On paper, Mrs. Scott – a forty year fixture in the party
– had all the illustrious credentials you would expect in a successful National
Committeewoman candidate: former party chair, state cabinet secretary, local
experience as a council member and mayor, and ex-Reagan Administration aide.
This distinguished background aligns roughly with the
backgrounds of previous women who have held the position during the past 20
years: Joyce Tehres (former party chair and local official), Ellen Sauerbrey
(former House Minority Leader and 1994 gubernatorial nominee), and Helen
Bentley (congresswoman and ex-Nixon Administration appointee).
So why did Mrs. Scott lose? For me, it boils down to
these four reasons:
1) She had a terrific opponent: As I blogged earlier, Nicolee
Ambrose’s accomplishments and potential as a party leader is something I
noticed long before we ever became friends. When incumbent Joyce Tehres
announced she was retiring, Nicolee hit the ground running. She assembled a
team of advisors, including Prince George’s County Central Committee Member
Heather Olsen, who served as Ambrose’s campaign manager, and began crisscrossing
the state, meeting with central committees. Ambrose immediately began lining up
endorsements, and had a social media presence weeks before Mrs. Scott’s own
campaign Facebook page debuted. As this was happening, Mrs. Scott – comfortable
in the inevitability of her succession – and her supporters chose to dismiss
Ambrose’s credentials and legitimacy as a candidate. In other words, Ambrose
regarded the upcoming central committee vote as a race to be won, whereas Mrs.
Scott treated it like a mere formality to her anointed ascension until the
final week of the campaign.
2) She
had baggage: Mrs. Scott’s brief
stint as MD GOP chairman was not without its controversies. The Rule 11
controversy simmered in many activists’ minds, as did the party’s failure to recruit
an Attorney General candidate even though Montgomery County activist Jim
Shalleck offered to run. Later, Mrs. Scott’s decision to intervene in the
Sixth District congressional primary angered supporters of the incumbent
and eventual winner Roscoe Bartlett. In other words, running for National
Committeewoman and working to defeat the state's senior GOP congressman by
portraying his reelection prospects as “impossible” proved to be mutually
contradictory goals.
3) Her missteps and misstatements created
controversies: Mrs. Scott did a
lot of things you would not expect a candidate running for National
Committeewoman to do. First, she kicked off her campaign by attending a pro-gas
tax rally in Annapolis, and misrepresented the event’s real purpose in a message
to central committee members when her actions were questioned. Next, she made
false claims as to her fundraising results while chairman, and refused to budge
when confronted with the actual numbers. Indeed, Mrs. Scott seemed to following
the following pattern for much of the campaign: She made statements
demonstrably contrary to the facts and, when confronted with the facts, chose
to ignore them, instead repeating the false claim with increased volume and
fervency. In the end, her own words proved to be her biggest liability.
4) Her negative attacks on Ambrose backfired: Ambrose
never personally attacked Mrs. Scott during the campaign. By contrast, Mrs.
Scott and her supporters engaged in a Mean
Girls - style whispering campaign
against Ambrose, with much of the chatter centering on whether Ambrose – a
mother of two young children – could make time for the position’s duties.
Ironically, when Mrs. Scott launched her political career in the 1970s, she was
about the same age as Ambrose and had young children as well. This bitchiness
hit its crescendo when one of the people delivering Scott’s nominating
speeches, a 17 year old boy, stated that central committee members should not,
“send a girl to do a woman’s job.” He was booed and hissed off the stage as a
result. Though not decisive to Ambrose's win, a Scott backer I spoke to at the convention claimed that statement cost
Mrs. Scott at least three wavering votes in his county's delegation.
Excluding 2012, the race for National Committeewoman has
only been a competitive affair one time during the past 24 years. That was in
1988, when Helen Bentley beat conservative activist Mary McNally Rose in what
was seen as an ideological struggle between the party’s conservative and
moderate wings.
But since then, succession has largely been a matter of
consensus. The position was typically rewarded to the next most senior GOP
woman in the queue, and the central committee vote was merely a ratification of
the obvious.
This year, however, frustration and a yearning for new
direction and energy changed the paradigm. The post had become
a prize to be earned, rather than an entitlement to be rewarded.
Unfortunately, no one told Mrs. Scott the rules had changed, and she assumed
that it was hers because, well, it should be hers. Meanwhile, Ambrose sensed the sea change. Her dynamism, track record at the national level, and forward-looking campaign message proved a better match for the evolving expectations for the position held by many central committee members.
To me, the race is the Tortoise versus the Hare scenario
revisited. Only this time, the Hare – Ambrose – took the race seriously. As a
result, the Tortoise – Scott, lulled into a sense of overconfidence by past
wins and ways – never stood a chance. Consequently, in the end, the better candidate running the better campaign won.
No comments:
Post a Comment