More in Sorrow than in Anger

I don’t know Greg Fox that well, but he strikes this author as the lumbering embodiment of the Peter Principle.  In my former career as a Very Important Republican ™, I would meet office-holders like Fox all of the time…generally hyper-parochial and somewhere on the George Babbitt spectrum of unoriginal.  Entirely unremarkable…of whom little is given, less is expected. And on that measure, Fox does not disappoint.

The point of this is to say that when folks hold themselves up to a higher standard of progressive thinking, unlike Fox, they had better deliver the goods.  This is where word has to match up with deed and this is where Allan Kittleman, with his promised veto of the sanctuary bill, falls short.  If you want to be a different kind of Republican, now is the time to demonstrate your values by your actions.  I read his statement and found a great deal of the rationale therein to be disingenuous fear-mongering.  Right out of the old Newt Gingrich/Joe Gaylord playbook.  I didn’t see anything that was reassuring in the least to those who might feel “othered,” Not even a nod recognizing legitimate fears, like those expressed by the woman in Tom Coale’s excellent piece today. 

So I can only believe that this is the real Allan Kittleman, or that he is posturing for another office and he feels the need to align himself, on this wedge issue, closer to where the Maryland GOP base is. 

On a related note, do I know what Governor Hogan’s plans are?  Oddly enough, Big Lar’ doesn’t confide in me his electoral intentions.  His loss.  At least he had the fortitude to grab for the brass ring in ‘14.  I, personally, would wager at this moment that he runs for re-election, but something closer to 60% likelihood on that, in short, not a slam dunk.  His favorability numbers are quite good now, but so were George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings in early ’91.  Even if he runs for re-election, I believe it will be a tough road for Hogan assuming the Democrats nominate a half-way decent candidate.  Maybe he wants to focus on governance and not on campaigning?  Take the James K. Polk approach perhaps.  Stranger things have happened. 

If he doesn’t seek re-election, the lack of anything near a deep bench means that the GOP will be looking for any Republicans who might be electable, and with Kittleman’s positioning on the sanctuary bill, he might just be palatable enough to emerge as the GOP nominee in ’18.   We should know about Hogan’s plans within the next few months.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, all “Democrats for Kittleman” should remember where he stood on the sanctuary issue.  Maybe it’s time to donate those T-shirts.

Next up:  Thoughts on 2 and 3, probably before the end of this weekend.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Future: Override

So the veto came, to the shock of none.

Assuming the four Council-members hold the line and no one "evolves" (or "flip-flops," depending on your point-of-view) on the issue, the Howard County Council appears set to override County Executive Kittleman's veto of the Nutritional Standards bill later on this month.

Policy considerations aside (although I tend to favor the compromise bill that the Council developed), I've gone back and forth on the wisdom of Kittleman's move from a political perspective. Ultimately, i think he is making a mistake.  But is it a good or bad kind of mistake for him?

I listened to his rationale for his veto, which can be found here, frankly it sounded like a boilerplate GOP play - perhaps principled but a little tired, mostly uninspiring and a bit platitudinous.  Yet another variation on "Get the government out of our lives! (except on the following 50 issues but let's not discuss those right now)."

So his veto helps him with his HoCo base, although I am not sure he needed that (or is he fearing a contested primary in 2018?!).  Perhaps he thinks a more confrontational posture will help him in future negotiations with the Council on other issues.  He has demonstrated that he can throw an elbow, OK..so what comes next?  Maybe he is looking at his future and sees a shift to the right as necessary if he wants to hold a political office that represents more than Howard County.  Does that mean the end of "Mr. Nice Guy?"  Perhaps the Kittleman brand is going to take another turn.  Maybe "Mr. No!"  That doesn't exactly radiate the sort of optimism one might expect from a "different kind of Republican." Let me use more "quote" marks.

Bottom line in this hastily written post - this is probably smart politics for Kittleman over the long-haul, assuming he has aspirations that require being nominated by a Republican party that is drifting ever right-ward.  But it is bad policymaking.  Moreover, he better get ready for life after the override because there is a fine line between "principled" and "ineffectual" - especially if he finds himself standing alone (or only with Mr. Fox) one too many times. There is a Howard County mainstream and right now, he is squarely to the right of it.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

An Early “First 120 Days” Update

A long-time reader passed along two recent “First 100 Days” news articles. One was focused on Howard County Executive Allan Kittleman, the other on Frederick County Executive Jan Gardner.  While the former presented a list of hits and misses, the latter tended to be a rather glowing review.  Captain Incremental vs. Action Executive. 

Recognizing that media coverage and reality don’t always align perfectly, and that the pieces were quite different in structure, length, and tone, there were some notable themes that emerged in the Kittleman piece:

Thus far, Kittleman seems to be practicing the politics of articulation.  He recognizes the fundamental resiliency of the Ulman Administration, and the electoral realities of Howard County.  This means tempering conservative instincts with moves with populist appeal (the sugar water order) and/or “good-government” technocratic initiatives (flood mitigation program funding).*

Of course, there have been missteps. 

Kittleman appears to be engaged in a modified waffle when it comes to his communications efforts relating to the storm-water fee…vocal in opposition to it when in Annapolis, more willing to articulate a nuanced wait-and-see-what-can-be-done-about-it stance when in HoCo.  Perhaps it is a question of time, place, and manner but he isn’t exactly elevating his leadership profile on this issue.

And while every CE is, and should be, empowered to bring in their own team, he might have ousted too much institutional memory and experienced talent from the previous Administration too quickly. 

His proposed reorganization of the Human Rights Commission seems to have been handled clumsily, as a rush to act resulted in the failure to obtain input from some key stakeholders.  This, in turn, led to the County Council tabling his bill. Not a shining moment for a new Administration that pledged to emphasize collaboration.

Over the next four years (minus @ 120 days), it will be interesting to see how his right-of-center ideological predilections manifest themselves in terms of policy.   Will he attempt to shift to the center and triangulate between a Democratic-majority Council and his Tea Party friends? Would voters perceive such an approach as Authentic Kittleman or merely calculated political positioning? Will his support of Governor Hogan tarnish his brand?  Where is La Isla Bonita? 

Too many unknowns at this point, but we will all have a much better sense of the answer to the question, “Who is the Real Allan Kittleman?” by 2018.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.    

* In a conciliatory state of mind, this author feels compelled to acknowledge that he supports the two specific actions mentioned in that sentence.  The time is now 4:33 in the a.m. and you are watching “Perspectives” with your host, Lionel Osbourne. 

100% Positive

Comparative (some call it “negative”) campaigning has been with us since the early days of our Republic, even some of our Founders and their associates practiced it.  The first truly contested presidential elections under our Constitution – in 1796 and 1800 – were rife with vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations.  Rough and tumble politicking of the highest order. The Willie Horton ad, relatively speaking, was subtle and nuanced compared to some of the allegations that were printed in the newspapers of that era.   

So if you are opposed to comparative campaign tactics, you must be against the Founders and therefore, hate America. Commie swine!

Do I even need to write, “See what I did there?”

My point with this inelegant example is to recognize that pointing out the shortcomings of one’s political opponent(s) is generally well within the bounds of fair play in our democracy and that witless hand-wringing while bemoaning the so-called coarseness of modern elections is to miss the mark completely.

Don’t get it twisted, there were folks on both sides of the aisle, in Maryland, that engaged in comparative campaigning in 2014.  Sometimes it took the form of paid media, in other cases, attacks generated earned media.  In some communities, whisper campaigns via word-of-mouth or social media conveyed messages…information that wasn’t always grounded in that which the boffins call “facts.”  Sometimes attacks were cloaked as defensive statements.

So before one starts saying, “Golly gee, I reckon ‘negative’ campaigning doesn’t work.” Think again. You might not like it, and it might not appeal to “our better angels” but it serves a purpose…and it is often effective.  A back-and-forth on voting records and statements helps facilitate a free exchange of ideas and allows for the painting of more detailed portraits of those seeking public office.  Those on the receiving end may not appreciate the “warts and all” image of themselves, but it offers an electorate another way of thinking about someone who may represent them. 

Of course serious money is spent by campaigns in an effort to showcase/position their candidate in the most favorable light possible, and they will get miffed because comparative communications efforts require the expenditure of additional time and resources, both of which are precious, to ensure that the voters are hearing “our” story about our candidate as opposed to “their” narrative about our candidate.

Academic arguments can discuss the impact of such campaigns on political efficacy and voter turnout.  That subject will not be addressed here today. 

My point is that those on high horses tend to dismount quickly when it becomes advantageous for them/their political party to engage in such practices. So the “holier-than-thou” attitude gets very tiring, very fast…and often precedes behavior that could best be described as hypocritical. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

The Sun Missed Their Own Point – Watson Is the Better Choice

The Baltimore Sun showered Courtney Watson with praise in their recent editorial on the Howard County Executive race.  They referred to Watson as “an immensely gifted and dedicated public servant.” They “hope she [Watson] will find many more opportunities to share her talents with the community.”

Yet, they endorsed Allan Kittleman.  Let us examine their rationale for doing so.

They appear to give a great deal of weight to the importance of having something equating to a relative degree of parity between the two parties.  I can understand the innate appeal such a proposition would have among self-described adherents of a good government philosophy.  For such voters, it sounds inherently “fair”…something that might promote moderation and compromise. However, there can still be a “competition of ideas” within a political system where one party is stronger than the other.  Moreover, many states that have more competitive two-party systems than Maryland still witness highly divisive, highly partisan political environments.   

Frankly, their argument would have more merit if Senator Kittleman had decided to run for Governor.  First, he would have been a stronger candidate for that office compared to Larry Hogan. Second, even the Sun editorial stated that “Maryland is stronger when it has two viable political parties…” Note that.  Not “Howard County” specifically but “Maryland” in general.  Kittleman is not running statewide.  At least not in this election cycle.   

It has been established that Senator Kittleman’s voting record is more conservative than his persona.  How, precisely, is his “kind of independence” going to work out with a Democratic County Council and a Democratic state legislature?  Further, wouldn’t a Republican County Executive be cross-pressured by his base to pull to the right on economic issues?  On some social issues?  It seems to be more of a recipe for stagnation and deadlock than a path to move Howard County forward.

By labeling Kittleman a “relatively liberal Republican” and Watson a “relatively conservative Democrat,” the Sun missed two critical points:

First, both are running as progressives.  The key distinction is that Watson is closer to being a true progressive while Kittleman is highlighting certain policy stances in an effort to position himself as one…when he is really fairly conservative on a host of issues (Right to Work, education funding and assault weapons leap to mind).  Second, one can infer from their description of her that Watson is a different kind of Democrat.  Perhaps distinct enough from Mr. Ulman to provide a “fresh approach to leadership of the county?”  I believe so.

The Sun seems to accept the belief that Ken Ulman will be viewed as a good County Executive, “whose legacy will ultimately be seen as having left the county better than he found it.”

And then they use language that might be found in a classic political science tome.  They state that Kittleman isn’t running “as a repudiation of the incumbent.”  Maybe, maybe not.  The point is that if you believe that Ulman’s legacy should be built upon, why would you endorse someone from the opposing political party?  That invites the politics of “preemption,” to use Professor Skowronek’s typology.  If you want to extend his legacy, it makes far more sense to practice the “politics of articulation” and elect someone distinct from, yet affiliated with, the identity of the incumbent. 

The good news is that there is such a candidate.  Her name is Courtney Watson.

In short, I suggest that the Sun editorial board re-read their own endorsement.  Perhaps they should re-think their conclusion.  A careful review of their own editorial might prompt a new one beginning with the phrase: “On second thought….”

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

The Curious Case of Allan Kittleman’s Campaign

First, I have no personal animus toward Senator Kittleman.  He and I have only spoken in-person on one occasion and he was quite pleasant.  He seems reasonably thoughtful.  Moreover, and this is pure speculation-on-stilts, I assume he makes a fine neighbor.  Need to borrow a snow-shovel to get your car out of the driveway?  I am guessing he has a spare and would be glad to help you out.  Anyway, that is how he comes across.

Even if all of this is true, none of it is a reason to vote for him for Howard County Executive. 

He is running a new set of ads that impart the message: vote for the person, not the party.  I don’t buy into that line of thinking. The party to which a person belongs should tell you quite a bit about him or her.  We aren’t born hard-wired as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green or other.  We choose our partisan affiliation.  Sometimes, over the course of our lives, we re-visit our decisions because we evolve and/or the party changes.  For whatever reason(s), Allan Kittleman decided to stick with the GOP, even in its most recent incarnation – with so much energy coming from its Tea Party wing.

So why did he stay?  Well, this is why I encourage my fellow HoCo denizens to check out the website: www.kittlemanfacts.com.  The reader can see that the reality of his voting record in Annapolis does not exactly square with the moderate image many folks have of Senator Kittleman.  Sure, he tends to adopt more centrist positions on some issues compared to his hard-right colleagues…but take a look at his votes on guns, on education, on the minimum wage, on women’s health issues, and on the environment and one can see that the Senator is actually quite conservative on several important public policy matters.

In addition, he seemed to imply at a candidate forum a few weeks back that a vote for him was a vote to pull the Republican Party in the right (read: correct) direction.  If he really wanted to continue fighting that fight (and again, his voting record will demonstrate that he was aligned with less-than-progressive members of the GOP at least on the issues outlined in the previous paragraph), then why not stay in the State Senate and use that as a forum?  Why not run for re-election instead of seeking another office?    I suppose Kittleman and perhaps his Inner Circle know the answers to those questions.  In any event, that goes to his personal motivations, which need to be distinguished from what he would do in the public sphere, if elected. 

And how can we predict what he might do?  By looking at the choices he has made in the past.  Personally, I believe his decision to remain with the Republican Party and a thorough look at his surprisingly conservative voting record on certain issues are what some like to call “telling facts.”  And while mud can be washed off, facts cling for a very long time. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.