The Washington Post's Aaron Ringel Problem

Posted by The Green Miles

Why doesn't Aaron Ringel's official campaign bio list the job he held until just 22 months ago? Maybe he doesn't want Arlington voters to know he worked for a firm that did lobbying work for Hugo Chavez.

Ringel's LinkedIn profile shows he worked for Bracewell & Giuliani from May 2006 to December 2007. During that time, it was revealed the firm took as much as $200,000 to lobby for Citgo, the Venezuelan state-run oil company. The firm is also one of the country's biggest lobbyists for Big Oil.

Ringel's disgusting attack on longtime Arlington leader Del. Bob Brink (paid for not by Ringel's campaign but by the state party) re-opens questions about Aaron Ringel. Who is Aaron Ringel? Why is he really running? Who would he represent in Richmond?

I wouldn't expect Arlington Republican Party Chair Mark Kelly to condemn Ringel's attack -- Kelly works for the Heritage Foundation, so Karl Rove tactics are fine with him. I wouldn't expect Eric Brescia to condemn it -- he's only 24 and I can't imagine he'd want to rock the boat. And I certainly wouldn't expect Bob McDonnell to say a word, even though he once served with Del. Brink in the House of Delegates.

But after endorsing Ringel's campaign just a few days ago, the Washington Post can't dodge this one. Its editorial board endorsed a former lobbyist making dirty attacks -- and did it explicitly because Aaron Ringel doesn't have Arlington's best interests in mind.

You have to wonder how much the Post knew or even cared about Ringel himself. The endorsement just seemed like thumbing its nose at Arlington and its silly "smart growth" and "wise use of resources." Given that the Post recently pulled its local reporter out of Arlington, the Post's credibility as a source of news and opinion in Arlington is clearly at stake.

It's not too late. And this dirty attack on a longtime Arlington leader is just the opportunity the Post needed to save its reputation in Arlington. The Post should immediately withdraw its endorsement of Aaron Ringel in the 48th district.

Disgraceful Mailer by Aaron Ringel. Vote Bob Brink!

In case anyone needed any more evidence that there's something fundamentally wrong with Virginia Republicans these days, here's an example of what I'm talking about. The flyer depicted above was paid for and authorized by a supposedly "moderate" Arlington Republican - endorsed by the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post, no less - Aaron Ringel. From what I hear, there's also a Ringel robocall saying essentially the same thing.

In fact, the only thing this inflamatory and disgusting attack mailer proves is that Aaron Ringel doesn't want to (can't?) run on the issues, because he knows he's completely out of step with Arlington voters (not to mention the fact that he has essentially zero public policy experience himself). Instead, Ringel comes out with a mailer designed to induce fear and loathing, as well as to perpetuate assumptions that have no factual basis.

In reality, of course, this bill, HB 1481, specifically excluded anyone involved in "the sexual molestation or physical or sexual abuse or rape of a child." It didn't require, only provided that "a contractor or his employee may request a waiver from disqualification of providing services because of a felony conviction under certain conditions." It only applied to people with a felony conviction which "occurred at least five years prior to the date of the waiver request." It also specifically excluded "any crime against the person under Chapter 4 of Title 18.2: murder, manslaughter, homicide, shooting, stabbing, abduction, assault and battery, carjacking, rape, sexual battery, etc. In short, basically any violent crime against a person is excluded from the waiver request for non-violent, ex-felons. Not only that, but this law would have only applied to those non-violent, ex-felons once they'd been out of prison for 5 years. In sum, this bill provided for a possible waiver for people who were never violent, didn't ever harm a child, had paid their debt to society, and had been "clean" for 5 years or more. Why someone like this would be any more of a threat to children than pretty much anyone else hired by school systems is unclear, unproven, unsubstantiated, and frankly unhinged.

Sadly, Aaron Ringel doesn't appear troubled by the facts in his vicious attack against Del. Bob Brink (D-48). More broadly, all this does is make me wonder whether Ringel's vision for our society is that we continue locking up people at the highest rate of any "advanced" nation in the world, then never give them a chance to reintegrate into society (note: Jim Webb is working on this issue, which he calls a "national disgrace;" for more, see here).

Furthermore, does Aaron Ringel really believe that irresponsibly (and lightly) tossing around the loaded term "convicted felon," tarring all these people as inherently harmful to our children, is in any way constructive, responsible, or sound public policy? Sadly, it appears that Ringel thinks it is. Well, I'm sorry, but this ad is disgusting and Aaron Ringel should be ashamed of himself for authorizing it. Beyond that, the fact that this ad is being used against a superb public servant like Bob Brink tells us a great deal - none of it good - about Republicans, about our political system, and about our culture.

On November 3, I strongly urge that all Arlingtonians in the 48th House of Delegates district reject this disgusting mailer and the person who authorized it. Vote Bob Brink, and let's send a message that Arlington is better than this trash.

P.S. I hear that this template has been used by Republicans on a fill-in-the-name basis against Democratic incumbents across the Commonwealth. The only question was whether Aaron Ringel would have enough money - and lack of scruples - to run it. Sadly, the answer on both those points was "yes."

UPDATE: I received a statement from Del. Brink.

My opponent grew up in the Karl Rove era of Republican politics, and apparently he thinks Rove-style personal attacks, half-truths, and fear-mongering are the way to win an election. I think he's wrong. Having lived in Arlington for over 30 years, I'm confident the voters in the 48th will reject such ham-fisted smear tactics.

WaPo: Arlington's Delegates Should Fight for Loudoun!

When is an endorsement not an endorsement? When it calls the candidate great because he'd do the opposite of what his voters want.

That's the clear implication of the Post's endorsement of Aaron Ringel over Arlington incumbent Bob Brink:

Mr. Brink is a competent legislator but he has opposed widening Interstate 66. That wins points with some homeowners who'd be directly affected but does little for the tens of thousands of commuters who suffer that road daily. Mr. Ringel takes a broader regional view of that issue.

That Bob Brink! Always pandering to his constituents! Somehow I don't think Ringel will be changing his campaign slogan to: "Aaron Ringel: He Won't Look Out for Arlington Homeowners!"

Look, if delegates from the distant suburbs want to push to widen I-66, that's fine. It's their residents that chose a trade-off -- accepting a longer commutes in exchange for a less-expensive homes. And it's not their community that has to worry about the added pollution, noise and threats to local biking and walking trails, right? That's Arlington's concern. And that's why Arlington delegates like Bob Brink have taken the right stand against the expensive, inefficient widening of I-66.

But to say Arlington's delegate should give Arlington's concerns lower priority than those of other districts? That's just plain crazy.

As Lowell detailed, this is clearly the Post trying to look bipartisan by carefully endorsing a few Republicans with no chance of winning. I mean, we're really supposed to believe best candidate for Arlington is one who has nothing to say on his issues page about education, energy or the environment?