October 11, 2010
One candidate has accused his opponent of (gasp!) lobbying. The accused lobbyist seems to believe a little-seen jobs report issued by a little-known state agency is equivalent to the Pentagon Papers. All Maryland's gubernatorial election needs is someone denying he's a witch or warlock, and the bizarreness meter will hit 100 percent.
The rematch between Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was expected to be heated, but the surprise is just how far afield it's been going for subject matter. The Ehrlich campaign's preoccupation with the O'Malley administration's here-today-gone-tomorrow report on July employment numbers is likely mystifying to the average voter, who peruses the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation web site about once every never. Was removing a dire report and replacing it with a rosy one stupid? Yes. Watergate? No.
Mr. O'Malley's camp has similarly been all over the place. One of the latest salvos points a finger at Mr. Ehrlich for lobbying on behalf of slots at Arundel Mills Mall, a project made possible only because of the enabling language in the slots legislation Mr. O'Malley ushered through the legislature.
Confused? You probably should be. Each has accused the other of raising taxes, allowing electricity rates to increase by 72 percent, and increasing the cost of a college education. Even in the heat of an election campaign, how often do you hear a current and former Maryland governor blame each other for making the exact same mistakes while in office? That's got to be a first.
Tonight, Marylanders will get a chance to see for themselves as the candidates debate for the first (and so far only certain) time for television broadcast. The widespread hope is that one or both will talk about the challenges Maryland faces and lay out a plan for what might be done to address them over the next four years.
We encourage all to witness the event — but don't hold out much hope that the hour will prove particularly illuminating. These are two lawyers who are looking to land blows, deflect criticism and charm voters. Delving into the nitty gritty of complex issues that don't translate into sound bites probably isn't in the game plan.
Political apparatchiks say, what can anyone expect? It's a tight race and nobody wants to commit to potentially controversial policies that might lose them votes — offering anything close to a plan to pay for the billions of dollars in unfunded transportation needs beyond convening a study panel to come up with suggestions, for instance.
But voters aren't stupid. These aren't political neophytes, they are two men who have actually held the office. The notion that either has to wait for advice, consultations or reports first is ludicrous. They should both know exactly what they will do. Perhaps the candidate who comes closest to revealing his plans for the next four years ought to simply be declared the debate's winner — and maybe the election's.
Spokesmen for the campaigns say the two sides are still negotiating additional debates on radio and television. They are expected to debate for one hour live on WOLB's Larry Young Show later this month. But with less than two weeks until the first day of early voting on Oct. 22, time is running out to arrange much more than that.
In the meantime, voters will simply have to listen and watch the campaign unfold with appropriate skepticism. There are far more important topics for the candidates to discuss on the airwaves and in public appearances beyond monthly DLLR reports and lobbying wages, but the chances of a reasonable, coherent give-and-take on them seems depressingly slim.
