The Glassman Campaign’s Slow-Motion Implosion… and What It Says About Rodney Glassman As a Candidate

By Jenn

Rodney Glassman is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Republican and Democratic voters hit the polls next Tuesday for the primary elections, and, for Democrats, one of the biggest decisions we will have to make is between the four candidates running to represent our party against Senator John McCain in November. Of the four Democratic candidates, Rodney Glassman has long been considered the front-runner for three reasons: 1) he was the first to announce his candidacy, organizing an exploratory committee late last year, 2) he is the most outwardly polished of the four candidates, and has carried himself as the de facto victor of next Tuesday's election, and 3) his campaign boasts a campaign war-chest that is several times that of his competitors' put together.

Yet, for all of his bluster, Glassman's "front-runner" status may be misplaced. Despite his nearly six-month headstart over his opponents, Glassman has done virtually nothing to convince voters that he deserves the Democratic Party nomination. A poll conducted by Randy Parraz's campaign earlier this month reveal that nearly half of Democratic voters remain undecided in this race, and that Glassman leads Parraz by a mere 3%.

The question we must ask is this: why is Glassman's campaign performing so poorly in this primary race, and — more importantly — does this say something about Glassman's offering as a candidate?

I would argue, yes. A campaign isn't just Monday Night Football for political wonks; it is our opportunity to interview candidates and to judge their competency as a leader. A mishandled race and a mismanaged campaign suggests a candidate lacks the necessary qualities, and strategic competence, to navigate a political minefield while managing a state or federal Senate office.

Glassman's campaign, thus, is a prime indicator of Glassman's personal and professional character. And from what we've heard lately about how his campaign has been handled, Rodney Glassman might well be the least-qualified candidate in the field to be Arizona's next Senator.

Late last week, just five days before the election, the Feathered Bastard blog on the Phoenix New Times website published an article revealing a slow implosion of the Glassman campaign over the last several months. There are several charges made by the post's author — all of which are true, a political insider familiar with the Glassman campaign confirmed to me over the weekend.

First of all, Glassman's campaign has experienced record turnover of key staff members. A Political Director, a Communications Director and a Field Director have all left the campaign over the last several months; all three left over the candidate's behaviour, says the Feathered Bastard. Staffers report that Glassman routinely berated his staffers in public and in private, and threw temper tantrums when he could not get his way. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable even in small children, let alone in an aspiring policitian who will need to run an efficient Senate office in Washington if he hopes to effectively balance political and constituent interests.

What does it say about Rodney Glassman that even staffers who are working to elect him lack confidence in his abilities to manage and lead a staff?

 
Oh, Rodney, why can't you treat all staffers as well as you treat this puppy?

Rodney Glassman rose to front-runner status in part because of the amount of money his campaign has raised. But, the Feathered Bastard reveals that Glassman gained prominence in part because he promised key Democratic supporters that he would raise even more money than he has. Further, he guaranteed that if he was unable to collect several million dollars in donations to fuel his Senatorial ambitions, that he (or his family) would personally donate that money to his campaign.

Beyond the uneasiness that I have in thinking about Glassman or his family openly publicizing their intention to purchase a Democratic nomination with their collective wealth, it turns out that Glassman actually reneged on that promise to early supporters. To date, Glassman has only loaned his campaign $500,000 of his personal funds, and is reportedly already seeking ways to have that money reimbursed to him (apparently, he considered cutting staff jobs in order to repay his loan).

While it's not completely inappropriate for Glassman to be thinking about how to have the campaign loan repaid, it's common practice for candidates — particularly losing candidates — to write-off campaign loans rather than to deal with the public relations problem of taking public money to balance their debt. But what I find most troubling about this episode is Glassman's easy deception of his own supporters, and his failure to follow through on his word.

What does it say about Rodney Glassman that he was willing to raise his own political profile by lying to friends and Democratic party insiders?

I wonder how many campaign buses $3 million dollars can buy? 

Finally, staffers in the Glassman campaign complained in the Feathered Bastard article that Glassman's sense of humour bordered on infantile and offensive. In addition to the homophobic remark Glassman reportedly made at a fundraiser in 2007, staffers and political insiders report that Glassman commonly made rude and inappropriate jokes and remarks in private. At one campaign fundraiser, Glassman supposedly asked the event's host whether their assistant was "an illegal alien".

Glassman's homophobic remark has made the rounds in the blogosphere. In 2007, while running for Tucson City Councilman, Glassman may have said, "The toughest thing for me to do will be to sit next to an openly gay councilmember." Glassman's supporters have countered that this is a misquote of a statement honouring the Council's first openly gay and first Latina Councilwomen.

As with all stories, the truth is a mixture of both versions. It appears that Glassman's remark in 2007 was that, as a White, straight male, the toughest thing for him to do would be to sit next to the first openly gay and the first Latina councilmembers, and that he felt inferior because his identity offered him none of those historical firsts.

Now, to me, that version of the remark is the most believable — and still just as offensive as the originally reported quote. In this version, Rodney Glassman says that it is tough being the White guy in the room who's not a political first. Glassman actually turns his identity as a straight White male into a political and personal burden. For an Asian American, whose community is still working on registering those firsts in political offices around the country, I find this version of Rodney Glassman's remark equally as insulting; he manages to make a political victory for the Latino and LGBTQ communities still all about him.

But, regardless of what you believe actually happened in 2007, the relevant fact is that Glassman is establishing a pattern of making offensive and inappropriate remarks to staffers and supporters. And, more importantly, his campaign has routinely failed to acknowledge, or apologize for, Glassman's foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Following the story that Glassman made a homophobic remark in 2007, Glassman's campaign officially ignored the story, releasing neither a statement nor an apology to the public. In so doing, the campaign sent the message that it believed that the hurt and betrayal felt by the LGBTQ community at having a Democrat make such an inflammatory remark did not even warrant a basic explanation. Yet, Glassman's supporters privately invaded the Internet (whether by request of Glassman or not) to tell a different version of the story — one that attacked Glassman's political opponents with an apparent white-washing of the truth. State Representative Matt Heinz (a close friend of Glassman's) even went so far as to blame Councilwoman Karen Uhlich, the openly gay Councilwoman in question, by accusing her of perpetuating the story for her own political gain (fourth comment down in The Advocate article).

 
Rodney Glassman and Karen Uhlich on Arizona Illustrated, from the Tucson Citizen.  

As for the other inappropriate remarks Glassman has made, few have made headlines. But, nonetheless, the Glassman campaign has still refused to acknowledge or apologize for Glassman's verbal missteps: in the Feathered Bastard, Glassman's spokesperson claims ignorance on Glassman's "illegal alien" comment.

What does it say about Rodney Glassman that he seems to commonly make offensive, insensitive and inappropriate remarks, and that he actively refuses to acknowledge or apologize for them?

I haven't really hidden the fact that I'm disappointed in this year's slate of Democratic Senatorial candidate. Like the Feathered Bastard, I believe that John McCain will walk away with the Senate seat in November, and that the job of the Democratic nominee should be primarily to provide an intellectual challenge to McCain in the media and in debates.  This year's political climate makes it difficult for any Democrat to win the state-wide popular vote. Instead, the Democratic nominee must be a person who can hold McCain's feet to the fire, adequately present Democratic ideas to the voters and the press, and hopefully drag McCain back towards the middle between now and November. Simply put, the Democratic nominee must make McCain work for his seat.

I fundamentally believe that for all of Rodney Glassman's front-runner status, he is incapable of accomplishing that task.

Glassman has touted himself as the moderate Democrat in the Senate primary, and has advocated Right-of-center viewpoints on immigration and the economy. In debates, Glassman routinely fails to answer the question, and prefers to cite his endorsements over any good ideas; further, rather than to develop good ideas, Glassman prefers to censor the media to prevent being caught unscripted. And for all of the spit-shine polish Glassman boasts in public appearances, the mismanagement and crumbling of Glassman's campaign over the last several months convincingly demonstrates that, behind closed doors, Glassman does not have the skill to run the kind of campaign needed to challenge John McCain in the fall. And, with all of the rumour and controversy surrounding Glassman, the last thing Democrats need this year is a train wreck for McCain to capitalize on.

As for Glassman's opponents, I wrote last week that I had misgivings about Randy Parraz: he has the right values, but he lacks some of the tangible ideas that I look for in a Senatorial candidate. John Dougherty and Cathy Eden both have fistfuls of intelligence, but are lacking in charisma and polish (and Eden, I think, suffers from being unable to change the debate to issues she's strong on, namely healthcare; she also suffers from having lots of political experience in a year when non-traditional candidates are being favoured by voters).

Candidate for U.S. Senate, Randy Parraz

Frankly, however, I would rather have a candidate with the right values or the right smarts, over a candidate who has neither. Glassman may have all the money in the race, but money clearly doesn't buy character or intelligence.

Dougherty has an abundance of smarts, and Parraz has the charisma and organization, to give McCain a run for his money. Both have the principles and integrity to be effective leaders, and both are equipped to challenge McCain on this year's key issue — immigration.

Candidate for U.S. Senate, John Dougherty

Meanwhile, I think a vote for Glassman is a vote to embarass the Arizona Democratic Party in November by allowing this slow-motion implosion to continue. And, as entertaining as that would be for us political bloggers, honestly, nobody really likes rubber neckers.

This post should not be construed as an official endorsement by Blog for Arizona of any candidate.