May 8, 2008If you want to prevent Robin Ficker from joining the County Council staff, call MCDCC at 301-946-1000.
MCDCC Members:
We are approaching the Special General Election on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. It is vital that we have coverage for all precincts in this election.
I am asking the MCDCC members to support this effort by volunteering their time to help with poll coverage.
Please let us know the duration of time that you will be available. I understand that we all have a busy schedule, but we can give a portion of our time when the stakes are so high and the Republicans are running a very aggressive Get-Out-the-Vote operation.
The staff at the MCDCC office will be maintaining a precinct coverage spreadsheet that will have information regarding which precincts require coverage and the time frame for coverage needed.
By responding quickly, we can effectively make timely decisions to fill those precincts that are pending coverage.
You can help make this election run smoothly and demonstrate your support for the Council District 4 Democratic candidate, Don Praisner.
Please forward this email to your local Democratic District Clubs and ask them to send it to their databases.
Your continued commitment to supporting our Democratic Candidates is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Vivian
Showing posts with label Donald Praisner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Praisner. Show all posts
Thursday, May 8, 2008
MCDCC to the Rescue
Folks, this is why we need a strong Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. In addition to mailing out a sample ballot for Don Praisner in the County Council District 4 special election, MCDCC is putting out this call for volunteers on poll coverage.
Robin Ficker Joins the County Council Staff
Of course this has not happened, but it might. Here’s how the Stella Werner building’s worst nightmare could come true.
Let’s put aside the ideological differences between County District 4 special election candidates Don Praisner and his Ficker-backed opponent, Mark Fennel. All elections boil down to mathematics in the end. And it is mathematically possible for Fennel to beat Mr. Praisner.
Consider the following statistics. In the District 4 special primary, 7,658 Democrats voted, of whom 3,391 voted for Mr. Praisner. The Republicans attracted 1,919 primary voters, of whom 926 voted for Fennel. That means Fennel has a chance if three things happen:
1. Democrats who voted for one of Mr. Praisner’s opponents do not show up for the general election.
Nancy Navarro’s supporters are still fuming about the negative attacks against their candidate. Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan were both asked to leave early in the race by Mr. Praisner’s allies. None of these three has much incentive to encourage their people to vote for Mr. Praisner unless they hope to earn his endorsement in 2010 (and that will not happen for Navarro).
2. Only half of Mr. Praisner’s primary voters show up for the general election.
One of the things that stood out from both the phone banking and door knocking was that the vast majority of District 4 Democrats did not know there was a special primary. Who is reminding them that there is a special general on May 13th? MCDCC is stepping up with a mailing on behalf of Mr. Praisner. But we see less activity from his organization now than we did a month ago aside from a recent ice cream fundraiser. One anonymous but influential Praisner supporter told me, “Dem complacency now is very dangerous.”
3. Every Republican shows up again to vote for Fennel.
This possibility cannot be dismissed. Fennel’s de facto campaign manager, Robin Ficker, is the all-time MoCo champion of sign-planting and petition-gathering. Love him or hate him, no one has more energy than the maniacal Ficker. And the Republicans were never as divided as the Democrats in this race. Anti-tax Republicans would love to grab any elected office in the county regardless of whether the candidate is Fennel or someone else. A low-turnout special election may be their best opportunity.
If every one of the above events occurred, Fennel would defeat Mr. Praisner by a 1,919 to 1,696 vote, or a 53-47% spread. It would be the ultimate royal flush in MoCo political history.
So could it actually happen? The chances are extremely low, but they are greater than zero. It’s time for the Democrats to get back to work.
Let’s put aside the ideological differences between County District 4 special election candidates Don Praisner and his Ficker-backed opponent, Mark Fennel. All elections boil down to mathematics in the end. And it is mathematically possible for Fennel to beat Mr. Praisner.
Consider the following statistics. In the District 4 special primary, 7,658 Democrats voted, of whom 3,391 voted for Mr. Praisner. The Republicans attracted 1,919 primary voters, of whom 926 voted for Fennel. That means Fennel has a chance if three things happen:
1. Democrats who voted for one of Mr. Praisner’s opponents do not show up for the general election.
Nancy Navarro’s supporters are still fuming about the negative attacks against their candidate. Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan were both asked to leave early in the race by Mr. Praisner’s allies. None of these three has much incentive to encourage their people to vote for Mr. Praisner unless they hope to earn his endorsement in 2010 (and that will not happen for Navarro).
2. Only half of Mr. Praisner’s primary voters show up for the general election.
One of the things that stood out from both the phone banking and door knocking was that the vast majority of District 4 Democrats did not know there was a special primary. Who is reminding them that there is a special general on May 13th? MCDCC is stepping up with a mailing on behalf of Mr. Praisner. But we see less activity from his organization now than we did a month ago aside from a recent ice cream fundraiser. One anonymous but influential Praisner supporter told me, “Dem complacency now is very dangerous.”
3. Every Republican shows up again to vote for Fennel.
This possibility cannot be dismissed. Fennel’s de facto campaign manager, Robin Ficker, is the all-time MoCo champion of sign-planting and petition-gathering. Love him or hate him, no one has more energy than the maniacal Ficker. And the Republicans were never as divided as the Democrats in this race. Anti-tax Republicans would love to grab any elected office in the county regardless of whether the candidate is Fennel or someone else. A low-turnout special election may be their best opportunity.
If every one of the above events occurred, Fennel would defeat Mr. Praisner by a 1,919 to 1,696 vote, or a 53-47% spread. It would be the ultimate royal flush in MoCo political history.
So could it actually happen? The chances are extremely low, but they are greater than zero. It’s time for the Democrats to get back to work.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Council District 4 Special Election by the Numbers
Many political observers inside Montgomery County are discussing the meaning of Donald Praisner’s victory in the Council District 4 special election. Our contribution to that debate focuses on mathematics. From that perspective, Mr. Praisner won because of turnout and demographics.
In the district’s total polling place results, Mr. Praisner received 3,288 votes, 348 more than Nancy Navarro (2,940). Steve Kanstoroom finished third with 804 votes and Pat Ryan trailed with 402. Overall turnout was 11.2%. But real insight requires an educated read of the precinct counts.
Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)
The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.
But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.
The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.
Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.
Mr. Praisner’s supporters are understandably pleased at his victory, but they have cause to worry about 2010. As Mr. Praisner has said many times, he will not be on the ballot again. His supporters and potential successors should consider the following relevant facts:
1. School board member Marilyn Praisner (in 1990) and American University professor Jamie Raskin (in 2006) both required year-long campaigns to knock off long-time incumbents. Nancy Navarro came close to defeating the 17-year-incumbent Praisner family in just six weeks. As someone who saw her operation up close, I was impressed by the discipline and tactical intelligence of her campaign. Now that Navarro has survived the fire of an occasionally acrimonious and difficult election, she should be an even more formidable candidate if she runs again.
2. Most voters knew who their candidate was when they arrived at the polls on Tuesday. This reduced the importance of MCEA’s Apple Ballot. This will not be the case in 2010.
3. District 4 is a majority non-white jurisdiction and is trending even further in that direction. Navarro’s strong performance in black and Latino precincts – even against the choice of a black County Executive – swims with the demographic tide of history. And if she chooses to run again in 2010, she will have much more time to get out the vote in those precincts.
Ironically, the best hope for Navarro’s opponents among non-white voters could be Pat Ryan. His work with Action in Montgomery has brought him into contact with many black, Latino and immigrant communities in the county. His hands-on advocacy for affordable housing is a good issue with these constituencies. But Ryan was discouraged from running by the establishment officials who backed Mr. Praisner. Starved for money and deprived of endorsements, Ryan garnered just 5% of the vote and finished last in 33 of the district’s 45 precincts. If Ryan or Steve Kanstoroom, who spent $24,000 of his own money only to draw 11% of the vote, is anointed to be Mr. Praisner’s successor, will either be able to overcome such a low finish?
In the district’s total polling place results, Mr. Praisner received 3,288 votes, 348 more than Nancy Navarro (2,940). Steve Kanstoroom finished third with 804 votes and Pat Ryan trailed with 402. Overall turnout was 11.2%. But real insight requires an educated read of the precinct counts.
Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)
The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.
But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.
The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.
Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.
Mr. Praisner’s supporters are understandably pleased at his victory, but they have cause to worry about 2010. As Mr. Praisner has said many times, he will not be on the ballot again. His supporters and potential successors should consider the following relevant facts:
1. School board member Marilyn Praisner (in 1990) and American University professor Jamie Raskin (in 2006) both required year-long campaigns to knock off long-time incumbents. Nancy Navarro came close to defeating the 17-year-incumbent Praisner family in just six weeks. As someone who saw her operation up close, I was impressed by the discipline and tactical intelligence of her campaign. Now that Navarro has survived the fire of an occasionally acrimonious and difficult election, she should be an even more formidable candidate if she runs again.
2. Most voters knew who their candidate was when they arrived at the polls on Tuesday. This reduced the importance of MCEA’s Apple Ballot. This will not be the case in 2010.
3. District 4 is a majority non-white jurisdiction and is trending even further in that direction. Navarro’s strong performance in black and Latino precincts – even against the choice of a black County Executive – swims with the demographic tide of history. And if she chooses to run again in 2010, she will have much more time to get out the vote in those precincts.
Ironically, the best hope for Navarro’s opponents among non-white voters could be Pat Ryan. His work with Action in Montgomery has brought him into contact with many black, Latino and immigrant communities in the county. His hands-on advocacy for affordable housing is a good issue with these constituencies. But Ryan was discouraged from running by the establishment officials who backed Mr. Praisner. Starved for money and deprived of endorsements, Ryan garnered just 5% of the vote and finished last in 33 of the district’s 45 precincts. If Ryan or Steve Kanstoroom, who spent $24,000 of his own money only to draw 11% of the vote, is anointed to be Mr. Praisner’s successor, will either be able to overcome such a low finish?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Last Pre-Election County D4 Round-Up
By tomorrow night, this race will be over. Here’s the state of play one day out.
On press, coverage has picked up in the last week. The Post has written its last wrap-up article. Maryland Moment discusses a spat over an email sent by MCEA to its members. Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has interviews up with almost every candidate. He will post an interview with Don Praisner tomorrow morning. Politicker Maryland has posted interviews with Praisner, Pat Ryan and Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager in the last few days.
On the ground, it appears that Navarro has sent out more literature than the other candidates combined. Some District 4 residents have reported receiving more than a half-dozen mailers from her over the last three weeks. Recently, Navarro lit has been showing up with “Endorsed by the Washington Post” stickers. The signs are more balanced among the Democrats; Praisner probably has a narrow lead with Navarro and Ryan close behind. Republican Mark Fennel may have more signs up than all the Democrats combined, with each accompanied by a “Robin Realty” sign. The three largest MoCo unions - MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO) - have several thousand members inside the district and are no doubt calling and emailing them on Navarro’s behalf. Don Praisner will be drawing on a list of everyone who has contributed to or supported Marilyn Praisner over the years and his campaign will be asking them to show up one last time for the family.
The great unknowable is who will arrive at the polls tomorrow. In the special election to fill the County Council District 5 seat in Prince George’s County, only 8% of the registered Democrats showed up. If turnout is less than that, Don Praisner will have the advantage. All sides concede that the Praisners have a devoted base inside the district who are sure to vote. But if turnout gets into the mid-teens, Navarro will close the gap.
So now the great call-out begins. Over the last several weeks, each of the candidates has been identifying their voters and earning their loyalties. Now they have to make sure that their people show up. That will determine the course of the election, the holder of the council seat and the political direction of Montgomery County for the next two years.
On press, coverage has picked up in the last week. The Post has written its last wrap-up article. Maryland Moment discusses a spat over an email sent by MCEA to its members. Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has interviews up with almost every candidate. He will post an interview with Don Praisner tomorrow morning. Politicker Maryland has posted interviews with Praisner, Pat Ryan and Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager in the last few days.
On the ground, it appears that Navarro has sent out more literature than the other candidates combined. Some District 4 residents have reported receiving more than a half-dozen mailers from her over the last three weeks. Recently, Navarro lit has been showing up with “Endorsed by the Washington Post” stickers. The signs are more balanced among the Democrats; Praisner probably has a narrow lead with Navarro and Ryan close behind. Republican Mark Fennel may have more signs up than all the Democrats combined, with each accompanied by a “Robin Realty” sign. The three largest MoCo unions - MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO) - have several thousand members inside the district and are no doubt calling and emailing them on Navarro’s behalf. Don Praisner will be drawing on a list of everyone who has contributed to or supported Marilyn Praisner over the years and his campaign will be asking them to show up one last time for the family.
The great unknowable is who will arrive at the polls tomorrow. In the special election to fill the County Council District 5 seat in Prince George’s County, only 8% of the registered Democrats showed up. If turnout is less than that, Don Praisner will have the advantage. All sides concede that the Praisners have a devoted base inside the district who are sure to vote. But if turnout gets into the mid-teens, Navarro will close the gap.
So now the great call-out begins. Over the last several weeks, each of the candidates has been identifying their voters and earning their loyalties. Now they have to make sure that their people show up. That will determine the course of the election, the holder of the council seat and the political direction of Montgomery County for the next two years.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Kanstoroom Reports Finances to MPW
County Council District 4 Candidate Steve Kanstoroom is the only Democrat in the race for whom the State Board of Elections is not displaying a finance report. After I mentioned this fact to him last night, he explained that he sent in his report on time but the board was not returning his calls asking that it be posted. Kanstoroom promptly emailed me his finance report and the details will surely interest our readers.
As of 3/30/08, Kanstoroom’s campaign recorded $24,520 in total receipts. All but $520 are loans from Kanstoroom himself. The campaign spent $20,553.86, mostly on printing and campaign materials ($16,462.57). Its cash balance was $3,966.14.
While Kanstoroom’s ending balance was low, his receipts surpassed Don Praisner ($22,030) and Pat Ryan ($10,825) but fell short of Nancy Navarro ($34,446). His extensive loans and former ownership of an IT business suggest that Kanstoroom is the one candidate in the race who can self-finance his campaign. In the handful of days left, volunteers are more important than money, but cash can still buy robocalls and print ads.
I saw Kanstoroom and several other candidates at a late-night forum sponsored by the Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association, which represents the neighborhood just north of the hellacious University Boulevard-US 29 intersection. The forum followed another debate in Burtonsville that ran late, and the bleary-eyed candidates staggered into the North Four Corners Recreation Center after 9:30 PM. The neighborhood is locked in a bitter battle with the County Council and the Parks Department over a plan to construct a soccer field in their current tree-filled park. The park is THE ISSUE in this part of District 4, much like the Intersection of Death is the big issue in my area.
Precinct 13-11, which conforms to the neighborhood boundaries, had 2,668 registered Democrats in the last primary. It had the 7th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 5th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2006 Democratic primary among County District 4’s 45 precincts. However, Kanstoroom and Nancy Navarro were the only Democrats to show up for the civic association’s forum. Kanstoroom, a legendary foe of Park and Planning, cleaned up with this group. But the absence of Praisner and Ryan was noticed.
Back in 2006, my civic association jam-packed an apocalyptic public meeting at Holy Cross Hospital covering various issues connected to the reviled Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen intersection. We recorded the attendance by politicians on our website. We never forgot which politicians came and which ones didn’t. I imagine that the residents of Northwood-Four Corners will react the same way.
One more quick tidbit. Don Praisner has begun reporting contributions received since his last campaign filing on his website. I don’t understand why the individual contributions are reported as ranges (for example, the County Executive gave him “$1,000+”). But this is still more information than his rivals are disclosing and he deserves credit for that.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
As of 3/30/08, Kanstoroom’s campaign recorded $24,520 in total receipts. All but $520 are loans from Kanstoroom himself. The campaign spent $20,553.86, mostly on printing and campaign materials ($16,462.57). Its cash balance was $3,966.14.
While Kanstoroom’s ending balance was low, his receipts surpassed Don Praisner ($22,030) and Pat Ryan ($10,825) but fell short of Nancy Navarro ($34,446). His extensive loans and former ownership of an IT business suggest that Kanstoroom is the one candidate in the race who can self-finance his campaign. In the handful of days left, volunteers are more important than money, but cash can still buy robocalls and print ads.
I saw Kanstoroom and several other candidates at a late-night forum sponsored by the Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association, which represents the neighborhood just north of the hellacious University Boulevard-US 29 intersection. The forum followed another debate in Burtonsville that ran late, and the bleary-eyed candidates staggered into the North Four Corners Recreation Center after 9:30 PM. The neighborhood is locked in a bitter battle with the County Council and the Parks Department over a plan to construct a soccer field in their current tree-filled park. The park is THE ISSUE in this part of District 4, much like the Intersection of Death is the big issue in my area.
Precinct 13-11, which conforms to the neighborhood boundaries, had 2,668 registered Democrats in the last primary. It had the 7th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 5th-highest voter turnout rate in the 2006 Democratic primary among County District 4’s 45 precincts. However, Kanstoroom and Nancy Navarro were the only Democrats to show up for the civic association’s forum. Kanstoroom, a legendary foe of Park and Planning, cleaned up with this group. But the absence of Praisner and Ryan was noticed.
Back in 2006, my civic association jam-packed an apocalyptic public meeting at Holy Cross Hospital covering various issues connected to the reviled Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen intersection. We recorded the attendance by politicians on our website. We never forgot which politicians came and which ones didn’t. I imagine that the residents of Northwood-Four Corners will react the same way.
One more quick tidbit. Don Praisner has begun reporting contributions received since his last campaign filing on his website. I don’t understand why the individual contributions are reported as ranges (for example, the County Executive gave him “$1,000+”). But this is still more information than his rivals are disclosing and he deserves credit for that.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Navarro, Praisner Campaign Contributions Provide Ammo for Both Sides
Last Friday was the deadline for the final campaign finance reports before the County Council District 4 special election primary. Both the Navarro and Praisner camps will find them useful.
Nancy Navarro reported contributions from individuals of $12,196, the Hispanic Democratic club of $250 and Maryland PACs of $22,000 for total receipts of $34,446. Her campaign reported $28,380.81 on hand. Sixty-four percent of her contributions came from labor unions, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,000), the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters ($6,000), UFCW Local 1994, also known as MCGEO or the government employees ($5,000), SEIU Maryland/DC State Council ($3,000), SEIU Local 500 ($1,000) and the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO ($1,000). The fact that Navarro received nearly two-thirds of her contributions from labor rebuts the allegation that she is “developer-controlled.”
However, one name on her individual contributor list truly stands out: Aris Mardirossian, who gave her the maximum contribution of $4,000. Mardirossian is the developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg. He is notorious for once suing Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein when Goldstein wrote him a letter inquiring about tree removal on his property. The lawsuit, widely viewed as a frivolous slap suit in MoCo’s civic community, still causes many anti-growth activists to make the sign of the cross whenever Mardirossian’s name is uttered in their presence. Navarro’s campaign made a mistake by accepting this contribution. Her opponents are sure to jump all over it despite the fact that Mardirossian also once gave $3,000 to Marilyn Praisner.
Donald Praisner has also filed an interesting finance report. His campaign reported contributions from individuals of $16,280, Council Member Phil Andrews’ campaign account of $750, and a loan from Mr. Praisner himself of $5,000 for total receipts of $22,030. His campaign reported $17,551.67 on hand. Mr. Praisner’s biggest contributors are Council Member Marc Elrich’s chief of staff Dale Tibbitts ($2,000), County Executive spouse Catherine Leggett ($1,000), former Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg staffer Bobbie Walton ($1,000) and Nicholas Miller of Bethesda ($1,000). (Geez, Dale, how much is Marc paying you?) Tibbitts, Leggett, Walton, Andrews, County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield ($200) and former Marilyn Praisner staffers Claire Iseli ($150) and Sherry Kinikin ($100), along with Mr. Praisner, comprised a core group of contributors who together accounted for 46% of his campaign’s funding.
Mr. Praisner told the Gazette last week that Navarro was the only candidate taking money from developers. His supporters have lambasted Navarro on this blog for failing to abstain from development money despite Marilyn Praisner’s ready acceptance of it. But two of Mr. Praisner’s contributors are connected to the real estate industry.
Nicholas Miller of Bethesda, who gave $1,000 to Mr. Praisner on 3/26/08, is a telecommunications lawyer with Miller and Van Eaton PLLC. According to its website, the firm’s clients include the “Building Owners and Managers Association, International, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Realty Committee, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts.” Now this has nothing to do with development, right?
Gregory Eisenstadt of Brookeville gave $100 to Mr. Praisner on 3/24/08. Eisenstadt has been a steady supporter of Marilyn Praisner over the years, giving $314 to her campaigns between 2001 and 2005. Eisenstadt is the owner of Privacy World, a housing complex just north of the Glenmont Metro station due to be redeveloped by JBG Companies. The Privacy World redevelopment will be one of the bigger projects in District 4 if the County Council allows it to proceed. Eisenstadt’s relationship with the Praisners makes sense for him although his contribution runs afoul of Mr. Praisner’s pledge to avoid development money.
Let this be a lesson for all the aspiring politicians who read this blog: the worst thing about making a pledge is actually having to keep it!
Democrat Pat Ryan has raised a total of $10,825, of which $4,000 came from the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association. (Yes, this is the same union that gave $6,000 to Navarro.) Ryan is his own biggest individual contributor and gave his campaign $2,000 in seed money on 3/10/08. Ryan had $9,632.52 on hand, slightly more than half Mr. Praisner’s total and over one-third of Navarro’s holdings. Republican Mark Fennel has raised $1,705 with all but $300 coming from the candidate. Republican Thomas Hardman gave himself $100, the sole contribution to his campaign. Financial reports for Democrat Steve Kanstoroom and Republican John McKinnis are not yet available.
Now that the finance reporting deadline has passed and the special primary is fast closing in, District 4 voters will be treated to their most intense week of politicking since Marilyn Praisner defeated Mike Gudis way back in 1990. Lock your doors and let the answering machine fend off those robocalls!
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Nancy Navarro reported contributions from individuals of $12,196, the Hispanic Democratic club of $250 and Maryland PACs of $22,000 for total receipts of $34,446. Her campaign reported $28,380.81 on hand. Sixty-four percent of her contributions came from labor unions, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,000), the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters ($6,000), UFCW Local 1994, also known as MCGEO or the government employees ($5,000), SEIU Maryland/DC State Council ($3,000), SEIU Local 500 ($1,000) and the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO ($1,000). The fact that Navarro received nearly two-thirds of her contributions from labor rebuts the allegation that she is “developer-controlled.”
However, one name on her individual contributor list truly stands out: Aris Mardirossian, who gave her the maximum contribution of $4,000. Mardirossian is the developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg. He is notorious for once suing Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein when Goldstein wrote him a letter inquiring about tree removal on his property. The lawsuit, widely viewed as a frivolous slap suit in MoCo’s civic community, still causes many anti-growth activists to make the sign of the cross whenever Mardirossian’s name is uttered in their presence. Navarro’s campaign made a mistake by accepting this contribution. Her opponents are sure to jump all over it despite the fact that Mardirossian also once gave $3,000 to Marilyn Praisner.
Donald Praisner has also filed an interesting finance report. His campaign reported contributions from individuals of $16,280, Council Member Phil Andrews’ campaign account of $750, and a loan from Mr. Praisner himself of $5,000 for total receipts of $22,030. His campaign reported $17,551.67 on hand. Mr. Praisner’s biggest contributors are Council Member Marc Elrich’s chief of staff Dale Tibbitts ($2,000), County Executive spouse Catherine Leggett ($1,000), former Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg staffer Bobbie Walton ($1,000) and Nicholas Miller of Bethesda ($1,000). (Geez, Dale, how much is Marc paying you?) Tibbitts, Leggett, Walton, Andrews, County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield ($200) and former Marilyn Praisner staffers Claire Iseli ($150) and Sherry Kinikin ($100), along with Mr. Praisner, comprised a core group of contributors who together accounted for 46% of his campaign’s funding.
Mr. Praisner told the Gazette last week that Navarro was the only candidate taking money from developers. His supporters have lambasted Navarro on this blog for failing to abstain from development money despite Marilyn Praisner’s ready acceptance of it. But two of Mr. Praisner’s contributors are connected to the real estate industry.
Nicholas Miller of Bethesda, who gave $1,000 to Mr. Praisner on 3/26/08, is a telecommunications lawyer with Miller and Van Eaton PLLC. According to its website, the firm’s clients include the “Building Owners and Managers Association, International, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Realty Committee, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts.” Now this has nothing to do with development, right?
Gregory Eisenstadt of Brookeville gave $100 to Mr. Praisner on 3/24/08. Eisenstadt has been a steady supporter of Marilyn Praisner over the years, giving $314 to her campaigns between 2001 and 2005. Eisenstadt is the owner of Privacy World, a housing complex just north of the Glenmont Metro station due to be redeveloped by JBG Companies. The Privacy World redevelopment will be one of the bigger projects in District 4 if the County Council allows it to proceed. Eisenstadt’s relationship with the Praisners makes sense for him although his contribution runs afoul of Mr. Praisner’s pledge to avoid development money.
Let this be a lesson for all the aspiring politicians who read this blog: the worst thing about making a pledge is actually having to keep it!
Democrat Pat Ryan has raised a total of $10,825, of which $4,000 came from the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association. (Yes, this is the same union that gave $6,000 to Navarro.) Ryan is his own biggest individual contributor and gave his campaign $2,000 in seed money on 3/10/08. Ryan had $9,632.52 on hand, slightly more than half Mr. Praisner’s total and over one-third of Navarro’s holdings. Republican Mark Fennel has raised $1,705 with all but $300 coming from the candidate. Republican Thomas Hardman gave himself $100, the sole contribution to his campaign. Financial reports for Democrat Steve Kanstoroom and Republican John McKinnis are not yet available.
Now that the finance reporting deadline has passed and the special primary is fast closing in, District 4 voters will be treated to their most intense week of politicking since Marilyn Praisner defeated Mike Gudis way back in 1990. Lock your doors and let the answering machine fend off those robocalls!
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Friday, April 4, 2008
County Council District 4 Round-Up
OK everybody, with less than two weeks to go, here’s the latest.
1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.
2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!
But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.
My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.
It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.
3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.
4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.
As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.
5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.
6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:
FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD
TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860
WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866
WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.
2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!
But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.
My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.
It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.
3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.
4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.
As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.
5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.
6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:
FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD
TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860
WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866
WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Politics of Paranoia
One charge made with increasing ferocity against County Council District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro is that she is allegedly a “tool of the developers.”
Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette:
But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.
According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.
Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.
Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”
So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?
What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.
My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette:
“I’m finding that although there is a good deal of respect for Navarro, there is a concern that she is identified, fairly or not, with the pro-business and pro-development forces in the county,” Rochester said. “For that reason she may not be relied on to carry on the positions that Marilyn had.”Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor, who does not live in the district, wrote the following to the Gazette in endorsing Mr. Praisner:
The problem that many have with this election is the quiet support of the fast, uncontrolled growth activists for Navarro. She openly accepts contributions from developers, PACs, special interests and land use attorneys. She is not willing to place limits on those contributions.The issue erupted at the People’s Community Baptist Church forum last weekend. The Gazette reports:
My belief is that this could lead to a conflict of interest any elected politician making decisions regarding land use issues.
The fear of many of us is that if Navarro is elected, the faster, uncontrolled growth advocates will have a majority on the council once again. Furthermore, a Navarro victory might enable a more developer and business-friendly majority on the council to fill the two vacant positions on the Park and Planning Board.
During the only negative exchange in the meeting, Praisner took issue with a Navarro comment in response to a moderator’s question about campaign financing and avoiding undue influence. Navarro had said she was financing her campaign as Marilyn Praisner had, with contributions from many sources, including business interests.Neighborspac, a MoCo activist group that opposed overdevelopment, raised the issue of politicians and development contributions starting in the 2002 county races. Neighborspac began tabulating contributions from development-connected people or entities and reporting them as a percentage of the total receipts for each candidate. Neighborspac had a point: if a politician received an overwhelming percentage of his or her support from one industry, like real estate, voters had a right to know that. I certainly looked at Neighborspac’s data in 2006 before casting my votes.
“I resent how you represent Marilyn Praisner and her influence,” Donald Praisner said. “In her last year, she was disappointed with you because you were not an independent voice.”
After the meeting, Navarro said she only meant to show she was financing her campaign in the same spirit as Marilyn Praisner had. “I’m not sure why he took my comment negatively,” she said. “I was only referring to public campaign information. If we’re going to talk about financing campaigns, this is what the record shows.”
On Monday, Donald Praisner said that only Navarro is taking money from developers and that Navarro may “undo some of the work my wife did,” referring to provisions supported by Marilyn Praisner and passed by the County Council designed to slow the pace of growth.
But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.
According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.
Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.
Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”
So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?
What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.
My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
More on County Council District 4
Here’s our latest roundup for D4 residents and MoCo political junkies. (Yes, we know that you junkies need help, but in the meantime, keep reading our blog!)
Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has posted an interview with Nancy Navarro. Once again, Dan shows off his knack for picking out the most interesting, and even the most provocative, statements from his interviewees.
Progressive Neighbors has posted interviews with Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner. These interviews contain the most detailed positions on issues so far released by either candidate. They even address our beloved Carr bill! Progressive Neighbors did not endorse in the contest.
Navarro has wrapped up the vast majority of union endorsements in the county. The only union to have endorsed another candidate is the Montgomery County Federation of Teachers, an American Federation of Teachers local union, which is supporting Don Praisner. MCFT has no contracts with the county and should not be confused with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), which represents county teachers and has endorsed Navarro.
Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan have websites up. Don Praisner has completely redone his website and it is much improved.
The recent County Council committee changes hinge on who wins the District 4 race. If the winner disagrees with Council President Mike Knapp’s assignments, they could change next year.
Kevin Gillogly and I are working on a joint post about last week’s candidate forum. Hurry up, Kevin! We know you are still grumpy because of your decision not to run, but that is no excuse for not covering this race for our all-important readers. The Gazette’s coverage of the forum is here. They missed the central exchange in the debate over the relationship of the education budget and the county’s deficit, but we will cover that for our readers.
Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has posted an interview with Nancy Navarro. Once again, Dan shows off his knack for picking out the most interesting, and even the most provocative, statements from his interviewees.
Progressive Neighbors has posted interviews with Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner. These interviews contain the most detailed positions on issues so far released by either candidate. They even address our beloved Carr bill! Progressive Neighbors did not endorse in the contest.
Navarro has wrapped up the vast majority of union endorsements in the county. The only union to have endorsed another candidate is the Montgomery County Federation of Teachers, an American Federation of Teachers local union, which is supporting Don Praisner. MCFT has no contracts with the county and should not be confused with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), which represents county teachers and has endorsed Navarro.
Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan have websites up. Don Praisner has completely redone his website and it is much improved.
The recent County Council committee changes hinge on who wins the District 4 race. If the winner disagrees with Council President Mike Knapp’s assignments, they could change next year.
Kevin Gillogly and I are working on a joint post about last week’s candidate forum. Hurry up, Kevin! We know you are still grumpy because of your decision not to run, but that is no excuse for not covering this race for our all-important readers. The Gazette’s coverage of the forum is here. They missed the central exchange in the debate over the relationship of the education budget and the county’s deficit, but we will cover that for our readers.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Praisner vs. Navarro: It's On
The campaigns of both Donald Praisner and Nancy Navarro made major announcements this week in the race for the District 4 County Council seat.
Donald Praisner, 76, kicked off his campaign at the County Council building on Monday. Backed by County Executive Ike Leggett and several council members, Mr. Praisner plans to hold the seat only for the remainder of his wife's term.
Navarro's campaign responded with this press release:
Next up is MCEA's endorsement, which could come this week. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.
Update: The Post's coverage is here.
Donald Praisner, 76, kicked off his campaign at the County Council building on Monday. Backed by County Executive Ike Leggett and several council members, Mr. Praisner plans to hold the seat only for the remainder of his wife's term.
Navarro's campaign responded with this press release:
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##The Gazette article also reports that District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer is still considering entering the race. And the Post has more on the continuing dispute between Steve Kanstoroom and the Planning Board.
March 4, 2008
Nancy Navarro Recruits Top Staff for
Montgomery County Council Campaign
Navarro Promises to Bring Vigorous Volunteer-Energy and Fundraising to Big-Tent Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Nancy Navarro
Phone: 301-628-7705
Email: nancy@nancynavarro.org
SILVER SPRING, MD - Montgomery County Board of Education President, Nancy Navarro, today announced the hiring of top staff in her campaign for the vacant District 4 County Council seat.
Having retained Congresswoman-elect Donna Edwards' field director and Sen. Jamie Raskin's campaign manager, Navarro promises to run a first-rate campaign and to raise the resources necessary for victory on April 15th.
Navarro has already recruited dozens of volunteers and a high-profile list of endorsers to be announced in the coming weeks.
The campaign plans an official kickoff event on Monday, March 10th. Details to follow.
Next up is MCEA's endorsement, which could come this week. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.
Update: The Post's coverage is here.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Latest on County Council D4
Don Praisner will be endorsed by County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Members Marc Elrich, Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner at his announcement on Monday. The Washington Post talked to Praisner and Leggett.
Steve Kanstoroom has been subpoenaed by the Montgomery County Planning Board to provide communications he has had with news organizations over the Sandy Spring road dispute.
No assumptions should be made at this point about MCEA's endorsement. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.
As of 4:40 pm today, Kanstoroom, Pat Ryan, Cary Lamari and Republican Mark Fennel have filed papers to run.
Steve Kanstoroom has been subpoenaed by the Montgomery County Planning Board to provide communications he has had with news organizations over the Sandy Spring road dispute.
No assumptions should be made at this point about MCEA's endorsement. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.
As of 4:40 pm today, Kanstoroom, Pat Ryan, Cary Lamari and Republican Mark Fennel have filed papers to run.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
