MCEA's mailers for various County Council and state legislative candidates drew a lot of attention this year, but they are nothing new. Here is a mailer starring MCEA all the way back from 1986 on behalf of Delegate Ida Ruben (D-20), who successfully won a seat in the Senate and held it for 20 years. MCEA was with her to her final race.
Showing posts with label Ida Ruben. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ida Ruben. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Teachers for Ida Ruben, 1986
Friday, October 01, 2010
Ida Ruben for Parris Glendening, 1998
This year's Governor's race has certain parallels with 1998. Both years saw an incumbent Democrat in a rematch with a tough opponent, and both years saw low primary turnout in MoCo. The success of any Democratic Governor nominee depends on both percentage and turnout in MoCo.
So back then, District 20 Senator Ida Ruben did her part, sending out the mailer below to her ultra-liberal constituents on behalf of Governor Parris Glendening. (We hope the Governor forgave her for mis-spelling his first name.) Ruben tore into GOP challenger Ellen Sauerbrey, saying:
I served with Ellen Sauerbrey. She is no moderate Republican. She is a "right wing" conservative Republican whose interests are not ours. As a Delegate, she opposed education funding, gun control, civil rights and other initiatives that you asked me to fight for!
This is a critical election. If you stay at home, you will be giving Ellen Sauerbrey your vote.
Glendening went on to beat Sauerbrey by ten points. The current Democratic Governor should consider using this tactic.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Meanest MoCo Primary of All Time, Part One
Montgomery County’s political community is much more diverse than it appears to be from the outside. While nearly all political players here are Democrats, they often disagree on issues of development, budget, transportation and the appropriate pace of change. But one thing almost every one of them will say today is that this election has been the Meanest MoCo Primary of All Time.
We do not come to that conclusion lightly. MoCo has a long history of negative campaigning. The two traditional tools of political slime here have been the whisper campaign and, much less frequently, the mail.
MoCo is a large county but its local political community is relatively small – perhaps numbering only a few hundred people. That makes our jurisdiction ideally suited for whisper campaigns alleging all manner of sleaze and smut. If we believed every whisper we have heard, we would think that the state and county governments are populated exclusively by perverts, drunks, crooks, racists, floozies and (gasp!) closet Republicans. OK, maybe there is a small bit of truth in this, but we will not be naming names since some of these people are great anonymous sources. The virtue of whisper campaigns is that they do not need authority lines. But few of them break through to the mass media and most of them remain the Chardonnay gossip of insiders.
Candidates who have wanted to elevate their charges to the attention of the general public have occasionally gone into the mail. Most negative MoCo mailers are actually contrast pieces, which tout positive things about one candidate and bad things about that person’s rival. Here’s an example from 2002 in which Council Member Phil Andrews took on his challenger, Rockville City Council Member Bob Dorsey.
Most purely negative mailers in MoCo have been issue-based and not character-based. Here’s a 2002 mailer from the End Gridlock slate going after then-Council Member Blair Ewing for opposing the ICC.
The End Gridlock slate’s approach was logical. According to them, the ICC was necessary. Blair Ewing opposed it. So Ewing had to go. This says nothing about Ewing’s character, only that he was wrong on an issue.
Prior to this year, direct character attacks in MoCo campaigns have been uncommon. Two instances stand out.
1. Delegate Dana Dembrow (D-20)
Sharp-elbowed Delegate Dana Dembrow had been feuding bitterly with the rest of his delegation, Senator Ida Ruben and Delegates Sheila Hixson and Peter Franchot, for years. In 2002, Ruben and her allies tried to get him redistricted out, to no avail. But then Dembrow was charged with hitting his wife and all hell broke loose. The rest of his delegation endorsed Delegate challenger Gareth Murray and a wave of anti-Dembrow flyers discussing the domestic violence rushed through the district. Dembrow lost by 524 votes to Murray. After the election, the two PACs that funded the mailers were revealed to have received thousands of dollars from Ruben, Franchot, Hixson and Murray.
Dembrow was later hired by Governor Bob Ehrlich and fired a year later. In 2006, Ruben and Murray were defeated and Franchot was elected Comptroller, leaving Hixson as the sole survivor.
2. The County Council Can Can
In 2002, Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (Neighborspac) formed to oppose Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock County Council slate. End Gridlock swept the at-large election that year, but Neighborspac returned with guns blazing four years later. The group supplemented its traditional activity of tallying campaign finance data with this video of the End Gridlock Council Members, which it posted on its website.
Campaign contributions are always fair game for negative messaging. But this video went further with its depiction of five Council Members as marionettes dancing on a developer’s strings. (Its demented nature made it even more effective.) Two of the marionettes were defeated – one because he ran against Ike Leggett for Executive – and three survived. The video lives on in MoCo infamy.
The anti-Dembrow campaign and the Can Can stand out in county history because they were a bit unusual for their time. They would fit right in this year. 2010 has seen a large number of contested one-on-one primaries between candidates who do not like each other. It is also occurring in the context of a great number of technological platforms for delivering negative messages, like blogs, Facebook, email and attack sites, that did not exist or could not have been effective in the past. But what will truly be remembered about 2010 is the rip-roaring nastiness with which this year’s stinking mud has been sprayed. We’ll reminisce about the worst of the worst tomorrow.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Why Incumbents Lose, Part Five
Most incumbents lose because of themselves, but a few have the bad luck to face great challengers. Let’s look at the upstarts more closely.
Every challenger thinks he or she is top-notch, but very few of them are. We define a great challenger as having the following four qualities.
1. Well-financed
A challenger may not have more money than an incumbent, but a successful one needs enough to compete.
2. Pre-existing base of support in the district
Fly-by-night challengers to incumbents almost always lose. The best ones start off with a base of supporters and volunteers that can match, or even surpass, the incumbent.
3. Knows how to exploit incumbent’s problems
Most incumbents have vulnerabilities. Great challengers know how to expose them and use them to their advantage.
4. Works HARD
Incumbents almost always have money, institutional support and some base inside the district. Great challengers counter their advantages with sheer hard work, often over long periods of time.
Here are the best challengers from Montgomery County over the last four election cycles, along with why they were so special. Note the occasional input from our fabled spy network.
4. Rob Garagiola, defeated Republican Senator Jean Roesser (D-15) in 2002
Twenty-nine-year-old Rob Garagiola seemed cast by Hollywood as an ambitious, energetic young politician. The 2001 Montgomery County Democrat of the Year and former paratrooper started campaigning against the 72-year-old incumbent over a year before the general election. But the race almost did not happen as District 17 Delegate Cheryl Kagan was nearly redistricted into District 15 for a challenge to Roesser. When that fell through, Garagiola was off to the races for a clean shot at the incumbent.
In 2002, District 15 was a swing district. Roesser, a Republican, had knocked off incumbent Democrat Larry Levitan in 1994. Partisan dynamics did not guarantee Garagiola victory in a good year nationally for the GOP. So he knocked on tons of doors, poured in nearly $200,000 in self- and family-financing and beat the incumbent by just 755 votes, or two percentage points. Garagiola’s work ethic still shows in his excellent fundraising and ascension up the leadership ladder in Annapolis.
3. Phil Andrews, defeated County Council Member William Hanna (D-3) in 1998
Andrews, once a high-level amateur tennis player and then the director of Common Cause, is Montgomery County’s undisputed champion of door knocking. He put that skill to good work in defeating a four-term incumbent in a district race. Andrews, who is a former MCGEO member(!), also enjoyed substantial labor support in his first win. That is ironic considering that he is now one of labor’s greatest enemies in the county. Then and now, Andrews refuses PAC and developer contributions.
Spy: Long out of step politically with his district, Bill Hanna had almost been defeated more than once. In a three-way race, though, the anti-Bill votes were divided. In 1998, the field was just two candidates. Phil hustled the progressive votes and ran circles around Hanna.
Spy: Phil had already run an energetic, but unsuccessful campaign for Council at-large in 1994, so he knew a lot about campaigning. The district race was better suited to his strengths as a likable, retail, door-to-door campaigner. His youthful energy and good looks worked to his advantage against the then 77-year-old Bill Hanna, who had developed a reputation as a curmudgeon and a bit of an eccentric. Hanna had alienated labor unions (which Andrews would also eventually do) and had particularly alienated the gay community by opposing domestic partner benefits, which also hurt him among liberals.
2. Jamie Raskin, defeated Senator Ida Ruben (D-20) in 2006
It is certainly true that Senator Ruben, who had spent over thirty years in Annapolis, self-destructed in 2006. But Jamie Raskin was ideally suited to capitalize on her problems. Smart, liberal and devoid of pretense, Raskin was able to bring together Ruben’s enemies (including supporters of banished former Delegate Dana Dembrow) with District 20’s diehard leftists to engineer a stunning coup of Ruben. Raskin had an all-star campaign team boasting David Moon, Ryan O’Donnell, Miti Figueredo, Rebecca Lord and Jonathan Shurberg and a seemingly limitless army of volunteers. He even nearly equaled the incumbent’s fundraising, collecting $227,542 vs. Ruben’s $253,202. Despite making the Apple Ballot, Ruben was blown out by 33 points - the worst performance of any MCEA-endorsed incumbent in that cycle.
1. Chris Van Hollen, defeated Senator Patricia Sher (D-18) in 1994 and Congresswoman Connie Morella in 2002
How many Maryland politicians have knocked off a State Senator, a Member of Congress and a Kennedy? Just one: Chris Van Hollen.
Van Hollen’s 2002 campaign for Congress, during which he defeated District 15 Delegate Mark Shriver in the primary and incumbent Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella in the general, is well-known throughout the county and is even the subject of a book. But he would probably have never made it to Congress if he had not already knocked off another incumbent eight years before. Van Hollen was first elected to the House of Delegates from District 18 in 1990. Four years later, he ran against Senator Patricia Sher, a freshman in the upper chamber who had spent three terms in the House.
Spy: This is one of the most interesting races. Van Hollen was a Sher protegé - she picked him from a crowded field of aspirants to run on her “pro-choice” slate when she challenged longtime incumbent Margaret “Peg” Schweinhaut for the District 18 Senate seat in 1990. But then the young, ambitious Van Hollen bit the hand that fed him and took advantage of District 18’s history of volatility to take out his patron.
Spy: This was a combination of the self-destructing incumbent (see Ruben vs. Raskin, 2006) running into the ambitious, smart, hard-working young challenger.
Spy: Chris out-organized Patty and was already coasting to a big victory. She then shot herself in the foot in a Wash Post interview. Chris won huge and brought in newcomer Sharon Grosfeld on his coattails.
Spy: My most distinct memory of the campaign was this: Chris was already leading in the perception of those following the race (I don’t know if there were any polls), when Patti shot herself in the foot, head, and all parts of her body. During an interview with a TV station, she said in effect that “all the blacks in Annapolis are corrupt and on the take.” Whoa! Patti was not racist, but that stupid statement clinched it for Chris. She doubled her error by claiming she thought the conversation was off the record. Oy!
Spy: Sher did her best to vote pro-business and annoy EVERY municipal official in her district. Also, there was her racist comment at the end of the campaign. Chris just pointed all this out. Also, Chris smartly (does he ever make mistakes?) chose NOT to build a slate against the incumbent delegates (thereby assuring that they would not campaign).
The end result of all of the above was an incredible 50-point blowout for the then-35-year-old Delegate over the Annapolis veteran. Van Hollen’s ability to combine ground game, message, discipline and organization makes him both an outstanding candidate and a great adviser to other candidates, as national Democrats were pleased to find out in 2008. Maryland’s incumbent U.S. Senators better hope that he never runs against them.
So what are the lessons for incumbents from this series? First, if you are not lazy, perform your job decently and lack lots of enemies, you will very likely be re-elected. As one of our informants says, “Basically, if you are an incumbent, and you knock on doors, don’t offend anyone, vote the wrong way or pick your nose (in public) you win.” But as we have seen above, every election cycle generates at least one great challenger. Say a prayer every night that he or she is not living in your district!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Why Incumbents Lose, Part Four
Get ready for some fun. Here’s a great category of losing incumbents:
Incumbents with Enemies
Ever wonder why so many politicians are so bland? It’s because they’re being smart. Politicians with big mouths get lots of enemies, and at least a couple knives are bound to hit the mark.
Republican District 39 Delegates Barrie Ciliberti and Mathew Mossburg, Defeated by Democrats Charles Barkley, Paul Carlson and Joan Stern in 1998
District 39 was created in Montgomery County in 1994. Originally, the district went all the way to the northern county line. Its first delegation was 100% Republican. That would not last.
Spy: The Dems ran a GREAT campaign (in spite of Joan). Of the three GOP candidates, none campaigned seriously, one was probably nuts and Mossburg had serious baggage (for example, he missed more votes than the entire Montgomery County Delegation combined).
Spy: The Central Committee formed a committee called the Democratic Upper Montgomery Project (DUMP) to “dump” Republicans in Districts 15 and 39. The committee was chaired by former Washington Redskin and discouraged gubernatorial aspirant Ray Schoenke, who gleefully took on the Republicans in letters to the editors, op-eds and strategic mailings. The Republicans returned fire at Schoenke, allowing Barkley, Carlson and Stern to run a positive, upbeat campaign and win the election.
Delegate Dana Dembrow (D-20), Defeated in 2002
Dana Dembrow was first elected in 1986 and soon began battling the rest of his delegation, including Senator Ida Ruben and Delegates Sheila Hixson and Peter Franchot. Franchot is a man who knows something about feuds. If he was locked in solitary confinement, he would likely start a feud with his mattress. But Dembrow’s biggest enemy was Ruben, and she would engineer his takedown in 2002. Strangely enough, Dembrow would rematerialize briefly as a Carroll County Commissioner candidate in 2006, but he did not make it to the election.
Spy: This one has all the elements of great literature, perhaps a Greek tragedy. The rivalry between District 20 Senator Ida Ruben and Delegate Dana Dembrow paralleled the rivalry between Captain Ahab and Moby Dick (except it’s not clear who was the captain and who was the whale). The two of them hated each other with a passion and drove each other to distraction during 16 years of joint service to the district until Dembrow finally made a crucial error. One sad night in April 2002, likely under the influence of alcohol, he got into a conflagration with his wife Suzette. The exact circumstances of the conflagration remain unclear. Suzette Dembrow ultimately refused to testify, Dana Dembrow was acquitted of the charge of assault, and the Dembrows reconciled and lived happily together until Suzette’s tragic death from a stroke (unrelated to the allegation of domestic abuse) four years later...
Nonetheless, Suzette made a panicked phone call to 911, the transcript of which was released to the public by Ruben’s campaign. Dembrow couldn’t shake the image of a wife-beater in the county’s most liberal district and ended up losing his seat to lackluster challenger Gareth Murray, who was elected on a slate with Ruben allies Sheila Hixson and Peter Franchot. Murray failed to hold onto the seat four years later, when Ruben herself was knocked out by Jamie Raskin. Much of the organizational energy behind Raskin’s campaign came from the many Dembrow supporters who blamed Ruben for Dembrow's defeat. The case could be made that the Ruben-Dembrow blood feud ended both of their political careers.
Delegate Joan Stern (D-39), Defeated in 2006
Stern was part of the District 39 Democratic Delegate challenger team that took out an all-Republican Delegate delegation in 1998. But after two terms, her colleagues became fed up with her and kicked her off their slate. She had the misfortune of drawing a talented challenger, the now-famous Saqib Ali, who got onto the Apple Ballot and smoked her by 1,238 votes.
Spy: Joan alienated and annoyed too many people. She was somewhat eccentric and not liked by her colleagues.
Spy: When her district mates dumped her from the team after serving with her for several years, the stage was set for the upset. When the teachers followed up with an apple ballot endorsement of her opponent, her fate was probably sealed.
Spy: Joan was not well-liked in her district or in Annapolis. First impressions matter, and her reputation never recovered from her first piece of legislation, a bill to require Maryland restaurants to allow customers to dine with their dogs (Joan was single and very fond of her dog). Joan was also unfairly criticized for taking on the obesity issue before it was widely perceived as a public health epidemic. She campaigned hard for a third term, but Saqib campaigned harder.
Senator Ida Ruben (D-20), Defeated by Jamie Raskin in 2006
Why does District 20 have all the great rivalries, blowups and feuds? Is it the raging tradition of hyper-activism in Takoma Park and inside-the-Beltway Silver Spring? Is it the unending conflict among competing species of communists, socialists, anarchists and other “ists?” Is it the volatile personalities that are drawn to such a boiling soup of liberalism? Maybe it is all of the above.
Ida Ruben is a woman of big personality, big grudges and lots and lots of enemies. In the wake of her decapitation of rogue Delegate Dana Dembrow, the Dembrow refugees formed an unholy alliance with super-liberals who had never liked Ruben. Their rival of choice: civil liberties professor and lawyer Jamie Raskin. Raskin was a great candidate with legions of volunteers and a superstar organization led by David Moon, but Ruben lost this race with mistake after mistake. First, she went after students at Blair High School for writing a school newspaper endorsement of Raskin. (Never mind that the students were not old enough to vote.) Next, she targeted a Takoma Park ice cream shop that named a flavor “Askin’ 4 Raskin.” When the ice cream was given out for free on the Fourth of July, she wanted it to be recorded as a campaign contribution. Finally, she released a flyer alleging that “Jamie Raskin helped put George W. Bush into office,” prompting MPW founder David Lublin to denounce it as “utterly ridiculous drivel.” District 20 voters felt the same and Raskin won by 33 points.
None of the above says much about the challengers. We’ll pick out a few great ones in Part Five.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Ida is Looking for Work
The Washington Post profiled former Sen. Ida Ruben yesterday:
Every year since 1975, on the first day of the Maryland General Assembly's new session, Ida G. Ruben would walk up the steps to the Capitol and take her place among the state legislators.
She started in the House of Delegates and in 1987 moved to the Senate, where she rose to president pro tem. Over the years she became one of the most powerful members of the legislature, the chairman of the Montgomery County delegation and one of the longest-serving members of the General Assembly.
But yesterday, as the legislators gathered once again in Annapolis, Ruben was not among them. She was defeated in last year's Democratic primary by Jamie Raskin, an American University law professor who argued that District 20, which covers parts of Silver Spring and Takoma Park, needed a more progressive representative.
Ruben's plans for the first day of the legislative session were still up in the air last week -- though she said she would not go to Annapolis. Her plans for the future also are uncertain. But at 78, the Silver Spring resident said she is in no mood to retire."I'm hoping for some door to open," she said. "I prefer working."
Saturday, September 09, 2006
District 20 Senate Race Gets Meaner
The Washington Post has written a piece on the rough race for state Senate in District 20 between challenger Jamie Raskin and incumbent Sen. Ida Ruben.
The latest polling scuttlebutt is that Ruben now trails Raskin the polls which may well explain why she has sent out an incredibly dishonest flyer about Raskin just before the election. The flyer claims that "Jamie Raskin helped put George W. Bush into office." The piece goes on to say "his support for the third party candidate helped deliver the Presidency to George W. Bush." There is also a photo of President Bush with a bubble saying "Thanks, Jamie!" Utterly ridiculous drivel.
Heard on the campaign trail: "The only person who could beat Ida Ruben is Ida Ruben and she is more than capable of doing it."
The polling from District 20 also suggests that incumbent Del. Sheila Hixon and Takoma Park Councilwoman Heather Mizeur are locks for two of the delegate seats. Indeed, Mizeur may come in first. Incumbent Garreth Murray, Aaron Klein and Tom Hucker are fighting it out for the third slot.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
On Raskin v. Ruben in District 20
This year's state senate primary in District 20 between Sen. Ida Ruben and Prof. Jamie Raskin has easily been the most ugly contest in Montgomery County.
In many ways, Raskin has the tougher battle. Even for a challenger who has mobilized so many people to support his campaign, it is difficult to convince voters to dump a long-time incumbent in what ultimately remains a relatively low-profile contest. Moreover, Raskin has to give voters a reason to dump Ruben without coming across like a relatively young man beating up on an old woman who won political office when the number of women in public office was much lower than today. As an incumbent, Ruben is also able to command greater financial support.
The portions of Jamie Raskin's campaign that have captured the media's attention mystify me. He attacked Ruben for supporting a Senate resolution supporting our troops in Iraq which received near unanimous approval from the Senate. Raskin described the resolution as a "valentine" to George Bush. This characterization seems a bit over-the-top to say the least and one wonders why he is focusing public attention on foreign policy in a race for the General Assembly. Perhaps it is meant as red meat for activists fed up with the Bush Administration but I didn't particularly care for it.
Surprisingly for a sharp, well-educated attorney, some of Raskin's problems are presentational. When Ruben and Raskin appeared on the Kojo Nnamdi show, Ruben was careful to speak in a moderate tone and only sounded a bit snippy once or twice. Raskin spoke quickly and aggressively and came across at times as beating up on a reasonable-sounding opponent. If Raskin had spoken more slowly and with a tone that connoted regret rather than anger over Ruben's very harsh attacks on him, he might have come across as the winner to me. Raskin wasn't aided by the panelist who attacked Ruben relentlessly but was so sympathetic to Raskin that one gained sympathy for Ruben.
Nonetheless, Raskin's campaign has gained major boosts that help explain why he remains one of the candidates most likely to defeat an incumbent. First, Ruben has been extremely harsh and negative, which unintentionally reinforces Raskin's message that she is unliked and ineffective. Ruben's claims that Raskin is not really pro-choice or a real Democrat are both nasty and false as shown by Montgomery NOW's endorsement of Raskin. NOW simply is not in the habit of endorsing pro-life men over pro-choice women. Rep. Van Hollen, who is extremely popular in Montgomery County, publicly rebuked Ruben for her flyer. Rumor has it that Rep. Al Wynn, who supports Ruben, did the same privately.
Second, people who know Jamie Raskin really like Jamie Raskin. Over the course of this year's primary campaign, I've met many people in a variety of settings who live in District 20. They all think Jamie's terrific. One mutual colleague spent much of a dinner I attended singing his praises to me. So many politicians present a pleasing public face but are not well-liked by people who know them well. Raskin may have presented a public image that I have not always liked in this campaign. However, it is heartening to see so many people who know him who genuinely like him and are fully behind his senate bid.
I cannot say the same for Ruben. I keep running into people who say she isn't speaking to them or describe her as a difficult person. I wouldn't mind difficult at all if it just meant that Ruben was a tough pol who got the job done but she has been rated one of the least effective members of the Montgomery delegation--something that has been the focus of Raskin's more effective attacks on Ruben.
Raskin's final advantage going into the primary is the impressive campaign organization which he has built. They have knocked on doors and telephoned voters all over the district in an effort to rally support for Raskin. The hard work of politics still matters a lot in state legislative races in Maryland. Raskin's ability to rally campaign workers to his cause is probably why he has a real shot at defeating Ruben.
Ruben will nevertheless be tough to defeat. People in District 20 know her and have elected her to public office for decades. Over the years, Ruben has undoubtedly done a lot of favors over the years. The electorate also will skew heavily in Ruben's favor as older, white women will make up a disproportionate share of primary voters. It is now taboo to discuss the hair and clothes of female politicians but Ruben's beehive and political longevity have made her a bit of a local icon.
Still, Ruben has alienated enough people over the years that I wonder how many will feel even nostalgia if she goes down to defeat next Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
