverman said his pollsters had simply been gathering research about issues.
"We tested out a variety of factual statements about Leggett's votes and positions. And by every definition of a push poll by pollsters, it's not a push poll," Silverman said.

I suppose it isn't very pretty but at least they are debating issues and tactics relevant to their campaign and not joining the list of candidates who are campaigining on issues that seem only distantly related to their responsibilities.

Post Chooses Franchot

The Washington metro area's two most influential papers have split in the comptroller's race. The Gazette went for Janet Owens, while the Washington Post has now endorsed Peter Franchot:

WILLIAM DONALD Schaefer, former mayor of Baltimore, former governor and Maryland's current comptroller, has been a colossus of Maryland politics for decades -- a refreshingly forthright public servant and a stand-up guy. His effectiveness in office and compassion for constituents earned him the affection and admiration of many Marylanders, which is exactly why so many of them have been disappointed by his obnoxious and embarrassing statements in recent years. We wish he had decided to retire with dignity at the age of 84 rather than seek reelection, for we cannot support him again.
His Democratic primary challengers are Del. Peter V.R. Franchot of Montgomery County and Janet S. Owens, the Anne Arundel county executive. Our choice is Mr. Franchot, whose occasionally strident partisanship is outweighed by his smarts and independent-mindedness, qualities that would make him a fine comptroller.
The comptroller is Maryland's chief tax collector and overseer of its multibillion-dollar pension fund. Just as important, the comptroller serves as one of three members (with the governor and state treasurer) of the Board of Public Works, a virtual mini-legislature charged with passing final judgment on practically every major contract let by the state.
As a member of the General Assembly's powerful Appropriations Committee and chairman of its transportation and environment subcommittee, Mr. Franchot, a 20-year veteran lawmaker, has exercised sound judgment. He has been a tough advocate for funding public education and an outspoken opponent of expanding slot machine gambling. It is safe to say that if Mr. Franchot is elected comptroller, he will exercise a salutary independence no matter who is governor. By contrast, we doubt that Mrs. Owens, though an able county executive, would add as much to the mix, particularly at the Board of Public Works.

A major boost for a campaign that has been flagging in the polls up until now. Two questions remain: (1) who will the Sun endorse? (2) will the support of the Post merely boost Franchot's vote total sufficiently to deny Owens a plurality and assure incumbent William Donald Schaefer renomination.

Friday, August 25, 2006

The Decision is Still Hot Off the Presses But. . .

. . . the pundits are already speculating on the impact of Tom Perez's forced withdrawal on the race for attorney general. There are two competing theories on this one.

(1) Like Tom Perez, Doug Gansler is also from Montgomery. All those Montgomery votes which would otherwise go to Perez will now go to hometown favorite and current State's Attorney Doug Gansler. Indeed, some might wonder if the lawsuit, filed by Montgomery School Board Member Stephen Abrams, was really intended to benefit Doug Gansler for this reason.

(2) Tom Perez was running as a strong progressive. His supporters cannot stand Doug Gansler, who is running as a tough prosecutor and also his geographic rival Perez's active supporters and his voters will now move to Simms and give him a valuable boost as he faces the more strongly funded Gansler candidacy.

The Baltimore Sun guardedly favors the idea that it will aid Gansler though they also give space to those who don't share this point of view. A commenter (Yockel) on my original post thinks it will aid Simms.

I also wonder what impact that Perez's absence will have on Latino turnout in the Democratic primary. He did a great job mobilizing Latinos in his successful run for the District 5 seat on the Montgomery County Council. His candidacy had the potential to mobilize Latinos, already stimulated by the marches on immigration, to again return to the polls in large numbers.

Perez Statement

Councilman Tom Perez issued an extremely gracious statement tonight after the Court of Appeals decision which threw him off the ballot and ended his candidacy for attorney general:

I am deeply disappointed by the ruling that was delivered today by the Maryland Court of Appeals. While I respect the rule of law, I strongly disagree with its assessment. It is indeed regrettable that the fate of my candidacy will be determined in a courtroom instead of at the polls. Although I disagree with the decision, the Court of Appeals makes the rules and I play by the rules.

While disappointed, I am humbled and grateful for the support that I have received across this great and beautiful state. Since announcing my candidacy last Spring, I have made friendships that will last a lifetime. I have developed a joyous appreciation for the aspirations, challenges and character that define the Maryland people. I will always cherish the experiences of the past year. Life is a chapter book, and I have cherished every chapter of my life. The past year is no exception.

I will take from this campaign a renewed commitment to the causes that I have fought for during this campaign and over the course of my career in public life. I will continue to fight for access to quality health care, the constitutional right to a quality education, preservation of our endangered natural resources, and protection of Maryland's embattled consumers from predatory forces. While the actions taken by the court today close the book on my campaign, my dedication to public service and progressive values remains stronger than ever.

On behalf of my family, I thank everyone who has uplifted this campaign with their support, guidance and best wishes. I would like to thank my staff, as well as those in the progressive movement who worked so hard on my behalf. I look forward to working to build a more progressive, inclusive Maryland, and will work harder than ever to elect Democrats such as Martin O'Malley, Anthony Brown and others who share my progressive vision for Maryland.

Like Councilman Perez, I accept the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, I cannot say I am happy with it either. I thought all three Democrats running for attorney general were well-qualified and deserved a chance to make their case to the voters. I met Councilman Perez for the first time when I moderated the first attorney general debate at Prince George's Community College. He struck me as an intelligent man whose genuine and obvious commitment to fighting for his beliefs you had to respect.

Perez is a talented candidate and a real asset to the Democratic Party. I write this not as a political epitaph but in the full expectation that we will see more of him in the future.

Perez Thrown Off the Ballot

The Court of Appeals has been very busy today. According to the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, they have thrown Montgomery Councilman Tom Perez off the ballot because he does not meet the constitutional requirements to run for the office because he has not practiced law in Maryland for ten years. Councilman Perez's campaign website is now down except for a short note saying that a statement will be forthcoming shortly.

Early Voting Law Rejected

The Court of Appeals has just issued a decision rejecting the state's early voting law according to the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post. I am curious to learn why the early voting law violates our state's constitution but not those of so many other states. Or perhaps it is something which can be fixed by modifying the original legislation. The Court has not yet released its opinion so this is unclear. If they uphold the lower court's ruling that elections must be held on one day, I don't see how absentee voting is legal. Hopefully, the Court's opinion will clarify their reasoning on all of these questions.

In any case, I don't buy the Republican claim that early voting inherently promotes fraud. If anything, one would think that reducing the lines on Election Day would make it easier to accurately check the registration of individuals and prevent problems. One doesn't have to be overly partisan to suspect that their real fear is that a high turnout would work to the disadvantage of their party. Of course, the Democrats think a high turnout will aid them too but they at least have the moral argument in favor of strengthening our democracy by encouraging participation on their side.

If it is constitutional issue, we should consider changing the Maryland Constitution to allow early voting, a practice which is now common in a majority of our sister states.

Delegate Candidates in the Mail and on the Hustings in District 18

The eight candidates for the three delegate seats in District 18 have been stepping up their pursuit of voters in advance of the September 12th primary:

Kensington Councilman Al Carr held a press conference this morning at the Kensington MARC station to promote improvements to the system.

Meanwhile, Jeff Waldstreicher is pelting me with mail. I received not one but two flyers from him yesterday. One outlines his position on global warming (he's against it). The other links his impressive list of endorsements with his issue positions (for paying teachers more, against traffic, for choice on abortion, against pollution, for a minimum wage of $9.25, against foreign oil dependence) and shows pictures of Jeff listening and talking to people.

I received a copy of Jim Browning's introductory flyer yesterday though I've heard others have just gotten one touting his strong pro-Purple Line stance. It also touts his past work for Common Cause and features pictures of James with wife and James with wife and baby. Browning has also sent out a short press release about his endorsement by Clean Water Action and Montgomery NOW.

Earlier this week, I received my first flyer from Dana Beyer which links her advocacy of universal health care with her past work as a physician both in practice and as a volunteer in places including Mississippi and Africa. No baby photos but there is a shot of Dr. Beyer with her two adult sons.

Dan Farrington's latest campaign update boasts that "Team Farrington" has knocked on the doors of more than 20,000 voters--quite impressive since that is substantially more than one can expect to vote in the September 12th primary. Dan's email also says that he has twice as many unique contributors than his nearest opponent.

No news this week from Noah Grosfeld-Katz.

I am volunteering for the District 18 slate which includes Ana Sol Gutierrez and Jane Lawton, who are also candidates for delegate, as well as Rich Madaleno, who is unopposed for the nomination for the senate seat. They are planning a door-knocking blitz this Saturday and are meeting up at 9:30AM at Kirsten's Cafe on Georgia Ave near Seminary Rd.

Pardon Me

The Washington Post ran an extremely complimentary piece on how Gov. Robert Ehrlich has bravely used his power to pardon more people as governor than his predecessors. Indeed, this news item practically elides into an editorial in its one-sided presentation, even including a compliment of Ehrlich by Tom Perez, a Democratic candidate for attorney general.

Perhaps the Democrats should start researching what the people Ehrlich has let out of jail have been up to in their new capacity as productive members of society. After all, this tactic has worked rather well for Republicans in the past.

Post Endorses Gansler

Doug Gansler got a double boost in bid for attorney general as the Washington Post not only ran a profile of him but endorsed him. Here is what they said:

The best of three Democratic candidates seeking the job in the Sept. 12 primary is Douglas F. Gansler , an experienced prosecutor whose vigor, vision and savvy make him well suited to the job.

Mr. Gansler, a former federal prosecutor and for the past eight years the state's attorney in Montgomery County, has irritated plenty of people in Maryland by his unabashed ambition for higher office and sometimes unseemly zeal for the limelight. His reprimand by the state Court of Appeals in 2003 for unguarded public statements led some to question his character. But if ambition and an appetite for publicity were disqualifying traits in politicians, the halls of government would be empty. In Mr. Gansler's case, the bottom line is that whatever his foibles and occasional lapses in judgment, his performance in office has been strong.
He inherited a solid prosecutorial office in Rockville but strengthened it by directing resources to targeting gangs, Internet crime and crimes against the elderly. He insisted on prosecuting sniper John Allen Muhammad despite the imposition of a death sentence in Virginia. Mr. Gansler drew flak for that decision, but it was the right one: Six people were shot to death in Montgomery County in the series of killings by Mr. Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, and Mr. Malvo's testimony at trial provided new revelations. Those two facts justified Mr. Gansler's stance.
In addition to his solid credentials as a prosecutor, Mr. Gansler, who has coveted the attorney general's office for at least five years, has developed a thoughtful, sophisticated agenda for the state's top law job. He seems particularly determined to clean up the Chesapeake Bay by going after agribusiness polluters, even those out of state, by using state and federal tools that he contends are underused. His sense of urgency will replace what has often seemed to be the state's complacent approach to the bay.
Moreover, Mr. Gansler has sensible ideas about stepping up prosecutions against gangs, possibly by the passage of a state racketeering statute, and about cracking down on Internet sexual predators.
Mr. Gansler's two Democratic primary opponents are Tom Perez, a Montgomery County Council member, and Stuart O. Simms, the former state's attorney in Baltimore. Mr.
Perez is a lawyer of uncommon idealism and integrity. But on occasion he has let his passion for liberal causes outstrip his judgment, for instance, by pushing for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada -- an action deemed illegal by the federal government. Mr. Simms is a solid, substantive candidate with a commendable record of public service, but he is no match for Mr. Gansler when it comes to energy and forward-thinking resolve.

Now, if Gansler could somehow get the endorsement of the Baltimore Sun, he might have this race locked up. However, I'm told that the Sun has a penchant for endorsing Baltimore-based candidates over ones from far off places like Chevy Chase, Gansler's home.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Growth Slowing on Its Own?

Candidates for public office in Montgomery are attacking growth and its associated ills with the fervor of a preacher at a revival meeting. However, development may be slowing already due to economic forces. In the past few days, we have learned that the number of unsold homes is reaching its highest level in more than a decade, though we still need more details on Montgomery's market to draw firm local conclusions.

However, there is certainly some evidence that the slowdown has reached Montgomery. Canyon Ranch is considering shelving a major new development near Old Georgetown Square where 270 and the Beltway meet. One also cannot help but notice that some construction projects are moving along very slowly. Another year has passed and the plush Adagio condominium development on Wisconsin Ave. next to Staples in Bethesda remains a giant hole in the ground.

Still, other projects proceed apace. The old Giant ("That was my Giant!") on Arlington Road has finally been demolished and Federal Realty is moving ahead with its construction of a new condo/retail project in the heart of Bethesda. Similarly, the building at the corner of Woodmont Ave. and Old Georgetown Rd. in Bethesda has been razed and construction of the new posh and pricey Lions Gate condo complex moves along. However, in a market where prices are falling, will people really pay upwards of $1.2 million for condos which will overlook a noisy intersection that can sound like Indianapolis 500 even if you can walk to Metro?

Of course, one should note that the Bethesda projects are all "smart growth" type projects since they are infill in an areas of the County close to Metro and public transport. Unless one opposes all new growth until the County's infrastructure expands, these are the sort of new projects I suppose one would tend to favor even though they will provide lots of what will be unaffordable housing to most people.

The question remains, however, whether Montgomery will elect a slate of anti-growth candidates just as the economic boom grinds to a halt.

Franchot's Advertisement

I'm all for a woman's right to choose but I wish "Real Democrat" Peter Franchot's new advertisement were longer so he could explain why it is important that we have a pro-choice comptroller. Surely, he could also have come up with a better cite for the attack on Janet Owens as the "Queen of Sprawl" other than "constituents" say she is. That's like saying Bush did a bang up job on Katrina because he found one person who will say so.

However, unlike abortion, Franchot righly raises the issue of sprawl as the comptroller has a voice in decisions which affect growth. I recall Gov. Glendenning and Comptroller Schaefer getting in a spat over whether Brookville should have a by-pass so all the Georgia Ave. traffic doesn't pass through this small Montgomery town. For what it is worth, Janet Owens is pro-choice. Indeed, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland "proudly endorses" Owens for comptroller.

The fact that Franchot is running advertsiements suggests that he actually is willing to spend the money he loaned his campaign and that it is not merely a set-up job to inflate his campaign finance report even if Franchot neglected to mention the loan in the press release touting his fundraising. Perhaps we'll know more when the next campaign finance reports are released.

Ike and Steve on Kojo at Noon Today

Kojo Nnamdi will interview Ike Leggett and Steve Silverman, the two major candidates for Montgomery County Executive, during the noon hour on WAMU 88.5.

The Two Faces of George

I spoke too soon. Virginia Sen. George "Macaca" Allen has invented a new version of the non-apology apology in which the candidate apologizes profusely but his campaign manager continues to blame the "nattering nabobs of negativism" as former Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew once said. Even though Allen called S.R. Siddarth personally to apologize, his campaign went on the offensive to claim the victim mantle for their candidate. Once again, the Washington Post has a beaut of an editorial:

The senator's gesture was apt, but it hardly seemed sincere. Even as he apologized, his campaign continued its two-faced strategy of simultaneously scoffing at the entire incident as what Dick Wadhams, Mr. Allen's campaign manager, has said is a contrivance. To Mr. Wadhams, politics means never having to say you're sorry.
Mr. Wadhams, an itinerant political hit man known for his nasty attacks on opponents, told Republican leaders in a memo sent over the weekend that the Webb campaign and the media had ganged up "to create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the first place."
He continued: "Never in modern times has a statewide office holder and candidate been so vilified." In other words, Mr. Allen is the victim -- not the 20-year-old student whom he mocked with an insulting, possibly racist slur in front of scores of chortling supporters and demeaned by saying, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!"
Unlike Mr. Allen, whose contrition has become increasingly abject over time, Mr. Wadhams has been consistent. His first pronouncement to journalists, a week and a half ago, was to refer to the "macaca" story with a barnyard epithet and insist that the senator had nothing to apologize for. He has stuck with that assessment.
With Mr. Allen plummeting in the polls and his reelection prospects now in doubt, he and Mr. Wadhams are in damage-control mode. They have dropped their far-fetched insistence that the word "macaca" referred to Mr. Sidarth's hairstyle. But they ought to get their stories straight. Is the Allen campaign really sorry? Or are the senator's adversaries just making a mountain out of "macaca"?

So what will Sen. Allen do next? Will he rebuke his campaign manager? Sen. Allen has learned a hard lesson from this incident: you can run but with YouTube you just can't hide. Oh, and welcome to Virginia senator, where these sorts of comments just don't play anymore.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Meanwhile Across the Potomac

I realize that it is outside the normal purview of Maryland Politics Watch but I couldn't resist noting that Virginia Sen. George "Macaca" Allen is now doing a full Swaggart according to the Washington Post.

No more of the famous Washington non-apologies which always take the formula of "If I have done something wrong, then I am sorry." No admission of guilt. No real contrition. But still more than President Bush can bring himself to say.

Seeing his poll numbers tumble to the 40s and just a few points ahead of his challenger, Democrat Jim Webb, seems to have moved Allen along to a more fullsome apology. The Washington Post deserves some credit on this one both for their delicious editorial as well as not letting the story fade into the background. Which seems fitting because that is, after all, exactly what Allen did to college student and Webb volunteer S.R. Sidarth.

Wednesday News Roundup

Endorsements
Former Gov. Glendenning has endorsed former Rep. Kweisi Mfume for the Senate.

The Gazette has endorsed John McCarthy for State's Attorney. In school board race, the Gazette picked Shirley Brandman for the at-large seat, Judith Docca for the District 1 seat, Patricia O'Neill for the District 3 seat, and Nancy Navarro for the District 5 seat.

Profiles
The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun have both profiled Montgomery Councilman Tom Perez, candidate for Attorney General.

The Gazette profiles both John McCarthy and Daniel Fox, candidates for State's Attorney.

The Gazette also sizes up the race for Montgomery County Executive.

Running Advertisements
Michael Steele has some excellent new advertisements that tout him as a "different type of senator." He is now trying to spin his constantly changing relationship with President Bush as the mark of someone who criticizes what is wrong in both parties. Don't believe it but watch it here to see why Democrats better take Steele's challenge very seriously. He is much better scripted than when he is front of an audience.

Comprtroller Candidates Peter Franchot and Janet Owens are also cranking up the ad machine.

More on District 18 Debate

You've had my take on the big debate. Now, get the view from the Gazette.

Silverman Running on the Purple Line

Steve Silverman's campaign for Montgomery county executive has the dubious distinction of having replaced Virginia Sen. George "Macaca" Allen on the front page of the Washington Post today. The paper that broke Watergate has now uncovered the shocking news that Silverman has received money from developers. As "developer" is a word loathed even more than "macaca" in Montgomery County these days due to snarling traffic and development scandals, this story isn't exactly one the Silverman campaign would have drafted. Silverman's opponent, Ike Leggett, also received developer money but not nearly as much.

Silverman is working hard to distance himself from the developer taint with campaign mailings that are among the best designed I've seen this year. The first one announced "Steve Silverman's plan to limit and manage growth and protect open space." Apparently, Silverman is using all that developer money to write brochures attacking developers because this one says that Silverman will fight to make sure that "developers pay their fair share" and promises to protect the agricultural reserve while building the Purple Line. I loved Silverman's second mass mailing because I've always been a sucker for maps of the Metro system. This one contrasts Silverman staunch pro-Purple Line position with supposed waffling on the part of Leggett, who dithered on the issue in the past but now says he is a supporter.

The brochure I received from Leggett highlights his impressive biography and experience. It also promises to "slow the pace of growth by fighting the special interests that want to clog our communities" and somehow produce "safer, less congested roads through support of common sense transportation solutions that always take into account community concerns." No direct mention of the Purple Line (or other specifics) though one could read that last sentence to read that he favors a below grade, less intrusive version of the Purple Line. No wonder Chevy Chase, which borders the proposed route for the Purple Line, is a forest of Leggett signs but I haven't yet seen one for Silverman there.

I am not sure Silverman is wise to tie his campaign so closely to traffic relief and the Purple Line. First, no candidate is going to "solve" traffic. People are going to be "tired of sitting in traffic" four years from now too. If Silverman is seeking reelection in 2010, his opponents are going to have a lot of fun with that slogan from this campaign.

Second, Montgomery's major traffic bottleneck is arguably caused by people heading from the Rockville-Gaithersburg area to the Dulles corridor (and then home again in the evening). The Purple Line will do nothing about this problem since it doesn't provide a new bridge over the Potomac. New Carrollton and Prince George's are in the other direction.

Third, Silverman is tying his future to a project over which his control is limited because the bulk of the money will have to come from state and federal funds. Even a county as large as Montgomery cannot pay for more than a fraction of Purple Line construction costs. The state is already committed to spending a bundle in Montgomery to build the ICC. Both Ehrlich and O'Malley claim favor the Purple Line though Ehrlich is a recent convert. However, one suspects that building Baltimore's Red Line would take priority for these two Baltimoreans.

When I spoke with Silverman at an event, he convincingly argued that the Purple Line is more likely to be built if the County Exec is strongly behind it. Still, there is a big difference between stating "I will see that it [the Purple Line] gets built" and "I will fight to build the Purple Line." Guess which his campaign literature says? Silverman should be more careful; he could get stuck spending his weekends laying track himself if the state doesn't come through.

Fourth, speaking of Red Lines, the existing Metro system is likely to gobble up state and federal dollars. Powerful Fairfax Rep. Tom Davis has proposed to give $1.5 billion to Metro if each of the region's three juridsdictions will create a dedicated funding source for Metro. Maryland would be foolish to leave this money on the table, especially when funds are desperately needed to fix escalators and buy more cars for the Red Line. If we don't get the federal money, Metro may need the money even more.

Of course, if Montgomery cannot get money for the Purple Line, this whole debate may be moot and we should all probably vote based on other issues or even which candidate we like or trust more. In truth, despite the magnification of differences between Silverman and Leggett, these two experienced candidates differ only by degrees.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

AG and Comptroller News Roundup

The candidates for attorney general debated again last night just in time for the Sun to release a profile of Doug Gansler. The Post recently did its profiles of two candidates for comptroller, Peter Franchot and incumbent William Donald Schaefer. Peter Franchot's campaign has not responded to my inquiry made via his website as to whether he really plans to spend all that money he loaned his campaign while Janet Owens did respond to an question by a commenter on this blog about her stand on abortion (she says she is pro-choice).

Monday, August 21, 2006

Record Number of Gay Candidates for the Legislature

The Washington Blade reports that there is a record number of gay, lesbian, and transgender candidates for the Maryland General Assembly. Three won election in 2002. Del. Rich Madeleno is certain to become the first openly gay senator as he is unopposed for the Democratic nomination in a overwhelmingly Democratic district. Baltimore City Del. Maggie McIntosh and Montgomery Del. Anne Kaiser are locks for reelection. Del. McIntosh formerly served as House Majority Leader is currently Chair of the Environmental Matters Committee. Del. Kaiser is on the Ways and Means Committee.

Candidates seeking to win election for the first time include:

Openly gay challengers include pastor and radio commentator Anthony McCarthy in District 44 (Baltimore), former Takoma Park Councilmember Heather Mizeur in District 20 (Montgomery County), restaurateur Tim Quinn in District 37 (Dorchester and Wicomico counties), and business professional Mary Washington in District 43 (Baltimore).

Dana Beyer, a retired doctor who is transgender, is running for Madaleno’s open House seat in District 18 (Montgomery County).

Having members in both bodies will likely prove invaluable as the Maryland General Assembly takes up gay and lesbian rights issues, including fallout from the forthcoming decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, on whether the state's constitution requires that the state allow gay marriage.

Certain districts appear especially gay friendly. Beyer is running in the same district as Madaleno (District 18); Washington is running in the same district as McIntosh (District 43). Mizeur is running in lesbian-friendly Takoma Park. On the other hand, Tim Quinn will probably find winning on the Eastern Shore especially tough for a gay candidate.

Washington or McCarthy would be Maryland's first openly gay or lesbian African-American delegates if they gain election. Except in Quinn's Eastern Shore district, the Democratic primary will likely be decisive so watch how they do on September 12th.

Legally Circumventing Campaign Finance Law

The Baltimore Sun outlines how easy it is to circumvent Maryland's campaign finance laws:

Maryland campaign finance laws say donors may not give more than $4,000 to a candidate for state office and cannot donate more than $10,000 overall to state candidates during a four-year election cycle. The limits are designed to ensure that a small group of wealthy contributors do not unduly influence the outcome of a race.

But those limits, albeit legally, are being circumvented in several ways. Donors, particularly to Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and his Democratic opponent, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, are giving through multiple companies or to state and federal campaign accounts controlled by state parties that then shift the money back to candidates.

Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the system. I'm not quite sure how one would fix the system. The people usually don't seem very keen to pay for campaigns out of the public kitty even though public financing is a favored idea of reformers. I'm also not sure if it would be legal to ban transfers from federal accounts. One danger with limiting donations further is that candidates spend even more time raising money and the system becomes even more skewed to incumbents who are able to gather cash from many sources.

I don't worry too much in a gubernatorial campaign like this one where both sides are well-funded. While more money is always nice, the impact of more spending declines after a certain point. However, challengers like O'Malley must be able to reach a certain level of spending in order to be competitive. Even if O'Malley ends up outspent by Ehrlich, he will still have plenty of money to run a competitive campaign.

Reformers will still worry that both candidates end up politically indebted to various interest groups even if more optimistic observers think that interest groups simply give to their preferered candidates. Of course, it is difficult to avoid the appearance of impropriety even if nothing improper occurs. It is hard to differentiate between an official taking a position because of donations and an official receiving donations because of their position.

Post Endorses Cardin

The Washington Post has endorsed Baltimore Rep. Ben Cardin for Maryland's open Senate seat. However, they have kind words for former Baltimore Rep. Kweisi Mfume even if they prefer Cardin:

First, a word about Mr. Mfume, an electrifying orator and impressive leader with an inspirational life story. Born into a tough neighborhood in Baltimore and in trouble with the law as a youth, he rose to become a community leader, making his mark in the Baltimore City Council before being elected to Congress in 1986, the same year as Mr. Cardin. After service in the House, where he delivered for his Baltimore district, Mr. Mfume left Congress to become the NAACP's executive director, resigning last year to run for the Senate.
Despite Mr. Mfume's generally liberal orthodoxy -- he is an opponent of free trade and job outsourcing -- he has not always been beholden to that wing of his party. He sided with President Clinton on welfare reform and, as director of the NAACP, warned Democrats not to take African American voters for granted. In the current campaign, he has attacked Maryland's Democratic leadership for embracing Mr. Cardin without giving him a fair hearing.
Yet, Mr. Mfume is not Mr. Cardin's equal as a legislator.
Once the boy wonder of Maryland politics, Mr. Cardin has 40 years of legislative experience to his credit, including a stint as one of the youngest-ever and best speakers of the state House of Delegates. In Congress he has forged strategic alliances with key Republicans, thereby breaking from the pack of Democrats who have struggled in an era of GOP dominance to make a mark; he has thus been able to craft important bills to enhance the financial security of retirees and streamline the Internal Revenue Service.
On those measures, his partnership with former representative Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican who is now the White House budget chief, is a textbook lesson in how a minority-party lawmaker can wield influence.
The rap on Mr. Cardin is that he is a legislator's legislator -- a quiet, colorless insider who embodies the system but is ill-equipped to shake it up. In fact, a hallmark of Mr. Cardin's legislative record is tough-minded independence. He was one of a minority of Democrats to vote against the war in Iraq, though once troops were on the ground he acted responsibly by supporting bills to fund and equip them. He broke with many Democrats and labor unions to back the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the same time he has stood against the Bush administration's fiscal recklessness, opposing estate tax cuts for the rich.
Mr. Cardin is a recognized expert on health care, tax and trade policy, and his tough-minded, sensible record has made him one of the House's most respected members on both sides of the aisle.
Both candidates favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, though neither offers a convincing explanation for how that would improve the situation there. The early efforts by Mr. Mfume and other Democrats in the race to portray Mr. Cardin as somehow hawkish on Iraq fell short, given his vote against authorizing the war.

In short, the Post prefers Cardin's positions on trade policy and just thinks he is more likely to rack up accomplishments in the Senate. They also rightly debunk the idea that Cardin, a solid liberal Democrat, is some sort of closet conservative.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The Central Committee

On September 12th, Democrats and Republicans will not just nominate candidates for elected office, they will also elect their party's central committees. In the minds of those of us who were around before the demise of the USSR, the term "central committee" evokes sinister behind-the-scenes Communist politics. In Maryland, the central committees are the much more mundane governing bodies of the party. No one has the right to send anyone off to Siberia, or even Delaware, but the central committee provides structure and organization for the party.

Although they are unknown to most people, central committees become very powerful when a state legislator steps down before the end of their term. While many states hold special elections to fill vacancies, Maryland allows the central committee of the party of the official who is being replaced to choose the new legislator. As a result, the Democratic Central Committee members are far more important in Montgomery and Prince George's than their Republican counterparts. There are almost no Republican officials in Montgomery or Prince George's so the Republican Central Committee almost never gets to fill a vacancy.

Vacancies occur with some degree of regularity. For example, Del. Susan Lee of District 16 and Del. Jane Lawton of District 18 both became delegates between elections after their election by the Democratic Central Committee. The Central Committees in both Montgomery and Prince George's can expect to fill vacancies over the next four years due to the large size of the state legislative delegations in both counties.

One of the first vacancies in the new legislature could occur in District 16. Del. Marilyn Goldwater is currently ill. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that she will win reelection despite the presence of two challengers in the district. In 1980, the voters of Prince George's County paid tribute to Rep. Gladys Noon Spelman by reelecting her even though she was in a coma. Voters are reluctant to fire legislators they respect even if they suffer from health problems.

Moreover, Del. Goldwater has a long record of outstanding service stretching back to the 1970s, is well-known in the area, and is part of the District 16 Democratic slate. In short, she would normally be a lock for reelection. Assuming that Del. Goldwater wins reelection this year, one can nevertheless imagine that she might choose to retire sometime during the next session.

If Del. Goldwater steps down before the end of her next term in 2010, then District 16 will have two delegates who were originally selected by the central committee. Del. Lee, also an excellent delegate in my opinion, was returned to office by the voters in 2002. Her status as an incumbent and as part of the District 16 slate surely aided her reelection bid a great deal.

Just another example of how relatively obscure rules can play an important role in who represents you.

Sunday News Roundup

The Washington Post endorsed Rushern Baker over incumbent Jack Johnson for Prince George's County Executive:

JACK B. JOHNSON, the Prince George's county executive, who is running for a second four-year term, is a tireless campaigner and a nimble politician; he is much less interested in governing. That's too bad, because he leads an enormous, diverse county whose vast potential is imperiled by the double-edged threat of poor schools and pervasive crime. Yet despite those challenges, his ambitions and achievements over four years in office have been strikingly modest.

However, I suspect that the Post's writ runs less strongly in Prince George's than it does in Montgomery so I am not sure how badly injured Johnson is by the endorsement which can be portrayed, correctly, as that of the white establishment.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Ike Leggett and Steve Silverman are beginning to take the gloves off in their race for Montgomery County Executive. In a rather tired story, they report the standard tropes of this campaign: that Silverman is beholden to developers and Leggett is a flip-flopper.

However, another Washington Post story nicely shows why Gov. Bob Ehrlich's attacks on the state of Baltimore City's schools under Mayor Martin O'Malley is bound to fail. O'Malley can always respond by referring to his strong support from Maryland's teachers. Indeed, Baltimore's teachers seem to view Ehrlich's attack on their schools as an attack on them. The Ehrlich's administration's attack on school funding early in his term, which he began to reverse far from coincidentally just as this year's election approached, make him a far from credible education governor.

Finally, the Washington Post reports that, like Montgomery's candidates for county executive, Ehrlich is being forced to deal with questions about affordable housing and the cost of growth. One cannot help but wonder if we will elect a bunch of anti-growth officials just in time for growth to grind to a halt, as it did in Fairfax after the election of Audrey Moore.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun reports that Ehrlich is still chasing slots for Maryland, his pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow:

"I anticipate a school construction budget that will create 21st- century places of learning with the resources necessary to reach every student in the state and a funding source that will pay for it that will pass next year," he said.

A top administration official confirmed that the governor was referring to slots.

Of course, slots only highlights Ehrlich's incompetence as governor. Maryland's governor is arguably the most powerful in the nation. Ehrlich had a strong ally in Senate President Mike Miller. Yet, Ehrlich couldn't get the deal done. At the same time, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner could arrange a tax increase to pay for education with the implacably anti-tax Republican legislature of the Old Dominion even though Virginia's governor is much weaker. And we seemed to have managed without the money.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Which is My District?

Trying to figure out which is your legislative district? Maybe this map will help. You can also enter your address at this link and find out your current elected officials as well as congressional and state legislative districts. All of Montgomery's eight state legislative districts elect one senator and three delegates. None of the districts are shared with another county.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Lichtman and Rales Undaunted, Cardin on the Air

The Baltimore Sun follows U.S. Senate candidates Allan Lichtman and Josh Rales on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, frontrunner Ben Cardin has launched his first round of advertisements in the Washington metro area highlighting his long experience in the Maryland House of Delegates and the U.S. House.

Skeptical Voters in District 20

Free State Politics has some letters from District 20 residents who don't think much of incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben but also are deeply skeptical of challenger Jamie Raskin. Check it out.

I heard a rumor that the polls show Ruben up by 10 against Raskin. Not much of a lead for the incumbent and races like this are hard to poll. However, I know that Ruben will take a victory no matter how small. On the other hand, it belies the impressions of some progressives who are expecting a Raskin juggernaut to sweep Ruben aside. I suspect District 20 voters will need some R&R from Ruben and Raskin by September 12th.

Gazette Picks Cardin, Owens and Gansler

The Gazette has endorsed Ben Cardin for the Senate, Janet Owens for Comptroller and Doug Gansler for Attorney General. Cardin gets plaudits for being a workhouse, not a showhorse, who has remained focused on Maryland. The Gazette compliments Kweisi Mfume for his rise from "tough beginnings" but criticized for having too much of a national focus.

The Gazette dissed both incumbent Comptroller William Donald Schaefer, who is characterized as "embarrassing", and Montgomery Del. Peter Franchot, who is described as a "gadfly" who would use the office to showboat rather than focus on the duties of the office. Owens wins the nod because of her executive experience and "independent and sensible" approach to money management.

In contrast, the editorial board of the Gazette plumps for the local boy in the race for attorney general, describing him as having an impressive record of accomplishment as Montgomery State's Attorney despite a tendency towards grandstanding. In contrast, they view Councilman Tom Perez as having an undistinguished record as a councilman and former Baltimore State's Attorney Stuart Simms as not having his heart in the race due to his first having sought the office of lieutenant governor on Doug Duncan's ticket.

The consistent thread in the Gazette's endorsements is that they selected the more moderate candidate. Gansler is running as an aggressive prosecutor. Owens is clearly more conservative than Franchot though she hasn't gone over to the other side like Schaefer. Cardin is a liberal by any rational measure but less left-wing than Mfume.

Oh, the Gazette also went out on a limb and endorsed Chris Van Hollen over gadfly Deborah Vollmer and Al Wynn for reelection over more serious challenger Donna Edwards. Edwards is doing what a good challenger does: press the incumbent hard to defend his record in Congress. Since the general election will undoubtedly be a cakewalk, it's great that the voters will have a real choice in the primary.

Politics in Prince George's is played a higher division than in Montgomery. However, while I always knew that politics was a blood sport in Prince George's, I didn't mean it literally until I heard about the post-debate fight after the Wynn-Edwards debate in Largo.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

District 18 Delegate Candidates Debate

A large crowd filled the Kensington Armory to hear from the Democratic candidates for delegate. Rep. Chris Van Hollen and outgoing state Sen. Sharon Grosfeld warmed up the crowd and gave very warm endorsements of Rich Madaleno, their successor in the District 18 Senate seat. If this was less of a Democratic and more of a religious event, I would have called it a laying on of hands.

Before giving my impressions of the debate I should mention once again that I am volunteering for the District 18 slate which includes incumbents Jane Lawton and Ana Sol Gutiérrez as well as Madaleno. However, I still have one vote up in the air and was curious to see the candidates. Overall, I was impressed. I tend to admire people who are willing to put themselves out there and run for public office; it is a lot tougher than people realize. Having said that, here is my snap review.

Dana Beyer has a disarming frankness and willingness to make tough choices which attracted support. For example, she admitted that her preferred route for the Purple Line will never happen so she'll support the Purple Line on the Crescent Trail. A breath of fresh air since the candidates agreed on most of the issues.

James Browning is an engaging candidate who cares passionately about campaign finance reform. Perhaps too much. He really jumped the shark on campaign finance (and even said as much himself!) when he responded to a question about gay marriage with further discussion of campaign finance. However, he could attract a lot of support if he could bring that level of passion and knowledge to a broader range of issues.

Al Carr seemed a bit nervous at times but this somehow helped convey a level of sincerity and trust which worked to his advantage of this experienced Kensington Councilman. I liked that he named of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. as the person he admires most in an era when King has become unfashionable in many circles even though we desperately need more politicians who want to raise us up to live up to American values rather than put others down.

Dan Farrington has the voice and demeanor of a newscaster and is straight from central casting for the part of delegate. As in the movies, he appeared a tad scripted, an impression accentuated by his clear surprise when asked which politician he admired most (Bill Clinton as it turns out). However, this is carping around the edges at a candidate who presents himself extremely well and seemed more relaxed and likeable in the post-debate mingling around the Armory. The other candidates should watch out.

Noah Grosfeld-Katz came across as more mature than his years even if many probably wondered if he was still a bit young for the job. The debate format suited him as he across as more relaxed than on the campaign trail. He was forthright, thoughtful, clear and even funny in his opinions. I loved it when he said he was the only geeky politico who had written a paper on same-sex marriage in high school--and then admitted he had gotten a mediocre grade for his efforts! He clearly has his mother's passion for politics and did the politician he admires most proud as he handled the questions with aplomb.

Ana Sol Gutiérrez knew exactly what she was doing at this event. She reminded voters of her experience and efforts in Annapolis without getting bogged down in the duller details of legislation. As she shamelessly ran over the time limits, she looked directly at the voters and forged a personal connection with her audience that I could only admire and made me feel that I was in the presence of politician not to be underestimated.

Jane Lawton retains engaging southern charm despite many decades of living in Washington which serves her well. Lawton effectively used her short incumbency and her years of involvement in politics to communicate a high level of experience. She was particularly strong in relating her answers to those of other candidates and on the environment, her committee in the House of Delegates. Her story of how she came to Washington to work in politics personalized her campaign and showed she retains a passion for politics.

Jeff Waldstreicher did not come across as a natural politician which accented how much he clearly wants this job and is working hard to get it. He has a diehard band of supporters as demonstrated by the bunch wearing Waldstreicher t-shirts. Waldstreicher repeatedly emphasized his roots in Montgomery County and his fervent support for education, including proudly wearing of his apple of endorsement from the teachers (MCEA). I can't say I blame him as that support is gold for a new candidate.

I'd be curious to know what anyone else thought. Anyone decide their vote after watching or been impressed by anyone in particular on the campaign trail?

Quieter in Districts 14 and 39

I've been so busy writing about the battle for the District 20 senate seat that I haven't had a chance to finish my roundup of the state legislative races. District 14 is relatively quiet but a challenger is mounting a strong bid for a delegate seat in District 39.

District 14 (Northeast Montgomery). This large district stretches from Burtonsville in southeastern Montgomery to Damascus in Montgomery's northern extremity. Prior to the 2002 redistricting, District 14 was primarily in Howard County but population growth in Montgomery led to its shift into Montgomery. While less Democratic than the Democratic bastions of Districts 18 or 20, District 14 was around a 60-40 Democratic district in the 2002 state legislative elections. District 14 is 19 percent black and 11 percent Asian.

Incumbent Sen. Rona Kramer is unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Despite her political strength, Sen. Kramer's maverick style has led to several Democratic-leaning organizations failing to endorse her for reelection. Delegates Anne Kaiser, Karen Montgomery and Herman Taylor are all seeking reelection. Newcomer Neda Bolourian joins them on the campaign trail, though her challenge on the web is not very aggressive as her site is still "under construction".

District 39 (Germantown, Montgomery Village, and North Potomac). This district forms a horseshoe around Gaithersburg as it runs from North Potomac through Germantown and Montgomery Village to Washington Grove. It is the result of radical boundary changes to districts in Upcounty due to major population growth. Prior to the 1994 election, District 15 was divided in two with the northern part becoming District 39. It lost most of its rural territory, making it much more Democratic, prior to the 2002 elections. The district is now 17 percent black, 13 percent Asian, and 11 percent Hispanic.

District 39 elected only Republicans in 1994 though all three Republican delegates were defeated by Democrats in 1998. Sen. Patrick Hogan, elected as a Republican, switched parties after the election. Democrats swept all state legislative seats in District 39 in the reconfigured district in 2002. Sen. Patrick Hogan is unopposed for the Democratic nomination to a fourth term this year. Delegates Charles Barkley, Nancy King, and Joan Frances Stern are all seeking reelection.

However, newcomer Saqib Ali is mounting a vigorous challenge for one of the delegate seats, specifically that of Del. Stern. Stern appears to be in serious trouble. Her colleagues in the legislature have dumped her from the incumbent slate. Ali beat out incumbent Del. Stern for the valuable MCEA endorsement. He also has endorsements from Steve Silverman, who appears to be running well in District 39, and Kweisi Mfume.

One cannot help but suspect that Ali's name and Muslim faith will make winning the seat an uphill battle despite the obvious vulnerability of the incumbent and Ali having more support than most challengers. On the other hand, the hateful efforts of one man to label Ali, a native-born American of South Asian origin who attended the University of Maryland, a "terrorist" and to attack his religion probably only gained Ali sympathy and support.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Money. Money, Money

Steve Silverman has raised a total of $1.9 million since 2003 for his bid to become Montgomery's next county executive, far than the $786,036 raised by Ike Leggett according to the Washington Post. However, both candidates have almost exactly the same amount, around $504,000, for the final push before the September 12th primary. The race is less equal in Prince George's where incumbent Jack Johnson has $911,725 left to spend compared to $174,431 held by challenger Rushern Baker.

In the comptroller's race, Janet Owens revealed that she now has $272,000 to spend on her campaign. Peter Franchot has $921,940, including a personal loan for $750,000 to his campaign. I've sent the Franchot campaign an email asking if he intends to spend the full amount, including the loan, on his campaign. (Hint: the correct answer is yes if the loan is more than an effort to pump up his finance reports and make himself look like the stronest challenger to incumbent William Donald Schaefer.) If you subtract out the personal loan, Owens has more money for her campaign than Franchot. If I learn anything, I'll let you know.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Corruption at the Yeshiva? Oy.

Although I've mentioned allegations of corruption by Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, I've been remiss in discussing to stories accusing Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan of misusing even greater amounts of public funds to the benefit of Yeshiva of Greater Washington.

I think I've been slow for a variety of reasons. First, the Prince George's graft is much easier to understand: Jack was helping out his buddies. While the Yeshiva story isn't quite Whitewater (recall the SNL skit "Rockers to Help Explain Whitewater"), it is far less clearcut than awarding contracts to your friends. Here in Montgomery, the Duncan Administration leased out an unused public school to Yeshiva at a relatively good price on condition that they make certain upgrades to the premises--a win-win for Montgomery and Yeshiva.

However, the school system later decided it wanted the school back. In what Duncan detractors are calling a sweetheart deal (or worse, see Montgomery Slacker), Yeshiva agreed to relinquish the first school in exchange for another plus $9.9 million in "renovation costs". However, Yeshiva got to keep the full $9.9 million whether or not it spent that amount for required renovations to either the first or the second building. Yeshiva supporters gave $92,000 to Duncan's campaigns.

Second, I hate to hit a man when he is down. I thought Duncan's forthright statement of clinical depression as his reason for withdrawing from the governor's race was courageous. I am not yet ready to jump on the bandwagon of speculation that he was just desperate for a way out. After all, he could have relied on the usual blah, blah about spending time with his family, wanting to unify the party, and being down in the polls. Mental illness still definitely carries a stigma in our society. I thought it was brave of a strong and successful politician like Duncan to admit to his struggle with depression. I still do.

Third, I've liked and voted for Duncan in the past. Say it ain't so Doug!

District 18 Forum Tonight

Tonight at 7PM there will be a forum for Democratic state legislative candidates in District 18 at the Kensington Armory (Town Hall) located at 3710 Mitchell Street. While Del. Richard Madaleno is unopposed for the Democratic senatorial nomination, the campaign for the three delegate seats is shaping up as interesting one. One assumes that incumbent Dels. Ana Sol Gutiérrez and Jane Lawton, who are running on a slate with Madaleno, have an edge (Disclosure: I am volunteering for the District 18 slate).

However, Dana Bayer has been relenteless in her efforts to knock on doors and meet voters. Dan Farrington is on target to spend by far the most money in the district on his delegate bid and been able to send out an expensive mailing (with a surprisingly unflattering cover picture) and to hire canvassers. Noah Grosfeld-Katz is the youngest candidate but probably has the best name recognition as he shares part of his last name with the retiring senator. Whether he succeeds in his energetic bid, I hope and expect we'll see more of him.

James Browning recently sent out a press release touting his endorsements by Clean Water Action and the National Organization for Women, Montgomery County Chapter. Jeff Waldstreicher has been endorsed by the influential MCEA. Yesterday, I received a robo phone call from him announcing that I will soon receive two mailings from his campaign, so I now will check my mail with great anticipation. I met Kensington Councilman Al Carr recently at a District 18 slate event; he struck me as a potentially formidable candidate if he runs an aggressive campaign to get better known outside of Kensington.

Owens for Comptroller?

On paper, Montgomery Del. Peter Franchot leads the pack in fundraising in the comptroller's race, reporting that he has raised over $900,000 and still has over $900,000 available to spend. However, over $750,000 was in the form of a personal loan to his campaign, a far from minor detail omitted from Franchot's press releases. While Franchot now says this limits his indebtedness to special interests, his repeated pleas for money via email suggest to me that he welcomes the opportunity to spend other people's money instead of his own on his campaign. Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens and incumbent William Donald Schaefer have yet to release their reports.

Like many voters ready to retire incumbent Schaefer from public office (see this Gazette op-ed "Don't Ever Change Mr. Schaefer" for an alternative view), I am trying to decide between Owens and Franchot. I was leaning toward Franchot. He is from my home county and more progressive than Owens who has a reputation as a very conservative Democrat. I have also seen Franchot out on the campaign trail a few times and Owens decided to enter this race relatively late. However, I cannot help but wonder what Franchot would do with the public's money since he is willing to play a shell game with his own. Is Franchot really willing to spend the $750,000 loan to his campaign or is this merely a device to pump up his finance reports and make him look like a winner?

I would like to see Owens in person but one cannot help but admire her ability to win successive victories as a Democrat in a county that tilts Republican. Her experience as county executive gives her leadership and managerial experience which Franchot lacks. Owens may be tight with a dollar but that is hardly a sin in a comptroller. A victory by Owens would provide Maryland with its second woman elected to statewide office and its first in state office-- a nice counterpoint to those who think women should stay in the kitchen. In the Washington Post today, Owens indicates she can bake and manage the money. Maybe "It's Time" we give a woman the chance to do in the comptroller's office what so many do at home every day.

Show Me the Money

The first pre-primary campaign finance reports were due the other day and both the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post have stories on fundraising by major candidates in Maryland. Report details should eventually show up on the UMBC Campaign Finance Database. The comptroller reports are the most revealing but first let's look at the races for governor and attorney general.

The gubernatorial campaign of Martin O'Malley raised $3.4 million compared to $2.5 million by that of incumbent Robert Ehrlich over the past seven months. Presumably, O'Malley is now benefitting from Doug Duncan's withdrawal from the race as donations are no longer divided between the two Democratic candidates, though Ehrlich was prohibited from raising money during the legislative session. Moreover, Ehrlich has $8.7 million cash-on-hand, significantly more than O'Malley's $5.1 million.

In the race for attorney general, Montgomery State's Attorney Doug Gansler has outraised both of his opponents together. Gansler has raised a total of $1.7 million and still has $1.4 million left to spend. Montgomery Councilman Tom Perez has raised more than $500,000 and $330,000 left for his campaign. Former Baltimore State's Attorney Stuart Simms entered the race late as he originally planned to run for lieutenant governor on Duncan's ticket. His campaign has raised more than $215,000 but only has $65,800 left to spend.

Montgomery Del. Peter Franchot reported that he has raised over $900,000 and still has over $900,000 available to spend. However, over $750,000 was in the form of a personal loan to his campaign. Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens and incumbent William Donald Schaefer have yet to release their reports.

Keep in mind that dollars don't vote. If they did, Josh Rales would be on his way to a massive victory in the senatorial primary.

The next report comes out soon on September 1st. Stay tuned.

Post Profiles Cardin and Mfume

The Washington Post has profiled the congressional careers and approaches of the frontrunners for the Democratic senatorial nomination, Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume:

Cardin pursues "a classic insider strategy," said Christopher Deering, a political science professor at George Washington University. "Here's a guy who knows where the power is."
Cardin said in an interview at his Baltimore County campaign office that he is "very quietly" preparing a bid for the Senate Finance Committee -- the chamber's counterpart to Ways and Means -- if he is elected. "It's known to people in the Senate that I want to be on the Finance Committee," he said. But, he said, he is focused first on the primary Sept. 12 and the election Nov. 7.
Mfume "has got fairly consummate political skills" and would gain immediate national attention if elected, said Ronald Walters, a government and politics professor at the University of Maryland. "When you're one of the few blacks in the Senate, you're a celebrity," Walters said, noting the spotlight on Barack Obama (D-Ill.), now the chamber's only black senator. "They are expected to carry a great deal of water for minority populations all across the country. People want to see, feel and touch them."
Mfume's legislative niche is not as clearly defined as Cardin's. But he names three Senate committee assignments that would appeal to him: Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
In the House, Mfume served on two committees his entire tenure: Small Business and Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. He used his positions to support minority-owned businesses and promote equal housing opportunities.

While the Post characterizes Cardin as taking more an insider strategy than Mfume, both seem like sharp politicians who know how to use their personal strengths to pursue their goals in Congress.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Lichtman Blasts Cardin on War

While we are still waiting to see if Josh Rales keeps to his vow to avoid negative campaigning against Maryland Democratic frontrunner Ben Cardin, Allan Lichtman has sent out an email attacking Ben Cardin on the War in Iraq:

Ben Cardin's voting record in Congress contradicts the claim on his recent television commercial that he has been a "principled" (Wash Post 8/8) critic of the war in Iraq. The ad voiceover claims, "Cardin stood up to the President and voted against the war in Iraq from the start." This statement is blatantly misleading. Since the war began, Cardin has invariably voted for every request by President Bush to fund the Iraqi war. On matters of policy, unrelated to funding, he has voted to oppose a resolution calling for a plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq and to support a Republican-crafted resolution giving Bush authorization to prolong the war indefinitely.

On May 25, 2005 the Congressman broke with a majority of Democrats to vote against the Woolsey Amendment, which asked the President to "develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq."

On July 20, 2005 the Congressman broke with 65 percent of Democrats to vote for the House Resolution authored by Republican hawk Ros-Lehtinen of Florida which authorized President Bush to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until he finds that the mission is completed.

"Ben Cardin has been a chief congressional enabler of Bush's war in Iraq," Allan said recently. "Cardin has broken with the majority of congressional Democrats to give the president a blank check to continue the war indefinitely. In voting to fund the war, he has hidden behind the phony argument that our troops are protected by sustaining the war rather than bringing them home safely and promptly."

Allan is the only candidate to have repeatedly pledged in writing that if elected to serve in 2007, "I will not vote another penny to continue the war, but will only vote for funds to protect our brave troops and bring them home safely and promptly. I lived through ten years of Vietnam and know that cutting off the funds is the only way to stop the war. All else is hot air."

I am not sure that Maryland Democrats will buy into my AU colleague's view of Ben Cardin as the "chief congressional enabler" of George Bush because Cardin, a liberal Democrat, has repeatedly voted to fund the American military. However, it may not be a bad strategy for attracting support from staunch, motivated, left-wing Democrats who vote in large numbers in Democratic primaries. Lichtman is not alone is advocating that Congress end the war by cutting off the funding tap. Deborah Vollmer who is challenging incumbent Rep. Chris Van Hollen in the Democratic primary has taken the same position.

Barbecue for Ben

I attended a small event for Ben Cardin yesterday in Potomac. It was part of their "Barbecue for Ben" push to create buzz around their candidate by getting friends to promote Cardin in a relaxed, social atmosphere. In our case, it was more like delicious homemade desserts than barbecue. The candidate himself made an appearance.

Cardin is certainly low key. He lacks the flair or charisma of his major challenger, Kweisi Mfume. However, Cardin has truckloads of experience due to his long service in the House and even earlier as Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. His pleasant manner also conveys a level of knowledge and competence that I suspect will contrast well with that of likely Republican Nominee Michael Steele. Cardin-Steele debates should favor Cardin as Steele is a gaffe machine who is too close to Bush for Maryland voters. However, Kweisi Mfume, who is more eloquent than Cardin, could undoubtedly talk rings around Steele as well.

Cardin seems confident of victory in the primary and the general. In his view, Mfume is his main challenger but he lacks money for a final push and continues to trail Cardin in the polls. Cardin carefully avoids criticizing Mfume, presumably in order to avoid alienating his supporters whose votes he will need in the general election. Despite his barrage of ads, Cardin said that Josh Rales, a recent convert from the Republicans, remains in single digits and is actually viewed more negatively than positively by Maryland Democrats according to surveys. The one remaining question is whether Rales will launch negative ads against Cardin before the primary which could aid Mfume and thus Steele who would like to face Mfume in the general election.

Cardin plans to begin his own advertisements very soon in the Washington Metro area. Interestingly, one apparently reaches more voters per dollar in the Washington media market than in the Cumberland media market so it is not the most expensive advertising statewide candidates consider in terms of dollars per voter even though most viewers live in DC or Virginia. Cardin's phone banks are also up and running; he has one in Bethesda which has already phoned me several times.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

More on Van Hollen on Raskin and Ruben

The latest on the increasingly bare-knuckled battle for the District 20 senate seat is that Rep. Chris Van Hollen did issue a statement highly critical of incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben's campaign flyer. The flyer attacks challenger Jamie Raskin as not a real Democrat and claims that he opposes abortion rights. Van Hollen's statement was a short but devastating; he likened Ruben's tactics to Karl Rove's and implied she is dishonest. If this were a Republican primary, maybe this statement would assure Ruben's reelection but District 20 is a very progressive rock-solid Democratic district so being likened to Karl Rove is not a vote winner.

Ruben and Van Hollen have feuded for years. Ruben was furious when Van Hollen replaced her as Vice Chair of the powerful Senate Budget and Taxation Committee in 2000. Ruben strongly backed District 15 Del. Mark Shriver in the Democratic congressional primary in 2002. While a natural reaction, this choice was risky and Ruben ultimately lost that bet. Rep. Van Hollen is now far more powerful and presumably has good reason to have even less friendly feelings toward Ruben than when they served in the Senate. One tricky wrinkle for Van Hollen is that Rep. Al Wynn, who also represents District 20 in the U.S. House, has endorsed Ruben.

Nevertheless, it is a very dangerous position for Ruben since Raskin will certainly do his best to make sure that Democratic voters are aware of Van Hollen's statement but not of the long-standing bad blood between Ruben and Van Hollen. Ruben cannot exactly rush to explain the situation either as it will only serve to reinforce claims that she is ineffective and unable to get along with her Senate colleagues. The endorsement of Raskin by Montgomery County's chapter of NOW also undercuts Ruben's false claim that Raskin is anti-choice. My guess is that MoCo NOW isn't in the habit of recommending pro-life men over pro-choice women.

Ruben undoubtedly feels that Van Hollen's defense of Raskin is particularly unjustified after the Seniors Organized for Change debate in which Raskin cast Ruben as practically being in lockstep in the Bush-Cheney Administration even though she is clearly a liberal Democrat. However, like life, politics is not always very fair. One can also argue that there is a difference between a debate to a limited audience in which both candidates can defend themselves against attacks and a mass mailing which presents only viewpoint.

Ruben may have lobbed a bomb at Raskin but it has blown up in her face.

Post Endorses Leggett

The Washington Post warmly endorsed Ike Leggett for Montgomery County Executive in a Sunday editorial. I suspect the paragraph that brought the largest smile to Leggett's face is:

Mr. Leggett's deliberative, nonconfrontational approach is sometimes interpreted as indecisiveness or passivity. It's a bad rap. He has taken the lead on an array of initiatives, for example leading the fight to ban smoking in county bars and restaurants in the face of stiff opposition from owners of those businesses. In a county whose leadership has sometimes had trouble saying no, Mr. Leggett is a better bet to exercise the fiscal and budgetary discipline that will be required in the face of tighter property tax revenue as the local housing market softens.

For the Post, Leggett's ability to build consensus while exercising leadership appears to have been critical in its choice of Leggett over his primary opponent, Steve Silverman:

As for Mr. Silverman, no one doubts his commitment and creative passion for crafting policy; he has been a leader on the council in finding ways to build roads, affordable housing and new job venues. Although he has been criticized for coziness with developers and for embracing what some regard as excessive growth, he was part of a consensus on the council -- one that included Mr. Leggett. What Mr. Silverman lacks is Mr. Leggett's divining rod for common ground and gift for consensus-building. It does not diminish his achievements; it simply makes Mr. Leggett the better choice.

Of course, this is absolutely huge for the Leggett campaign. The Post remains quite influential and its endorsement could swing a close election. Moreover, the editorial directly defends Leggett against the charge of indecisiveness which critics view as his primary weakness.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Doug Wilder Syndrome

Why is it that Prince George's County Executives all flirt far too coquettishly with our Republican governor? As the Washington Post has noted (hat-tip to Free State Politics), Bob Ehrlich sure is getting chummy with Jack Johnson.

Is it the perfume of corruption that surrounds them both? Perhaps Ehrlich is attracted by Johnson's ability to use county contracts to pay off political friends. Or maybe Johnson admires Ehrlich's ability to use a staffer to fire his political enemies in state government and then deny he ever knew the guy even after years of service in his U.S. House office?

Ehrlich even is making noises about funding some version of the Purple Line to please his new friend in Prince George's. An excellent debate question for Ehrlich might be whether he plans to deny funding to the ICC, the proposed Baltimore Red Line or the Metro Match proposed by Rep. Tom Davis in order to pay for it. Or are we supposed to believe in the gambling mirage that Ehrlich could not manage to push through the legislature despite having more power than any other governor in the nation and an ally in Senate President Mike Miller?

Personally, I think Johnson is suffering from Doug Wilder syndrome. Doug Wilder was the first African-American governor of Virginia and a real pathbreaker. However, times were tight after he was elected in 1989 and Wilder cut the Old Dominion's budget drastically. His presidential bid in 1992 didn't go very far, at least partly due to this conservative record. In recent years, Wilder routinely made it hard for Democrats to win his endorsement, flirting with Republicans and Democrats and above all the spotlight. I think Wayne Curry and Jack Johnson wouldn't mind playing the same role.

Wilder deserves some kudos for not shying away from the tough fights, however, even if he drives Virginia Democrats crazy. You may not like how he balanced the budget but he did balance it. Former Gov. Wilder is now Richmond Mayor Wilder. Again, he is ruffling feathers but I give him enormous credit for directly taking on the problems of his hometown--something many politicians of his stature fail to do. If Johnson could really tackle crime and improve the schools, and thus give the citizens of Prince George's the services which they deserve, I'd respect him more even if he did make eyes at Republicans.

No Early Voting?

An Anne Arundel judge has ruled that Maryland's early voting law violates the state's constitution, though he has stayed his order. Gov. Ehrlich is esctatic over the ruling, though he might want to hold his smiles as the order may be well be overturned on appeal. I cannot fathom why the governor would be opposed to early voting except that he fears the impact of heightened participation on his campaign. His claims for potential fraud seem weak to say the least. After all, this is an innovation already adopted by many other states in a far more expanded format.

Accusations Fly in District 20

"Outrageous attack mail" is what the Jamie Raskin says about the latest campaign literature mailed out by Incumbent Senator Ida Ruben's campaign. Raskin has seemingly received some powerful backing for his claims from Congressman Chris Van Hollen. The Raskin campaign is touting a statement released by Van Hollen stating:

This kind of Karl Rove politics has no place in the Democratic Party. The voters should demand a clean and honest campaign.

I'd like to see a full copy of Rep. Van Hollen's statement (assuming there is more to it) to verify Raskin's touting of the statement as an explicit criticism of Ruben and her flyer. I would also like to see Ruben's literature for myself so that I can judge if the accusations are a form of negative campaigning and distort Raskin's record or merely a legitimate, albeit harsh, attack. I don't live in District 20 so I didn't get a copy.

I am cautious because it would be a real blow to Sen. Ruben's campaign if the district's popular congressman, a former colleague of Sen. Ruben who has not endorsed either candidate, has now criticized the incumbent. I tend to assume that Raskin is characterizing Van Hollen's statement accurately since he is now featuring it so prominently on his website and it should boomerang against him if he is not characterizing it properly. Moreover, the whole incident draws attention to the interesting lack of endorsement of Ruben by Van Hollen--and Montgomery incumbents are generally famously willing to endorse each other for reelection.

Meanwhile, Ruben is also accusing Raskin of distortions. On her website, Ruben's campaign has reproduced a letter to the Gazette claiming that the same Raskin supporter who informed me via email of Van Hollen's statement of has distorted the actions of Ruben and other Maryland state legislators on electricity deregulation:

Jonathan Shurberg’s response to Mary Myers-Nelson’s explanation of Sen. Ida Ruben’s vote for the 1999 electricity deregulation law is another misdirected effort to discredit Senator Ruben for her reasoned vote for that law. Mr. Shurberg gives credit to Jamie Raskin in a matter that Mr. Raskin knew nothing about and said nothing about.

Ms. Myers-Nelson’s June 7 letter gave a detailed explanation of Senator Ruben’s reasons for her vote (which was also the vote of the vast majority of the General Assembly), with a clear explanation of the law’s mandate to the Public Service Commission to ensure a competitive electricity supply market. That was a vote for a provision that would make energy suppliers compete with each other, not a pro-utility vote. Her letter made it clear that the Public Service Commission failed to carry out this directive.

Ms. Myers-Nelson’s letter further explained the process of PSC approval of the deregulation proposals of the regulated electric companies in Maryland. She showed that a leading consumer advocacy group, a major university and various public agencies supported the proposals.

Instead of refuting any of these substantive points, Mr. Shurberg ignores them, criticizing Ms. Myers-Nelson for having the ‘‘temerity” to provide a detailed explanation of Senator Ruben’s vote. So much for Mr. Raskin’s concern for the protection of First Amendment rights. Apparently Ms. Myers-Nelson is not to be permitted to engage in serious discussion of a matter of public importance. I should think that Mr. Raskin’s supporters could do better than that.

Mr. Shurberg cherry picks from among a few local legislators who voted against the law to claim that Senator Ruben was isolated in voting for deregulation. He ignores the fact the Del. Sheila Hixson of District 20 was a co-sponsor of that legislation. He ignores the fact that the vast majority of both the Senate and the House of Delegates voted for deregulation. Senator Ruben was a part of the consensus on this issue, not isolated from it as Mr. Shurberg would have voters erroneously believe.

Mr. Shurberg also ignores the recent actions of Senator Ruben and the General Assembly to address the problem of electricity rates. Senator Ruben voted for and the legislature passed the law that removes and replaces the regulators who failed to carry out their mandate to ensure a competitive electricity supply market. It provides immediate relief to consumers for the sky-rocketing rates resulting from the regulators’ failures. And it mandates the new PSC to undertake studies of the state’s electricity markets with a view to making them competitive.

Again, while Senator Ruben was taking action, Mr. Raskin was silent. Mr. Shurberg says that Mr. Raskin was silent on this matter in 1999 because he wasn’t in the legislature. Now that he wants to be in the legislature Mr. Raskin is still silent. Mr. Raskin cannot make the hollow claim that he would have voted against deregulation because nothing in his record suggests that he ever focused on this complex issue.

Here is Mr. Shurberg's original letter criticizing Sen. Ruben:

I am writing in response to Mary Myers-Nelson’s letter trumpeting the qualifications of state Sen. Ida G. Ruben for re-election (‘‘Ruben knows what needs to be done to correct electric rates problem,” June 7 Open Forum). I find it hard to believe that anyone can even try to defend Sen. Ruben (D-Dist. 20) of Silver Spring on the issue of energy deregulation.
More than any local Democratic senator at the time, Sen. Ruben is responsible for the current mess. She voted, not once but seven times, for legislation pushed by energy companies. She was virtually alone among local Democratic senators in voting for this bill. Sens. Brian Frosh, Jennie Forehand, Paul Pinsky, and current Congressman Chris Van Hollen, all voted against the bill. Apparently, despite everything that has happened since then, Sen. Ruben wants the voters of District 20 to think that she was right and everyone else was wrong.
Then, even more incredibly, Ms. Myers-Nelson tells us that Sen. Ruben ‘‘knows what needs to be done to correct the problem.” If that’s the case, where has Sen. Ruben been on this issue for the past seven years? No real competitive market in energy has ever developed — yet Sen. Ruben speaks out only after the announcement of massive electricity bill increases for both Pepco and Baltimore Gas and Electric. And her spokeswoman has the temerity to tell us that all of this is evidence of Sen. Ruben’s superior qualifications? Wow. If this is an example of Ida Ruben’s ‘‘effective leadership,” I don’t want to think what the results of bad performance would be.
Ms. Myers-Nelson chides Jamie Raskin for his supposed lack of involvement on the energy issue back in 1999. I have two responses. First, may I remind Ms. Myers-Nelson that it was Ida Ruben who was the elected representative of District 20 charged with getting this decision right, and she botched it. Second, while Jamie Raskin may not have addressed this particular issue back in 1999, the voters of District 20 can look at Mr. Raskin’s long record of dedicated service to consumer and public interest issues and reach their own conclusions as to whether Jamie Raskin would have sided with the energy companies or with consumers. I think that answer is clear, and I suspect, so does Mary Myers-Nelson.
Sen. Ruben dropped the ball on the energy deregulation issue in 1999, and we the voters of District 20 are quite literally paying the price for her mistake. Her actions in siding with energy companies is emblematic of her ineffectiveness and failure of leadership. While other Montgomery Democrats saw the pitfalls of energy deregulation, Ida Ruben chose differently.
For this and so many other reasons, the Democratic voters of District 20 should similarly make a different choice on Sept. 12, and vote for Jamie Raskin for state Senate. On this issue and so many others, we quite literally can’t afford four more years of Ida Ruben.

It looks like the Democrats of District 20 will have to settle this one on September 12th.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Jack Johnson Bill is on the Ballot

By a vote of 6-3, the Prince George's County Council voted to amend the County's charter to give the Council greater oversight authority on County contracts. Voters will get a chance to vote up or down on the charter amendment this November.

Kudos to the Prince George's Council for acting promptly and showing that they won't put up with this sort of abuse of the people's money. Cheers to the following six Council members who voted for the measure: Marilynn Bland (D-Clinton), William A. Campos (D-Hyattsville), Samuel H. Dean (D-Mitchellville), Thomas E. Dernoga (D-Laurel) Camille Exum (D-Seat Pleasant) and David Harrington (D-Cheverly).

On Josh Rales

The Washington Post has a fascinating report on Josh Rales in today's edition. Rales, a Bethesda businessman, is probably not unknown around here as he is on our television sets more often than Big Bird these days. However, the liberalism projected in his seemingly nonstop commercials is newer to Rales than one might think:

Rales doesn't talk as much about his own history-- at least in this Democratic primary. You see, Rales was a Republican not too long ago. He toyed with the idea of challenging Democratic Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski as a Republican in 2004, and he and his wife, Debra, have been major donors to GOP candidates, campaign finance records show. They have given $10,250 to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), most recently in September 2004. They gave $4,000 to President Bush in 2003.

Hard to imagine that many Democratic primary voters would knowingly cast a ballot for someone who gave money to Bush and Ehrlich. As usual, Senate President Mike Miller doesn't pull his punches in his assessment of Rales:

At the Accokeek festival, campaigning for his own reelection just a few yards away from Rales, state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) dismissed the candidate as a "spoiler."
"He's going to force Cardin to open up his bank account and spend money he needs in the general against [GOP candidate] Michael Steele."

Ben Cardin is not on television but I am now getting what seem like almost daily calls from his phone banks. I am tempted to either say I support Cardin or that I am voting for my AU colleague Allan Lichtman, who unlike Rales has a long history as a committed Democrat, to get them to stop calling. Still, Cardin supporters should be glad that his campaign is now systematically rallying support in a part of the state where he is not well-known. Perhaps if I say I am considering Kweisi Mfume, Cardin's campaign will start sending flowers?

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Gazette Endorses for Montgomery County Council

The Gazette followed on its early endorsement of Ike Leggett for County Executive with its picks for the Council primaries.

George Leventhal got a big raspberry from the Gazette editorial board which not only did not endorse him for reelection but called him "an ineffective, divisive leader" during his term as council president. They urge Montgomery County voters to replace Leventhal with challengers Reggie Felton and Bo Newsome who were described as having "a welcome perspective and insight." The Gazette also enthusiastically called for the reelection of Michael Subin. Nancy Floreen also won guarded support from the Gazette. The Republicans, who struggled to find people to run for the at-large seats didn't merit a mention.

In other contested races, the Gazette plumped for the incumbents. In District 3, the editorial notably had only faint praise for incumbent Phil Andrews but still preferred him to opponent Rockville Councilman Robert Dorsey. For the open seat in District 5, the Gazette warmly supports Valerie Ervin.

If the Gazette has its way, this will definitely be a great year for African-American candidates for Montgomery County government. Robert Dorsey is arguably the only competitive African-American candidate for Council who didn't win the Gazette's support. Years of working their way up the political ladder and gaining experience as campaigners and officials may finally pay off. Both Reggie Felton and Valerie Ervin have served on the school board. Ike Leggett served for many years on the Council and as Maryland Democratic Party Chair. Newsome is a newcomer but has strong roots in the region, experience as an administrator, and an impressive educational background with degrees from Columbia and GWU.

Prince of Darkness Testifies

Former Ehrlich aid Joseph Steffen testified partially yesterday after he failed to quash a subpoena according to reports in the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Only partially because his lawyer stopped him from testifying about his role in spreading rumors of infidelity by Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley on the web.

Steffen seemed far more bothered by being disowned by Ehrlich than by having fired numerous people. He can barely recall the firings, either because he did so many of them or just doesn't care or both. However, Steffen is finding it hard to believe that Ehrlich's people have less memory of him than a passing Metro train even though he worked for Ehrlich in his congressional office for years before Ehrlich's arrival in Annapolis and he played a key role in Ehrlich's attempt to replace existing employees with his placemen.

As with so many investigations, it is not the original crime but the cover-up that ultimately appears likely to get the governor into trouble. Steffen's testimony directly contradicts that of Lawrence Hogan, Ehrlich's top appointment official. Hogan claims that he barely knew Steffen and only once received his advice on a personnel matter. These claims by Hogan clearly perplex Steffen whose memory of events is rather different to say the least since Steffen claims to have been centrally involved in personnel matters. Will perjury charges be filed against Hogan in the near future?

Efforts to prove the original crime are more hazy, though far from weak. Steffen testified that party was a factor in the firings, though not the sole factor. Of course, it might be interesting to see how many Republicans were terminated by Steffen and compare that with the share of Republican or unaffiliated staffers in the office. Steffen's lack of clarity on this topic is a little convenient to say the least.

Nevertheless, Del. Jean Cryor, Montgomery County's token Republican state legislator, was quick to tell the Washington Post that "after months of testimony, the simple fact is that no one was fired because of their political party." It is gutsy of Del. Cryor to carry water for an administration facing a flood tide. However, District 15 Democrats who in the past have supported Cryor, who has carefully cultivated in image of Morella-like moderation, may want to take another look at her opponent Craig Rice. One suspects would not be quite so quick to rush to Ehrlich's defense.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Best Candidate Website in Maryland . . .

. . . without question belongs to Takoma Park Councilwoman Heather Mizeur, a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates in District 20. It has lots of video of Mizeur talking straight to the camera about herself and her experience. The information on issues is detailed without being overly long and you can even download it in .pdf format. The appealing design completes the picture. Even the music on home page is upbeat without being annoying.

While it seems unlikely that many people who are not a political geeks like me looks for candidate information on the web, Mizeur has an aggressive internet campaign. I have come across advertisements for her campaign several times while googling or surfing political websites. However, it shows how the web still isn't that great at narrowcasting. I may live in Maryland but I don't live in District 20.

Of course, the real reason to have a great website may be less to influence voters than to signal opinion makers and potential campaign donors who do surf the web that she is a serious candidate able to organize a high-quality campaign. It is the techno equivalent of being well-dressed for a job interview. If you judge candidates by the quality of their website, you'd hire Heather Mizeur.

Prince of Darkness Must Testify

I guess Prince of Darkness Joe Steffen is back in the Ehrlich camp since he fought unsuccessfully to quash a subpoena from a committee of the General Assembly. Steffen must have something to hide since he and the Republicans are so worried about his testimony. Recall that this is the man who Gov. Ehrlich claimed to barely know even though he had been employed in his congressional office for years. The offices of backbench House members like Ehrlich just aren't that big. Perhaps exploring the length and tightness of Steffen's relationship with Ehrlich might be a good place for the legislative committee to start grilling this hostile witness before moving on to the juicier question of Steffen's role in removing Democrats and replacing them with Republicans in state government at Gov. Ehrlich's request.

Smackdown District 20!

District 20 (Takoma Park, Silver Spring, White Oak) is the epicenter for the hottest state legislative races in Montgomery County. Sen. Ida Ruben, who has represented the district for three terms in the House and five in the Senate, is being challenged by American University Law Professor Jamie Raskin. Raskin appears to be going casual for the race. His AU Faculty profile calls him Jamin while his campaign website calls him Jamie.

Raskin is framing his challenge of that of a committed progressive against an insider politician who plays the political game but has forgotten her district. Not a bad means of turning Sen. Ruben's seat on the powerful Budget and Taxation Committee from an advantage to a disadvantage. Although Raskin may have the best shot of unseating a state legislative incumbent of any challenger in Montgomery, Ruben is not going quietly. One ought not forget that she won her original primary for the senate in 1986 over fellow Del. Diane Kirchenbauer by only 63 votes if memory serves so she is no stranger to a tough fight.

Raskin is styling himself as a progressive but Ruben has beat him out for a variety of endorsements from progressive organizations such as Progressive Maryland, Equality Maryland and NARAL even as she attracts support from union groups like the MCEA and the Municipal and County Employees as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Raskin will no doubt use these endorsements to further burnish his outsider credentials. However, he is not without allies, having been endorsed by the Montgomery Green Democrats and the Retired Teachers. He has also has friends in high places, including Democratic Gubernatorial Nominee Martin O'Malley, District 5 Council Candidate Valerie Ervin, and Former (read: I lost the primary in 2002) At-Large Councilman Blair Ewing.

In News of the Weird, the candidates are battling it out over the endorsement of high school students at Montgomery Blair High School. Yes, really really. I am not making this up as Dave Barry would say. I vote that they settle this one with nunchucks during the commercial break of "It's Academic", the local quiz bowl show sponsored by Giant, I mean Stop & Shop. Mac McGarry will endorse the winner. I promise to vote for the first candidate who figures out that students under age 18 cannot vote even though I live in District 18.

The delegate races in District 20 are not quiet either. There are eight candidates for the three seats. Two incumbents, Sheila Hixon and Gareth Murray, are seeking reelection. Takoma Park Councilwoman Heather Mizeur easily wins the award for the most internet-savvy candidate as her adverts show up whenever I google anything in Maryland. However, voters should also check out the sites of Takoma Park City Councilwoman Joy Austin-Lane, Tom Hucker, Aaron Klein, Congressional Aide Lucinda Lessley, and Diane Lee Nixon.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Van Hollen's Letter

I'm very pro-Israel. After reading Rep. Chris Van Hollen's letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the current subject of Lebanon, I found a few things with which I disagreed but nothing that puts him in the camp of people hostile to Israel. Columnist Robert Novak described Rep. Van Hollen yesterday as a "critic" of Israel. While not inaccurate, Van Hollen is certainly a very friendly critic of Israel. I doubt the following paragraph in his letter would very much please opponents of the Israel's actions:

The killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah precipitated the current crisis in the region. Those actions were followed by Hezbollah rocket attacks that have fallen indiscriminately in Haifa and other Israeli population centers. Like any sovereign country, Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself. The people of Lebanon understand that Israel did not initiate these hostilities. By all reports, the majority in Lebanon strongly resent Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into this conflict and recognizes that Israel has a right to target the military apparatus employed by Hezbollah to launch its attacks on Israel.

Indeed, the entire letter is writen in the tone of someone concerned for Israel, concerned both that its strategy is not working and is alienating potential allies and concerned for its security.

Nonetheless, I do have some disagreements with Rep. Van Hollen's conclusions, or at least I find some of Israel's actions more explicable than he does. Specifically, he states:

The Israeli response, however, has now gone beyond the destruction of Hezbollah's military assets. It has caused huge damage to Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, resulted in the large loss of civilian life, and produced over 750,000 refugees. Hezbollah is undeniably the culprit, but it is the Lebanese people -- not Hezbollah -- who are increasingly the victims of the violence.

Civilians are certainly sufferring in Lebanon and one should recognize it. At the same time, one should realize that Hezbollah's tactics make it inevitable. It is a terrorist movement that locates military assets and leaders among the civilian population. It is more than willing to sacrifice civilians to protect its weapons and because dead civilians make for good media propaganda for a movement that shows no compunction about killing Israeli civilians.

However, Rep. Van Hollen's criticism is certainly within bounds. I too have wondered whether Israel's attacks should be more focused on Hezbollah controlled areas even though I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, most critics of Israel's war program have expressed far less concern with Israel's security and far more interest in decrying the Jewish State.

The Jack Johnson Bill

Responding to County Executive Jack Johnson's penchant for spreading the people's wealth around as if it was his own, The Prince George's County Council is considering a measure that would require Council approval for contracts above a certain amount. They should pass it quickly and call it "Jack Johnson's Law" in the county executive's honor.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Van Hollen and Israel

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD 8) wrote Secretary Condoleezza Rice a letter calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon. It is an extremely carefully worded letter that repeatedly defends Israel's right to go after Hezbollah. At the same time, it is critical of how Israel has gone about its attack and has already been cited by Robert Novak of as a rare example of criticism of Israel. Here is a copy of the letter:

July 30, 2006

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Secretary Rice:

I write regarding the tragic situation in Lebanon. I urge you to call for an immediate cease-fire to be followed by the rapid deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon. I began this letter Friday evening, but today's bombings in Qana have made the matter even more urgent. A forty-eight hour time-out in the bombing campaign is not sufficient. Your lack of effective action to date has turned an opportunity to isolate Hezbollah into a political victory for Hezbollah.

The killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah precipitated the current crisis in the region. Those actions were followed by Hezbollah rocket attacks that have fallen indiscriminately in Haifa and other Israeli population centers. Like any sovereign country, Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself. The people of Lebanon understand that Israel did not initiate these hostilities. By all reports, the majority in Lebanon strongly resent Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into this conflict and recognizes that Israel has a right to target the military apparatus employed by Hezbollah to launch its attacks on Israel.

The Israeli response, however, has now gone beyond the destruction of Hezbollah's military assets. It has caused huge damage to Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, resulted in the large loss of civilian life, and produced over 750,000 refugees. Hezbollah is undeniably the culprit, but it is the Lebanese people -- not Hezbollah -- who are increasingly the victims of the violence. As a result, the Israeli bombing campaign, supported by the United States, has transformed Lebanese anger at Hezbollah into growing hostility toward Israel and the United States. The result has been a surge in the political strength and popularity of Hezbollah and its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, and the weakening of the already fragile Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the Arab League have gone from condemning Hezbollah to denouncing Israel for its actions and the United States for its inaction. Even Prime Minister Siniora has now publicly praised Hezbollah for defending the country. We have squandered an opportunity to isolate Hezbollah and strengthen our credibility and negotiating leverage in the region. As a result of our ineffectiveness, Hezbollah has won a political victory not only in Lebanon, but throughout the Arab world, the Muslim world, and much of the international community. We may have won some battles, but we are losing the war.

You have failed the obligation of a good friend to give sound counsel and advice. I understand the impulses that are driving Israel's actions, but I strongly believe that a continuation of the bombing campaign as it is being carried out is against the interests of the Israel and the United States. When someone is in the heat of battle, it can sometimes be difficult to see the full picture. It is the responsibility of the United States, as a close friend and ally, to intervene more effectively in this crisis. In my view, Israel is entirely justified in using the maximum force necessary to hit Hezbollah military targets. The issue, however, is not the amount of force used, but where and how it is applied. Had you done your job and successfully urged Israel to limit its attacks to clear, identifiable Hezbollah military assets, I would support a continuation of the campaign. But you failed to do that. Your lack of effective leadership has harmed the interests of both Israel and the United States.
The lack of American leadership in the current crisis exists in the larger context of our failed policies in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East is the right one, but you and the Bush Administration have missed the critical point from the start. Do you believe that free and fair elections today in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world would bring to power governments that are more willing to live in peace with Israel and are more interested in building stability and peace in the region than those that exist today? I don't think so. Not if you pay attention to public opinion there. It is clear that the result of such democratic elections would likely be governments that are much more anti-Israel and anti-American than those today. Witness the election of Hamas. The point, however, is not to stop promoting democracy, but to recognize that the public perception of our policies in the Arab and Muslim world will have a direct bearing on the nature of any democratically elected governments. Consequently, if we are going to keep promoting democracy in the Middle East, we had better start caring about the public perceptions of our policies in the region. Otherwise, you are simply promoting a process that will produce governments that hate both Israel and the United States.
That brings me back to Lebanon. As you have said, the starting point should be the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for the dismantling of all independent militias in Lebanon. It is obvious that, in the short term, the Lebanese army is not strong enough to defeat the Hezbollah forces militarily. Even the Israeli military campaign, while degrading Hezbollah's military capabilities, cannot deliver a knock-out punch. Consequently, international forces with a strong mandate will have to be deployed to southern Lebanon. However, that will not resolve the underlying political issues. The Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is already fragile. Now it has been further weakened. As you know, Hezbollah has significant representation in the Lebanese parliament. Had the current crisis been handled differently, their influence could have been diminished. Now, however, their political stock has risen. As a result, it will be extremely difficult for the Lebanese government, assuming it survives the crisis, to strengthen the Lebanese military with the purpose of disarming Hezbollah. Once again, while we have rightly promoted democracy in Lebanon, our policies have mostly strengthened the political standing of those most adverse to our interests.
Any comprehensive and long lasting resolution of the current crisis must also address the role of Syria and Iran in arming Hezbollah. The United States must do more to rally international efforts to pressure Iran and Syria to end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq has had the unintentional but very foreseeable consequence of inflaming anti-Western sentiment and strengthening the hand of the most radical Islamic forces. Among the biggest beneficiaries has been Iran with its many ties to the majority Shia population in Iraq. Iran has successfully exploited the chaos and instability in neighboring Iraq to advance its own radical agenda and expand its influence in the region. We must develop a better strategy for addressing this trend, but the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq has complicated this effort.
Finally, no lasting solution to the turmoil in the Middle East will be achieved without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, a few weeks before invading Iraq, President Bush declared that going to war would help promote democracy and stability in the Middle East, reduce the influence of the hardliners and help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He claimed that it would "begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state." Unfortunately, but predictably, we have seen the opposite result in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. The region has been more radicalized and Hamas prevailed in the Palestinian elections. While we engaged militarily in Iraq, this Administration has disengaged from any serious effort at re-establishing an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It is essential that the United States renew its efforts to resolve this festering issue. There can be little doubt that the lack of progress on that front continues to breed hatred and hostility that is effectively exploited by Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and others. Until that conflict is resolved, it will remain a key component of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and complicate our efforts at democracy promotion in the region.
The overall foreign policy of this Administration has significantly diminished America's credibility and moral standing around the world. That, in turn, has severely undermined our effectiveness. I sincerely hope that the current turmoil in the Middle East will result in a fresh American initiative to seek a comprehensive solution to the many conflicts brewing in the region. It will be a true test of leadership. I hope you will engage the Congress in such an effort.
Sincerely,
Chris Van Hollen
Member of Congress

A tricky and potententially very risky position for Van Hollen to take in a constituency with a strong Jewish and pro-Israel component. I'm still digesting what I think of this letter myself.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Cronyism in Prince George's

In a long exposé, the Washington Post details how Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson has repeatedly awarded jobs and contracts to friends with no qualifications. Sometimes, there is little evidence that they did any work. On other occasions, they were overpaid compared to similar people in other counties.

But will it matter on primary day? Or will Johnson glide to victory over his opponent, former Del. Rushern Baker.

Either way, perhaps it is time to give the Prince George's County Council the authority to review and approve contracts.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Lots of Campaign Ads. . .

. . . but not in the Washington media market.

Friday, August 04, 2006

NARAL Endorsements

Maryland NARAL has issued its endorsements already for the upcoming primary. Montgomery is strong pro-choice territory so NARAL support can be a nice plum, especially in a Democratic primary.

NARAL endorsed all Montgomery incumbents for the state senate with the exception of Sen. Patrick Hogan in District 39 where no endorsement was made. Even District 14 Sen. Rona Kramer, an incumbent who has notably failed to win the support of various other Democratic-leaning groups, managed to pick up this one. NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland also supports Del. Richard Madaleno's bid to move up to the Senate in District 18.

Most strikingly, Mike Lenett won Maryland NARAL's endorsement for his Senate bid in District 19 over both Del. Adrienne Mandel and Del. Carol Petzold, two pro-choice women with strong pro-choice voting records. This adds to the string of endorsements in which Lenett has bested the two experienced legislators.

In Districts 15, 16, 17, and 39, Maryland NARAL is backing only the incumbents, including Republican Del. Jean Cryor in District 15--the only NARAL-endorsed Republican in the entire state. In Districts 18, 19, and 20, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland is supporting all of the incumbents and endorsing candidates for the open seats. Jeff Waldstreicher, who is on NARAL's board, got the nod in District 18. Paul Griffin and Roger Manno won NARAL's backing for their delegate races in District 19. Finally, Heather Mizeur gained their support for the open slot in District 20.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

It's Raining Endorsements

The Maryland League of Conservation Voters has released their 2006 early endorsements. You can also view their 2005-2006 General Assembly scorecard. The MD-LCV played it very conservative. The only endorsed non-incumbent in the entire state was Del. Richard Madaleno for the open Senate seat in District 18.

Equality Maryland, the state's pro-gay and lesbian rights organization, has also issued its endorsements. Unlike MD-LCV, Equality Maryland endorsed several non-incumbents, including Elbridge James and Jim Gilchrist for delegate in District 17. EM really went out on a limb and chose to support Del. Richard Madaleno, who is virtually a lock to become the state's first openly gay senator in District 18. EM is also backing transgender candidate and EM-board member Dr. Dana Beyer's bid for a delegate seat in District 18.

Like several other organization, EM has endorsed Mike Lenett's senate bid in District 19 over that of either Del. Adrienne Mandel or Del. Carol Petzold. Alec Stone and Roger Manno were pipped for the two open delegate seats. In District 20, EM stuck with incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben over challenger Prof. Jamie Raskin. EM made the interesting (read: daring or dumb) move of endorsing more candidates than there are delegate seats in District 20. Besides incumbents Del. Sheila Hixon and Del. Gareth Murray, EM recommends Heather Mizeur and Tom Hucker.

ACT Targets District 18

The Action Committee for Transit (ACT) promotes mass transit in Montgomery County. It strongly favors building the much-debated Purple Line which would connect Bethesda and Silver Spring Metro stations via light rail. It would eventually continue on to Takoma Park and the University of Maryland before terminating at the New Carrollton Metro station. ACT also opposes widening the Beltway and favors sidewalk construction.

ACT has decided to target the race for the House of Delegates in District 18. While the leading candidates in virtually all of Montgomery's other state legislative districts favor building the Purple Line, the candidates in District 18, through which much of the Purple Line would travel, are divided on the question. Incumbent Del. Ana Sol Gutiérrez and newcomer James Browning both favor the Purple Line. Dr. Dana Beyer is also guardedly in favor of building some version of the Purple Line. In contrast, incumbent Del. Jane Lawton along with candidates Al Carr, Dan Farrington, Noah Grosfeld-Katz, and Jeff Waldstreicher oppose Purple Line construction.

MCEA Endorsements

The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) is so influential that I thought I would review their endorsements here even though they released them sometime ago.

In District 14, MCEA endorsed all of the incumbent delegates but dissed incumbent Sen. Rona Kramer by making no endorsement in her race even though she is unopposed in the primary. All incumbents were endorsed in Districts 15 and 16, including Republican Del. Jean Cryor. Elbridge James was endorsed for the open seat in District 17 as was Jeff Waldstreicher in District 18. Waldstreicher is clearly thrilled to receive MCEA's support as he splats the MCEA apple logo across the screen as a welcome to his web page. MCEA also endorsed all of the incumbents in these race, including Del. Richard Madaleno who is unopposed in the senatorial primary.

Like Progressive Maryland, MCEA chose to endorse Mike Lenett over either Del. Adrienne Mandel or Del. Carol Petzold for the open senate seat in District 19. For the three delegate seats, they plumped for incumbent Del. Hank Heller as well as newcomers Melodye Berry and Roger Manno. Incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben got the nod over challenger Jamie Raskin in District 20. MCEA did not endorse incumbent Del. Gareth Murray for reelection though they did recommend incumbent Del. Sheila Hixon in addition to Tom Hucker and Heather Mizeur.

MCEA also selected a newcomer over an incumbent in District 39 as they recommended challenger Saqib Ali but did not endorse incumbent Del. Joan Frances Stern. However, all of the other state legislative incumbents in District 39 got the nod from MCEA.

MCEA decided to stay out of the hot race for county executive. George Leventhal is the only incumbent at-large member of the County Council who they recommend for reelection. They also endorsed newcomers Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg. Valerie Ervin is MCEA's pick for the open seat in District 5. MCEA also recommends the incumbents in Districts 1 and 2.

Unsurprisingly, MCEA has opinions in all of the school board races. MCEA selected incumbents Patricia O'Neill and Nancy Navarro in Districts 3 and 5, respectively. Judy Docca, a retired principal, was endorsed for District 1. Shirley Brandman, a special education teacher, has MCEA backing for the at-large seat.

It's Not All Black and White

Doug Gansler's campaign for attorney general got a major boost with endorsements from Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson and Rep. Albert Wynn. These endorsements have to be viewed as a setback for the campaign of Stu Simms. Simms would likely be unbeatable if he could combine his support from the Baltimore metro area with that of African-American voters in Prince George's County.

Of course, the question remains how strong this support for Gansler is. Will Johnson and Wynn arrange for Gansler's name to appear on voter guides and palm cards distributed in support of their own campaigns through the mail and at the polls? If they do, it will be a major boost for Gansler. Any politician who can combine strong support from Montgomery and Prince George's will have a formidable base in the Democratic primary.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Gansler Says Sniper Trial Cost $2000

Apparently, Attorney General Candidate Doug Gansler is getting pressed about the resources used to prosecute John Allen Muhammed, a man already condemned to death in Virginia. The Gazette reports:

Montgomery County State’s Attorney Douglas F. Gansler said the May trial of John Allen Muhammad cost taxpayers less than $2,000, a fraction of the figure his critics claim would be needed for the murder trial arising from the October 2002 sniper attacks that killed six people in the county.
‘‘The actual cost of the trial was $1,760 to the taxpayers of Montgomery County, less than $300 a murder,” Gansler, one of three Democrats running for state attorney general, said July 25 in an interview with The Gazette’s editorial board.
But Gansler’s figures do not include the cost of the courtroom security; the extensive security needed during transportation of Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, from their Virginia prisons; and the incarceration of the two high-profile prisoners in the county detention center.
The cost to the county, including the salaries of detectives and police officers for the time they spent in preparation to testify in the case, has exceeded $743,570, said Sheriff Raymond M. Kight.
. . .
But Gansler said the staff was already on salary. ‘‘It’s not like the judge wasn’t going to come to work that day and we wouldn’t come to work that day,” he said.
And he dismissed the cost of jailing the snipers. ‘‘It cost exactly nothing. We had empty jail cells,” Gansler said. ‘‘The actual marginal cost of taking what is otherwise an empty cell ... and closing the door behind somebody ... is an extra scoop of spinach and a piece of bread.”

Of course, the real cost was in crimes that were not prosecuted or were prosecuted much less vigorously because of the resources were devoted to going after Muhammed. The attorneys in the Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office may already have been on salary but they would not have been twiddling there thumbs without this trial. One should point out that Sheriff Kight, one of Gansler's critics, has endorsed Gansler's rival, Councilman Tom Perez.

I think Gansler was on much firmer ground when he argued that he was following the wishes of the families of the victims and protecting against an overturning of the verdicts in Virginia:

Before he agreed to prosecute them, Gansler said he met with the victims’ families. ‘‘One of the victim’s mothers looked at the picture of my two boys, and she said, ‘How would you like if one of those boys was murdered and someone said to you, ‘Don’t worry about your day in court. Some jury 400 miles away from here convicted the people we think did it of somebody else’s crime. You’re now fine,’” Gansler said.
After that, he said, the decision to prosecute ‘‘was a no-brainer.”
Also factoring into his decision was the ‘‘razor-thin” decision by a Virginia appellate court to let the convictions stand. Muhammad was convicted on a ‘‘triggerman” statute when he didn’t pull the trigger, Gansler said. The two men also were convicted under a terrorism statute passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks ‘‘that had nothing to do with a couple guys driving around shooting people.”

Still, it may be tough for Gansler live down his claim that it cost less than $2000 to prosecute this murderer. A surprising gaffe for man who is usually a smart politician and quick on his feat. Some criticize his ambition but I don't fault him for it. I have never figured out why ambition is a sin in political life even though it is considered utterly normal and a good motivator in any other occupation.

Schaefer "Endorses" O'Malley

Comptroller Schaefer made eyes at Gov. Ehrlich, calling him "honest as the day is long", even as he says he will support the Democratic candidate because he is a Democrat. Never mind that Schaefer cannot bring himself to utter Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's name and says that he was not a "good mayor". This "endorsement" wasn't tepid; it was ice cold.

Comptroller Schaefer should just make it official and become a Republican. He'd clearly rather eat dirt than say anything nice about Baltimore Mayor O'Malley. Of course, Schaefer thinks that only one man has ever lived up to what he sees the most important job in Maryland politics: himself.

Gazette Endorses Leggett

Read the Gazette's endorsement of Ike Leggett for Montgomery County Executive. A valuable boost to Leggett's bid to become the leader of Maryland's largest county. Could this preview a Washington Post nendorsement of Leggett since the Post owns the Gazette even if they have separate editorial boards?

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Progressive Maryland Endorses

Progressive Maryland has released its endorsements for the 2006 primary. According to their website, Progressive Maryland favors a higher minimum wage, living wage laws, building the purple line, fully funding the Thornton education initiative, and closing corporate tax loopholes. In addition to endorsements, Progressive Maryland also releases a legislative scorecard rating current members of the legislature as well as responses to its candidate questionnaires. Rather than review all of them here, I simply am going to highlight where they did not endorse incumbents and where they endorsed newcomers.

In District 14, Progressive Maryland endorsed all of the incumbent delegates but did not endorse incumbent Sen. Kramer. All incumbent delegates, including Republican Del Jean Cryor, were endorsed in Districts 15, 16, 17, and 18. Elbridge James got the nod for the open seat in District 17 as did James Browning in District 18. PM also supports Del. Richard Madaleno's effort to capture District 18's open Senate seat. In District 19, Progressive Maryland endorsed Mike Lennett over either Del. Adrienne Mandel or Del. Carol Petzold for the open senate seat. Incumbent Del. Hank Heller was endorsed for reelection as were Tom DeGonia and Roger Manno for the open seats.

Progressive Maryland endorsed incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben for reelection in District 20 despite challenger Jamie Raskin's touting of his progressive credentials. PM picked its own executive director, Tom Hucker, for the open delegate seat and also endorsed both incumbent delegates. In District 39, Progressive Maryland declined to endorse incumbent Sen. Patrick Hogan for reelection but did endorse the three incumbent delegates.

In local races, Ike Leggett was chosen for county executive over Steve Silverman. George Leventhal was the only incumbent endorsed for reelection to an at-large seat on the Council. PM selected Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Tufail Ahmad for the three open at-large seats. School Board Member Valerie Ervin was endorsed for the open District 5 council seat. The incumbents, including Republican Howard Denis, were deemed deserving of reelection in Districts 1 and 3.

In statewide races, PM chose Montgomery Countians Tom Perez for Attorney General and Peter Franchot for Comptroller.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Monday, August 28, 2006

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Friday, August 25, 2006

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Monday, August 21, 2006

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Friday, August 18, 2006

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Monday, August 14, 2006

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Friday, August 11, 2006

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Monday, August 07, 2006

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Friday, August 04, 2006

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Blog Archive

MPW Series

Links

Contributors

Our Comment Policy

Facebook

What Other Blogs Say About MPW