Happy to be here

June 22, 2006

Guest Post by Tom Schaller

What can I say? I’m honored to have been asked by Steve to blog* for him in his absence. Such is the nature of today’s media world (and world more generally) that we are “friends” virtually–that is, we’ve never met in person. I must also plead guilty to being the guy who coaxed Steve into “outing” himself by writing a piece two years ago for the Gadflyer and identifying himself by name in it. It was so tight when submitted, I could barely find any edits to make.

Ok, enough about the Benen-Schaller mutual admiration society, and on to a couple of things about which I’d like to sound off:

First, some of you may have read my Prospect online piece about my “debate” last week in Vegas at YearlyKos with Dave “Mudcat” Saunders. The one thing I’d add to what’s in the piece is that consultant-criticism is very hot right now, and rightly so. But consultant-criticism ought to at least be equal-opportunity in nature: I’m no fan of Bob Shrum’s, but how is it any different for him to advocate that a candidate/party buy what he sells (media ads) than when consultants like Saunders advocate buying what he sells (white, rural strategy)?

Second, I am fascinated by this NYTimes article about the deaths of those involved with Saddam’s trial. In theory, other than our own civilian leaders, followed by our military, shouldn’t folks like this be among the most secure people in Iraq? I also heard on Baltimore radio today a claim (which I cannot corroborate, after much searching, though I did find this CNN article noting five such killings…see bottom) that more than 300 garbage collectors have been murdered. Given that our nation is 11 times the size of Iraq, this is equivalent to learning that more than 3,300 American garbage collectors have been slaughtered. Would such a situation in any way be described as stable, improved, workable, secure, transitioning? (pick your own adjective.)

Third, I cover MD politics very closely, and with apologies for boring those of you who wouldn’t trade a popsicle in a snowstorm to hear about Old Line State politics, there was a major (and very surprising) story tooday: Montgomery County exec. Doug Duncan suddenly bolted the Democratic primary, citing health reasons, specifically clinical depression. A bombshell that, at bottom, just moves the general election between all-but-certain GOP nominee and incumbent Gov. Bob Ehrlich and Democratic Baltimore major Martin O’Malley up by three months. (The now-moot primary–at least in the guv’s race–is Sept 12.) I’m an O’Malley supporter, as anyone who reads the WaPo, BaltSun or other MD-based media knows, so it’s generally good news. But I must say Duncan has been a superb County Exec (I drive through Silver Spring on my DC-Balt-DC commutes), and is a good dude. Though I wanted him to bow out long ago so my guy would have as easy a ride as possible to taking on Ehrlich in the general, it’s a sad and strange way for him to bow out.

*FWIW, I have been so busy the past fortnight attending YearlyKos, the Campaign for America’s Future confab, the launches of the new Democratic Strategist and Democracy: A Journal of Ideas magazines, plus finalizing galleys for my own, forthcoming book (shameless plug alert), that I haven’t even posted to the Gadflyer in weeks. I’ll be taking crap for posting here and not there, but what Steve wants he gets.

Welcome, Tom, nice to have you here.

I liked the Prospect piece, especially this part:

Saunders calls for a “bubba-plus-blacks” Democratic coalition. If only wishing made it so. Though they write powerfully about southern Republicans’ political exploitation of race and the appalling inequities rural Americans face, Jarding and Saunders provide few solutions beyond semiotic gimmicks like putting candidates in flannel shirts, or symbolic gestures like Bob Graham’s sponsorship of a NASCAR driver.

This is why I hate Dem consultants — their consultations are bad advice. Do you think the party agrees more with you, Tom, or with Saunders?

  • I’m no fan of Duncan or O’Malley, but I was interested in watching how the Montgomery Co. vs Baltimore City power struggle would play out as the election neared. Hate to see it end this way and I hope things work out for Duncan (and O’Malley in Nov.). As for Saddam Hussein’s trial, it’s been a bad play from the start, except that those who get off’d won’t be back for tomorrow night’s performance. Ten murders associated with the trial? I don’t see how the verdict can have any credibility.

  • ah, Tom, forgive me but isn’t Bob Shrum famously unsuccessful? & shouldn’t that make a difference?

    BTW are you Molotov or Rippentrop? 🙂

  • Doug Duncan wasn’t such a superb county exec when it came to promoting and preserving green spaces. He did his level best to get the Inter-County Connector, and he fanned the flames to keep alive hopes of building the notorious “Purple Line”, connecting Silver Spring to Bethesda – right through the middle of a golf course and behind million dollar houses and long-established, settled neighborhoods – because the folks fromthe Spring didn’t like having to ride the bus.

    Duncan has been pro-business, pro-growth, anti-environment, and anti-Bethesda Chevy Chase since he rolled into office. His departure from the scene is a true victory for citizens of both the county and perhaps even the state.

    All that said, I’m sorry he’s got depression; it ain’t a lot of fun. Hey – look at my signature. I know whereof I speak.

  • Really enjoyed your Prospect article. Agreed that Duncan pulling out now is probably best for dem chances this fall (I’ve preferred O’Malley all along).

    I can’t believe I’m going to get PC on you, but here I am. I guess it touched a nerve. You say that Duncan bowing out b/c of clinical depression is “sad and strange.” I might have said “sad but courageous.”

    I think it takes a lot of guts to admit so publicly to having depression, more guts than most of our politicians have.

  • Read your piece. Your argument sounds reasonable, but I don’t see what you think was the benefit of trashing a person with a different argument, largely with personal attacks instead of through factually looking at the person’s argument.

    Oooh, he’s a political consultant, he must be terrible. Did he have beady eyes, too?

    Come on, if you’re a professor, you’re better than that.

    • Comments are closed.