Positively Negative

So Andy Harris is Moe.  He and his friends at the Club for Growth knocked Wayne Gilchrest’s head so hard against EJ Pipkin’s that they knocked him clear out of Congress.

Harris also proved, yet again, something that we all hate to admit: Negative ads work.

Voters tell you they hate them.  Politicians find euphemisms to describe them – it’s not negative, it’s comparative.  Journalists tut tut at them, but their TV stations and newspapers amplify the attacks by covering the alleged “issues” they raise.  

And then we all go out and elect the guy who ran the most negative campaign.  Happens all the time.

That’s not to say negative ads always work.  During the last Governor’s race, one side spent millions of dollars on multiple ad campaigns pummeling Baltimore City and its then-mayor.  While it probably damaged the local economy – basically inviting people to root against the City’s progress – ultimately, it didn’t succeed.

But year after year… campaign after campaign… negative ads work. 

Just think about the ads we remember years later:  LBJ’s “Daisy” ad, hinting that if given the chance Barry Goldwater might just blow up the world… John Kerry windsurfing back and forth… Swift Boats… Max Cleland linked to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein… and Willie Horton and Jesse Helms’ “Hands” ads, fanning racial tensions.  

During this year’s presidential campaign, we even saw a candidate call a press conference to announce that he wouldn’t lower himself to run a negative ad.  Then he played the negative ad for the assembled media – which, of course, had the effect of gaining more free coverage for the attack.

Are negative ads good for our democracy?  

The best ones can be entertaining, but of course not.  They stoke cynicism and division – which drives down voter turnout and civic involvement.

So whose fault is it?

Democrats blame Republicans.  Republicans blame Democrats.  And a lot of people blame politicians in general  

Here in Maryland, while the Republicans in the 1^st District primary were hammering away at each other, the Democrats in the 4^th Congressional District primary were throwing punches, too. 

And for those who would blame politicians, there remains one inconvenient fact: Negative ads produce winning vote totals.  And that’s one problem voters can’t blame on the politicians.

Here are some of the winning ads in the 1^st and 4^th Districts.  You may notice they all have something in common – and it isn’t their sunny optimism.

1 District

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFpCjzPJSI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn_daAWSDl0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrCL9loKL9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Dn0meXYxk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tCppHcCz_M

4^th District

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO87QPR_Diw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc2CVhagZ_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C3NIa2hrdk

Who Is Moe?

Outside of Maryland, the political world is riveted by the most unpredictable Presidential primary season in a generation. 

Will Clinton or Obama gain the upper hand coming out of today’s Super Tuesday primary – heading into the first relevant Maryland primary in years? 

Will McCain put Romney away – or will the conservative think-tank/talk-radio-industrial-complex figure out a way to take out its longtime antagonist?

But here in Maryland – in the 1^st Congressional District – we are being treated to a different spectacle, which seemingly seeks to answer the question: Who is Moe?

Three candidates.  Three bitter rivals.  Three men intent on knocking the other two guys’ heads together.  In other words: Three Stooges.

Gilchrest and Pipkin are liberal peas in a pod.  No wait… Harris and Pipkin are big spending liberals.  But hold on… Gilchrest and Harris are secretly harboring illegal immigrants and giving them college scholarships.  And so is Pipkin… maybe… you never know.  

 And the Club for Growth – which Mike Huckabee (who is either a right-winger or a liberal, depending on who is paying for the ad) calls the Club for Greed – really doesn’t like Wayne Gilchrest.  They like Andy Harris – but they aren’t allowed to say so in their commercials.

So, we have candidates with very limited name recognition spending hundreds of thousands of dollars broadcasting their opponents’ names and faces.  The guy who paid for the peas in the pod ad only appears in it for about 5 seconds – while his opponents get 25 seconds of air time.

Head knocking.  Negativity.  And illegal immigrants.  Oh, and Pipkin thinks Andy Harris looks kinda goofy in a Hawaiian shirt.  That’s what this campaign seems to be about. 

Next week, whoever knocks the other two heads together the hardest gets to be Moe.  But you have to wonder: Can even the smartest of the Three Stooges rebuild a bankrupt state political party?

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED TO FIND THERE'S POLITICS

It's been a while - 17 years - since Maryland chose a new Superintendent of Schools. Since there has been a good bit of talk about the "politicizing" of the process, I thought it might be instructive to look at what took place the last time leadership changed at the top of MSDE.

Based on news clips and sources from that time, here's the story:

It's 1989. Governor William Donald Schaefer is annoyed. Dr. Joseph Shilling has been named Superintendent by the Maryland State Board of Education, replacing David Hornbeck, who resigned after 12 years.

"Mr. Schaefer, who had other candidates in mind, was furious with the school board for promoting Dr. Shilling from deputy superintendent to superintendent." (Baltimore Sun, 12/22/91)

The Board had bypassed his choice, Dr. Nancy Grasmick - "... part of a relatively small circle of trusted friends of the governor. Her husband, developer Louis J. Grasmick, is one of Mr. Schaefer's closest advisers and supporters." (Sun, 9/3/91)

"The governor was so furious he at first refused to invite Dr. Shilling to cabinet meetings." (Sun, 5/23/91)

But upon taking office, Dr. Shilling surprised people. Although he was described as "as a low-key deputy," he began an aggressive effort to boost school accountability: "... rushing to implement the Maryland School Performance Program - a state plan to revise school curriculums, make test scores and school information public through annual report cards, and more comprehensive testing programs ... As part of the five-year reform plan, individual school information will be released for the first time, including test scores, attendance and demographic reviews." (Sun, 5/23/91)

However, despite these reforms, Governor Schaefer continued to seek Dr. Shilling's removal, still angered by the Board's actions: "The snub prompted the governor to expand the state board and fill it with his own candidates." (Sun, 9/4/91)

Legislators fought the Governor's effort to "add four members to the 9-member school board and shorten the members' terms, in addition to removing the board's ability to choose its own president," (Post, 12/13/88) to allow Schaefer to handpick its leader. His actions were "decried by some lawmakers as politically motivated." (Education Week, 3/15/89).

Ultimately, Governor Schaefer mostly succeeded - packing the state board by increasing its membership from 9 to 12 members. Then he made his move, letting Dr. Shilling know it was time to move on. Shilling quietly bowed out.

Dr. Shilling's sudden resignation led to this May 23, 1991 headline in the Sun: "Shilling surprises local officials; County school leaders puzzled by state superintendent's resignation." The article continued: "Many teachers and administrators wondered who would replace Shilling and questioned why he left one of the state's top-ranking jobs to head Queen Anne's school system - one of the state's smallest, with only 5,400 students," and just eight schools.

Another article in that paper provided some explanation: "The governor, who fumed over his exclusion from the search that brought Dr. Shilling, expects to be 'cooperatively' involved this time, said a spokeswoman, Page Boinest. Mr. Schaefer is scheduled to meet with Mr. [Robert C. Embry Jr., School Board Chair] next week, she said." (Sun, 5/23/91)

Weeks later, on September 3, 1991, a Sun headline telegraphed what was next: "Mrs. Grasmick likely pick for top Md. schools post." Dr. Grasmick, who at the time was serving on the Governor's staff as the head of his Office of Children, Youth and Families, told the reporters what would happen next: "Mrs. Grasmick said last night that she had Gov. William Donald Schaefer's support in her move from one Cabinet-level position to another."

The next day's Sun finished the tale: "Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick succeeds Dr. Joseph L. Shilling, who resigned in May to become superintendent of Queen Anne's County... Dr. Grasmick also was the first choice of Gov. William Donald Schaefer several years ago when another board instead named Dr. Shilling." (Sun, 9/4/91)

So that's what happened the last time Maryland got a new Superintendent of Schools in 1991. I'm shocked, shocked...