The Chaotic Campaign Of Steve Rowe
All campaigns are not created equal, and I have been seeing some very odd things coming from the Steve Rowe for Governor camp.
Right from the get go, the man who was considered the early front runner at the beginning of the race seemed to have a haphazard, slapped together campaign that didn’t exactly know what it wanted to do. It had an amateurish website (the new one isn’t that much better), no coherent message, and seemed almost passive and unsure of itself.
Recently I have been hearing some buzz that reinforces those same concerns.
Regarding his communications strategy, it is becoming apparent that the candidate and his campaign simply do not know exactly what they want to say, or how they want to say it. When they do figure it out, they often do so in ways that actually hurt them, make them look bad, or outright promote opponents.
Take Rowe and taxes, for example.
Late last month, Rowe responded to the proposed cuts in Maine’s budget, and promptly said that he would be open to raising taxes on tobacco as a (very gimmicky) plug for the hole.
Yes, you heard it right, he proposed a tax increase. Not only that, but he posted the article calling for the tax increase on his own website. So if you go to Rowe’s newsroom and look through his articles, you are greeted with a heading that says “Rowe backs cigarette tax increase”. Check out the article, and you get this quote:
Rowe said raising the tax will not only help fill the budget gap, but will help reduce youth smoking. He then took a mild shot at Baldacci.
“Putting tobacco interests above the interests of Maine people is wrong,” he wrote. “It’s time for leadership that protects what is most sacred, and that addresses Maine’s most urgent needs.”
Now I realize that the Democratic Party is more accepting of raising taxes than the Republicans, but this is hardly the year to walk around promoting yourself as a tax raiser. The Democratic Governor of Maine has spent years fighting tax increases, and has gotten begrudging respect for it from both his own party and opposition Republicans. Do you really want to tag yourself with the tax raiser label, in this of all years? Why would he post this to his website?
But not only that, the tax he proposed raising is a regressive tax, which disproportionally hurts the poor and working class families in the state who are already getting hosed and having trouble making ends meet. His premise is based on the same faulty nonsense of “sin taxing” – or proposing taxes on products viewed as “bad for you”, that only a small percentage of the electorate consumes, thus limiting backlash and allowing you to couch yourself as a champion of the public good.
The reality, of course, is that the increased tax will do one of two things – increase revenue as the people who smoke – which again are disproportionally poor – grumble about cost but buy anyway, thus hurting their wallets, or it will lead to people smoking less and quitting, which will not increase revenue at all.
All of this would be all well and good, and very standard for a politician to advocate (aside from the very odd “I’m a tax raiser” promotion on his website) – but he can’t even remain consistent on the issue.
In today’s Bangor Daily News, reporter Christopher Cousins talks about the opening of Steve Rowe’s new Bangor office, and manages to get a quote from Rowe:
“I have no plans to increase revenues,” he said when asked whether he supports tax increases to pay for some of his ideas.
This just makes he and his communication team look like they have no idea what they even want to say. Last week they themselves trumpet a hike in the tobacco tax to fill the budget hole – by its very nature an increase in revenues – and now he says “I have no plans to increase revenues”.
Which brings me to the AGC forum that I wrote about previously.
Missed in all the fuss about Bruce Poliquin’s answer on background checks was a stumbling Rowe, who was the last candidate to answer and had plenty of time to decide if he wanted to say yes or no (none of the other candidates had any trouble) – yet still fumbled for an answer that was at the very best a hedge. You could literally see the difficulty he had coming up with an answer, as he presumably mulled over what answer would be best to give.
And speaking of Rowe’s take on guns, that brings us to another puzzling article on his website.
Augusta Insider wrote on Rosa Scarcelli’s challenge to Democrats on the issue, and offered to post statements from each of the campaigns in response. Rowe took AI up on the offer, and issued a statement. That isn’t the weird part.
The fact that it is currently posted on his website in the news section, is.
The article is itself about Scarcelli, and gives the bulk of attention to her challenge, and her statement on guns. If anything, it is something the Scarcelli campaign should post on their website, because it makes her look like a leader who is driving the issue, defining the conversation, and forcing people to respond to her. Why Steve Rowe’s communications team thinks it is a good idea to promote one of his rivals like that is beyond me.
All of which reinforces that idea that the campaign doesn’t have a message, doesn’t know what it wants to say, and doesn’t know how to go about crafting a communications strategy for the candidate. I don’t say this to slander anyone working for him, but this is seriously Communications 101 type lessons we are talking about here.
But if that was just it, I would not be writing this article. John McCain’s communications team was also famously chaotic, lacking in direction, and he managed to capture his party’s nomination and was leading in the polls in August of 2008. There is plenty of time for them to course correct that and really start the wheels turning to define the race.
There is more, and it betrays either extreme pettiness, insecurity or fear. You be the judge.
I have heard from a multitude of sources – all of which I consider extremely reliable – that the Rowe campaign is directing supporters not to sign other candidates’ nominating petitions as well as telling supporters not to give $5 MCEA contributions to other candidates who aren’t running traditionally financed.
A Democratic friend of mine described it thusly:
This is really disappointing and anti-democratic.
Now initially, this doesn’t sound all that unreasonable – why would Rowe want his supporters to sign petitions for other candidates or give them clean election donations? Obviously, he doesn’t.
But taking the extra step to direct your team to lean on supporters asking them to stonewall the other candidates on things as meaningless as nominating petitions and clean elections dollars? In such an early primary, supporters of a candidate are interested in more than one person and often lend their signatures around to several of them to help “the team”, and give support to the party – even if they don’t actually want to vote for them.
It helps to give the electorate a plethora of choices, and is just generally a good will venture that hundreds, if not thousands of party activists do. And unless Rowe thinks his supporters not signing petitions or giving money will somehow amount to a candidate not making it on the ballot or getting clean election funds, this entire enterprise seems pointless, bitter and really bad form over all.
The reaction of the people on the ground to Rowe’s move has not been positive. This, from a supporter of another campaign:
Ran into some really rude Rowe supporters on caucus day. They absolutely refused to sign petitions of other candidates. One of our people even stood up and said ‘C’mon we’re all Democrats, what about party unity?’
One of the delegates yelled ‘Fuck party unity.’
And that’s not all. From a supporter of another Democratic campaign not affiliated with the previous comment:
“I’ve been involved in Democratic politics for a long time, including several gubernatorial primaries, and I have never in my life seen such a rude bunch of supporters acting so childishly. We all routinely sign each other’s petitions… we know we are all going to get the signatures anyway so there is really no point in being a dick about it. You’ll always find some people who won’t sign, but the universal stonewalling from Rowe’s supporters turned a LOT of people off.”
From a delegate supporting another candidate:
“…the Steven Rowe supporters almost universally refused to sign [redacted]’s petition or any other petition for governor.”
And from another:
“I have personally signed the petitions for multiple candidates, and I was so offended at the behavior of Rowe’s supporters that he has officially crossed himself off my list of candidates to take interest in.”
I’m sure I can dig up more quotes, but I trust at this point I don’t have to. What appears clear to me is that Rowe’s team has sent instructions for his people to not lend any support – no matter how minor and insignificant – to any other candidate.
For what purpose? At this point, one can only guess – and my guess is some kind of misplaced sentiment. I understand not wanting your supporters to go around to all the other candidates and help them out in any way, but actively pushing to block them from doing so en masse like this? Seems very insecure to me, and a symptom of a larger tactical problem with his campaign.
Indeed, this small, seemingly insignificant act appears to be doing him more harm than good at this point, because tracking down these comments from Democratic activists (I bet you never though I was plugged into that network, huh?) was insultingly easy to do, and you could tell immediately there was a bad taste in their mouth.
Now, in the grand scheme of politics, this is no scandal. It isn’t dirty, it isn’t controversial, and it isn’t wrong. He wasn’t sending around pamphlets about another candidate having illegitimate minority children, or engaging in phone jamming – so this is hardly something to get overly excited about. It is just petty, and very small of his campaign – and probably very stupid politics in such a fractured primary election.
The larger point is that, along with a bizarre communications strategy and a candidate who himself doesn’t seem very sure of what he believes or why, this kind of thing points a very negative picture about the internal workings of the Rowe campaign. From my admittedly outsider perspective (but one that has witnessed very strong, and very weak campaigns from the inside), I simply do not see any discipline, any strategic plan, or even any political competence.
Perhaps this is a symptom of Rowe never having run for any campaign larger than a Maine House of Representatives district (roughly 8,000 people) – he was elected AG by the legislature he had been previously voted Speaker in. Maybe he lacks the political acumen to have built a tight political ship this early in the race. Maybe he’s just starting slowly and will adapt and craft a campaign that rivals the best ever put together.
We will see. I am not a Democrat and I don’t claim to know the innermost workings of the campaign. It is possible that my observations are totally wrong (but I highly doubt it) and Rowe is really putting points on the board.
All I know is that for some time now, I’ve been hearing very unhappy things about his campaign from my rather extensive network of Democratic associates – a set of folks made up of High School students all the way to elderly party activists. I have heard no such dis-satisfaction with any of the other campaigns to this point, and so until I do, I will consider Rowe’s campaign to be a rather disastrous work in progress compared to the others.
Popularity: 11% [?]
I feel that this article is extremely slanted and based on faulty reasoning, at best.
The taxes bit is the only mildly convincing argument that there is poor communication within his campaign; however, there are nine months until the election (and four until the primary), so it’s unreasonable to assume that any candidate would have a complete action plan at such a preliminary stage in the process of winning the Blaine House.
Now for the faulty content.
First off, Steve Rowe’s website is much more informative than the websites of all the other candidates- he provides extensive explanations for his stances on all the important issues.
Secondly, the extreme bias in this article is revealed by the author saying that a reporter “manage(d) to get a quote from Rowe.” Look at the Bangor Daily News site… Rowe provided the reporter with a full interview (quite contrary to a reporter having to squeeze a quote from Rowe).
Thirdly, the whole bit about Rowe’s campaign “pushing” supporters to not sign other petitions is largely anecdotal and fictional. As a Steve Rowe supporter, I for one can say that I was more than willing to sign various petitions on Caucus Day- and I ended up signing petitions for five different Democratic candidates. At the Portland Caucus, which warmly received Rowe, I saw many people with Rowe stickers signing petitions for other candidates. I could acknowledge validity in this assertion if it was accompanied by quotes from Rowe supporters or a memo within the campaign- but five selected quotes from people who could easily be trying to disparage Rowe’s campaign in order to promote the campaign of their candidate hardly provides enough evidence for a valid assertion to be made.
Lastly, I feel this article unfairly paints Rowe’s communication with his campaign- and Rowe’s ability to successfully campaign- as a disjointed and dysfunctional effort. Rowe was one of three candidates to speak at the Portland Caucus, which shows his commitment to meeting as many voters as possible. I also recently partook in a telethon for Haiti relief efforts with Steve Rowe- which shows his commitment to the community, even when his campaign doesn’t gain additional recognition.
Steve is a truly selfless person, a proven leader, and the most promising candidate for the Blaine House, and that’s why he’ll have my support in June and, hopefully, Novemeber.
I’m not sure this is a fair post. I can understand criticizing his campaign for a botched communication strategy, but it IS still early in the campaign. The fact that he suggested raising the tax in cigarettes is largely an appeal to members of the Democratic base that don’t want to see additional cuts to state services.
I don’t put much faith in hearsay statements from supposed supporters of various campaigns. When someone is man (or woman) enough to publicly associate their name with a comment, THEN I pay attention. These “somebody said ‘x’” and “another person say ‘y’” comments don’t mean much to me.
As for Rowe stumbling to answer the background question, you can’t blame him there. The question wasn’t that great. For starters, there are already mandatory background checks at FFL dealers. Was the question about gun shows, private sales – what? It’s unfortunate that we as a public, and political commentators included, dumb politics down to the point where we only want a “yea” or “nay” answer to complex political questions. It makes for good sound bites, but not for good policy.
That being said, Rowe should be careful that he doesn’t fall victim to the Gore/Kerry problem. That is to say, don’t get into policy specifics to explain your position, because people will yawn and think you’re avoiding the question, as senseless as that reaction may be.
I’d see your point Derrick, except that this was first brought to my attention by a Democratic activist who currently HAS no campaign, and has not picked a horse.
After doing more digging, I found several other Democrats who had not invested themselves into a campaign yet who also found it highly disappointing.
The quotes from actual supporters of other campaigns was more a factor of getting people to talk who had been on the ground gathering signatures and interacting with the supporters of other campaigns. From everything I have heard from multiple campaigns, Rowe is the only one directing his supporters to do this, and it is pissing off the other candidates.
Oh and one other thing: the post on Rowe’s website about Scarcelli’s challenge is just copied directly from the Augusta Insider site- nothing manufactured within the Rowe campaign and likely reproduced exactly as read to save time and to provide background on Rowe’s statement. The question posed at the debate was a tricky one, and Rowe handled it efficiently with a nice follow-up,
The stuff about not signing petitions is bizarre. Usually people sign everyone’s petitions. In 2006, I was involved in Chandler Woodcock’s campaign and we told our supports to give $5 to Mills if asked and to ask his supporters to do the same for us.
Simon,
I realize it is just copy and pasted – the point is, why is it there at all? Just like, why is the “I want to raise taxes” article up there.
They are promotions of two things – your opponent as a leader of debate, and the fact that you want to raise taxes on the working poor.
I know they are just clippings they posted up – but the larger question is why they would be so politically tone def as to post them up in the first place. Makes no sense from a communications standpoint.
I run the news sections of nationalized campaigns, and there is no way on God’s green earth I would put articles like that up there for public consumption.
Let’s get this straight though: the reason Steve Rowe may support increasing the tobacco tax is NOT to further impoverish the poor, but to increase revenue for state services (that may go straight back to the poor) by raising the tax on a product that harms the health of, and kills on a daily basis, Mainers. So saying that he “wants to raise taxes on the working poor” is yet again an attempt at slanting the facts to make Rowe look like a bad choice for Mainers.
You call the Rowe campaign “politically tone def.” Even though they aren’t, let’s pretend for the moment that they are. Instead of providing politics as normal, and due to that tone deafness, they are providing comprehensive explanations on a variety of issues- it is up to Mainers whether they wish to interpret these explanations favorably or unfavorably. But based on recent polls, it looks like it’s being interpreted favorably. I would hardly call Rowe’s accomplishments in leading the Democratic pool in fundraising (arguably) and in polling (again, arguably) a political failure.
I was a little surprised at the way his campaign chose to present our article. We got credit, so that is a non-issue. Were I employed by the campaign, I would have just run Rowe’s position without the preceding text related to Scarcelli. At the least, I would have drastically reduced the space devoted to her challenge and position. The background could have been condensed into a sentence or two.
As Matt said, Scarcelli is leading the discussion here. She is defining herself, the forcing her competitors to follow her lead. Good move by her campaign.
Despite what you may think about Matt’s article, he knows his stuff when it comes to running campaigns. It’s his job to. We can disagree about what went on at caucuses. His commentary on the website, whether it is harsh or not, is correct. It may save time, but the move lost points in other places.
I should disclose that I am a registered Democrat and I have yet to support any of the candidates at this time.
As a volunteer for another democratic hopeful, I can confirm the outright rudeness of several Rowe supporters when asked to help get another candidate on the ballot. Not one person has refused saying they are a supporter of any other candidate. Of course I am always polite and thank them, but I silently want to point out that I signed Rowe’s petition at a caucus last weekend without a second thought. It doesn’t mean I support him (I don’t), but I do believe in the democratic process and respect that the voters ought to have the choice and the final word.
Who really knows if it’s a coordinated effort by the Rowe campaign, but the comments in your article all sound eerily similar to my experience. Either way, it suggests that the political climate has moved away from civility even within the same party and that’s a shame. To me it says the Democratic party in Maine lacks leadership and a fresh vision to rally around. Steve Rowe is clearly not that leader. If there’s one piece of evidence that we need to re-energize our party and get away from the old Augusta politics as usual, it’s this story.
Simon,
Pardon me for saying so, but you are WAY out of your element here talking about tobacco taxes. I’ve done a lot of work on this issue – a lot – and you could not be any more wrong.
This, by the way is coming from a non-smoker who literally loathes tobacco (except for cigars) with every bit of my being.
I am well aware that the GOAL of Rowe’s position on this issue is not to screw the poor – the point is that the EFFECT is to screw the poor. I know he doesn’t want to do it, but that is what will happen, and has happened in state after state after state after state that has done this.
Your argument is nonsensical, and essentially boils down to “you will quit doing something I disapprove of, or I will FORCE you to quit with the force of law and the levy of taxes”.
Which is all well and good – it is a revolting mentality to have about the power of government and how to wield it, but it is about par for the course with the smug “I know what is best for you” governmental activists – except that it is also bad policy.
First of all, no amount of taxes will force somebody to quit something they are addicted to, or want to do. They will either pay the higher price, go across state lines to get it cheaper next door, or they’ll buy them on the black market. So, if your goal is to MAKE people quit something you despise of so much, it will fail.
But secondly, even if it DID work, it would CUT revenues, not increase them. Thus the underlying policy goal you and Rowe are claiming will not happen, and in fact do the opposite.
If you advocate for a tobacco tax, you make one argument OR the other, you do not make both – because it won’t work. If you are doing it to cut usage among the population, you will be cutting demand at the same time and dropping tax revenue that is cut from that product. If you are doing it to increase revenue, then you are agreeing that people will not quit, and will be paying a higher price. If that is the case, you are admitting that it is a regressive tax that disproportionally hurts the poor given the demographics of who smokes. You can not have it both ways – it is either one or the other.
“You will do what’s good for you, or else.” Typical.
But it goes deeper than that. If you believe an increased tax like that will indeed cut demand and lead to people quitting that evil bad thing you despise so much, you have to realize what ELSE it will do.
The small merchants in the state of Maine – specifically convenience stores and gas stations – rely on cigarette sales for an unbelievable amount of their revenue. In many cases we are talking about 70% or more of gross receipts. Using the government as a weapon to bludgeon the tobacco sales in the State will not only cut tax revenues on the product itself, but it would hurt small merchants in a BIG way. With so much dependence on that product, we are talking about taking food off the table for thousands of Maine families… making it harder for them to do business, causing layoffs, closing business.
You know what that means? Less tax revenue from those businesses, and less income tax from employees who will now be unemployed, and potentially consuming state services on top of it all.
“We know what’s good for you, shut up and pay up”
So, let’s review – the following things are what could potentially happen with a cigarette tax increase:
1. Revenues go up because nobody quits. This puts an increased financial burden on the people who can afford to pay it the least – the poor and lower middle class who smoke. If you are going to screw somebody with higher taxes in the middle of a horrible economy, why is THAT the group you want to hurt?
2. Revenues go down because people quit, and/or smoke less. You get your social engineering goal by punishing people who smoke to such a degree that they quit, but you end up CUTTING revenues to the state in the middle of a horrible economic climate. So not only did you do the opposite of what you wanted, you made the fiscal situation worse.
3. If #2 happens, you also hurt small businesses, dropping tax revenue from them too, leading to some businesses that are already on the bubble to close, putting employees on the street and then on the government dole. Less revenues, less private sector income taxes, and fewer small businesses in the state. GREAT idea in this economy.
There is QUITE LITERALLY no up side to such a stupid policy proposal, except for your goal to force people to quit. But if that is your goal, this is the LAST time you want to actually do that, due to the side effects of what that will mean.
So, with all due respect, I am not slanting shit, and I’m happy to argue this one ad nauseum with you. I really don’t care to argue most taxes like this, but this one really pisses me off. The concept behind sin taxes, and the incomparably bad side effects of it just show poor judgment, a lack of depth of thought and worst of all – a politically cheap and shallow position.
But in the larger, abstract point I was making – the whole point here is he is voluntarily tagging HIMSELF with a tax increase moniker. Even if he thinks it is a good idea, this is really not the time you want to advertise that. This shows the horrid communications strategy and political tone defness I was speaking about.
Excuse me for interrupting what seems to be mostly a two way conversation. I have read the article, the following comments, and while I mostly agree with Matt I still feel obliged to share that the stories of democrats being encouraged not to sign any and/or all petitions is accurate. But what I really want to focus on is what Simon said in his follow up, “oh and one more thing” comment. I suspect the article was a copy and paste and that is what concerns me. Steve Rowe is somewhat of a political lifer and as such will bring a copy and paste to the Governors office, copying from that guys term and pasting it to his own thereby giving us the same old same old. We need a new face in Augusta.
What we really need early on while considering who to send are candidates who know what they think and can share it when asked. Some candidates were able to do that and Rowe was not. Frankly I want a leader that will make decisions and stand by their answers. We do not need a leader who hedges on his answer searching for what may play best to the crowd. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. At this moment Scarcelli seems to be leading.
By the way, I forgot to respond to this:
“however, there are nine months until the election (and four until the primary), so it’s unreasonable to assume that any candidate would have a complete action plan at such a preliminary stage in the process of winning the Blaine House.”
This is absolute nonsense. I’ve worked on presidential campaigns, US Senate campaigns, Congressional campaigns, Gubernatorial campaigns, state Senate campaigns, state House campaigns, and even local city council campaigns – and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that by this point in the election, the communications strategy and execution should be a well oiled machine.
Rowe has been running for an ENTIRE YEAR now. If he is so aloof as to not get that part of his campaign straight (which, by the way, should always be the FIRST focus of ANY candidate’s campaign), that presents a major problem, and in and of itself presents me with worries about what kind of Governor he would be.
Yes, there is plenty of time left – but by now any serious state wide campaign should be running on all cylinders, and his isn’t. That would greatly worry me if I were one of his supporters.
Just as an example, I am working on a 2010 campaign right now in another state, and we had our communications strategies and action plans buttoned down over a year ago.
I think this is a great article that every Republican on PTP needs to read. Recently we have had a huge division among us, the Republicans cannot get along and actually have a productive conversation, it always turns into pointless bickering. This article illustrates the divide that there is among the Dems, and we need to exploit that. The group that mobilizes and unifies the first will take this election, period. I have full faith that the actions of Democrats at a state and national level will galvanize the Republicans together but many posts on PTP, especially those against Bruce Poliquin, have shown that may not be the case. I think all of my fellow Republicans need to read this article, let the dems take themselves down, and unify behind one candidate… Bruce Poliquin
I helped coordinate caucuses for Steve’s campaign for all of Knox County, participated in state-wide phone calls discussing caucus strategy, and received written instructions from the central campaign to aid in the coordination.
At no time or in any fashion was I ever urged or directed against signing other candidates’ petitions or to pass similar instructions on to my fellow Steve Rowe supporters. Nor was there any instruction or pressure relating to $5 qualifying contributions. At my town caucus in Rockland, supporters for three campaigns eagerly signed the petitions of the others and were nothing but friendly with each other throughout the event.
I can’t speak to what happened on the ground in other counties … in fact, I’d be disappointed to know that such patterns actually occured. But if so, it was not part of any coordinated campaign instruction from the folks working in Steve’s central campaign office. If you know Steve, you would know that he is a man of integrity who would not abide any such behavior by his campaign. If any of his supporters – as individuals – followed such a course, I suspect that Steve would immediately endeavor to stem any such behavior throughout the balance of the campaign. Thanks for raising the suggestion.
Does anybody besides me wonder we are giving Matthew Gagnon the time of day? Who is this guy besides a disgrunteld republican who couldn’t even get elected to the state legislature in Presque Isle — that’s a repubican performance district. http://www.state.me.us/ethics/pdf/meetings/old/20050713agenda.pdf It turns out he didn’t even comply with Maine election laws.
Does this guy seriusly think that candidates for governor should be helping the other candidates qualify for the ballot and make contributions to their opponents? Does he really think that Rosa Scarcelli should be asking her supporters to give Libby Mitchell and John Richardson $5 contributions?
Isn’t he just handing a grenade to democratic activists and seeing who will pick it up and walk into a room of gubernatorial candidates?democrats and seeing who will walk it into the room?
Let’s get real here. If there is real news, or policy issues, they are worth discussing. But, to let a failed republican candidate who doesn’t even live in Maine set the rules for a democratic debate seems silly at best.
Now that Scott Brown’s win has finally killed the ‘blame Bush’ campaign, Democrats are going to be scrambling. It’s not like their message of higher taxes, big government, and weakness abroad is really appealing to people. Most Democrats in Maine are really from other places who brought their leftist values with them. Native Democrats tend to be a gentler, kinder, species.
BangorD,
You know, if you want to criticize me, that’s fine, but the least you could do is be accurate.
I ran in District 14, which is Old Town, not Presque Isle. Old Town has been represented by a Democrat as far back as I have been able to find, and sports a more than 2 to 1 registration advantage of Democrats over Republicans. I received the highest number of votes of any Republican to ever run in Old Town – I never expected to win the race.
As for “didn’t comply with Maine election laws” – that is cute and everything, but it was simply a late filing of my financial disclosure. I accepted responsibility for that rather minor mistake, paid my fine, and it was all done with. If that is somehow scandalous to you, so be it. I find it amusing that you would use THAT to try to discredit me – can’t find any substantive thing to disagree with in my analysis, so you attack the messenger?
By the way, you aren’t breaking any new ground here – that whole thing is a matter of public record, and I’ve been more than open talking about it to anyone who has asked me about it.
As for why you should listen to me, that is up to you. You are the one who came here, and you are the one responding to me. I am covering the horse race in both parties, am an open partisan, but for the most part keep that out of my writing. I’ve spent a lot more time pissing off Republican candidates than I have on Democrats.
And the reason I wrote this? Democratic contacts of mine – yes, Democrats – came to me with the story. I chased it down and wrote on it because there was actually something to it. Treat it with skepticism if you so desire, but it doesn’t change much.
I’m not “setting the rules for a Democratic debate” – I’m covering the race, providing context and analysis.
As for your characterization of what I’m saying, nice try, but that isn’t what I was saying. I wasn’t suggesting any campaign ENCOURAGE their supporters to sign petitions and give MCEA money, but to actively direct them to refuse to do so is another thing altogether, especially considering it is common in both parties in the primary for supporters to sign each other’s petitions.
I have no interest in throwing a bomb into the Democratic race – I actually like several of the candidates – I’m just telling the story of the campaign. I’m sorry that you, a likely Rowe supporter, are upset about it, but it is what it is.
So you are a disgruntled, failed republican candidate from Old Town who didn’t file his financial disclosure on time. Perfect.
The point here is that you have an interest in doing bad analyisis and you couldn’t even win a house race. And for what it’s worth, plenty of democrats win heavily republican house districts, and vice-versa. Apparently not you.
So you are a seld-appointed political savant who prognosticates on political intrigue, and waits for democrats to excuse themselves and allow you to control their message and their dialogue. This is very reflective of democrats at the national level letting the republicans define the dialogue on health care and everything else. I am just sick of this foolishness, and think it is time for you to cover your own party and let the democrats eviscerate themselves. They are plenty capable.
Let me make this clear, I am not trying to engage you, I am trying to warn my fellow democrats that your interest is not theirs. It’s time for you, an avowed partisan republican, to cover your friends and let the democrats fight amongst themselves.
Disgruntled? I very much enjoyed the experience of running, thank you, and I am actually quite enjoying covering the campaigns. I talk to the Democratic campaigns almost as much as I talk to the Republican campaigns, and have a good relationship with them. I have no malice toward any of them – “disgruntled” is the last word to describe me.
I covered the Rowe issue because it concerns me, not as a partisan, but as a political operative who is witnessing a disorganized campaign making a lot of mis-steps.
You say you aren’t trying to engage me, but then do your best to insult me – that is pretty transparent my friend.
You can lecture me about what I should and should not cover, I suppose, but you won’t be getting anywhere with me. 95% of what I have written about the Democrats has been either glowing, or neutral – so your attempt to make it sound like I’m a partisan hack trying to hijack the debate for your side is asinine.
As I said, I am covering all of Maine politics, and both races, and I’m doing so fairly. To me, it just sounds like you are an angry Rowe supporter, and you should probably realize that your attitude, and the rather petty, small way you are insulting and snarking at me is feeding into everything I wrote in this article.
But by all means, please continue to rant all you want.
BTW it seems like more than a I was late and paid to me . . .
7. Referral to Attorney General/Matthew Gagnon
Matthew Gagnon was the Republican candidate for House District #14 in the 2004
elections. On April 8, 2005, the Ethics Commission assessed a total penalty of $150 for
the late filing of his 42-day post-primary and 6-day pre-general reports after considering
Mr. Gagnon’s request for a waiver of the penalty. On April 12, 2005, the Commission
staff sent a formal determination requesting payment within 30 days. Under 21-A
M.R.S.A. §1020-A(10), thirty days after issuing a notice of penalty the Commission
“shall” report to the Maine State Attorney General the name of any person who has failed
to pay the full amount of a civil penalty. On July 6, 2005, the Commission staff sent Mr.
Gagnon a final notice that the staff would recommend referring him to the Attorney
General for collection of the unpaid penalty. The Commission staff left a message for
Mr. Gagnon at his residence. Mr. Gagnon has not responded to any of these
communications. Staff recommendation: the Commission staff recommends referring
Mr. Gagnon to the State Attorney General for collection of the civil penalty.
And just for the record – I am well aware that the partisan lean of a district doesn’t mean you can not win if you are in the other party… but try to remember I was a 23 year old kid who was graduating college, and mostly just doing a favor for the party… I had really no idea what I was doing (which is essentially the reason my 42 day post general disclosure was late), and I was running against somebody who the entire community knew.
I worked hard, did my best, and gave it a go – but obviously wasn’t ready.
But I’ll tell you this, everything I learned in that losing experience has served me EXTREMELY well in being able to articulate local Maine politics. I am neither embarrassed that I didn’t win, nor am I bitter about it. I’m glad I did it, and in a weird way, I’m even glad I got pinged on that disclosure, because it taught me more about the process, and the importance of running a tight ship – as well as the fact that the candidate is on the hook for everything.
So, feel free to keep making fun of me for that if you wish – won’t bother me in the least.
This is just more FOX news coverage . . .
It was never referred to the AG – I went to that meeting, explained the situation (as I said, I was a college student, and had actually moved TWICE after the election), and apologized, at which time I then paid the fine.
You are a very small, petty man my friend.
LOL, if you think this is anything like FOX news my friend, I guess I can’t help you.
I’m a Democrat, and I love reading this site. His coverage has been fair. You are seriously being an ass “BangorD”. Maybe you could actually grow a pair and tell us your real name so he can have a chance to dig up meaningless dirt on you?
BangorD, you are a loon. Who gives a shit about the fact that he ran a race and lost 6 years ago when he was in college. Good lord, just what this world needs, another hate filled angry Democrat posting poison in internet comment sections.
Here is something substantive for this BLOG.
Hey Gary, saw your comment, maybe you should disclose that you are a paid employee of Rosa Scarcelli — not on the campaign, but the corporation. So I was wondering whether you are at work doing these emails? If so, is that a campaign contribution?
While were at it, does anybody wonder which payroll Dennis Bailey was on for all those months before Rosa Scarcelli announced? How about Heather Quinn and Chris Potholm?
Did Rosa use her mother’s HUD money to pay for political consulting??? Why doesn’t somebody write about that?
I love hearing a Democrat criticize someone for filing late reports. The Maine Democratic Party has been fined thousands of dollars for late reports every cycle ($5,000 in 2008), and tried to illegally funnel money to U.S. Senate candidate out of state. The MDP actually literally budgets for Ethics fines, it happens so often.
Filing late reports is fairly common for many candidates, especially for first-time candidates. You pay a fee and move on. Go look at how many Democrats – including sitting legislators – have made similar mistakes.
Your criticism of Matt might be fair if you gave us your real name so we could google dirt on you, too. Criticizing his analysis with reasonable intellectual arguments against him is fair. Anonymous attacks on his character are not.
[...] Headlines » The Chaotic Campaign Of Steve Rowe Wednesday, Feb 3, 2010 – 5:20 PM | 28 Comments [...]
BangorD
Obviously you have no constructive rebuttal to Matt’s comments about the Rowe campaign which you are seemingly supporting so you make a feeble attempt to discredit the author. If that is your best argument to change the opinion of his readers, you would have been better off not commenting as you have only confirmed his statements.
Matt does an excellent job at analyzing the Maine political scene. He is a true gentleman and a scholar.
Matthew,
I honestly and truly really appreciated your thoughtful response. It opened up my eyes much more to the tobacco tax than what I’ve heard in the past. I’m not going to argue it any further, because as a first year voter, I honestly don’t have the depth of political knowledge that you so impressively possess. Furthermore, you covered all the bases in your response and, even if I did have a wider breadth of political knowledge, your argument is pretty bullet proof.
As a side note, I did attend the Democratic Gubernatorial candidates forum in South Portland tonight, and plan to write a blog post on the event. But before I do, I wanted to share with you the things that Rowe said that are pertinent to your article-
Steve first said, in response to a question about how he would work to repair roads and bridges while opening up jobs, that he (and this is a quote): “I don’t have a plan for raising taxes.” He somehow tied this into the discussion on roads and bridges. The next question was about the possibility of temporarily increasing the sales tax to save public employees, about which Steve said that he would “look at the tobacco tax” (direct quote) because cigarettes are the single most cause of deaths in Maine. He also said that, quote, “there are others” (in referring to additional places to increase revenue by raising taxes). He concluded his response by saying that he doesn’t “want to raise taxes… nobody does.”
Take with that what you may, but I figured I’d give you his most up-to-date statements on potential tax increases.
I think the analysis in the article is solid. I don’t always agree with Matt’s take on issues, but I think this piece is solid and the points well made.
I think if anything the nasty personal attacks launched anonymously by Rowe’s supporters prove Matt’s thesis and justify the complaints of other Democrats.
Agree with Mike.
[...] Note: The following was sent to me by Toby McGrath of the Rowe campaign, in response to my February 3rd article on Steve Rowe’s campaign. It is reprinted here with his [...]
Leave a comment!
The Town Hall »
Mainers Calling for Competent Management
The jaw-dropping victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race completes an I-95 trifecta that started in Virginia, headed north to New Jersey, and landed in the Bay State. Where does the momentum go …
Commentary »
Maine Needs A Governor Like Chris Christie
Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie has been making a lot of noise lately for doing something that was entirely unexpected: being blunt, speaking truth, and pragmatically dealing with problems that his state …
...So Goes The Nation »
Things, They Are A-Changing In The Republican Party
Few would have believed it possible only a couple years ago, but the Republican Party is increasingly being made less hospitable for culture warriors.
I’ve been arguing since my days in college – which, looking back, …
Media Appearances »
Matt Gagnon on Drive Time Bangor 2.10.10
Last Wednesday, Matt Gagnon of Pine Tree Politics called in to Drive Time Bangor to talk about the Washington D.C. Snowpocalypse, party caucuses in Maine, and the curious campaign of Jason Levesque.
Every Wednesday, Matt talks …
Fan Us On Facebook
Authors
Most Popular Articles
Recent Comments
Democratic Politics
Government
Maine Political Blogs
Media
Republican Politics
Archive
Tag Cloud
2008 Election 2010 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary 2010 Gubernatorial Race 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary Announcement Bill Beardsley Bruce Poliquin Campaign Finance Chellie Pingree Democratic Politics Drive Time Bangor Election Day Eliot Cutler Gay Marriage Gubernatorial Interviews Hannah Pingree Healthcare Reform Jason Levesque John Richardson Kevin Raye Les Otten Libby Mitchell Maine's First Congressional District Maine's Second Congressional District Maine House Maine House Legislation Maine Presidential Leadership Series Maine Republican Party Maine Senate Matt Jacobson Mike Michaud New Media Olympia Snowe Pat McGowan Paul LePage Peter Mills Republican Agenda Republican Politics Rosa Scarcelli Steve Abbott Steve Rowe Susan Collins TABOR Tax Reform US SenateRandom Posts
Latest Video Post
Most Commented
Most Popular