" /> Editor's Blog: September 2006 Archives

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 29, 2006

From the Editor/ Enemies of the state: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams...

On September 28, the U.S. Senate officially handed President Bush the power to determine the rights of prisoners in federal custody. The bill strips “enemy combatants” of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and allows the President, alone, to define torture—which is identified as a war crime in Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. The bill also broadens the definition of enemy combatants to include anyone identified as such by the President or Secretary of Defense. Evidence may be seized anywhere in the world without a search warrant, according to the legislation. In essence, Congress voted to allow Bush to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants, as long as he ties it to his “War on Terror.”

This bill will not substantially change the de facto policies of the United States. We know that Bush believes that he can legally kidnap any non-U.S. citizen in the world and transport them to a secret or remote prison, where they will be held without charges, denied legal process, and quite possibly tortured by U.S. officials or foreign collaborators such as jailers in Syria or Egypt. Bush has been doing just that for almost five years.

Now that Congress has given Bush its blessing on his detention and torture policies, would it now be possible to apply those principles to a U.S. citizen? Could a U.S. citizen be deemed an enemy combatant and imprisoned under such circumstances if the government labels him or her a risk to national security?

Already, during Bush’s presidency, legal U.S. resident aliens have been held for held for days, weeks and months without charges—until finally tried in secret or simply deported, deprived of legal recourse. Then there’s the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was held for over three years without charges.

Even if these policies are rarely applied to U.S. citizens, does that mean that the U.S. can imprison and torture other people with shameless disregard for human rights?

With Congress signing over even more Presidential power, it’s fair to ask, “How wide does this net now go?“ Bush has always acted as a law unto himself. Congress consistently agrees.

Perhaps we can best judge that policy by looking at it in the context of a dangerous world, in which our sovereignty is threatened by an enemy who opposes a free and democratic America.

To this end, I here reproduce excerpts from a document composed by a cell of revolutionary firebrands:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let the facts be submitted to a candid world ....

“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power....

“[d]epriving us in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury ....

“[t]ransporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences....

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people....

“He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation....

“A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The American Declaration of Independence is a powerful document admired around the world for its articulation of basic human rights and its stand against tyranny. It reminds us of the rationale for the United States of America. Yes, there have been breaches of the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence—from the very beginning, when slavery was condoned by the founders. But the ideals that they put into words have had a profound effect on the world—making human rights and democracy the global standards.

Two-hundred-and-twenty-five years after the signing of the Declaration, the President of the United States is signing a law that will give him some of the worst privileges of King George. This is a terrible irony.

In a sense, little was changed by Congressional acquiescence to yet another Presidential power grab. It does not change what has already been happening without their open approval—or what has happened in the dark corners of other administrations. But when the Congress says that human rights are relative and gives the President powers reserved for kings and dictators, we have really lost our way as a nation.

—Eric Bond, Editor

September 28, 2006

From the Editor: What the Khmer Rouge and the U.S. have in common

Today, David Corn—Takoma Park resident and author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War—writes about torture techniques common to the Khmer Rouge and the United States: This is What Water Boarding Looks Like (scroll down).

Corn cites John Blank, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, regarding the recent vote in Congress on interrogation techniques.

“The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be ‘torture lite’ or merely a ‘tough technique’ might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh,” writes Blank.

Blank provides Corn with photographs and descriptions of the interrogations conducted by the Khmer Rouge to break their prisoners, raising the question of why regimes like totalitarian Cambodia and North Korea have become models for the United States.

September 18, 2006

Guest blog: Some quick and dirty thoughts on Raskin v. Ruben

Former Takoma Park City attorney and longtime pol-watcher Tom Gagliardo has submitted this assessment of the State Senate race in District 20. I was looking for analysis from someone who was a Ruben supporter. Tom provides that here. —ed.

Some quick and dirty thoughts on Raskin v. Ruben

Ida couldn't change the fact that she was an incumbent when the mood was anti-incumbent, or that she is 77 years old in a culture which devalues age, or that she has been in office 32 years when either alone or in combination with her age translated to many as "time for a change".

So could she have won?

Absolutely. Because she could have changed how her campaign was run.

First, she didn't make the obvious point—that while she worked and succeeded in getting things done Jamie was nowhere to be found.

Second, she didn't have a unified theme. It might have been: "I've been working in Annapolis for the things you care about, and with your support I will continue to do so".

Third, Jamie's attacks focused the debate on Ida's fitness. Had she defended herself and blunted his criticism, she could have returned the debate to Jamie's lack of involvement.

Fourth, Jamie's negative attacks worked because they were circumspect and believable (even if based on distortions and half truths). Ida's attack back fired because it was crude and by the time it was launched many voters were already enamored of Jamie.

There are somethings that Jamie couldn't change: Ida is a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat with an outstanding legislative record. This is the reason she was endorsed by an overwhelming number of major labor, women's, environmental and other organizations which promote a progressive agenda.

But he convinced voters she had to go because she was a machine pol, ineffective and beholden to special interests—all false allegations.

Jamie also knew that when handed lemons he could make lemonade. When he didn't get endorsed by the Montgomery County Education Association or the state teacher's organization he mailed a piece with a picture of his three kids and announced they were the reason he was committed to public education.

Some other thoughts:

1. WHAT MACHINE?

There is little question that Jamie convinced voters that Ida was a relic of Maryland's machine politics who had to go. But someone has to define "machine" and convince me that the term applies to Ruben. As I use the term, if you're part of a machine you need to do more than put out one or two stock pieces with your running mates (in Ida's case that was Sheila Hixson, who won, and Gareth Murray, who lost). Because most elected officials who took a public stand supported Ida, maybe that's what Jamie means by a machine. If so, Jamie just joined.

2. WHAT DO JOHN KERRY AND IDA RUBEN HAVE IN COMMON?

Ida did not counter Jamie's criticisms and charges, some of which were distortions or plainly untrue. She needed to defend herself early and often, and shift the debate to how could someone with a scant record in local and state affairs do better than she has.

Her failure to respond is regrettably reminiscent of John Kerry's pummeling by the Swift Boaters.

A few examples of how Ida should have fought back in order to direct the debate in her favor.

Ida opposes Bush's Iraq War. Jamie's false accusation that she was pro-war opened the door for his candidacy. The Maryland Senate unanimously passed a resolution supporting the troops. It asiduously avoided declaring support for the President or the war. One can argue that supporting the troops is best demonstrated by bringing them home. Sure, but the practicalities of voting for the Senate resolution did not make Ida (or progressive icons like Brian Frosh, who also voted for it) pro-war. The simple truth: Raskin fibbed, Ruben let him get away with it.

Jamie's fundraising e-mails proclaimed he would never take gambling money. The implication was Ida had. The truth is that Ruben, who has steadfastly opposed slots at Maryland race tracks, accepted contributions from an old friend who owns Ocean Downs. Ruben should have used this to demostrate her independence. Instead, voters heard an almost entirely unchallenged message (there was one piece on the weekend before the election "setting the record straight") that she was in the pocket of a very disfavored special interest. Incidently, Ruben almost lost her leadership position because of her opposition to slots.

Jamie convinced voters Ida was ineffective. His source was a Gazette article which described itself as being just for fun. You can't lead the Montgomery County delegation year after year, sit on the coveted Budget and Tax Committee and be named by Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in the area if you aren't getting results.

Jamie accused relentlessly. Ida didn't respond. Had she responded voters may have seen her as the undeserving victim of an upstart's dissembling. Responded to effectively the question would have turned to Jamie's propensity to distort and win at any cost. Ida's silence was an enormous strategic error.

Coupled with her unfounded attack on Jamie's Democratic bona fides made disaster pedictable.

3. WHAT MESSAGE

Ida's campaign lacked a convincing theme. It seems her campaign's message was "Thank You, Ida" and focused on her bringing home the bacon. It didn't sell. Her success in funding inumberable local projects needed to be individualized and humanized.

Ida's message should have been "I've been working in Annapolis for the things you care about, and with your support I will continue to do so". Catalogue her work on health care, the elderly and disabled, for example. Tell the real life, individualized stories of the numerous people who have benefited, and keep asking "Where was Jamie?" and (maybe) the election turns out differently.

Compare Jamie's mail piece on the Houston Ave tenants—human, concrete, sympathetic—even if it falsely charges Ida as not responding to their pleas. In fact, she produced email and notes demonstrating her response, and she sponsored a bill which became law to protect tenants facing condo conversion.

4. WHAT'S NEXT

To the victor go the spoils.

Despite his campaign rhetoric, the fact is Jamie did not rid Maryland politics of a corrupt, machine pol. All he did was replace a steady presence and reliable vote with . . . . we'll see. He may prove he can better move a more progressive agenda, but that is not guaranteed.

Once elected in November, Jamie will have to demostrate that he can work successfully in wiley and wild Annapolis. He's smart enough, let's hope he's wise enough. I for one will work with him. If he wants it, he has my support to enact a yet to be defined progressive agenda.

Patching things up with his predecessor and her colleagues who are returning to Annapolis would be an excellent first step.

And Ida is more likely to be properly recognized for her long and distinguished public service, if she, too, extends an olive branch.

September 15, 2006

Elsewhere: Editor of The Nation comments on Raskin win

I have been surprised at how little coverage that Metro area media has given to the Raskin landslide. I stopped by the Jamie Raskin victory party on Tuesday night, expecting to see other media—maybe even a reporter from News Channel 8. But as far as I could tell, the only media representatives there were I; my intrepid assistant, Julie Wiatt; Marc Cohen, producer of Coffee House; and a local blogger (who may or may not want to be nameless—so I'll keep him anonymous for now).

However, Katrina Van Huevel, editor of the Nation magazine had this to say about the Raskin win: "I believe there are four issues in this election year: The Constitution--DEFEND IT; The War --END IT; National Health Care --PASS IT ; Corporate Power--CURB IT. If you believe, as I do, that this nation faces these (and other) critical issues, and that we must confront them with intelligence, sanity, decency--and passion....then all of us won with Jamie's win."

Quite a mouthful about a state senate race. Of course, Jamie and his father, Marcus, have been frequent commentators at The Nation.

To read the entire article on Jamie's win, click here: Pointing the Way

I realize that we've already posted quite a bit about the Raskin win in recent days. We are awaiting a Guest Blog from a Ruben supporter with his analysis of the election. And I should be posting a fuller analysis, myself, shortly. The day after the election, I sent a quick analysis to the Takoma Voice list, and I've been looking to grab a few minutes to finish it.

I was on Montgomery Week in Review (rebroadcasting Sunday at 9:00 AM and 7:30 PM) yesterday, talking about the election, but time went by so fast that I feel like I barely scratched the surface.

—ed.

Elsewhere: EarthTalk—In what ways is global warming already affecting us in North America?

The Voice also runs a blog devoted to sustainability. Today we posted a column from E magazine about visible effects of global warming. Other recent posts include a review of The Ravaging Tide: Strange Weather, Future Katrinas, and the Coming Death of America's Coastal Cities by Takoma Park author Mike Tidwell and information about a local screening of An Inconvenient Truth on October 3.

Here's the link to that blog: Sustainability

—ed.

September 14, 2006

Guest blog: A tickin and a taskin for Professor Raskin

Landscape architect, soccer coach, and poet (who knew?) Byrne Kelly of Takoma Park sent in this ode to Jamie Raskin. Like bards of old, Byrne recited his poem at Raskin's victory party. Got any photos or other interesting paraphernalia from the primary, send them in. —ed

A tickin and a taskin for Professor Raskin

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick-tock
Tick tock, knock-knock, how many votes you got?
How many votes you gonna get?
At how many doors did you stop?
One thing you were not, was a sure bet……….and yet:

Here’s Jamie Raskin Professor of multi-tasking.
And lately he’s been an asking for your support,
don’t worry, nothing to do with a tort or a court.
He just needed your vote, and a financial note
He won’t let you be silent, and he won’t shut-up
Until perhaps, you may elect him, or just elect to buck-up

He’ll take any private contribution, of any legal monetary denomination.
Just be prepared, as he’ll generously share both his intellect, & intuition
And he’ll possibly school you on our Federal, or now, our State’s Constitution

That Jamie Raskin is up to the Task, whether in Victory or Defeat
To know, and campaign for him, is for many, an invigorating treat
The incumbent opponent was once just fine, Ms. Ruben has proven, she too did, shine,
But as a majority, we know we have to progress, in order to defeat the Republican mess,
So I’d a rather have Jamie in the State Senate, where, there he can truly profess,
And, we as Democrats can dethrone the Governor and rightfully complete our redress.

So: Tonight we are gathered, empowered by Jamie and Sarah
To relish in theirs, and our efforts, to elect a man with a Democrat’s integrity
Campaigning for what’s right, in the face invented negativity
Now it is on to November and let no one forget, to remember, to vote again, then,
for the multi-tasking and incomparable, Jamie Raskin.

—Byrne Kelly

September 13, 2006

Release: Leventhal calls for resignation of election board

This press release just came across the wires. Comments? —ed.

Statement by Council President George Leventhal on Election-Day Misfunction in Montgomery County

“Yesterday, a mistake by the Montgomery County Board of Elections in neglecting to include computer cards needed to operate County voting machines resulted in disenfranchisement, confusion, and frustration at polling places throughout the County.

“The right to vote is critical to the functioning of American democracy. Yesterday, many Montgomery County residents were unable to cast their morning ballots. Some returned to vote later. Others did not. The numbers, though not insignificant, are less important than the clear result – this was not ‘Good Government’ at work. It was, in fact, worse than what happened in Clarksburg.

“We ask our Board of Elections something simple: to be ready for balloting on two days every two years. The County Board of Elections failed the citizens of Montgomery County in discharging this duty.

“I believe acts must have consequences. I believe those who hold the public trust must be accountable for their performance.

“I know that there will be a meeting of the Council’s Management & Fiscal Policy Committee at 9 AM Monday morning, September 18, convened by Committee chair and Council Vice President Marilyn Praisner, to hear from the Board of Elections about these mistakes.

“I believe, however, we know well enough what occurred already, from the statements of the Board of Elections people themselves, to draw some conclusions.

“That’s why I’m joining County Executive Doug Duncan today in calling for the resignation of Board of Elections president Nancy Dacek and Board of Elections director Margaret Jurgenson.

“I – and many others – have lost all confidence in their ability to make sure the November balloting, eight weeks from yesterday, goes absolutely smoothly and to ensure that everyone gets the chance to vote. We need new management now.”

Guest blog: Voting fiasco in Takoma Park—I tried to vote

Last night, I got this message from Bill Kules, who maintains the B.F. Gilbert neighborhood Association e-mail list. Please add your voting experience. We have a reporter working on this story, so please send me your name and contact information if you are willing to be a source:eric@takoma.com. —ed

At least 40 voters had to cast their ballots on scraps of paper after poll officials turned off the electronic voting machines and ran out of paper ballots tonight.

Shortly after 8:00 this evening, as I waited in line at our polling place, the Takoma Park Elementary School, poll workers announced that they had been instructed to stop using the electronic voting machines at 8:00 pm and switch to the provisional paper ballots.

At 8:30 as I checked in we learned that the poll had run out of paper ballots. Election Judge Ann Sergeant told us that she had been told to "get creative" by the Board of Elections. She instructed us to use blank pieces of paper to use that she handed out. Actually, the paper we used was
the back side of the notice that Tom Perez was not a candidate for Attorney General.

They also ran out of specimen ballots, so a volunteer read the ballots and names while the 40 of us in the room scribbled to create our own ballots. Around 9:00 we learned that they had run out of envelopes to hold each ballot. Because no-one would be re-admitted if they left, one of the election monitors called her husband at home, who drove to a CVS drugstore to buy a box of plain white #10 envelopes, then delivered them to the poll.

As the crowd grumbled or chuckled, Ms. Sergeant scolded the scofflaws who violated election rules by talking on their cellphones or taking pictures of the debacle.

Shortly before 10:00, I reached the front of the line, placed my makeshift ballot into the plain white envelope (in front of the election judge) sealed it and affixed my orange provisional voter authority card to the outside—with masking tape—and went home.

Democracy ain't pretty.

Bill Kules
Takoma Park, MD

September 9, 2006

From the Editor: Ida Ruben and Rules of Engagement

"All's fair in love and war," goes the cliché. Of course, the Bush administration is demonstrating the fiasco that emerges when you actually take that approach to warfare.

There's a reason for rules of engagement. They have to do with long-term goals. In the short term, duplicity, fear-mongering, and ruthlessness may win the battle. But in the long term, you sacrifice your integrity, and you lose the hearts and minds of those you most need to join your cause. When you abandon rules of engagement, the purpose of the entire operation becomes all too clear: it's a power grab, and little more.

Too often, "all's fair" is the operating principle in politics—with the unfortunate result that politicians are generally considered unethical and selfish.

I realize that it may be a little over the top to compare George Bush's War of Terror to local politics. In fact, comparing George Bush to any local Democratic candidate would be a ridiculous distortion.

Right?

Yet, that comparison is exactly what has arrived in the mailboxes of Democrats throughout District 20. As a coup de grace in her misinformation campaign, Ida Ruben has delivered a grinning George W. with his thumb up and a "Thanks, Jamie" balloon overhead. Inside, Democratic readers face outright lies about Raskin's positions on George W. Bush and abortion—two hot-button issues in this district.

This latest attack would be amusing if it were not so ruthlessly timed for the weekend before the election.

The master-stroke from the Karl Rove playbook is to attack your opponent on his strength. For example, John Kerry's greatest general appeal was his record as a Vietnam vet, something that George W. could not claim. So that is exactly where Rove and Bush took the game—calling that strength into question with insinuation and cherry-picked, distorted information.

In her series of mailings, Ruben has attacked Raskin where he is stongest. As a Constitutional lawyer, Raskin has a solid record of standing up for our rights as citizens. With a little insinuation, a little cherry-picking, and a lot of distortion, Ruben calls into question Raskin's progressive record—when upon closer examination, Raskin has clearly acted as a protector of the Constitution, putting its principles above politics. To attack him for that service and to lie about it is loathsome.

The Bush photo is the ironic icing on this foul cake. Ruben uses an unprincipled Rovian tactic to smear her opponent as a Bush supporter, when Raskin is easily the more progressive candidate in this race.

Although there are only three more days until the election, I think that this final mailing from Ida Ruben requires that her endorsers publicly withdraw their support. This mailing shows a disregard for basic rules of engagement.

At this point, I am forced to question what it is Ruben is fighting so hard for. If all is fair in politics, what is the prize? Is it the opportunity to make your community better? Is it the chance to serve constituents? Is it the prestige that comes with being a progressive leader?

Or is the prize no more than holding onto a seat of power?

Is that worth anyone's vote?

—Eric Bond, editor


Note: When I wrote my endorsements in the Voice, I carefully avoided addressing Ruben's smear campaign and reputation for scorched-earth politics. I thought it was more important to focus on the strengths that Raskin would bring to the Maryland Senate. After seeing this final mailing of Ruben's however, I felt that I needed to address Ruben's fitness for office. I can live with a moderate, establishment representative who keeps an eye out for ways to bring money to our district. I am less thrilled with a representative who will behave in an unpricipled manner in order to keep her seat.

I am a little sad to see Ruben's career end like this. She has been a reliable public servant, and deserves credit for leading the way for other women. Had Ruben not run this year, she would have surely been feted for her years as our senator. Even if Ruben wins this race, I think that her reputation will have suffered considerably as a result of her reaction to facing a challenger. And that is too bad.

September 8, 2006

From the Editor : Local political blogs

As readers may have noticed, we are not running our Voice blogs off of any of the popular sites like Blogspot or Blogger. We run our blogs on our own site, using Movable Type. One downside to this is that we have to build the features that we want. This weekend we should be putting together a "links" section. But since it is not there yet, I thought I'd share some of the local political blogs that I check out. Please comment with other blogs that you know of. In a later post, I'll list my favorite less-political local blogs. [An irrelevant comment: Many blogs use the acronym "Moco" for Montgomery County. "Moco" means "snot" in Spanish. I'm sure that this is just coincidental.]

Just click the "continue" link below to see my list.

Granola Park

Free State Politics

Maryland Politics Watch

MoCo Politics

Hondo Homers

The New MoCo Progressive

Hello MoCo

Newsrack

On Background

Free State Comment

Maryland Moment

Crab Law

Political Yak

Just Up the Pike

Sprawling Toward Montgomery

County Connections

Jousting for Justice


Well, those are the ones that I have bookmarked. Now, send in your links.

— Eric Bond, Editor

September 4, 2006

From the Editor: Primary Endorsements 2006

“The only time in my life that I got to vote for a perfect candidate was when I ran the first time. By the time I ran for re-election, it wasn’t true anymore because there were a couple things on my record that I had to do that weren’t perfect.”

— Barney Frank (Boston Globe, August 7, 2006)

With Congressman Frank’s words in mind, I weigh in on the Maryland primary election on September 12. Somewhere between idealism and pragmatism, I have formed opinions on which candidates I feel comfortable recommending for public office.
I gathered my thoughts by listening carefully to the candidates, visiting their websites, and reading the questionnaires that we distributed to them. You, too, have access to the questions that I posed to the candidates. Their answers are available on our website: www.takoma.com and www.silverspringvoice.com. There, we also link to candidate websites and provide a link to the candidate forums that we hosted—available via streaming video on the City of Takoma Park website. (Many thanks to the City and to Lonni Moffet, Alvaro Calabia, and the rest of the crew at Takoma Park Television.)

As I wrote in my July editorial, there is one issue that I cannot ignore in this election: climate change. Some people I know have expressed the opinion that local governments can do little to slow the rate at which humans pump carbon into the atmosphere; the only real change will come when the federal government and energy industries join the cause. I agree that when that happens, progress will come quickly. Unfortunately, our current president scoffs at science.

Because of the urgency of our situation, we cannot wait and hope that the next president will be of a different breed. And if he or she is not, what then? Wait another four years? Community by community, state by state, we can and must address climate change. The new California initiative to cut emissions shows what states can do. What more can be done in Maryland, in Montgomery County? We need leaders who are willing to rethink our energy, transportation, housing, and related policies.
I have many other concerns, of course. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a heathcare crisis, a wage crisis. More and more people are overextended or priced out of their home communities because their stagnant salary cannot keep pace with rising costs. Our elected officials must be prepared to find solutions to these related problems.

Fortunately, in this election, we have many excellent candidates to choose from. To ideological purists no one is perfect. But most are honestly committed to public service. And a few are even outright activists.

In the Maryland Senate race, I endorse Kweisi Mfume. Quite frankly, Maryland will likely do all right if we elect either Cardin or Mfume. Both are opposed to the war in Iraq and are pushing for an exit strategy. Both run on a strong environmental platform. Both have records of working on behalf of low-income Marylanders. However, I do find myself leaning away from Cardin because of his coronation by Democratic insiders. We have too many well-funded, party-directed “suits” in the Senate already. Although Cardin challenges the President for his flouting of international law and domestic spying, Cardin still voted for the Patriot Act. This troubles me. Mfume has built an impressive reputation as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and president of the NAACP. He has a reputation for independent and principled action. His personal life is both inspiring and troubling, depending on which period of his life you look at and how much stock you put into allegations of womanizing. But the election is for the senate, not sainthood. I understand that choosing a candidate who can beat Republican Michael Steele may be a tactical consideration in this race. However, I don’t feel qualified to advise on which of these two will stand a better chance.

In Maryland Congressional District 8, I recommend Democrat Chris Van Hollen for another term. Van Hollen does face passionate opposition from Deborah Vollmer, who can’t be faulted for her desire to bring American troops home from the Iraq debacle. She opposes Van Hollen for voting to fund the war and for failing to lead on troop withdrawal. (Van Hollen has consistently expressed opposition to the war—and he was not in office when the initial vote was taken). I hope that Vollmer’s campaign pushes Van Hollen to take an even stronger position in this crucial issue. But, Van Hollen has been an ethical and progressive congressman. He has been consistently outspoken on Iraq. His funding votes are not endorsements of the war, in my view. I look forward to seeing him take a leading role in a new House of Representatives.

In Maryland Congressional District 4, Al Wynn has got to go. A seven-term congressman, Wynn has been a Democratic stalwart. But he does not represent the progressive wing of that party. Time and again he has failed to stand up when it was most needed—voting to authorize the war in Iraq, voting to drill in Alaska, voting to subside petroleum interests. Fortunately, Democrat Donna Edwards is challenging the notion of business as usual in Congress. Edwards is enthusiastic, well-informed, and determined to make a difference. She supports the rights of the people over the interests of corporations (For example, Wynn recently voted against net neutrality). And she does not resort to thuggery and intimidation as campaign tactics.

In the Governor’s race, voters don’t really face a choice at the primary level. I do endorse Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley. However, since he does not face a challenger in the primary, I will save my complete assessment until the November issue. Suffice it to say that Ehrlich has done little to serve most Marylanders over the past four years.

Rarely does the position of Comptroller take on as much interest and urgency as it does this year. However, the antics of Democrat William Donald Schaefer lost their charm long ago; and his close ties to Governor Ehrlich—voting with him on nearly everything—makes him more than an embarrassment. Local Democrat Peter Franchot has run a strong, well-organized, and well executed campaign to unseat Schaefer. For that alone, he deserves praise. But Franchot—proclaiming himself the only Democrat in the race—is running on a progressive agenda. The Comptroller has limited power, much of the job is administrative—but he or she does hold a crucial vote on the Maryland Board of Public Works. Why not vote for an activist with a commitment to the environment, education, and health care? Latecomer Anne Arundel County Executive Janet Owens offers little in these terms. Peter Franchot is the best candidate for this position.

For the office of Maryland Attorney General, I endorse Democrat Stuart Simms—with reluctance. My hesitation stems from disappointment that local candidate Tom Perez was disqualified for the position in late August. Perez would have set a strong principled standard as Attorney General. Simms has the experience and integrity to be a good Attorney General. Perez has given his endorsement to Simms, and I follow suit.

In the District 20 Maryland Senate race, the Voice enthusiastically endorses Jamie Raskin. Raskin—an American University law professor—has made his mark as a champion of civil rights, both locally and nationally. He already knows the meaning of constituent service, having spent years representing fellow citizens whose rights have been trampled upon. Raskin knows and understands the environmental threats that we face, and he has made that a priority of his campaign. In fact, unlike the incumbent, Raskin takes a burning interest in the wide variety of our other top concerns: healthcare, housing, education, and jobs. Raskin has the drive and scruples to be a progressive force in the General Assembly—without resorting to the bullying tactics for which the Ruben is infamous. Also, Raskin is taking no corporate contributions, making it clear that, if elected, his seat is not for sale. We need a senator who opposes the cronyism that continues to plague Maryland politics. It's time for a change, and Raskin has earned his reputation as a change agent.

In the District 20 Maryland Delegate race, I see no negative outcome. Seven decent Democratic candidates are running for three seats. I have my preferences and my worries, but none of these candidates would be a horrible choice.
My first choice for this position is Lucinda Lessley. An aide to U.S. Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Lessley possesses the legislative knowledge to hit the ground running. But more importantly, Lessley has the heart for the job. Lacking the questionable financing of some other campaigns, Lessley has nonetheless run a well-organized and strong campaign to introduce herself to the voters of District 20. She has been acknowledged as the clear winner of the door-knocking competition. Lessley is articulate, knowledgeable and determined to fight for the long-term health and prosperity of Marylanders by curbing growth and investing in sustainable modes. Lessley displays a sincerity that is rare in a candidate for public office.

Heather Mizeur also deserves a vote. Like Lessley, Mizeur has a political background, having served as an advisor for Senator John Kerry. Mizeur is running on a strong agenda to mend the safety net that has become so frayed in recent years. Anyone who has met Heather knows that she is sharp-witted, strong-willed, and bold. I would like to see her put those traits to good use as a champion of her excellent agenda in Annapolis.

Finally, I support Sheila Hixson, who rightly reminded her opponents at the Voice election forum that principles don’t matter much if you don’t have money to fund them. Hixson’s experience, liberal values, and affability would go far toward establishing an effective District 20 team. While Hixson has not built a platform as expansive as those of the other candidates for this office, she has established good solid credentials over the years. As the chair of the Ways and Means committee, Hixson, along with new eager District 20 colleagues, could get quite a bit accomplished.

Our next County Executive ought to be Democrat Ike Leggett. It is hard to forget that Steve Silverman ran on the pro-growth “End Gridlock” slate for County Council four years ago. It’s hard to forget because I have passed his “Tired of Traffic” signs enough to be reminded of his previous vow. And there’s still traffic. His ties to developer contributions and support for the ICC are a continuing concern for me as I think about reducing emissions in Montgomery County. I am also put off by his negative campaign tactics. Leggett has built broad grassroots support based upon his skill at listening to constituents and following through. While Leggett and Silverman say many of the same things about such issues as “Smartgrowth” and building the Purple Line, Leggett comes across with sincerity and genuine interest. And he acknowledges that issues are complex. Billboards and slogans have not reduced traffic.

I recommend Democrat John McCarthy for the office of Montgomery County State’s Attorney. His opponent, Dan Fox, is running an aggressive campaign against outgoing State’s Attorney Doug Gansler. But Gansler isn’t running for that office. McCarthy is—and McCarthy is hardly accountable for every problem in the State’s Attorney’s office. McCarthy has built a solid reputation over the past ten years as a Deputy State’s Attorney. He has been an effective prosecutor, though less flashy than his boss or his opponent. But this is not a job that requires flash. Just good law enforcement credentials, and McCarthy’s got those.

Hans Riemer and Valerie Ervin are both excellent candidates for Montgomery County Council, District 5. I imagine that we will be well served no matter who wins. Riemer has run a smart, focused campaign through all of the uncertainty over who was and was not running for that office. It is a bit unfair to Riemer that Ervin jumped in at the last minute. Still, her decision is understandable, given the changing roster of candidates for Perez’s seat. While both Riemer and Ervin represent progressive politics, Ervin has an edge, due to her long involvement with Montgomery County issues as a PTA activist, labor educator, and a member of the school board. She has also raised two children by herself and knows firsthand the difficulties of economic survival.

Montgomery County has four At-Large Councilmembers.
Current Takoma Park City Council member Democrat Marc Elrich is clearly the best candidate for one of these seats. From his many years on the city council, Elrich knows what it means to balance progressive principles against a tight budget. He has been a champion of affordable housing in Takoma Park and elsewhere in the county. And as a teacher at Rolling Terrace Elementary School, Elrich has shown his dedication to making a difference in the lives of his neighbors. As an activist, Elrich has made his mark as a principled environmental advocate.

Democrat Duchy Trachtenberg is another clear choice. The reason why is best expressed in her own words: “Instead of spending millions on more development and roads in the outer reaches of Montgomery County, I’ll fight to invest in our transportation needs in existing communities; I’ll fight to clean up our public health infrastructure; I’ll fight for education initiatives that honor our diversity and our future.” We need this voice on our county council.

Another inspiring candidate is Democrat Hugh Bailey. Bailey has built his life around helping people find adequate work and housing. He calls for a shift in county priorities, away from sprawl and toward meeting the needs of current residents.

George Leventhal may not seem a natural fit with these other endorsements. After all, Leventhal was a member of the “End Gridlock” slate that steamrolled over the slow growth opposition in the last election. But Leventhal has proved to be a sincere and thoughtful county legislator. While I disagree with George on county growth (he sees it in a more positive light), he has also embraced environmental initiatives like the reduction of power plant emissions and green building. His record clearly distinguishes him from the other two At-Large incumbents.

For the Board of Education, I recommend Shirley Brandman in the At-Large seat and Nancy Navarro in District 5. We have a problem with two-tiered education in Montgomery County—with more resources often going to those who least need them.

Brandman has raised her voice against the philosophy of “teaching toward the test.” And as a lawyer, she has advocated on behalf of children who have been denied access to basic human rights.

As a co-founder of Centro Familia, Navarro has a laudable background in the education issues that immigrant families face. She has shown her commitment to keeping any Montgomery County kids from falling through the cracks. We need to keep Navarro on the Board, and add Brandman.

— Eric Bond, Editor


September 1, 2006

Letter: Nixon saves trees

How many trees have been cut down, so that the candidates running for elected office in District 20 can tell the voters how much they want to protect the environment? Candidates have given away thousands of flyers. Some candidates have already sent out multiple mailings. Most of these say practically the same thing over and over again. Some mailings are folded and open up, some open out, some are just oversized.

I hope the voters will count how much mail they get from each candidate and how big each mailed piece is. With over 28,000 registered Democrats in District 20, that’s a lot of paper that will probably end up in the trash and a lot of trees that had to be cut down.

My wife, Diane Lee Nixon is running for the House of Delegates in District 20. Her handouts were not as fancy as the other candidates, because she used recycled paper. She wants the voters to know why they should vote for her, so she will do a few mailings before the election. But hers will not be oversized, they won’t open up. or out. They won’t fill up your mailbox every other day.

They will say what she stands for and what she wants to do. When Diane says that she wants to protect the environment, save trees, and preserve habitat, she is proving it by the way she is conducting her campaign.

I’m very proud of her high standards. When you get her mailing before the election, Diane hopes you will read it, and then recycle it.

— Clyde Lassell
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Leventhal is the most responsive politician

These past four years, I have learned one constant about Montgomery County government: If I write or call Council Member George Leventhal with a question or request, I can expect a prompt and satisfying answer. George is the most responsive elected official I have encountered locally bar none.
But there's more to George than just responsiveness.

George is a true progressive leader. Like other candidates, he is concerned with the pace of development, but beyond that one issue, he has crafted strong county policy on affordable housing, education, energy, immigrants, transportation, and other critical local issues. George was instrumental in obtaining Washington Adventist Hospital's commitment to create a new facility in the Long Branch area, and he has led efforts to bring healthcare services to underserved populations county-wide.

George Leventhal understands what counts for Takoma Park, Silver Spring, and the county as a whole. We need him representing us on the county council. Please join me in voting George the second term he richly deserves.

— Seth Grimes
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Ervin knows the community

I am supporting Valerie Ervin for the District 5 county council seat, to succeed Tom Perez, who has endorsed her along with many other orginizations in our community.

Valerie is currently serving on the school board and has been on staff to the county council, so she knows the legislative process,details of the most complex issues, as well all the key players for getting things done.

Valerie has been a Silver Spring resident for 20 years, was president of the PTA, and is a long-time labor and education reform activist, unlike her opponent in ths race who is so new to Maryland never even voted in the state.

Valerie knows what direction we should go in, and she knows what questions to ask to find the best path to get us there.

The bottom line is: Valerie knows our community and our county and will be ready to get to work for us from the first day she’s sworn in.

— Ken Firestone
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Only one choice in District 20 senate race

Too often voters must choose the lesser of two evils, or the better of two bads. In contrast, voters in the Takoma Park-Silver Spring area will have the opportunity in the September 12 Democratic primary election to choose the greatest among many great candidates. This is particularly true in the District 20 delegates race where I would be proud to be represented by any of the candidates. The four challengers, Aaron Klein, Tom Hucker, Heather Mizeur, and Lucinda Lesley, each have particularly strong progressive credentials as does Delegate Sheila Hixson. Similarly in the district 5 county council race between Hans Reimer and Valerie Ervin, and in the at-large council race, where there are many really good candidates such as Marc Elrich and George Leventhal, I wish that I had the opportunity to vote for all of the above.

Initially, I thought that was also the case in the District 20 Senate race where Ida Ruben has provided many, many years of adequate, although far from spectacular, service. However, the Senator’s stumbling performance in the candidates debate where she strongly defended politics of monied special interests and backroom deals, confused global warming with common air pollution (hot air coming in from other states) and was often barely coherent, raised serious doubts about her fitness to represent me.

Most recently her character assassination of challenger Jamie Raskin in a paid mailing (the one with the jackass on the cover) has completely pushed me over the edge. In addition to distorting and taking Mr. Raskin’s legal work in defense of civil rights and liberty completely out of context and insulting every democrat in the county, as well as Mr. Raskin, Senator Ruben also distorts her own record when she claims to have opposed the Iraq war. In fact, she was the chief sponsor of a Senate joint resolution supporting President Bush’s heinous decision.

In contrast, Jamie Raskin offers District 20 voters a chance for leadership that is truly progressive and challenging of politics as usual where the backroom deals support the politically-connected special interests. A leading constitutional scholar and educator who has empowered students, minorities and other under-privileged individuals, Raskin would be a breath of fresh air in the smoke-filled back rooms of Annapolis. A strong environmentalist, who unlike Ruben, feels that the ICC would be an environmental, economic and community disaster, Raskin would engage the intellectual resources of our district in developing innovative policies. Raskin is part of a big blue wave of progressive politics that is starting to sweep the country from Connecticut to California.

As shown by this demeaning attack ad, Senator Ruben and her cronies will not give up power easily. Expect a bloody campaign and a close election. We must reject the politics of negativity and money. It is time to demand the truly great political representation that we deserve. State Senator Jamie Raskin would be a great complement to our suite of top-notch, progressive assembly and council candidates.

— David Blockstein
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Students support Ervin

As a school board member and community activist, Valerie Ervin has been a committed and trustworthy friend of the students of District 5. In her visits to our schools she has empowered students, listening to our concerns and being a true advocate for us on the school board. The students regard her not as a politician, but as an ally and a friend.

Valerie’s dedication to the students of Montgomery County inspired many students to work on her Board of Education campaign. At the time it was one of the largest student mobilization efforts our county had seen. We are thrilled that Valerie is running for the District 5 Council seat, where she will be able to further impact educational funding and policy. The students are behind Valerie 110 percent; over 50 students are already involved in her campaign.


We are so excited for Valerie and are working hard to help her win. She, unlike so many politicians, is a genuine advocate for students and someone who will truly listen to our concerns. We look forward to working with her when she’s on the council.

— Avi Edelman
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Riemer lacks qualifications

Hans Riemer, candidate to represent District 5 on the Montgomery Council, is a carpetbagger. He moved to Maryland so recently that he’s never even voted here and he gets over 75 percent of his campaign funding from out of state.

This is distasteful enough philosophically, but from a practical standpoint it’s far more problematic. I don’t see how Riemer’s nonprofit work on Social Security reform in California prepares him to understand the complexities of a local jurisdiction he moved to less than two years ago. And this isn’t just any local jurisdiction: it’s a $4-billion operation serving almost 1 million people in the National Capital Area, where numerous governing entities share overlapping responsibilities.

My real beef with Riemer, though, is not about his lack of basic qualifications for the job. Rather, it’s that he calls himself a progressive, but isn’t.

To wit:

• Riemer attacked his opponent — 20-year Silver Spring resident Valerie Ervin – for being supported by the working men and women of Montgomery County. Ervin has the backing of every labor union in the county: among them, teachers, police, firefighters, grocery store clerks and county employees. Being anti-labor is not exactly progressive.

• The only Maryland organizations to support Riemer are five development companies and an auto dealership. This is hardly the stuff of leftie activism.

• Most important, since registering to vote here last summer, this “progressive” has done nothing to help (or even to get to know) local progressives — folks who have been hard at work here for decades. (Riemer decided to oppose our own Marc Elrich and Joy Austin-Lane without even knowing who they were, nonetheless the enormous service they have provided.)

A fundamental aspect of a progressive worldview is seeking the common good above one’s parochial self-interest and this is where Riemer fails most spectacularly. In a political year marked by a burgeoning movement of progressive reformers — from Ned Lamont in Connecticut to Jamie Raskin in Takoma Park – Riemer’s only apparent interest is getting his own political career on track. At fundraisers and forums where state and local progressives share ideas and gather support, Riemer has been consistently, conspicuously absent all year long.

Early in the year, I wrote privately to Riemer, praised him for his work in California, and suggested that he might help our community – and his own political career – more by supporting the larger progressive movement than by pursing only his personal goals this year. He never wrote back. Some progressive!

Fortunately, District 5 can choose a true progressive whose background on the school board and county-council staff make her supremely qualified for the job. That person is Valerie Ervin. She deserves your vote on September 12.

Full disclosure: earlier this year, I was on staff for Jamie Raskin and then Valerie Ervin. I am currently not affiliated with any candidate for public office.

— Keith Berner
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Ruben is not Rove

There have been a lot of accusations of Karl Rove tactics in the race for District 20 State Senate. What would be a Karl Rove tactic? Would it be spin on your message, claiming that you are running so that you can “take back Maryland for the Democrats?” Would that be done by unseating a Republican? Or unseating the most senior and powerful progressive Democratic woman in the Senate?

Would a Karl Rove tactic be having a campaign operative sign onto a neighborhood email list (in a neighborhood nowhere near where he resides) solely to trash your opponent and anyone on the list who supports your opponent or questions your candidate’s tactics? That is exactly what happened in Takoma Park when a Raskin campaign operative signed on and trashed Ida Ruben and then me when I expressed concerns about the Raskin campaign.

Would a Karl rove tactic be to claim you take no campaign contributions from business entities when your official financial filing shows that you do? Would a Karl rove tactic be to attack your opponent incessantly and then accuse her of negative campaigning?

Ida Ruben didn’t know me at all when I called her office last February and asked if she would sponsor legislation to remove mercury switches from junk vehicles before they are melted and the mercury can get into the food chain. She didn’t hesitate. And I was amazed to learn that she was the second most powerful person in the State Senate and the most powerful woman. I was more amazed with the tenacity and drive with which she pursued our bill, how she got it to sail through the Senate, and how she fought to get it through the House right up until the end of the session.

I want someone in Annapolis who knows her job and who pursues it with dedication and integrity. I want someone to represent me who reflects my values of honesty, solid analysis, and policies that support the public good. I’ll be voting for Ida Ruben on September 12th and I hope you will, too.

— Catherine Tunis
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Raskin "leaves me breathless with anticipation"

On several occasions I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with Jamie Raskin, a very impressive community leader seeking a seat in the Maryland Senate. His background is perfect in every way to serve citizens of the 20th District because Jamie’s plans and hopes are those of so many Maryland voters.

My excitement at the prospect of having Raskin’s voice in the state senate, his brainpower involved in our future lives, his perfect academic and professional skill on OUR side leaves me breathless with anticipation. Perhaps it is possible that our world can yet be improved to run smoothly, serve justice, work toward peaceful ends, and solve state issues. Imagine it.

Raskin, a Harvard educated attorney, is progressive with a capital P! He is a pro bono public interest lawyer and a professor of constitutional law at American U. He is brilliant and able and completely dedicated to Maryland’s working families.

His interest in education is a boon to our children as he reminds us that most civilized countries begin educating their young by age 3. American self-praise tells us that the U.S. is ahead in the world—strong, powerful, rich. Then, how is it that our children cannot pass reading tests? The system needs work. Who can fix it?

Jamie Raskin will work toward the improvement of early education; he will support the causes that have affected thousands of lives. AND he will listen to Maryland and its citizens.

— Elsie Bliss
Silver Spring

Letter: Ruben is a strong, woman leader

Let’s be fair—Ida Ruben did not set a negative tone for the District 20 Senate race, it was set by her challenger. In Jamie’s first District mailing, he decried the use of negative politics and proceeded to use them by accusing Ida of being an incumbent who is more interested in her own power than in the common good. Wow!

Ida has worked plenty hard for the common good, and Takoma Park and Silver Spring have benefited from it in a major way. When Montgomery College nearly left North Takoma and we persuaded it to stay, it needed very substantial funding to build a bridge and expand into South Silver Spring. This happened with Ida’s strength on the Senate side, to the benefit of Takoma Park and Silver Spring.

Also, when Takoma Park found itself in a jam over escalating costs with the Community Center, Ida came through with considerable funding that helped keep our taxes low. These are two of many examples.

Ida is no shrinking violet, and some are offended by this. She is a strong woman leader with tremendous vitality, independence, experience and ethics. She has accomplished much on many things we hold dear, including the environment, health care, education, and the Purple Line. While some people will vote against Ida because of her position on the ICC, they will not vote against Martin O’Malley and others who have the same position as Ida. I have always opposed the ICC, but I believe Ida’s strengths outweigh my disagreement with her on this issue.

We are a fortunate and unique District to have Ida Ruben as the President pro tem of the Senate and Sheila Hixson as the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. It’s in our best interest to keep them both there, working together, for as long as we can.

— Lorraine Pearsall
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Shop local

I really enjoyed reading Esther Nguonly’s article, “Guilt-free pleasures,” in your August edition in the Voice. I had heard about A Fair Day’s Play and Takoma Park Bikes, but until this past week I had not been in either store.

It is so refreshing to know the meaning behind the name of the store, “A Fair Day’s Play.” I was raised to shop smart and wise, to look for bargains, but to also support local businesses. The philosophy of fair play is just as it reads in your article, “ only products that have been produced in workplaces where workers have fundamental rights.” How appropriate is that theme for Takoma Park.


The first item I purchased was the game “Boggle,” which my husband and I would play BC (before children) we played with our son and daughter this past Saturday night and we all had a grand time.
We are so fortunate to have the stores we have in our neighborhood. I hope more people will think shop locally the next time they want to go out for a game, bike part, wedding gift, etc.

— Pat Rumbaugh
Takoma Park, MD

Letter; Ruben should save venom for Republicans

I am new to the County and was leaning toward voting for Sen. Rubin until I read the scurrilous brochure that came to my home yesterday from her campaign. No matter whether one supports all his positions, Mr. Raskin has worked hard for the Democratic Party. As someone who spent 10 years working for an organization at the forefront of the pro-choice movement (the Guttmacher Institute) I know Jamie is staunch in his pro-choice stance. Frankly, the brochure’s gross distortions offend me and insult my intelligence. Before moving to Silver Spring, I lived in New Jersey, where vicious campaigns are the norm. I was hoping for better here. Even in NJ the venom was usually reserved for the opposing Party.

I guess since Republicans in Montgomery County are weak minority party, I guess insecure Democrats like Ms. Rubin feel it is OK to go after fellow Democrats.

— Marc Levin
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Council no place for "on the job" training

The District 5 County Council race is an easy one, because there’s only one real choice. As an elected member of the School Board and as a parent activist, Valerie Ervin, a true progressive, has extensive experience working on K-12 education issues in Montgomery

County; through her work at the County Council, she has worked on transportation issues, the environment, housing, and many other important issues in our community.

Based on his own campaign materials, Hans Riemer seems to have no experience with k-12 education, the environment, transportation, housing, or employment. A seat on the County Council is no place for on-the-job training.

— Maryam Balbed
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Stay the course in Iraq

President Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq that begins with training Iraqi forces so they can defend their country and fight the terrorists. We are making tremendous progress towards this objective. Earlier this year, Iraqi forces led the fight in clearing out terrorists during the crucial battle of Tal Afar, with U.S. troops in a supporting role, and every day, Iraqis are taking more control of the situation on the ground. Withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats in Washington propose, would send a dangerous signal to our enemies that we cut and run when the going gets tough. President Bush is offering a clear strategy to win, not a political quick fix.

— William Bannan
Silver Spring MD

Letters: Respect the rights of cyclists!

I urge drivers to remember that bicyclists are allowed on signed shared roadways and to treat bicyclists as humans, not objects to speed past. I have been a bike commuter for six years and encountered drivers-even friends who didn’t recognize me on my bike-who ride dangerously close and yell at me to get out of the road. I do not ride on ped/bike paths or sidewalks while commuting for the following reasons:

1) I am legally allowed to ride my bike on roadways designated as signed shared roads such as Beach Drive and Sligo Creek Parkway;

2) I commute twenty miles from work on road and to do so on ped/bike paths means conflict with pedestrians, strollers, joggers, dog walkers, etc.; and

3) I want drivers to see me—maybe I can inspire some to get out of their cars in an effort to minimize congestion and improve air quality. I ride at a good pace but not always as fast as a car can go. Drivers, please slow down, have patience and wait to pass cyclists until there is sufficient room to do so safely, and remember that we have a right to be on the road.

— Katherine Kelly
Takoma Park. MD

Letter: Misinformation about Murray

I am fully in favor of busting elected representative’s chops when they haven’t done their job— but there is one thing I can’t stand for—misinformation. We all need to make informed decisions about the election, investigating records and claims of each candidate, but also analyzing the veracity of ‘pundits’ opinions (or at least those people with access to the media).

One person in particular has been a wealth of misinformation: writer Michael Tabor. Mr. Tabor, I’m sure has had many victims over the years, and almost claimed one of our supporters, “Frank”—until I encouraged Frank to actually do a little investigating.

In particular, Tabor seems to have a grudge with Delegate Gareth Murray, an incumbent running for re-election. Fair enough, if Tabor’s claims are legitimate—Frank found they aren’t. Specifically, in an opinion article dated July 2006, Tabor questions Murray’s pro-environmental record, citing he was not endorsed by the Montgomery County Sierra Club. A quick call to the Sierra Club informed Frank that Murray indeed received its endorsement in July—the same month Tabor’s opinion was published. In the same opinion article, Tabor claimed Murray was “missing in action...[but] was able to portray himself as a seasoned liberal.”

If Murray was “able to portray himself as a seasoned liberal,” Frank figured there had to be some sort of supporting evidence; after all, he doubted the man could pull a fast one over on such an active county. And so Frank did some investigating again, checking out Murray’s website and looking at his voting record. Murray voted for the Fair Share Health Care bill, minimum wage increase, voting machine paper trails, medical decision-making act, increased teacher’s pensions, public financing of campaigns, and against slots. He has a 100% environmental voting record (as given by the Maryland League of Conservation Voters), and is endorsed by a prodigious amount of groups—including Progressive Maryland and Equality Maryland. Sounds like a liberal, dare we say a “seasoned” liberal.
While Frank’s investigation has focused on Murray, both he and I are interested in what Tabor has said about some of our other representatives. We can all take a simple lesson away from this (and no, it is not ‘boycott Michael Tabor articles’), it is, simply, do not accept misinformation.

— Dan Prud’homme
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Ruben's Rovian tactics

My name is Doug Hinrichs, a long-time resident of Montgomery County, writing to say that your campaign’s recent attacks on Jamie Raskin are unwarranted, unfounded and counterproductive to the Democratic Party’s goals. Your campaign has set a new low in Rovian tactics at exactly the time that Democrats need to take the high moral road to win back the majority on county, state and national politics—rather than old-school smear and obfuscation. Is your campaign in such bad shape that you have to take such desperate measures?

Democrats also have an unprecedented opportunity to offer voters smart, honest candidates who know their facts and don’t shoot from the hip—in contrast to certain high-profile Republican office holders. Your misleading attack runs counter to the facts on Jamie’s proud and honorable track record as a Progressive Democrat.

At the very least, your campaign owes an apology to Jamie and Sarah Raskin, as well as the many Democratic leaders and Democratic organizations that have endorsed Jamie’s positive campaign. Best case scenario is that you withdraw from the campaign and leave the Democratic party in more positive, honest, and competent hands.

— Doug Hinrichs
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Ruben's facts don't add up

Dear Senator Ruben: In your most recent mailing, you invite us to “Check the facts” about Jamie Raskin’s record on three issues you identify. I want to thank you for that invitation. As citizens, it is incumbent upon us to be informed voters and know about what each candidate stands for, their character and their record. I was so concerned with the points you raised about Mr. Raskin, I was motivated to do just as you suggested, to check the facts. I want to thank you for inspiring the voters to delve into who the candidates are.

So I checked out each of your three issues concerning Mr. Raskin. Here is what I found:

1. In the National Committee of the Reform Party of the USA et al v. Democratic National Committee, et al, Mr. Raskin challenged the practice of large corporations funneling “soft money” contributions into the political parties, a practice that was later banned in the McCain-Feingold legislation. Do you support McCain-Feingold, Senator Ruben? I also learned that in this case, Mr. Raskin challenged restrictions on President Clinton’s powers to freely appoint members to the Federal Election Commission, restrictions that forced him to name registered Republicans to the Commission. The position Mr. Raskin was defending was that Congress cannot interfere with the president’s “appointments power” to choose the best person for an executive branch position by imposing on him unlawful political party affiliation requirements.

Am I to conclude Senator Ruben that you do not support the McCain-Feingold legislation and encourage large corporations to funnel soft money contributions into political parties? Mr. Raskin not only supports the McCain-Feingold legislation but his victory in the courtroom helped create the legislation. Mr. Raskin, used this case to defend the right of a President to select his own appointments without interference by Congress. Am I further to conclude that you support Congress’ micromanagement of the office of the President’s appointment powers? What would happen if we have a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Congress? You announce in your mailing of Mr. Raskin that “he’s not even a real Democrat”. In light of Mr. Raskin’s efforts to limit corporate contributions to political parties and his defense of the autonomy of the office of the President, who is the “real Democrat” now?

2. In the Perot et al v. FEC case, Mr. Raskin, an open Clinton supporter, was apparently approached by Ross Perot to defend his right to be included in national debates. Mr. Raskin, in his capacity as a constitutional lawyer, agreed to defend this right. Bill Clinton supported Mr. Perot’s right to be included in the debate but apparently Bob Dole didn’t. Thus, Mr. Raskin agreed to take the case on the grounds that since large corporations were funding the debate, excluding a bone fide candidate constituted illegal contributions by the corporations. The merits of the case are readily available.
Mr. Raskin, as you allege, did not “support” a third party candidate like conservative Ross Perot. You have grossly misrepresented and seemingly deliberately misused the word “support”. He was hired by Mr. Perot to defend his right to participate in the debates, he did not “support” Mr. Perot’s candidacy and therefore could not have, as you say, “work against Bill Clinton and Al Gore, helping put George W. Bush into office through his support of third party candidates like conservative Ross Perot.” My research uncovered that Mr. Perot hired Mr. Raskin because he had heard that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had hired Mr. Raskin to be General Counsel of the National Rainbow Coalition in the late 1980s to defend voting rights and democracy in the Democratic Party.

Do I conclude from your opposition to Mr. Raskin’s support of Mr. Perot’s right as a bone fide candidate to participate in debates, that you do not support every bone fide candidate’s right to participate in public debates?

3. In the Joseph Scheidler et al v. National Organization for Women et al case, it seems that Mr. Raskin was acting on behalf of our right to protest by blocking a building and not be prosecuted in the same way as mafia bosses and organized criminals are for extortion. The argument was that protesters are not “taking property” or extorting, and therefore should n ot be in the same category as described in the Hobbs Act of RICO ((Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

It seems Mr. Raskin believed it critical to make sure there is a legal distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor. Even though Mr. Raskin might disagree or even abhor what may be protested, it is our right as Americans to do so and should not be faced with ten to twenty years in prison for civil disobedience.

Are you suggesting that as our representative, you support this punishment for let’s say, peaceful protesters of the ICC, peaceful picketers at the Dickerson generating plant, one of the major polluters in our area (where a farmer and a rabbi were arrested for civil disobedience). So, in opposition to Mr. Raskin and the 8-1 Supreme Court decision, you would advocate treating these protesters and picketers like felons and mobsters under the RICO law and have them spend most of their lives rotting in federal prison. So, do I ascertain from your opposition to Mr. Raskin, that you place organized union picketing and other acts of civil disobedience in the same category as organized crime and racketeers?

So now that I have done my research at your suggestion, I am confused. You say you are fighting for affordable health care and prescription drugs. You have been in office for 18 years, do we have it yet? You say you oppose the Iraq War, yet I understand you introduced pro-Iraq War legislation. You call yourself “The Original Maryland Progressive”. Have you ever described yourself in the last 19 years as a “progressive” in any of your literature?

And yet, you misrepresented Mr. Raskin’s efforts to protect all Americans’ right to the freedom of speech. This mailing is such a distortion of the cases Mr. Raskin represented, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. May I remind you of your offense at the carefully researched efforts of the students at Montgomery Blair, and your efforts to stifle their freedom of speech.

The examples you identified, seem to me to be efforts, successful ones at that, to protect American’s right to free speech. It seems to me that Mr. Raskin’s efforts are what enabled you to send out the mailing you did. Your right to free speech has been protected by Mr. Raskin.

I sincerely hope that more of your constituents choose to take your challenge and “check the facts”.

— Esther Siegel
Takoma Park, MD

Letter: Ruben campaign is sleazy

In a recent campaign piece, Ida Ruben attempts to characterize Jamie Raskin as anti-choice and anti-Democratic party by twisting the truth. I am appalled and shocked that someone I have voted for many times is running this sort of sleazy campaign.

To guard our protections under the Bill of Rights, civil liberties attorneys defend lots of unsavory characters (like Joseph Scheidler) or represent clients who are not Democrats (like Ross Perot) because of the principles at stake. It’s ridiculous to distort this into Raskin not being supportive of abortion rights or Democrats. Abortion rights were not being litigated in the case Ruben cites—the right to demonstrate was. In the other cases, Raskin was fighting against the undue influence of corporate money on our politics.

Ruben either doesn’t understand how our rights are protected or she is deliberately bending the truth for personal gain. Either way, I would prefer someone else representing me. I think Jamie Raskin has earned that place.

— Joan E. Biren
Silver Spring, MD

Letter: Ruben mailings distort Raskin record

When I moved to Maryland in 1984, Ida Ruben had been in the Maryland Legislature seven years. Her State Senate webpage lists committees and biographical information, but mentions no legislation she sponsored to help people in her district during her 29 years in Annapolis.

Without much to run on, the Ruben campaign recently mailed out a brochure questioning Jamie Raskin’s Democratic credentials that grossly misrepresented her challenger’s record. This unwarranted, unsupportable attack seems out-of-character for Sen. Ruben whose main positive was that she ran positive campaigns. The smears should backfire by tarnishing Ruben’s “nice” image without convincing anyone Jamie Raskin is not a “real Democrat,“ costing Ruben dearly in what had been a closely contested, spirited but respectful campaign focused on the issues.

Jamie Raskin’s record speaks for itself. He was a national delegate for John Kerry in 2004, helped Al Gore win the popular vote in 2000, and worked to expand the Democratic Party with the Rainbow/Push organization. I’ve seen Raskin in action: standing up for the people of Maryland. When a gay-bashing measure came up in a Maryland Senate Committee, he stood up for equal rights and the Constitution confronting those who would entwine church and state to the detriment of both. When Michael Steele met with Karl Rove at the RNC, Raskin stood with concerned Marylanders protesting this financial and dirty-tricks interference in our politics.

Where was Ida Ruben? She sponsored a resolution praising the Bush Administration for the Iraq War, emulating Rove’s politicization of war for political gain. She admitted she’d never have done this if she knew the war was unpopular. This reveals an entrenched Senator out of touch with constituents’ needs trying to distract them with misguided grandstanding on the War and now with a clumsy effort to smear a worthy opponent! This betrays a lack of respect for voters.

Why did Ruben resort to dirty tricks? This hints at desperation from a campaign that has no faith in its candidate’s record or its voters’ intelligence. After squandering three decades in Annapolis, the Ruben campaign hopes voters forget her record of deregulating energy companies and increasing special interest money in our state’s politics. She keeps serving big corporations at the expense of Maryland’s consumers. After harming rather than helping Marylanders during her long incumbency, Ida Ruben hopes to distract us by making up things about her challenger. After acting like a Republican, Ruben is trying to tell us Raskin is not a “real Democrat.”

The Ruben campaign chooses attacking Jamie Raskin rather than opposing Ehrlich and Bush policies that hurt Maryland voters. Joe Lieberman found out what Democrats think about incumbents who side with Bush and Rove over Democrats and value big money politics more than their constituents. Voters in the 20th District are likely to react the same way. The Ruben attack piece has one accurate point, however. Democratic voters in the 20th District do want a “real Democrat” to represent us in the Maryland State Senate. His name is Jamie Raskin.

— Mike Hersh
Wheaton, Maryland