Ruben vs Raskin

Dear Readers,

The incumbent and the challenger each successfully raised serious doubts about the other at t he July 20th Takoma Voice sponsored debate between State Senator Ida Ruben and challenger Jamie Raskin.

Each made a credible case for him- or herself, but each did a much better job making a credible case AGAINST the other. Ida Ruben does indeed talk as though she’s a cog in the party machine system. Jamie Raskin does make grandiose statements that are a bit naive, and he does sound as though he thinks he is or wishes he were running for higher office.

Sen. Ruben makes no bones about her ability to work the system, though she took umbrage at being called a “machine” politician, and cited examples of independent votes she has cast. But in the course of the forum she hammered on two points: “Budget-and-Tax,” her pet name for the powerful Senate Budget and Tax Committee, of which she is a member. and the millions, and millions, and millions more she has “brought home” to District 20, as easily as you or I might say we’d brought home a bag of groceries from the co-op. She even bragged that she knew about back-room deals.

Mr. Raskin was shocked by the very idea of back room deals and assured the voters that he would never be involved in such. He would accomplish his progressive agenda, not with back-room deals, but with coalition building. Ms Rueben scoffed at this, citing examples of her own coalition building. Coalitions are fine, she said, but they don’t always hold together, in which case a politician needs other tactics. Mr. Raskin came out of that exchange looking a bit pollyanna-ish in Gilbert’s opinion.

Sen. Rubin’s intimation that Mr. Raskin has higher office in mind – or even that in his mind he IS running for higher office, seemed confirmed in his his statement railing against Republicans “We’ve got to take the government back from the Republicans! We’ve got to organize people to kick the Republicans out!” This, when he is running in the primary against a sister Democrat in a district that is not likely to field a Republican to run for that office. His election would make no difference in the party balance at all.

Sen. Rueben’s membership on “Budget-and-Tax” is due to her seniority, it does not convey with the seat. Mr. Raskin would be a freshman senator and would be starting at the bottom. Sen. Ruben uses this fact to raise fears that without her on “Budget-and-Tax,” the money will dry up. Committee members apparently have the power to fund or not fund projects

Certainly she has worked her way up in the system and knows how to work it to her constituents advantage. She did not address (and neither did Raskin, strangely enough) whether this is a good and fair system. Nevertheless it indicates what kind of politician Sen. Ruben is – she plays the game, goes out of her way to take care of her constituents to earn their votes, and enjoys the perks.

Like recent presidential candidate John Kerry, Sen. Ruben has a “flip-flop” problem on the death penalty. She says she opposes the death penalty and supports the current moratorium, but there’s that one, leettle embarrassing vote approving the death penalty in cases where police officers are murdered in the line of duty. As in Kerry’s case she has a long voting record that can be picked apart, taken out of context, and criticized. Even so, the vote smells of expedience and the sort of careful calculation made by politicians whose priority is reelection, not principle.

She was also slammed by Mr. Raskin for her votes in favor of utility deregulation, which she made no attempt to defend. She did make a half-hearted attempt to defend corporate donations in the face of repeated demonizing statements about “big corporations’” money and influence from Mr. Raskin. “Corporations bring money to a lot of people.” she said, citing the high costs of running an election campaign.
She pointedly explained (twice ) that the proper way to run for office is to earn the privilege through the system as she did. One works on other candidate’s campaigns, and then runs when there is an empty seat. Gilbert got the impression that she felt considerably put out by Mr. Raskins neglect of this procedure, that in fact she felt it was extremely rude.

Mr. Raskin clearly has no patience with Sen. Ruben’s idea of what is proper procedure. First off he said he wanted to sweep away the “politics of yesterday,” [not looking in Sen. Rubin’s direction]. He was breathing fire, all aflame for the Democratic “party of the people,” hot to be the “champion of the people,” and burning to work for the “common rights of the people.” This is from a Bethesda-raised graduate of Georgetown Day School and Harvard Law School, keep in mind. Gilbert is sure he is a fine fellow with the best of intentions, but it makes Gilbert cringe when someone of that background talks with stars in his eyes about “people who need the help of government.” For instance it makes Gilbert nervous when such politicians decide to “help” the people be less politically apathetic by making voter registration a mandatory requirement of high school graduation – this is for the people’s own good, of course. Next he’ll be drafting legislation mandating that all horses led to water must drink.

Not that Ida Ruben looks like she’s particularly in touch with “the people,” looking as she does as though she would be more comfortable at a country club dinner than a typical Takoma Park or Silver Spring living room. She certainly doesn’t have an ambitious program for them, either, which may or may not be a good thing. She’s happy to go on doing what she’s doing, treating “the people” as individual constituents whose votes need occasional grooming and feeding.

Though she by-and-large supports the same sort of legislation he does, Ms Sen. Ruben doesn’t frame the issues in a program like Mr. Raskin, who in turn made a point of repeatedly mentioning universal health care and election reform. He also mentioned transportation a lot. This is the issue that shows the biggest difference between him and the incumbent, who supported the Inter-County Connector (ICC). Both candidates bravely support the Purple Line (Gilbert is still waiting to hear from an anti-Purple Line politician).

Mr. Raskin also hammered on corporate influence, a factor in Sen. Ruben’s support for the ICC, he suggested. She didn’t exactly deny that she receives corporate donations, but she counterattacked with examples of Raskin fund-raising efforts that were dependent on corporate donations and outside money and politicians, specifically a fund raising event in space donated by a DC law firm Porter and Arnold, and a fund raising event held in Manhattan.

Contributions to her campaign are listed on the Maryland State Board of Elections website (including $1000 each from 3 apparently-affiliated resort developers in Colorado?!). Mr. Raskin’s contributions are not (yet) listed.

Mr. Raskin was almost cartoonish in his efforts to appear vigorous and Ready-To-Hit-The-Ground-Running. He made a number of eager pledges, many of them to do certain things within minutes of taking office, such as present legislation to make voter registration a requirement of high school graduation, and legislation to limit corporate funding in campaigns (the other legislators will flock, FLOCK to your banner, Jamie, saying “Golly! Why didn’t we think of this BEFORE?”!). If he wins, the first few minutes of his term will be dangerously frantic. He might sprain something. Medics, stand by!

Come to think of it, Sen. Ruben was even more cartoonish in her attempts to look vigorous and Still-With-It. She undercut it all by making a coy crack about being 39 years old. In a city with a large boomer-generation population – including many women who are proud of their age and see such coyness as antifeminist, the remark only made her look old and out-of -touch with Takoma Park.

Gilbert thinks Ms. Sen. Ruben is doomed, but he feels a bit sorry for her. She will get revenge of a sort once Mr. Raskin takes office and discovers that being an elected politician means less “marching” and more “lunching,” less crusade and more compromise. Eventually he too will have a legislative record that reelects political pragmatism and “sausage-making.” He may even end up with a vote on his record like the one he castigates Ida Ruben for. Though otherwise against the death penalty, she voted for a bill that called for the death penalty for murderers of police officers in the course of their duty. Obviously, the pressure from law enforcement groups and supporters must have been great on Ms. Sen. Ruben, and she cast a vote calculated to appease and avoid unpleasantness.

So, it looks like Takoma Park stands poised on the brink of one of two futures. If Ms Sen. Ruben wins reelection she will take vengeance on upstart, Mr. Raskin-hotbed Takoma Park, denying it every penny of state money.

If Takoma Park’s Jamie Raskin wins the state senate seat, he will lead the progressive charge head first into the brick wall of an annoyed party establishment, losing Takoma Park every penny of state money.

This is what democracy is all about – choice. The choice here is which route to hell – the scenic or prosaic one?. Enjoy casting this vote, dear Readers, it will likely be your last. By next election Takoma Park’s streets will be impassable due to lack of maintenance, not to mention the fallen trees and utility poles. There won’t be any power, anyway, and you’ll likely not even be aware that it is Election Day, your attention being taken up with the day to day necessities of hunting, gathering, keeping the fire lit, and battling the other neighborhood associations with sticks and rocks.

– Gilbert
***************************************
COMMENT:
I first heard of Jamie Raskin via his signage all over TP. I commented to a politically astute friend that I would put money on the fact that he was probably the son of Marcus and another elite clever boy who went to Harvard and is all set to let the world in on his special gifts. I was gently rebuffed as being cynical so of course I went home and googled and lo and behold, he is the elite son of an elite and he did go to Harvard. I laughed out loud. Cynical? No. I worked for clever boys for years in the public interest sector. They come from families that pride themselves on their clever liberalism and manage to actually avoid anything that might cause them true discomfort.

I watched clever boys leave the public interest arena and head into “higher” offices where they promptly sold down the river all kinds of policy ideals they had worked on for years. It doesn’t surprise me that loser liberal scum like Gephardt, Daschle and Harkin are supporting him. They want him in their pockets as soon as possible.

Of course I also laughed when I got home one day to find a full color glossy from Ida Ruben telling me how much she likes good education and other good things and proved it by showing her with lots of good people she likes and how much I should vote for her cause she is so diverse in her liking and photographs and good stuff. Especially interesting as I have lived in her district for a total of 20 years and never gotten one single piece of malarkey from her until she was challenged by Raskin.

I am not impressed by either. Can you tell? I have slogged thru a lot of liberal slobber in my working and voting life and I’ve finally decided that until a party can come up with someone who has both intellect and integrity I will pass. I know what liberals are up close and personal.
One candidate I do support is Donna Edwards in her bid to unseat Al Wynn. He is as close to being a republicrap as possible without actually kissing Karl Rove. No I don’t work on her campaign, for which she would most likely be grateful, but I will be voting for her in the primaries.

Betsy B.

If a law is unjust it must be changed. If it cannot be changed it must be broken..

About the Author

Gilbert
Gilbert is the pseudonym of a hard-bitten, hard-drinking, long-time Takoma Park resident who maintains the granolapark blog. Gilbert and William L. Brown — Granola Park's mild-mannered chief of staff, researcher, and drink pourer — have never been seen in the same place at the same time.

12 Comments on "Ruben vs Raskin"

  1. Love your writing style. I don’t live in the D20, 50 miles away actually. We would like to move there but the housing prices seem severe even in somewhat more Granola Park.
    I have met Raskin on projects years ago, he is a principled, brilliant man. But I suspect that Ruben is right about deal-making. Politics is not parthogenesis, not the Immaculate Conception. He will make deals if he wins, or nobody will bother telling him where the deal-making rooms even are.

  2. Jonathan Shurberg | July 23, 2006 at 8:26 pm |

    I find your purported “review” of the Raskin-Ruben debate to be cynical, manipulative and completely contrary to the progressive principles to which you claim to hew.
    Your bottom line is that local and state politics is all about money — to be more blunt, it is all about local communities “getting paid” by pitting themselves against other local communities in what you perceive as a zero sum game. “I better get mine before they get theirs, or there won’t be any left.”
    This is a deeply flawed and completely anti-progressive view of politics. Putting aside the entirely valid point that it is entirely consistent with Ida Ruben’s worldview, it is (1) anathema to the views of the vast majority of the denizens of the community of Takoma Park, and (2) essentially Republican and more specifically Rovian in its disdain for anything more than rank self-interest as a political motivating force. What kind of progressive are you?
    Full disclosure: I am a Raskin supporter. I respect those who support Ida Ruben, although I do not share their views. I believe very strongly, despite the cynicism of your post, that diverse groups cutting across geographic or ethnic or cultural communities can come together for larger political purposes, such as universal health care, an end to the death penalty, and campaign finance reform. I believe that this belief is a bedrock principle of progressive politics.
    Your politics (or at least your pose) is completely at odds with your community, and utterly unworthy of it. If it’s a pose, stop it. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
    Second point — I found much of your purported “analysis” of the debate facile and catty, but I want to concentrate on one particularly obnoxious portion — the idea that because Jamie Raskin went to a D.C. private school and Harvard, of all places, that he is somehow suspect in his professed allegiance to progressive principles.
    First off, this is a particularly stupid, ahistorical, anti-elitist, anti-intellectual argument. Have you ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt? You know, the patrician, aristocratic guy who pretty much saved this country? Or John Kennedy. Or any of a host of other Democratic and progressive leaders who had the misfortune to be brought up in privileged surroundings.
    You want to criticize Jamie Raskin, have at it, no problem. But casting aspersions on him based on his background is appalling, and once again completely anti- progressive.
    Second, your criticism of him is particularly offensive in light of his ACTIONS, not his words, in support of progressive principles. For many years, he has supported students and workers and tenants and countless other PROGRESSIVE constituencies, with pro bono legal representation and other support. Is that type of action somehow suspect because of the circumstances of his upbringing?
    Your conclusion that the most competitive legislative race Takoma Park and Silver Spring have seen in decades will leave us screwed either way is appalling, and unworthy of the space it occupies on the Voice website. Voters can only win and the legislative process enhanced by vigorous and serious competition for elected office. If you can’t handle that, find something else to write about.

  3. Its PC to talk about the Purple line and it has been for some time, during which time nothing has been done. I pledge to have a reversible one track trolley up and running between Silver Spring and Bethesda Metro stops within two years of the election. Then we can seek enhancements. I prefer extending Metro to Germantown over extending Metro to P.G. Co. Born in Takoma Park–Robin Ficker

  4. A local voter | July 24, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    This race reminds me in some ways of the Van Hollen Morella match up. Yes, there was more at stake in that race because Morella, as a Republican, was helping her party keep control of the House. (But I sure like Morella more than I like Ruben.)
    Morella was a moderate Republican with a history of constituent service and an office that she took for granted (as all politicians seem to once they join the club). Van Hollen was a young idealist.
    True, reality has hit Van Hollen now that he’s in office, just as it will surely hit Raskin. But do you think either Van Hollen or Raskin have been under an illusions? Raskin has been around Maryland politics his whole life. How naive do you think he is?
    Also, isn’t is better to have an idealist pushing for the right issues than just accepting the corrupt status quo? Rubens’ confusion about global warming was enough for me to see that she doesn’t have a clue about much beyond money.
    Ida Ruben is not a Republican, but she might as well be. Her idea of senatorial service is attending ribbon cuttings. I’m sure that we’re all grateful for the money that she has brought our district, but, as Raskin said at the debate, it’s our money, and that’s what she is supposed to do. There’s no point acting as if she’s a noblewoman handing out trickets to us peasants out of her largess.
    Politicians are not our gentry class. And if Raskin ever takes his position for granted the way that Ruben does, I hope to god a challenger comes and unseats him.
    Back to Morella. I actually liked her a lot more than I like Ruben. Anyone involved in politics knows how Ruben has bullied her fellow lawmakers and her constituents to get her way. And rarely has her pettiness been in service of her constituents. It has served one purpose only: fueling her power trip.
    Raskin’s not perfect, but I disagree with the criticism that he is TOO idealistic and that his background is too elite. Wow. Take a look at the work Raskin has done as a consitutional lawyer and his work on behalf of tenants. Look at the legacy that his family has given the DC area and the country (for example, his father founded the Institute for Policy Studies). This is no silver spoon brat.
    Seriously, Gilbert, you’ve got to rethink that view of Raskin. Take a look at what he has done with his life (he’s only in his early 40s) and tell us again how his background makes him unqualified to lead on issues. I’m refreshed to see a candidate who seems willing to actually do something on behalf of all Marylanders instead of just providing lip service and trying to pay off middle class voters and lobbyists.
    I will agree about the voter registration. That reminds me of the draft agreement that I had to sign to get financial aid. Not his best idea.
    But he’s still, by far, the best candidate.

  5. “He was breathing fire, all aflame for the Democratic “party of the people,” hot to be the “champion of the people,” and burning to work for the “common rights of the people.” This is from a Bethesda-raised graduate of Georgetown Day School and Harvard Law School, keep in mind.”
    I typically agree with your commentary, but what’s why the cheapshot? Can people born into privilege not recognize their own privilege and work for a system that would allow others less fortunate to share the privilege? Just because a person attends private schools and is born in an affluent zip code does not automatically make them unaware and out-of-touch with other citizens. In fact, many of the private schools in this area make a concerted effort to teach their students to recognize their own privilege and give back to others so as to breakdown the socio-economic walls that separate those worlds. Your seemingly crass assessment is akin to reverse racism and sexism that only reestablishes misconceptions of socio-economic differences.
    ——
    Mike,
    Thanks for the comment. Glad to know you usually agree, glad to have you as a reader.
    Note that paragraph you quote continues “Gilbert is sure he is a fine fellow with the best of intentions”. Gilbert agrees with you that people of privileged background can work for a better system. But, there is often a difference between people who have experienced, say, poverty and oppression, and those who have not.
    In Gilbert’s experience, those who have “lived the life” are more than a little cynical about the plans concocted by well-meaning people who havent. Gilbert shares that cynicism.
    A telling phrase here is that Mr. Raskin frequently uses the term “help.” This is, literally, a patronizing term that conjurs up memories of the benign liberals who “helped” the poor with the de-grading welfare system and housing projects of the 1960s.
    Sure, a white, straight, upper-middle-class male can be pure of heart and a champion of minorities and the poor. But, I think if you ask those folks (the “people” Mr. Raskin wants to help) whether they’d rather have a WSUMCM representing them or one of their own, they’d prefer one of their own – someone more likely to understand their issues and have better ideas what to do about them.
    Mr. Raskin’s idea of mandatory voter registration is a case in point. In the first place politicans who call for making voluntary things mandatory worry your Gilbert a great deal. Beneath many a liberal skin there lurks a totalitarian heart. Does he really think that making registration a requirement for graduation is going to make people want to vote? Mandatory draft registration hasn’t made the mililtary more popular. The only thing he wll accomplish is to create additional paperwork for the schools and families, and make students resentful of government.
    – Gilbert

  6. Mike,
    Thanks for the comment. Glad to know you usually agree, glad to have you as a reader.
    Note that paragraph you quote continues “Gilbert is sure he is a fine fellow with the best of intentions”. Gilbert agrees with you that people of privileged background can work for a better system. But, there is often a difference between people who have experienced, say, poverty and oppression, and those who have not.
    In Gilbert’s experience, those who have “lived the life” are more than a little cynical about the plans concocted by well-meaning people who havent. Gilbert shares that cynicism.
    A telling phrase here is that Mr. Raskin frequently uses the term “help.” This is, literally, a patronizing term that conjurs up memories of the benign liberals who “helped” the poor with the de-grading welfare system and housing projects of the 1960s.
    Sure, a white, straight, upper-middle-class male can be pure of heart and a champion of minorities and the poor. But, I think if you ask those folks (the “people” Mr. Raskin wants to help) whether they’d rather have a WSUMCM representing them or one of their own, they’d prefer one of their own – someone more likely to understand their issues and have better ideas what to do about them.
    Mr. Raskin’s idea of mandatory voter registration is a case in point. In the first place politicans who call for making voluntary things mandatory worry your Gilbert a great deal. Beneath many a liberal skin there lurks a totalitarian heart. Does he really think that making registration a requirement for graduation is going to make people want to vote? Mandatory draft registration hasn’t made the mililtary more popular. The only thing he wll accomplish is to create additional paperwork for the schools and families, and make students resentful of government.

    – Gilbert

  7. TGagliardo | July 24, 2006 at 10:30 pm |

    On the death penalty: Don’t forget that Jamie Raskin was a key campaign operative for Doug Gansler’s two successful runs for the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s seat.
    Can’t be much more pro-death penalty than Gansler. Couldn’t do more than to assure death penalty is effectuated in MoCo than work hard for a pro-death penalty prosecutor. Ah well, Dear Gilbert, consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds, ne c’est pas?
    PS when I asked who he is supporting for Attorney General, Mr. Raskin declined to answer other than to say he was working for himself to become State Senator. Anybody think he’s helping his old pal Gansler?

  8. Betsy Broughton | July 30, 2006 at 5:59 pm |

    I first heard of Jamie Raskin via his signage all over TP. I commented to a politically astute friend that I would put money on the fact that he was probably the son of Marcus and another elite clever boy who went to harvard and is all set to let the world in on his special gifts. I was gently rebuffed as being cynical so of course I went home and googled and lo and behold, he is the elite son of an elite and he did go to harvard. I laughed out loud. Cynical? No. I worked for clever boys for years in the public interest sector. They come from families that pride themselves on their clever liberalism and manage to actually avoid anything that might cause them true discomfort.
    I watched clever boys leave the public interest arena and head into “higher” offices where they promptly sold down the river all kinds of policy ideals they had worked on for years. It doesn’t surprise me that loser liberal scum like gephardt, daschle and harkin are supporting him. They want him in their pockets as soon as possible.
    Of course I also laughed when I got home one day to find a full color glossy from Ida Ruben telling me how much she likes good education and other good things and proved it by showing her with lots of good people she likes and how much I should vote for her cause she is so diverse in her liking and photographs and good stuff. Especially interesting as I have lived in her district for a total of 20 years and never gotten one single piece of malarkey from her until she was challenged by Raskin.
    I am not impressed by either. Can you tell? I have slogged thru a lot of liberal slobber in my working and voting life and I’ve finally decided that until a party can come up with someone who has both intellect and integrity I will pass. I know what liberals are up close and personal.
    One candidate I do support is Donna Edwards in her bid to unseat Al Wynn. He is as close to being a republicrap as possible without actually kissing Karl Rove. No I don’t work on her campaign, for which she would most likely be grateful, but I will be voting for her in the primaries.

  9. I find it off-putting that people I’ve talked to tell me that you don’t post their comments when they are pro-Raskin. Hence, I can only conclude that you’ve cherry-picked either seemingly “neutral” or leaning-Ida statements. Shame on you.
    David,
    Your Gilbert, being a typical warm and fuzzy Takoma Park resident, understands how people got that impression and regrets the misunderstanding. Due to technical problems most comments, including this one, were misdirected and therefore missed. With help from Takoma Voice and blog software technicians the problem was diagnosed and your comments were rescued – and are now published. There was no “cherry-picking” or censoring of any knid.
    But, David, you posted your comment August 12. Gilbert wonders how you missed the announcements at the top of each blog post since July 28th that there were technical problems with the comments. Could it be that you are not a totally committed reader, that you do not savor Gilbert’s every sentence, word, and punctuation mark?
    Where’s the shame NOW, I ask you in a deep, melodramatic voice?

    – Gilbert

  10. Paul Chrostowski | August 14, 2006 at 9:20 pm |

    Jamie Raskin has run one of the most negative campaigns in Maryland history. He has called Senator Ruben a “conservative right winger” a “supporter of Bush’s war” and a “corrupt back room politician”. At the candidates forum, his supporters called Senator Ruben an “old hag”. The Raskin campaign has twice stolen hundreds of lawn signs from Senator Ruben’s neighboorhood. When are people going to wake up to what this campaign is all about?

  11. Paul,
    Your first comment is so hyperbolic that I am left wondering about the veracity of your other statements. I’ve lived in Maryland my whole life, and I have seen some pretty nasty campaigns. In my view, Raskin has not run a particularly negative campaign. He has run an “unseat the incumbent” campaign, which inevitably focuses on the record of the incumbent.
    I think that blogs are really great for getting to information that doesn’t come out readily in the mainstream media.
    On the other hand, Paul’s post makes a number of assertions that cannot be readily fact checked.
    1. “called Ruben a ‘conservative right-winger.'”
    I’d like to see the exact quotation and context. In all of my months following the Raskin campaign, I’ve never heard those words come out of his mouth. When and where? Proof? (And if you find proof, fine. I’m just registering my skepticism of an unsubstantiated charge until then.)
    2. “supporter of Bush’s war”
    This I can buy a bit more–but I don’t see it as negative. It all goes to how you interpret Ruben’s record. She introduced a bill to “support the troops”. You can spin that one way or the other, but I certainly see that as a vote in favor of the war, particularly given the timing and symbolism. I can also see (but not agree with) the other side on this one, the side that says that it was literally just a shot in the arm for the troops and not support for the war.
    So, as far as I’m concerned, Raskin’s comments on this are not negative. He raises a point, a common interpretation of such votes. You can agree with him or not. Ruben can choose to address it or not.
    3. “corrupt back room politician”
    At the Voice debate, back room politics were discussed. At one point, Ruben herself talked about getting things done in the back rooms. At no point at the debate did Raskin call Ruben a “corrupt, back room politician.” I challenge you to watch the tape and find him saying that. You won’t.
    So, when did Raskin say this? You may be extrapolating based upon several things that Raskin has said. But that is not the same thing. When did Raskin utter those words?
    4. “supporters called Senator Ruben an ‘old hag'”
    Rather than question whether or not this is true, I question the relevance. Supporters say a lot of things. I’ve heard pretty nasty things about Raskin from Ruben supporters (actually far more than the other way around). A candidate needs to rein in supporters, and needs to denounce unsavory behavior, but it is inevitable that some supporter says something stupid. I imagine that your experience, Paul, is anecdotal and not indicative of Raskin supporters, and certiainly not indicative of Raskin–just as I draw the same conclusion about what I have heard out of the mouths of Ruben supporters.
    5. “hundreds of yard signs”
    ?????????
    That would require a coordinated effort–vans going through the White Oak neighborhood in the dead of night. Whatever you may think about Raskin, do you really see this constitutional law professor organizing a campaign to suppress speech? Surely this would be a huge scandal if true. Do you really see Raskin taking that risk?
    And most importantly, where’s your evidence?
    As I said before, it blogs provide a good link to POSSIBLE information about issues, but no one is vetting that information. So commenters (and bloggers) can only prove that they are reliable over time–just like a columnist in the newspaper. And readers need to be careful about unsubstantiated information–like these charges.
    Show me the tape.

  12. I think that speculation of about Gansler is a red herring.
    Raskin is an old friend of Gansler. Like any friend, he supported him for election in years past. This year, he wisely declines to take a position on that race. Both have probably figured out that it doesn’t help either one of them to give support back and forth.
    And both are running tough, full time campaigns. So I doubt very much that it’s worth speculating about them helping each other. Neither has time or resources to throw into a second campaign.
    Lord knows what people would say about me if they held me accountable for the politics and views of everyone who’ve I’ve ever been friends with or supported for public office.
    Context!

Comments are closed.