A Baker's Dozen (Minus One) - Endorsement Edition

Time to engage in some Right Mindfulness.  The four-mile jog this morning definitely helped reframe my thinking…a pouring of a fresh, hot cup o’ perspective.

So let us focus on Maryland's District 12 today, my home district.  But first some quick thoughts:

Yesterday, I attended the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club of Howard County candidate forum/endorsement meeting.  It was an absolutely gorgeous April morning and, although woefully bereft of my coffee, spirits were high.  Prime parking near the hotel that was hosting the gathering was tight…but another driver waved me into a spot, although we arrived at roughly the same time.  As she drove past, I realized the driver was a candidate.  We briefly exchanged pleasantries.  Total class act.

This positive energy continued through TMDC President Ethel Hill’s opening remarks and County Council member Courtney Watson’s statement.  The peaceful easy feeling ended abruptly…like a car door being slammed on the third phalange…when Lisa Markovitz (County Council District 1 candidate) stated: “village centers should be retained, if possible.”  [Emphasis mine]. Cue record screech sound effect.  This is where the reasonable-seeming mask, and it is a mask, is coming off that campaign.   Maybe it was a verbal gaffe on her part…but I think it reveals a window into a “let’s go back to the past” mentality that is bad for area merchants, bad for local shoppers and bad for Howard County as we seek to support existing residents and businesses…and attract new ones…to help keep our communities vital.     

Let us return to District 12. No sense in allowing the ill humors to gain a foothold.  Here are my endorsements for the Democratic Primary Election.  There are three of them (the 12^th is a multi-member state legislative House District that elects three Delegates).

There is a question that pollsters ask, there are a few variations but it boils down to: “Does Candidate X understand the problems of people like me?”  I believe that Brian Bailey not only gets the challenges that families deal with in our district, but that he will be a capable advocate for our families in Annapolis.  I’ve been to multiple forums and he consistently presents a thoughtful plan for addressing some of the most pressing concerns facing Howard and Baltimore counties…ranging from education to job creation to transportation to environmental issues.  I hope that voters in our district take a good look at Mr. Bailey’s platform and consider the wide range of support that he is receiving from several progressive organizations. I’ve been around candidates long enough to sort the wheat from the chaff, the sincere from the phony, and the workhorses from the showhorses…I believe that Brian Bailey is the real-deal, ready to roll up his sleeves, and toil for the 12^th. I stand four-square behind Mr. Bailey and I hope he is nominated in June and elected in November.

Several months ago, I would have thought it unlikely that I would write the following words, but I am supporting Clarence Lam as well.  I had some early concerns about his positioning, but he has proven to be a formidable candidate. He must have a teleporter because he is all over the District.  He is smart, hard-working and has an impressive background as a health care practitioner (Dr. Lam is a “board-certified physician in preventative medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”) and as a public policy expert, having worked at the federal and state levels.  He is also active in the local community through multiple organizations.  The potential is there for a distinguished career in public service and that is why I support Clarence Lam for Delegate.

I wanted to endorse Dr. Terri Hill earlier, but something held me back. Perhaps some reflexive contrarian impulse kicked in when the Democratic establishment lined up in support of her candidacy (author’s note: I have a general predisposition in favor of insurgent campaigns).  That said, focusing on her stellar qualifications, her broad and deep knowledge about health care, and her commitment to social justice, I am convinced that Dr. Hill would be a great state legislator.  Harvard smart with an easy-going personality and accessible communications style, Terri Hill is ready, from “Day One” as the saying goes, to be an excellent representative for the 12^th District.

If I had a fourth vote, it would be for Adam Sachs.  A low-key fellow with some bold progressive ideas…with the moxie to quote Lou Reed as he did at a recent forum…it would be interesting to see what someone like him could do in Annapolis. 

In the interest of riding this endorphin wave for as long as possible, I am not going to comment at length on the other six Democratic candidates at this time. I have already written about disbarred attorney Michael Gisriel.  I think Cohen is a complete non-starter. The others (Ebersole, Stewart, Dongarra and McGuirk-Spence) all have positives and negatives, some have more of the latter than the former.  But that is a discussion for another day, if necessary.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

         

Gisriel Gets…What Exactly?

A one-time lawmaker should be expected to know and follow the law.  That is a reasonable enough starting-point.

Meet Michael Gisriel, disbarred attorney, long-time lobbyist and (relatively) new resident of Maryland's 12^th State House of Delegates District.  A completely unremarkable fellow, except for the fact that he wants to be one of the three Delegates elected from the 12^th.  Pump your brakes, Mike.

You might have seen his signs around town…or received one of his direct mail pieces featuring what appear to be photographs of the candidate from the ‘90s.  His slogan is “Gisriel Gets It Done!”

So what has Mr. Gisriel gotten done lately?

“The respondent, Michael Gisriel, having been found in violation of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.1, and 8.4, was disbarred.”*

“Gisriel’s conduct, which constituted violations of many of the Rules of Professional Conduct, exacerbated by his hubris in the handling of the $1,000 check, warrants disbarment.” (5 – 2 majority, filed on June 18, 2009)

Source: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/3a08ag.pdf

*[Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 1.3 (Diligence), Rule 1.4 (Communication), Rule 1.15 (Safeguarding Property), Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)]

His direct mail piece, presented as a “Report from Annapolis!,” is further evidence that Mr. Gisriel has lost the plot.  Running as an uber-insider, especially when one is a non-incumbent, is rarely a sound idea. His listed accomplishments involve such action verbs as “attended…spoke…spoke….and met.”  These are typical hallmarks of success for a lobbyist…. at least good for billable hours.  (possible new slogan: “Gisriel Gets Paid in Full"?)

His January 15, 2014 campaign finance report shows a number of contributions from individuals and organizations outside of the 12^th District.  His is not a grass-roots campaign.  It barely even qualifies as Astroturf. 

The only upside to his highly improbable nomination and election would be the joy I would experience calling my local friends on Wednesday, November 5, 2014 to see who among them wants to run for his seat in 2018.

Welcome to the 12th, Mr. Gisriel.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

The Forum (Part III) – And the First shall be last.

Dawn.  Kowloon.  The Walled City.  The first rays of sunlight meandered between the tenement houses and gently alit upon a window looking out upon a caged balcony.  That window…and the figure talking into a telephone behind it…were visible from the rooftop of the apartment across the alleyway.  The sole human presence on that rooftop was a sniper, who was too pre-occupied focusing the sights on his Vapensmia NM149 to notice…

…Is how this post would begin if it were a Robert Ludlum novel.  Alas, it is instead about the League of Women Voters of Howard County Candidate Forum, specifically the panel discussion among the six candidates for Howard County Council (District One).

Perhaps it would be better crafted as a Ludlum work.  It could be titled The Elkridge Gambit.   But such thoughts had not yet entered my mind as I was scribbling away in that dark auditorium, watching four Democratic and two Republican candidates sitting onstage behind a rectangular table.  Each had the opportunity to deliver very brief opening and closing statements…and field questions from the Moderator.

Before I launch into a brief analysis of the candidate performances that specific evening, it should be noted that I, and some friends of mine, support one of them: Jon Weinstein (D).  I have other friends who support another, Wendy Royalty (D).  Regarding the other two Democratic candidates, I don’t believe I have ever met Dave Grabowski and my contact with Lisa Markovitz was limited to a brief exchange after the Forum.  I have not made the acquaintance of the two Republican candidates: Kevin Forrest Schmidt and David Blake Melton.    

My interest thus declared, here we go:

I believe Weinstein had the best night.  An experienced campaigner, he seemed comfortable with the format. He delivered answers that provided the audience members with insights into his perspective on governing: which includes a recognition of the interdependent nature of multiple issues (education, economic growth, transportation, etc…) and the importance of working collaboratively to find “balanced,” thoughtful solutions to the challenges facing Howard County.

Weinstein is a small businessman who has experience working with government agencies to promote “efficiency, accountability and transparency.”  He ran a good race in a tough seat (House District 9A) four year ago and enjoys some residual Name ID from that effort. I think his small business background, his service in the U.S. Army Reserves, and his community activism make him an excellent candidate for the General Election.  The First is a swing district, the only one of the five, and I believe that Weinstein can hold the Democratic base while pulling in a good number of Independent voters and perhaps a decent percentage of progressive-minded Republicans.  In my opinion, he is Democratic Party’s best bet to hold the seat and allow Democrats to maintain their 4 to 1 advantage on the County Council.

Royalty turned in the second best performance of the evening.  Having served as a pollster to dozens of national, state and local campaigns over the past 24 years, it is relatively easy to identify those who are new to the campaign trail as a candidate.  Royalty sounded like a candidate who is still working to find her voice.  Her late entry is not helping her (she filed in February and it appears as though she didn’t begin exploring the possibility of running for that Council seat until January…according to this article).

Make no mistake; Royalty is qualified to hold the office.  One of my higher compliments about someone is that they are serious, and she is serious.

She had a solid response to the question about support for the non-profit arts community when she remarked how “non-profits save millions of taxpayer dollars.”  This reinforces her platform calling for fiscal soundness.   She provided thoughtful insights on education and teacher morale (note: the Howard County Education Association endorsed Weinstein).  She offered up a vision of greater walkability around, on a better mix of businesses along, Route 40 (I believe it behooves candidates to spend more time talking about the future than the past, so this was a plus).

I really wish she chose to run for a different office.  She is the kind of candidate I like to support. She would make a great candidate for the state legislature (frankly her public policy background seems better suited for Annapolis) or a fine countywide candidate for the Board of Education, given her experience with various education-related organizations.  If Weinstein weren’t running, I would be advocating for her nomination in June and election in November. But that’s the problem, he is. I think he brings a unique skill-set and perspective to the Council. Moreover, I believe Weinstein, not Royalty, is the candidate best positioned to hold the Council seat in what could be a tough election cycle for the Democratic Party nationally.

Markovitz offers a different vision of Howard County.  Frankly, I had a tough time hearing her.  Perhaps it was the acoustics of the auditorium or the placement of the microphone but I missed out on approximately 20% of what she said, so I had to visit her website to fill in some blanks. I am not a particular fan of the organizations with which she is affiliated.  She has a Weltanschauung regarding land use planning, but one that seems out of step with most of the other Council members.  Is she qualified? Probably.  But she seems like the kind of candidate who, if elected, might adopt obstructionist tactics.  Ultimately, I don't think such a worldview or approach is beneficial for District One or the County as a whole.

One of Grabowski’s rationales for running seems to be that this represents the next logical step in his community involvement.  That is a terrible reason to seek public office. It sounds more than a little self-involved.  As a message, it doesn’t say anything about what he would do, if elected, for the citizenry of the First.  Over the course of the forum, he proceeded to sketch out something resembling a nascent platform, which is not encouraging since he has been in the race since June 2013, so he has had plenty of time to develop a more compelling and coherent rationale for his candidacy.  Is he qualified?  On paper, most likely.  In reality? He seems more public access than prime time.

In the interest of wrapping this long post up, I am not going to spend much time talking about the two Republican candidates: Schmidt and Melton.  Of the two, the former is stronger than the latter and will probably emerge as the Republican nominee.   Could either win?  It would take a certain confluence of events (heavy GOP turnout combined with light Democratic turnout in the First and/or the nomination of a weak Democratic candidate).  That said, demographics and party affiliation numbers give the Republican a fair shot at a pick-up. 

Next up…a return to Kowloon?  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.   

 

Clash of the Titans

Every so often, it is important to get the adrenaline riled.  Otherwise, the tedium sets in.  Once that happens, sloth and melancholia tend to lurk about, shambling listlessly through dimly lit alleyways. No sense inviting them over.  

For the politically-attuned, General Election Day offers the prospect of serious action, excitement of the first order.  In 2014 anno Domini, in our corner of the known universe, the marquee countywide general election matchup will be County Council member Courtney Watson (D) vs. State Senator Allan Kittleman (R) in the race to succeed the outgoing County Executive, Ken Ulman.   

This is our Ali – Frazier.

Even with historical trends favoring the hypothesis that 2014 will be a decent Republican year, Howard County Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a 3 to 2 margin (93,354 registered Ds as compared to 56,285 registered Rs).

The Watson campaign, adopting the structures proposed in Professor Stephen Skowronek’s seminal work, The Politics Presidents Make, is practicing the politics of Articulation.  She is assuming that the current County Executive’s regime is resilient, and will be viewed as such through November.  In which case, affiliating with the current Administration makes the most sense.  Her campaign’s messaging reflects a theme of continuity (“continuing the progress in Howard County”).  Watson’s promise is that she will use her expertise to move the County forward, charting her own course yet following a path not too dissimilar from the one chosen by Ulman.

Her challenge is establishing her own brand in the minds of voters.  At the presidential level, sometimes those who adopt the politics of articulation (“orthodox-innovators” to use Skowronek’s descriptor) fare quite well (Theodore Roosevelt) while others have more difficulty adapting to changing circumstances (George H.W. Bush).  The good news for Watson is that she is a known entity with her own record of accomplishments and that, as of this writing, Howard County voters are less likely to be disenchanted with the state of the county as compared to the state of the state, or the state of the nation. 

Meanwhile, the Kittleman campaign is banking on the politics of Pre-emption.  They recognize that the party affiliation numbers are not in their favor and are downplaying the Republican label, at least outside of Western HoCo.  Their theme is that Kittleman is a “proven Independent leader.” He is promoting his support for marriage equality and reminding voters about his family’s long-standing commitment to civil rights.  In short, he is not running as a conservative Republican.  He has little choice. His electoral predicament is not dissimilar from the one facing Nixon in '68, or Clinton in '92...both of whom were candidates belonging to the non-dominant order of their time.  

The Kittleman strategy is to work for a heavy Republican turnout in County Council District Five and hope for a depressed Democratic turnout countywide.   Unfortunately for his campaign, the one true swing district in the County – Council District One – is held by one Courtney Watson, who has represented Eastern Howard County on the Council since 2006.   If Kittleman can’t win in the First, he is, in all probability, doomed. 

So who will win?  The smart money is on Courtney Watson.   If Democratic turnout is 60% or higher, Watson should win.  60,000 votes should be sufficient for victory this time around, and Ulman garnered 66,121 four years ago in his rout of Trent Kittleman…in what was, nationally, a Republican election cycle.  Sixty percent of 93,354 registered Democrats works out to 56,012 votes…that means that Watson would only need 4,000 votes among Republicans, unaffiliated and “other” voters to reach the 60,000 figure.  Even assuming a two percent under-vote for that particular office, 60% Democratic turnout overall should elect Watson as our next County Executive.

With 60% Democratic turnout, Kittleman will have a tough time cobbling together a coalition that would approach 50% plus one.  His hope rests in a Democratic turnout at or below 50%.  If that occurs, and if Republicans follow the party-line and turn out in sufficient numbers (65%+ GOP turnout; 90% - 10% for the Senator) and if Independents account for approximately 25% of the electorate and if they break 8 – 5 for Kittleman, and if he pulls a slightly higher percentage of Democratic voters into his column (15%) than Watson does among Republicans (10%), then yes, Kittleman could emerge with between 50.1% and 51.5%, with 52% most likely being his hard ceiling.

Notice the number of “ifs” in that paragraph?

Watson’s ceiling is closer to 60%.... and consists of far fewer ifs.  She needs to energize the base.  Turning to elements beyond the direct control of her campaign, it would be helpful to her efforts if the best Democratic candidates emerged victorious in the swing districts in the June primary elections…nominees who can motivate Democrats to cast their ballots in the General Election while also appealing to Independent voters.  Specifically, I am thinking about Howard County Council District One as well as the State House of Delegates District 9B.  I have some thoughts as to the ideal Democratic nominees for both of those races.  I will share them in a later post.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

 

You’ll Never Find…Anarchy, State and Utopia

It is Saturday, at the noon hour.  I was supposed to be writing this blog post from a hotel room in lovely downtown Salisbury, Maryland….a mere 45-minutes from the gentle salt water breezes that, at this very moment, are failing to dissipate the heavy fog enveloping Ocean City.

Alas, a confederacy of circumstances is keeping me holed up at the Home Office, well to the west of the Bay Bridge.

I have been thinking about Rawls lately, not the singer (Lou) but the political philosopher (John).  A true heavy-hitter in the field, his thoughts on justice and governance were, and continue to be, enormously influential.  Some of his key constructs, such as the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” require a bit of explanation:

“The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice.

The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences.

The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests.

Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.” [Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

So what does this mean? In simple terms, this thought exercise should remove one from their personal notions of self-interest.  If you didn’t know who you might be, or where you might end up in a society, you are less likely to design a society whereby the rights of the have-nots or of particular minorities receive a lesser degree of protection compared to the haves or of any particular majority.  It is intended to promote a rational discussion of fairness, and how such principles could be used to inform and undergird a fair system of government.

It is also an excellent and practical means for detecting hypocrisy (or other defects) among political candidates.  All you need to do is ask yourself, or them directly:

“Would you hold the same position if [Population X] constituted a majority in the United States?”  Or, even more to the point, “Would you espouse such beliefs if you, yourself had Characteristic Y and not Z?”

His ideas can be employed to help provide another way of viewing those who seek public office, and of evaluating the platforms for which they advocate.  This approach offers another way of cutting through the rhetorical mists, to go deeper than a surface examination of the Issue Stances to ascertain the true beliefs (or lack thereof) of a political candidate.

If nothing else, asking such questions might enliven some candidate forums.  Lord knows they can be dreary affairs.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Road to the White House 2016: Manilow, Mistakes and Mandates

Déjà Vu

Could you be the dream that I once knew
Is it you
Déjà Vu
Could you be the dream that might come true
Shining through
I keep remembering me
I keep remembering you

Déjà Vu

            - Lyrics by Isaac Hayes and Adrienne Anderson. Performed by Dionne Warwick. Produced by B. Manilow

What concerns me most about the most recent, incarnation of the Hillary Clinton for President movement is captured succinctly by the name of the highly visible Super PAC extolling her virtues, Ready for Hillary.

It all feels oddly familiar.  A campaign, or in this case, a proto-campaign, that seems more focused on the candidate than on what she or he might deliver.

Of course this is a grotesquely unfair criticism.  Hillary Clinton is not a candidate, at least not yet. 

The problem is her past.  In 2007 - 2008, she ran largely on a solid resume and the perceived strength of her brand.  She trusted that those elements, along with a top-flight campaign team and oodles of ready money, would be sufficient to clinch a first ballot nomination.

Depending on your perspective, a tragic or a fortunate (and possibly hilarious) thing happened next.  Some member or members of her quite well-paid campaign team - reportedly - forgot how delegates are allocated in Democratic primaries and caucuses.  This is important as delegates ultimately determine who receives the nomination.  They were playing for high stakes and some key person or people (who shall not be named here) couldn't be bothered to thumb through a rulebook.  Figuratively speaking, of course. At least that is how the story was covered.  In the fog of the fight, who knows where the truth resides?

She did catch a run of bad luck.  The American electorate was looking for a clean break from the Bush years…and her candidacy represented not so much a fresh start but a risorgimento of the previous Administration, one that still elicited mixed emotions, even from a fair number of Democrats.

Enter then-Senator Barack Obama and the Politics of Change.  He seized a moment, in part because he had a theme larger than himself – while still amplifying his biography – and because voters trusted that he would deliver on that promise.

Even then-Governor Clinton knew, in 1992, that he needed something beyond his record.  His campaign famously employed a compelling messaging troika: “Change versus more of the same,” “It’s the economy stupid,” and “Don’t forget health care.”

Fast forward to the present day.   Some heavy-hitting Clinton backers decide to launch a vehicle promoting Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate.   Instead of linking it something actual voters care about or even a broad theme that suggests the outlines of a vision, they opt for “Ready for Hillary.”

When I first head that name, I thought: Are they criticizing voters for, presumably, not being ready for Hillary in 2008? Are they saying, in so many words, you were children but now it’s time to grow up?  Are they mocking us?  Hardly the inspirational stuff of “Yes We Can.”  More akin to “Why Didn’t You Before?”

I know, I know.  A Super PAC is not a presidential campaign.  But if you look at the roster of folks associated with Ready for Hillary, it is enough to give one pause.  If she runs, will she be a better candidate this time around?  Will she make the campaign about something larger than her admittedly impressive credentials?  How will she Connect?     

Or will we see an imitation of Clinton 2008?  She could probably get away with it, minus the ridiculous unforced errors, at least in the Democratic nominating process.  Democrats are so concerned about locking in the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, they want as close to a sure-fire winner as possible.  There is a measure of risk aversion and, on paper, Hillary Clinton offers the best path to 270 electoral votes…. possibly even a mandate in 2016, depending on how the next two years shape up.

In any event, I hope that the brain trust advising Team Hillary is smart enough to learn from the past, but not dwell in it.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Choice, Doom and Grilling Season

You have to have a certain admiration for the well intentioned doomed. 

A candidate for public office showed up at my door the other day.  I wasn't expecting company, so I peered out from an upstairs window moments after I heard the knock.  Safety first.  No sense being taken by surprise in these troubled times. 

It took me a few seconds, sufficient time to decide that my freshly brewed Café Pilon was scalding enough to blind any would-be assailant, at least long enough for me to introduce him to the concussive possibilities of the Club Steering Wheel Lock nesting in my umbrella stand, but I recognized the fellow standing on my welcome mat. 

I ran downstairs and flung the door open, which startled him.  He greeted me with a wan smile.  There was a mixture of nervousness and hope frozen on his face…an expression that would not be out of place on the countenance of an inexperienced and introverted missionary. 

He started winding up, about to launch into his elevator pitch, when I told him that I had seen him speak a couple of times and was familiar with his platform.  That seemed to drop his anxiety level down a notch.   However, his visage sagged when I told him I wouldn’t be voting for him in the June primary election.  Nothing personal, strictly the business of democracy.  

We exchanged thoughts on the campaign for a moment and I wished him well with his door-to-door efforts.  He flashed a seemingly sincere grin, waved goodbye and began the trudge over to the neighbor’s house.

He was not a natural candidate by any means.  There was little sign of the “Hail fellow well met” spirit in him…that sense that he enjoys the campaign process: talking with strangers, listening to their hopes and fears, and asking them for their support.  Perhaps he did, but if so, he hid it well. And if he was hiding it…why choose that mask?

Of course that is exactly the point.   It wasn’t a mask. It was, or appeared to be, his authentic self.  He was running for the cause, not for self-aggrandizement, not as a stepping-stone to even higher office.  That last point is key because he has almost no chance of winning.    Importantly, I believe he knows that too.

Yet in the face of that, and despite lacking the “practiced voice of the seasoned campaigner” (see: Monty Python, Whicker Island sketch), he chose to subject himself to the rigors of electioneering.  He chose to give up his weekends and evenings to lurch from one doorstep to the next, gripping and grinning, probably risking exposure to a norovirus infection every 50^th handshake.  All because he wants to advocate for a set of public policy solutions that fit with his conception of how best to promote the common good.

The good news is that such people choose to seek elective office.  He isn’t alone – which also bodes well for the health of the Republic.  In Howard County, there are other candidates who are running for one public office or another…candidates who are in it for the right reasons (or at least something adjacent to them).  Some will win, he won’t. 

As I look back on that conversation, as we stood there, 20 feet away from a grill unlikely to host a hot charcoal briquette for several weeks, I believe what impressed me most was his respect for the democratic process.  He was willing to endure the discomfort of campaigning and the near-certainty of defeat because of his belief that reform is possible through our system of government.  It may not happen soon, but perhaps in the future.  And that is enough for him to knock on doors today, tomorrow, and all through the election.

You have to respect that.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Maryland Politics Edition

The boffins call it crepuscularity, being active during twilight.   Alert drivers know that deer are more likely to amble near the roads at those hours. 

The opportunities of the day seem most promising at dawn; the possibilities of the night appear greatest at dusk.  At those times of transition, the mind is open to considering multiple riffs in response to the question: “What if?”

Even veteran politicos occasionally ask questions or hold positions that, on their surface, might appear silly or otherwise off base. At times, they are.  Other times, they are plugging into their life experiences and, knowing that the world can be very odd indeed, they speculate out loud on the possible…and realize that even the highly improbable can become Reality. They have seen it happen before.

It is with these thoughts as a prologue that I turn my attention to the Maryland gubernatorial campaign – specifically the Democratic primary.

Using Professor Skowronek’s classification system, the front-runner, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown, would probably best be described as an “orthodox innovator.”  Elect the ticket of Brown and his running mate, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, and you can expect an Administration that builds upon the work of the outgoing Governor, Martin O’Malley.  Two smart, competent public servants who are pledging the equivalent of Keeping Maryland Moving.

The Brown/Ulman campaign is leading in the polls, has considerable establishment support, and is raising steaming heaps of cash.  

Unfortunately, the talent-heavy combo is running a bit too cautious.  Their new ad “Trusted” is a well-produced bio spot but it feels like a safe move to reinforce the brand.  This happens to front-runners.  Muskie ’72 took a similar path and that campaign found itself on the wrong end of a boot stomping…and when the electability argument falters, there had better be something to replace it. 

Perhaps their records are strong enough, and their vision will be clear enough, to surmount the inevitable challenges that will arise between now and the June primary, but I don’t think the duo is quite there yet.

If the Brown/Ulman ticket is Coca-Cola, the Gansler-Ivey team is Royal Crown.  Had Congressman Delaney or Congressman Ruppersberger…or Comptroller Franchot…entered the fray, the conversation right now would be focused on how Attorney General Gansler can break the 10% barrier and if he could pay his staffers their gas reimbursements in anything other than IOUs for bitcoins.

His “For Us” ad is not bad. It connects to voter concerns and hopes.  This is smart politics but also – in his case – necessary.  His Party Selfie Shown Round the World and allegations of being a bit less than levelheaded require him to shift the focus from “the man” to “our cause.”  While he can raise some funds, he feels too close to his ceiling (despite current polls showing him only in the 14% - 15% range).  With luck, his campaign would finish with 28% of the vote but I would wager that is the high-water mark for that ticket.  He probably ends up with closer to 24%.  By July, his running mate, Delegate Jolene Ivey, will have a much brighter political future than Gansler.

Delegate Heather Mizeur has embraced the insurgent, issue-oriented, progressive positioning.  As a general rule, such campaigns are fun to watch.  Also as a general rule, they usually don’t win (at the presidential level, Dean 2004 leaps to mind…interestingly, the organization that he founded, Democracy for America, is backing Mizeur).

Her selection of Reverend Delman Coates, much like then-Governor Clinton’s pick of then-Senator Al Gore as his running mate, represents a decision to double down on a narrative.  In the case of Mizeur-Coates: an Outsider/Anti-Establishment theme.

Which may be smart politics in 2014.  Voter anxiety levels are revved up.  As it is a non-presidential election year, turnout is unlikely to be high…with the more ideologically driven voters constituting a larger part of the electorate.  Frustration is not limited to Republicans and Independents.  There are Democrats who feel alienated from their government, from politicians who they believe do not listen, or truly understand, their problems.  If they are looking to send a message of change instead of continuity, a vote for Heather Mizeur for Governor would send such a message.

The challenge for Mizeur is to ramp up her profile to the point where voters can make the connection that her candidacy is the best vehicle for change.  Not just intellectually, but viscerally.  That requires some heavy lifting in a relatively short period of time.

And perhaps the majority of Maryland Democrats favor some version of the status quo. However, her campaign is based on the animating principle that the voters want a new choice and a different direction.   Is she right? It remains to be seen.

Which brings me back to where I started.  Although she is running third in the polls, and contrary to what passes for conventional wisdom these days, I believe that Delegate Mizeur might just pull off the upset and win the primary.  If so, it will be by the narrowest of margins over Brown.  More likely, she runs a very respectable second and becomes the instant-front runner for another public office in a not-too-distant election cycle….but there is a path to victory for her in 2014.

I may be wrong and events may follow a different course, but I am open to the idea of that improbability becoming a reality…and the sun is high overhead.

 Stay tuned, as more will follow.