President Biden was right to pardon his son Hunter.

 

Today, President Biden announced that he had pardoned his son Hunter. He did the right thing. And he explained why it was the right thing.

What President Biden did not say was that the publicly stated vindictiveness of Trump - as illustrated by the Trump-run Bureau of Prisons’ decisions to place his former lawyer Michael Cohen in solitary confinement because Cohen dared to speak the truth about Trump - made it a moral imperative to keep Hunter out of the clutches of Trump’s minions.

Hunter Biden was guilty of committing certain crimes. Donald Trump was clearly guilty of committing far worse crimes, and avoided the consequences only because his puppet Supreme Court and his puppet Florida district court judge placed insuperable obstacles in the way. In none of those cases was there an adjudication that the prosecutors’ charges were without merit. Indeed, a clear majority of the U.S. Senate, including several Republicans, voted to convict him of the impeachment charges after the Jan. 6 Insurrection in 2021, charges which were at the core of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s DC case.

Donald Trump will never go to jail for his nefarious transgressions. It would be the ultimate surrender of Joe Biden to allow his surviving son to suffer imprisonment under the Trump regime even one day for his far lesser crimes.

While history may judge Joe Biden as a well-meaning man who was unable to adequately navigate our COVID-era national nervous breakdown, it will judge Donald Trump as the single worst cause of that nervous breakdown.

Where do we go from here? A lesson from 2012 and more things to consider

On this quiet Thanksgiving morning, I have been thinking about where we go from here.  The most recent Ezra Klein podcast discussion/debate with Faiz Shakir is quite enlightening, and I believe that it is a good starting point.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000678267396

It also reminds me of the end of a debate I had with conservative commentator Chris Plante, moderated by WUSA-9's Derrick McGinty on May 9, 2012, the day that President Obama announced his support for civil marriage equality for same sex couples. https://archive.org/details/WUSA_20120509_210000_9News_Now_at_5pm/start/1680/end/1740  At 5:32, the end of the segment, the moderator asked me this question:

"Suppose [Obama's announcement] ends up costing the President key votes and ends up being the Ralph Nader of the 2012 election, will you be happy he made this decision?"

I answered as follows:

"It is always hard sometimes in politics to do the right thing.  But the best thing to do, for any politician, is to do two things in situations like this: Do the right thing and, more importantly, explain why it is the right thing." 

McGinty's final words were, "In other words, make the case."

***************************

It is the latter requirement -- making the case -- that the Democratic Party failed to do adequately in this election cycle.  The case was there to be made, particularly on the economy and transgender rights.  But the Democratic Party did not make it well or, in the case of transgender rights, simply ignored it. 

The conventional wisdom of the political consultant class is that "when you are explaining, you are losing;" but that approach is no longer enough to meet the challenges presented by the firehose of lies and misrepresentations which consolidated the Trump base and led to millions of 2020 Biden voters to simply not participate in the 2024 vote.  See https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-first-step-in-figuring-out-how-to.html

Again, I urge people to listen to the recent Ezra Klein podcast.

 

"Making American Great Again" By Acts of Cruelty and Discrimination

 

Once again, the Republican political establishment puts its cruelty/ignorance/demagoguery on display for all to see. See https://www.usatoday.com/.../johnson.../76454057007/ Since, for example, Representative Sarah McBride most certainly does not intend to use restrooms marked for "gentlemen" in the Capitol complex, and has agreed to follow the Johnson/Mace rule in order to not distract from other important issues before the Congress, she will be limited to restrooms in individual members' offices. This will be degrading and very inconvenient.

And the policy will be even worse for transgender staffers and transgender members of the public who avail themselves of the right of all citizens to observe and petition their Congress. Imagine a transgender person needing to use a restroom, and having to look for a Democratic office to relieve themselves, for fear that a Republican office will deny their request? Moreover, in my recollection, restrooms in members' office suites are not obviously open to the public.

Who will police this rule? If a Nancy Mace or Mike Johnson-type believes someone who enters the "wrong" restroom is transgender, who will the accuser call upon to enforce the rule? And how will it be determined whether the "accused" is "guilty"?

Of course, there is some precedent for this sort of outrage. Remember "White" and "Colored" restrooms?

The first step in figuring out how to save the American Experiment

I have only been occasionally dipping in to the plethora of "talking heads" discussions of how we ended up with the Trump electoral victory.  FWIW, here is my take.  

A look at the presidential popular vote numbers going back to 2008 is essential to beginning intelligent analyses of what happened this year and to figure out how to avoid the 2024 result in the future.  Here are the numbers: 

 

                        Republican                  Democratic

2008                59,948,323                  69,498,516

                        45.7%                          52.9%

 

2012                60,933,504                  65,915,795

                        47.2%                          51.1%

 

2016                62,984,878                  65,853,514

                        46.1%                          48.2%

 

2020                74,223,975                  81,283,501

                        46.8%                          51.3%

 

2024                76,553,010                  73,936,479                             

   50.0%                         48.3%

 

 

Note:  Trump got 11,239,097 more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016, but Biden got 15,429,987 more votes than Clinton got in 2016, so Biden swept the Electoral College in 2020.

 

Note:  The total number of votes cast in 2020 for the two major party candidates was 155,507,476; the total number cast in 2024 was 150,489,489 – a dropoff of 5,017,987 –much more that the 2,616,731 Trump margin of victory in the popular vote.

 

Note:  Trump got 2,329,035 more votes in 2024 than he got in 2020.  Harris got 7,347,022 FEWER votes than Biden got in 2020.  Even if all of Trump’s 2024 increase came from 2020 Biden voters, if Harris had been able to hold the rest of the 2020 Biden voters, she would have had 81,790,945 – or a popular vote margin of 5,237,935, which likely would have been enough to win the Electoral College.

 

I have always thought that a big part of Steve Bannon’s grand strategy was to discourage a segment of the electorate into thinking that it did not matter who was president.  That strategy, in Bannon’s Big Lies World, was even more important than mobilizing his base.  The above numbers indicate that the Bannon strategy succeeded.

 

If so, the challenge for Democrats and those on the left is to convince people that it DOES matter who is president, and that they can deliver.  The Biden Administration actually was delivering, pulling us out of the trough of Covid that came on Trump's watch (and was exacerbated by Trump's handling of the crisis) and getting the country back on track. But this did not matter to the 7,347,022 voters who abandoned the Democrats in 2024.  It is not just doing the right thing in politics that matters.  You have to explain WHY it is the right thing, and HOW it is taking us in the right direction. 

 

We do not know how many of the 7,347,022 gave up in despair. Or were convinced that a woman (and a woman of color, to boot) should not be president. Or were so offended at the Biden Administration’s failure to rein in the Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir/Smotrich response to the 10/7 atrocity that they could not vote for Harris even though Trump and his minions will be far worse for the Palestinians.  Or were so offended at the happy talk of Bidenomics (when Biden should, instead, have focused on how Trump dug the hole that got us into the mess, how the Biden Administration saved us from total economic collapse and was now acting to get us out of the hole) that they abandoned the Party. Or abandoned the Party because they simply did not understand the realities faced by transgender people and were susceptible to the largely unrebutted attacks on efforts to treat transgender people fairly and with simple humanity.  The old political consultants’ shibboleth that “when you are explaining, you are losing” is no longer tenable.

 

These are the questions that must be grappled with in the months and years ahead if we are to have any chance of getting the American Experiment back on track.

[Addendum, as of the evening of Nov. 21: Not that it matters a whole lot, but according to the tracker from Cook Report, the numbers are now Trump 76,909,463 (49.87%) and Harris 74,411,631 (48.25%), with a total vote for the two major parties of 151,321,084. So the dropoff from 2020 was 4,186,382. and Harris got 6,871,870 fewer votes than Biden.  The basic analysis still holds.  But if these percentages hold up, then the Republicans will have failed to break 50% in every presidential election in the 21st Century except for 2004.  The Democrats broke 50% three times -- 2008, 2012, and 2020.  Trump has achieved power again, but not based on clear mandate from the people -- just from a bare plurality of those who voted.]

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism urges Congress to defeat dangerous measure aimed at destroying non-profits

 

Today, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism urged Congress to oppose H.R. 9495, which would grant the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits.

https://rac.org/press-room/reform-jewish-leader-urges-congress-protect-nonprofits

 

In so doing, it joined the ACLU, the conservative libertarian Cato Institute, and other progressive American Jewish groups like Bend the Arc and the New Israel Fund in opposing this dangerous proposal.

 https://www.jta.org/2024/11/11/united-states/house-set-to-vote-on-bill-targeting-nonprofits-accused-of-supporting-terrorism

 

EXCERPT from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article:

The American Civil Liberties Union has been spearheading opposition to the bill with support from voices on both sides of the political spectrum. The libertarian Cato Institute and Reason magazine, for example, have come out against the bill. So have several progressive American Jewish groups such as Bend the Arc and the New Israel Fund. 

“This bill is as dangerous as it is extraneous,” the New Israel Fund, which donates to civil society groups in Israel, many of them left-leaning, said in a statement. “The United States already has a meticulous process in place to determine whether a group is providing material support for terrorism. What this would do is strip that system of due process and enable willy-nilly terrorist designations.”

The bill is scheduled for a full vote in the House of Representatives Tuesday, after which it would have to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president.

***************************

Here is the letter from the RAC:

November 18, 2024

Dear Member of Congress,

On behalf of the Reform Jewish movement, including the Union for Reform Judaism encompassing 1.8 million Reform Jews in more than 800 synagogues nationwide, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis including 2,000 rabbis, I write to share our strong opposition to H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

Though this bill purports to make the nation safer, in fact, it endows the Treasury Secretary with overly broad power that threatens constitutional rights. By allowing the Secretary unilateral authority to designate an American non-profit a “terrorist supporting organization” and to revoke its tax-exempt status, the bill opens the door to potential abuse and politicization of what should be impartial policy decisions.

As the largest denomination in American Jewish life, we appreciate any and all genuine efforts to address rising antisemitism nationwide and to combat terrorism worldwide. However, the provisions of H.R. 9495 that are purportedly meant to address instances where non-profits are supporting terror appear to be a solution in search of a problem. Should an instance occur where a non-profit is thought to be engaging in such unlawful behavior, there is already in place a deliberative and thorough process to review such concerns under Article 18 Section 2339 of the U.S. Code, before applying the appropriate remedy. This current process is less susceptible to political interference or the chilling effect on speech and activity than H.R. 9495 is likely to have should a Treasury Secretary be endowed with virtually unfettered power to remove an organization’s non-profit status.

H.R. 9495 poses a threat to core American values. We urge you to oppose this harmful legislation and vote against it when it comes to the floor.

Sincerely,

Barbara Weinstein Director, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism

On Rabbi David Saperstein's 50th Anniversary with the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

On October 30, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism held a Zoom tribute to Rabbi David Saperstein on the 50th Anniversary with the RAC. It was a moving and informative experience. I thought it would be use to share the recording for those interested in the scope and history of the RAC's activities, which are needed now more than ever. Rabbi Saperstein's remarks begin at 49:02.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6BoiUOyQLE

"If the Tsar only knew": ADL Fails to Stand Up for the Values It Claims to Champion

There is an old Russian phrase, now repeated derisively, that goes "If the Tsar only knew."  It was meant to absolve the supreme leader from responsibility for awful conduct perpetrated by his minions.  

This article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency discusses the horrendous recent Trump Madison Square Garden Rally.

EXCERPT:

The Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish group that calls out antisemitism and hate and has criticized Carlson extensively, denounced the offensive jokes — but did not name Trump or Hinchcliffe directly.

“Political rallies should be about politics and policy, not offensive jokes that denigrate Jews, Palestinians, Puerto Ricans, and other marginalized groups,” the ADL tweeted.

“In a moment when hate has surged and when tensions are high, there’s no place for bigotry or intolerance on the campaign trail, full stop,” the ADL added. “We expect more and hope for better in these last days before the election.”

At least one liberal Jewish group took issue with the ADL’s omission of Trump’s name.

“This was a Trump rally,” the liberal Israel lobby J Street wrote in a reply to the ADL tweet. "This violent, bigoted rhetoric is part and parcel of his MAGA movement and must be called out directly. Organizations that claim to represent Jews and combat antisemitism *must* be willing to name and condemn the leaders of this hate-fueled movement.”

                                 ********************************************

 

Sadly, the Anti-Defamation League cannot bring itself to explicitly condemn Donald Trump for his orchestrated echo of the Nazi 1938 Madison Square Garden rally. The bigotry expressed last week was not an unfortunate part of the event -- it was its principle purpose. 

This "if the Tsar only knew" approach is beneath the dignity of any group advocating for human dignity. Particularly at the close of a hotly-contested presidential election. The ADL should be ashamed.

See this from The New Republic, as well (Why Is the Anti-Defamation League Running Cover for Trump?)

 

 

On Bob Bernstein's passing at 98: A Hero

The first book we read when our Dan came out in 1997 was Bob Bernstein’s Straight Parents, Gay Children: Keeping Families Together. Bobbi’s sister sent it to us. We will be forever grateful to both of them. 

Five years later I found myself on the Montgomery County (MD) Board of Education's Family Life and Human Sexuality Advisory Committee which was assigned the task of helping develop curriculum which led to the end of what was effectively a “Don’t Say Gay” policy in the Montgomery County Public Schools.  Bob’s wife Myrna was a member of that Committee as well, although I did not make the connection until later. The huge progress we made in Montgomery County in the years that followed was due in significant part to the work, dedication, and example of both Myrna and Bob. The phrase “may his memory be a blessing” applies, but it is more accurate to say that Bob Bernstein’s memory and legacy has been and will continue to be a blessing. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/10/16/robert-bernstein-gay-rights-dead/?outputType=comment

Robert Bernstein, father who championed gay rights, dies at 98. After his daughter came out, he became an ambassador to parents of gay children, inviting them to join the movement for equality.

By Emily Langer October 16, 2024 at 10:44 p.m. ET

On the day in 1987 when Robert Bernstein’s college-age daughter told him she was gay, he stayed up late writing a letter that she found waiting for her on the kitchen table the next morning.

 

“Dear Bobbi,” the letter began. Like the color of her hair or her taste in music, Mr. Bernstein told his daughter, her sexuality was an “irrelevancy,” because it had no bearing on her “inherent decency as a human being.” By embracing her identity, she had given him yet another “reason for the love and respect,” he wrote, that he had always felt for her.

 

Mr. Bernstein, who died Sept. 22 at 98, spent most of his professional life as a lawyer in the Justice Department’s tax division in Washington. His devotion to his daughter motivated a second career in gay rights activism, a movement that he helped power with a force that was, as he often noted, greater than perhaps any other: a parent’s love for a child.

 

When Mr. Bernstein undertook his advocacy in the 1980s, gay people enjoyed few of the rights that exist today. They could not marry. They could not serve openly in the military. In other professions, they often hid their sexuality for fear that they would be denied jobs or promotions. When they came out to their families, they often were met with rejection.Mr. Bernstein, a self-described “recovering homophobe,” had long harbored the prevailing prejudices against gay people. He admitted to being “repelled” at one time when he saw two men kiss in a restaurant. But his views had begun to shift before his daughter came out to him, he said, and were upturned entirely when she did.“

 

My education began when I realized, the next day, that she remained the same warm, talented and gracious young woman who had always made her family proud,” he wrote in a commentary published in The Washington Post in 1993. “We now simply had another piece of information about her.”Mr. Bernstein became an ambassador to parents of gay children, inviting them to celebrate their children for who they were and to join the movement for their equal rights in society. Vic Basile, a former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, described him in an interview as an “incomparable supporter of LGBTQ+ issues.”

Eight months after Bobbi told him she was gay, Mr. Bernstein wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, a father’s cri de coeur.

 

“Typically,” he wrote, “the parent of a gay child passes through successive stages of shock, disbelief, sorrow and, sooner or later, acceptance. For many of us, however, there is yet another phase: outrage against society’s stereotypical thinking that would relegate our gay loved ones to second-class citizenship.

 

“Some of us have a dream. It is that millions of angered parents will someday coalesce in a powerful crusade for societal change,” he continued. “The primal instinct to love and protect one’s young, however latent, embodies an immense potential for social reform.”Newspaper headlines are typically crafted by editors, and Mr. Bernstein’s commentary appeared without his foreknowledge under the headline “My Daughter Is a Lesbian.”

 

Worried that Bobbi, then a student at Stanford University, might be upset by the boldfaced reference to her sexuality, he phoned her to apologize. “What are you sorry for?” she recalled asking him incredulously. The article was a sensation on her campus 3,000 miles away in California, she said, where “everybody was talking about it.”Basile said that given the time when the article was printed, “I think for a lot of readers it probably opened their eyes to the issue and probably broke down a lot of barriers for other families.

 

”Mr. Bernstein traced his activism to what was then called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — now PFLAG — a group that was founded in 1973 and that he described as an “alchemist of the soul that converts bereaved parents into active agents of acceptance.”He sought to serve the same role for other parents and to take them “gently through the thickets of wrong-headed conventional wisdom and back to where we belong — at our children’s sides.”Mr. Bernstein served as vice president of the Washington-area PFLAG chapter and of the national organization. He wrote a guidebook, “Straight Parents, Gay Children” (1995), and later profiled gay parents in the book “Families of Value” (2005).

In writings and speeches, Mr. Bernstein tried to lead parents not only to accept their gay children, but to also admire their “path of integrity and self-discovery,” and to recognize their own power to help bring about change.

 

Mr. Bernstein watched as that change began to come, with victories including the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2011 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.Robert Allen Bernstein was born in Pueblo, Colo., on Feb. 20, 1926, the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Europe. His father worked in a family business that began as a junkyard and grew into a national supplier of heavy equipment, and his mother managed the home.Mr. Bernstein’s older brother, Morey, carried on the family business but was better known for his 1956 book “The Search for Bridey Murphy,” in which he recounted placing a young Colorado mother under hypnosis and leading her back in time until her previous life as a 19th-century Irishwoman emerged. The best-selling book inspired a Hollywood movie and a national craze surrounding hypnotism and reincarnation.

 

After Navy service, Robert Bernstein enrolled at Stanford, where he received a bachelor’s degree in engineering in 1952 and worked on the campus newspaper. He received a master’s degree in communication and journalism four years later and worked at the San Jose Mercury News before moving east to attend law school at American University, where he graduated in 1962.

His friendships with several disabled people led him to become active in disability rights advocacy before joining the gay rights movement. Both causes, he observed, involved overcoming ignorance and stigma.

 

Mr. Bernstein had a heightened understanding of stigma, having suffered throughout his life from mental illness, particularly depression. A suicide attempt in the 1950s led to a misdiagnosis of “schizophrenic reaction” and multiple institutionalizations.

 

Mr. Bernstein wrote about his experience of mental illness as well as his relationship with his brother, who died in 1999, in a memoir, “The Sheik and the Shadow: A Memoir of Brotherly Bond, Celebrity, and Madness” (2019). Mr. Bernstein was not ashamed of his depression, his daughter Bobbi said, and took pride in dealing with it openly.

 

Mr. Bernstein’s first marriage, to Carol Williams, ended in divorce. He described his relationship with their two daughters, Bobbi and her sister Sharon Bernstein, as “perhaps literally” a “life-saver” to him.“You two were the first … to give me a sense of worth,” he wrote to Sharon in a 1988 letter, one of many entries in his voluminous correspondence with his daughters and others in his life. “You seemed to accept me, joyfully and unconditionally, even at times when I perceived the world otherwise to be a wholly hostile force.” As a father, he wished to return to his daughters the gift they had given to him.Mr. Bernstein’s death, at his home in Portland, Ore., was confirmed by Bobbi and Sharon Bernstein, who did not cite a cause. He had been a longtime resident of Bethesda, Md.Besides his daughters, survivors include his wife of 42 years, the former Myrna Sisk Nebert; a stepson, Dietrich Nebert; and seven grandchildren. His stepson Douglas Nebert died in 2014.Mr. Bernstein often recalled the moment when he fully grasped the importance of bringing parents into the movement for gay rights.

 

On Oct. 11, 1987, he and his wife, along with Bobbi’s mother, joined a march on Washington that drew at least 200,000 people — making it, at the time, the largest LGBTQ demonstration ever in the United States.To his shock, the several hundred PFLAG members present were met by a roar of applause from the young gay and lesbian demonstrators, many of whom had tears streaming down their faces.“It was clear that the thunder and the tears were welling up out of a vast void in the hearts of these young people,” Mr. Bernstein later recalled. “By their tremendous reception, they were telling us how profoundly they longed for the acceptance and support of their own families.”

 

In his op-ed published in the Times, Mr. Bernstein expressed his conviction that their “yearning cannot be any stronger than the potential of their parents’ reciprocal affections.”“It was after the march, as I pondered the strength of the parent-child bond,” he continued, “that I could envision the doom of homophobia’s reign.”

My final endorsements for Board of Education (Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya)

                                                                                           Rita Montoya -- At-Large

                                                                 Laura Stewart -- District 4

 

My Final Endorsements for Montgomery County MD Board of Education and other contests on the MoCo ballot

In election years, many of my friends and acquaintances, knowing my involvement in local elective politics, particularly regarding the Board of Education, ask my opinion as to who would be the best choices.[1]

For the reasons that follow, I am endorsing Natalie Zimmerman for the District 2 seat, Laura Stewart for the District 4 seat, and Rita Montoya for the At-Large seat, as I did in the primary election last spring, and for the same reasons I noted then. 

     My other recommendations for other contests and ballot questions follow the BOE discussion.

BACKGROUND:  In 1996, in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s reelection as president, right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ political operative Ralph Reed said, “I would rather have a thousand school board members than one president and no school board members."  The right-wing has targeted Montgomery County in the past, without success.  

We are a progressive community when it comes to LGBTQ+ matters, including caring for and embracing all of our students.  In last May’s primary election, three of the seven seats were before the voters.  The three incumbents, all of whom were standing for reelection, have been strong supporters of these progressive policies.  But because of administrative problems in MCPS having nothing to do with pro-LGBTQ+ policies, those incumbents were challenged by candidates who shared those policies, but believed that new BOE board members would provide more effective oversight of other aspects of MCPS administration.  The teachers’ union, MCEA, endorsed those challengers, while the union representing MCPS support staff (SEIU Local 500) endorsed the incumbents.  Last spring, I endorsed the MCEA-endorsed challengers for the reasons I set forth in an April 2024 blogpost.  IMPORTANT REMINDER: While the District candidates must live in those districts, everyone in the County may vote in all three contests.)

HERE ARE MY CHOICES FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

District 2:  Natalie Zimmerman.  This is the most important race, because the incumbent hardly campaigned and, as a result, did not make the run-off. After participating in a Zoom meeting with Ms. Zimmerman, I am even more confident that she would be a very important, useful addition to the BOE, bringing the vital perspectives of an experienced elementary school teacher. 

          The candidate who came in second to Ms. Zimmerman in the primary was Brenda Diaz.  Ms. Diaz is a far-right candidate who advocates for policies on vaccines endorsed by RFK, Jr., who she cited as the source of her views during a podcast interview last spring.  Her views on LGBTQ+ matters are out of the mainstream in Montgomery County, and she is being actively supported by the local Republican Party which is all-in for Donald Trump and other right-wing candidates.  For details on these serious concerns, including the audio of her embrace of RFK, Jr.'s views on vaccines published last spring on the I Hate Politics Podcast, see this blogpost.  Also, the largest contributor to her campaign is the Campaign Committee of Bethany Mandel, who ran unsuccessfully in the primary for the District 4 seat.  See public document here.  (To find it, just type “Diaz, Brenda M. Friends for” in the top right-hand box, click search, and go to the 8/27/2024 Campaign Statement).  For convenience, below is a screen shot of the pertinent page.

Ms. Mandel, who came in a distant third out of three candidates for the District 4 seat in the primary, is a very extreme figure.  Here is what I reported

District 4 candidate Bethany Mandel . . . declined to respond the Metro DC PFLAG questionnaire, which typically is a sure sign that she is not supportive of LGBTQ+ students. In campaign forums, Ms. Mandel has vigorously expressed her opposition to the MCPS storybook policy regarding opt-out, and goes further, attacking what she refers to as "woke" approaches to education.  She has six children, and home-schools those who are school age; she has no experience with MCPS.  In one forum, she said that she wants MCPS to follow her advice about education because her children will someday have to deal with children who have graduated from MCPS.  Ms. Mandel, who has the support of the right-wing Moms for Liberty was active in the 2023 Moms for Liberty rally in Philadelphia featuring Donald Trump and Ron De Santis, and is a fairly well-known commentator in right-wing circles, as recently documented here. 

District 4:  Laura Stewart. I am confident that the best choice for the District 4 seat is Laura Stewart.  This is not because I have any specific criticism of Ms. Evans (who has done good work as a BOE member), other than being part of a BOE that has been unable to provide the administrative oversight that might well have avoided things like the Beidleman Scandal.  But we do need a fresh start, and Ms. Stewart provides an energy that would be very helpful to the Board, and make it more effective.  Ms. Stewart's years of MCPS and PTSA advocacy, both at the local and state levels, have shown energy, wisdom, and commitment, which led to her endorsement by the MCEA and a range of other groups.  I have been particularly impressed with her dogged, public advocacy in support of sound BOE/MCPS policies that have been under attack from outside right-wing advocacy groups.  Along with former BOE member Jill Ortman-Fouse, Ms. Stewart spearheaded the effort to mobilize people to back MCPS when it was under attack, and, to be frank, MCPS was not doing a very good job explaining the wisdom of its policy.  The letter signed by more than 3,000 residents of Montgomery County helped to turn the tide of public opinion when demonstrations in front of MCPS headquarters threatened to monopolize the conversation.  Similarly, her participation in drafting and signing the above-referenced Guest Commentary in Maryland Matters ("We can't opt out of diversity in our schools and communities") helped advance the discussion, and dispelled, I believe, some of the misconceptions that were creeping into local media.  Again, we would be well-served by either candidate, but I strongly believe that a well-qualified non-incumbent would be the better choice going forward.

At-Large:  Rita Montoya.  Like District 4 incumbent Shebra Evans, At-Large incumbent Lynne Harris is very well-qualified and supports policies I support. But fresh infusion of new people would be useful. On balance, I believe that Ms. Montoya would be the better choice.  She has useful personal and professional experiences as a PTA president, parent of elementary school children, juvenile public defender, and work with underserved communities, and thus could add useful perspectives to the BOE. 

OTHER MATTERS ON THE BALLOT:

No one who knows me will be surprised by my other endorsements, but here they are:

President & Vice President:  Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Senator: Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks.  Election of her opponent, former Governor Larry Hogan, would most certainly give control of the Senate to Donald Trump’s minions in the Senate and allow them to make it virtually impossible for a President Harris to effectively govern.  This is enough to counsel in favor of voting for County Executive Alsobrooks.

           Moreover, Hogan’s attempt to portray himself as a moderate who would stand up to Donald Trump is disingenuous.  Yes, Hogan has made his opposition to Trump as a human being repeatedly; but Hogan’s advertisements (funded by Mitch McConnell committees and other big money interests) avoid the fact that the only reasons he ever looked like a moderate was that the Democratic super-majority in the General Assembly overrode his vetoes; and even when he did not veto good legislation, he typically let such legislation go into law without his signature, because he knew the Democrats would override him if he vetoed it.  For Hogan to say that he has always been in favor of a woman’s right to choose is, to put it mildly, utterly disingenuous. And, of course, his recent campaign mailer headline that he would vote to reinstate Roe v. Wade is disingenuous since a Senate under Republican control would never allow such a measure to be voted upon. 

          Alsobrooks, in contrast, has been an effective States Attorney and County Executive, and is a competent mainstream Democrat.  The recent attacks on her by Hogan seeking to paint her as a reckless, hypocritical tax evader are unfair and misleading.  In fact, both tax breaks were legitimate when they originated. As to the first, once her grandmother no longer lived in the DC home, the tax break was no longer applicable.  As to the second, the legitimate tax break on the townhouse she purchased ceased to be appliable once she moved out and bought a new home -- and did not use the same tax break on the more expensive home, somthing that actually cost her money. These two errors are being corrected. See here.  It is noteworthy that the Washington Post -- which is notorious for often endorsing the most conservative candidate it can stomach -- endorsed Alsobrooks.

Congress, District 8:  Representative Jamie Raskin.  He is a national treasure, and we are proud and grateful to have him.

Congress, District 6:  April McClean Delaney.  I do not live in District 6, but much of it is in Montgomery County.  The bottom line is that it is essential that a Democrat keeps that seat (particularly when the Republican candidate is very right-wing), so that the House of Representative can flip to the Democrats.  Without Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republicans will be able to paralyze a Harris-Walz administration or, in the event of a Trump-Vance administration, accelerate the damage such a presidential right would entail.

Judges and Ballot Questions.   See the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Sample Ballot, whose recommendations I endorse. https://mcdcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mcdcc-sample-ballot-2024-v20.pdf

 

Four sitting Montgomery County Circuit judges won both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so they are running unopposed in the general election.  And three state appellate judges face the voters regarding their continuation in office.  The Montgomery County Democratic endorses all the judges.

Question 1 is a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution which would enshrine reproductive freedom.  State statutory law currently does so, but this would make the protections even stronger, an important thing in light of the current membership of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Please vote YES (FOR) on Question 1.

Question A is an attempt by the Republican Party of Montgomery County to amend the County Charter to bar a County Executive from election to more than two consecutive terms in office. (Currently the limit is three consecutive terms.)  This is a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the voters. See here.  Please vote NO (AGAINST) on Question A.

---

[1] This is where I am coming from on MCPS issues: I have been involved in MCPS matters since 1984, when I was co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA, working for needed resources for this magnet integration school. Later, I was public affairs director for the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County, working to secure appropriate education for students and seeking ways to widen the net with respect to GT identification and opportunities; I subsequently, as a PTSA Board member at Richard Montgomery High School, worked to protect needed resources for the Blair, Richard Montgomery, Takoma Park, and Eastern signature secondary schools. Beginning in 2002, after my children graduated from MCPS, I became active in working to secure appropriate health education and other MCPS policies regarding LGBT+ issues, and continue in this area (in which MCPS has made great progress) to this day.