Welcome! Log in or register to comment on the blog posts you see here, or even write your own blog post! Find out how to use this site, and join the conversation today!
In a recent piece at the Huffington Post, Sally Kohn eloquently wrote:
The single greatest thing we can do to honor the spirit of Obama's campaign and life work is bring as much enthusiasm to holding Obama accountable as we did to electing him.
Personally, I could not agree more. I'm sure some people will be hesitant to begin pushing Obama. Many of you are still reveling in the glory of this historic election and want nothing more than to keep believing the ballots cast on November 4th will equal the change we need. But our civic engagement cannot end with Election Day. Obama's campaign proved that America can truly harness its people power for positive and progressive change. NOW is the time to keep that momentum rolling.
Ok, so, how can you help? For a start, you can tune into the December 4th event Realizing the Promise: A Forum on Community Faith and Democracy. , organized by the Campaign for Community Values and the Gamaliel Foundation (for which Obama once worked). This event is an unprecedented opportunity for real, everyday people to have a voice in shaping public policy in our country.
During the forum, community leaders will speak directly with elected officials about the issues that matter most for all of us and the policies and solutions we need to make America work for all of us.
Check out this great video. about the event and what Realizing the Promise means...
AND - 3 Maryland State Representatives are confirmed to attend: Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Rep. John Sarbanes and Rep. Elijah Cummings.
Chris Van Hollen was just appointed a member of the Order of Orange-Nassau, a recognition given out by the Dutch monarchy. Not only does he have Dutch ancestry, but he's the head of the congressional caucus on the Netherlands, which apparently rates the appointment. One question the politicker article doesn't answer: whether this makes him Congressman Van Hollen of Orange-Nassau, because that's a pretty sweet title.
But in the area of funny recognition, Van Hollen didn't win the day. No, the title went to Martin O'Malley, who was given an honorary doctorate by the National University of Ireland, Galway. Which isn't really funny in itself, until you see this picture:
That's our Governor, back row, second from left, wearing the greatest hat ever in the history of the world. He's going to need to watch out, though, because if that picture ends up in an ad during the next election, the whole cool guy image he picked up from his band is going to be completely burst.
The Washington Post repeated 3 endorsements. This is a big factor in the only close contest: Donna Edwards vs Albert Wynn. Wynn's hectic attempted dash to suddenly represent his district after a decade of neglect didn't fool the Post's editors. Will it fool voters in the 4th? As other bloggers have noted here, it depends on who turns out. Bad weather may do little to dampen the excitement of actually participating in a presidential primary for the first time in recent memory. Here's how the Post sees the candidates in MD 4th, 5th and 8th Districts.
For the House in Maryland Two able incumbents and a spirited challenger | Saturday, February 9, 2008; A14
TUESDAY'S DEMOCRATIC primary in Maryland's 4th Congressional District is a rematch of the 2006 contest between Rep. Albert R. Wynn and challenger Donna F.Edwards. In that face-off, just 17 months ago, Ms. Edwards, a civic activist running her first race for elective office, stunned Mr. Wynn and the state's Democratic Party establishment by coming within 3 percentage points of victory.
See, the thing about the Democratic Party is, it's not as if they don't know how to play hardball. Observe:
Now the campaign for children's health care is getting personal.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md., chairman of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is targeting eight Republicans for voting against legislation that expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the expansion which President Bush is set to veto.
[...]
The radio ads started at "drive time'' today, the DCCC says, and will run for a week in several congressional districts: o calls will run in the following districst of Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio, Thelma Drake (R-Va.), Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Randy Kuhl R-N.Y.) Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) and Tim Walberg (R-Mich.).
The automated phone calls are delivering messages from Lisa Matzenbach, whose daughter, Liane, suffers from a chronic illness.
Say what you will about those tactics, but it's clear that, when the Democrats want to fight for something (in this case SCHIP), they will go in guns blazing. This makes their relative passivity regarding Iraq (and now Iran) all the more baffling. It reminds me of this old post by Matthew Yglesias:
When an issue is important to them, Democrats will really fight for it. Not just lip service -- they'll run meaningful political risks on behalf of the public sector unions.
To stop a war with Iraq? To halt torture? Illegal surveillance? Suddenly you see a lot less speed, a lot less determination, and a lot less backbone. Not that I begrudge the unions their influence, either. They won it fair and square -- with organizing, with money, with volunteers, with discipline, with clear requests, etc. As you see with any influential group, securing influence takes work. Sadly, there are virtually no institutions of any consequence organized around providing a progressive take on the substance -- as opposed to labor procedures -- of national security issues. And until that changes, you'll keep having what we have today; a Democratic Party with very clear ideas about whether or not airport screeners should be represented by unions, but very hazy ideas about how to deal with Iran.
Indeed. One gets the impression that the Democratic leadership would work harder to end the war if there were a national security equivalent of the Sierra Club or NARAL. I suppose MoveOn.org could be such a group, but they're more of a multi-issue organization, and besides, given the speed with which the Democrats in Congress dropped them at the first sign of controversy, they apparently don't have much influence yet inside the Beltway.
Last Thursday about two dozen constituents met with Rep. Chris Van Hollen to urge him to introduce impeachment legislation based on the resolution passed by Takoma Park in July and currently being considered for a referendum in Garrett Park. Below is an excerpt from Thomas Nephew's account of the meeting, which can be viewed in its entrirety on our web site at MD8Impeach.
Last night's speech from President Bush, urging Americans to stay the course (yet again) on Iraq, doesn't appear to be going over well, or at least isn't winning over any opponents. Fred Kaplan:
President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.
He seemed almost broken to me. His voice raspy, his eyes watery, his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered. I thought I would feel angry; but I found myself verging toward pity. The case was so weak, the argument so thin, the evidence for optimism so obviously strained that one wondered whom he thought he was persuading.
The response from Maryland's congressional delegation has been similarly hostile:
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Baltimore Democrat, said Bush's speech once again "changes the goals" for Iraq.
"There was going to have to be a drawdown anyway," Cummings said. "It's almost insulting to any informed citizen."
Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Montgomery County said Bush's speech delivered "more of the same," which he said would mean "more deaths, more billions of dollars lost, more insecurity."
It's also good to see the major Democratic presidential candidates call more strongly for ending the war now than they have (Garance Franke-Ruta rounds up their responses). I especially liked John Edwards' televised rebuttal:
Via David Lublin, we get Rep. Chris Van Hollen's reaction to the Petraeus/Crocker report to Congress:
The testimony by General David Petreaus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker today offered no new information from what the Bush Administration has put forward in recent weeks. The whole purpose of the so-called ‘surge’ was to create political space to enable the Iraqi government to undertake political reconciliation. The GAO report on Iraq released last week underscored that this not happened, with Iraq only meeting one of eight legislative benchmarks. And in the assessment of our intelligence community, as enunciated in the declassified NIE of August 2007, the Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to twelve months. Our brave American service men and women are sacrificing daily for a policy that has no end in sight. A policy of ‘more of the same’ is no strategic vision, strains our military to the breaking point, and enables Iraqi leaders to dither endlessly instead of reaching a political consensus over the future of their country.
Great! Couldn't have said it any better myself. I assume, then, that Rep. Van Hollen will be offering vigorous opposition to the toothless Iraq withdrawal bill, HR 3087, currently working its way through the House of Representatives, right?
Or not: According to BarbinMD of Daily Kos, Van Hollen is "undecided" about the bill. But I don't see how one can denounce a policy of "more of the same" and be "undecided" about a bill that will guarantee "more of the same," and continue to trap our armed forces in the current chaos in Iraq. As a member of the Democratic leadership, I would hope that Rep. Van Hollen will do more to change our war policy than to be "undecided."
As you may know, the dynamic duo of Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers are currently engaged in a campaign directed at certain moderate and conservative Democrats who have been voting with the Bush administration on key issues, including Iraq and the warrantless wiretapping law. Called "Bush Dogs," after the fact that many of these Democrats are members of the Blue Dog caucus, these Dems have capitulated over and over to the Bush administration -- creating, in Stoller's words, a working conservative majority in Congress. As progressives, we have to do something to get them to start voting with their party and with the American people, who want to bring our troops home from Iraq and don't want Bush's Justice Department to have unchecked surveillance powers. Already the camapaign has generated some buzz; check out Open Left to see for yourself.
Now, of the 30 or so members listed as Bush Dogs, none are from Maryland -- but that's not to say this campaign shouldn't concern Marylanders. If it hadn't been for Donna Edwards, Al Wynn would likely be on that list as well -- though apart from Iraq and warrantless wiretapping, he's still a problematic Democrat. Likewise, Dutch Ruppersberger (like Wynn) made a similar list in the American Prospect a few years ago for his votes against the middle class:
After the 2000 census provided a redistricting opportunity, Maryland's Democratic General Assembly, according to The Almanac of American Politics, literally designed the district for Ruppersberger, who had served both as a prosecutor and as Baltimore County executive (the job once held by Spiro Agnew). First elected in 2002, Ruppersberger won the seat last time with 67 percent of the vote. “I have the most conservative of the Democratic seats held by members of Congress from Maryland,” he insists. “We were able to get the seat back because of my moderate record.” Maybe; but John Kerry carried the district comfortably, 54 percent to 45 percent. Yet Ruppersberger has one of the most pro-Republican records in the House on pocketbook issues. A personal friend of Charles Cawley, president of the financial giant MBNA, Ruppersberger championed the bankruptcy bill and garnered $17,250 from the financial industry. He also voted to cap lawsuits, and for estate-tax repeal. On his bankruptcy vote, Ruppersberger explains, “It was a hard bill, and I put in several amendments that would exempt people with medical bills” from going bankrupt. His amendments lost, but he voted for the bill anyway.
In fairness, Ruppersberger voted against the warrantless wiretapping bill, but did vote for continued war funding without enforceable benchmarks this year.
