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!
Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey was reported recently to have given up the idea of running for County Executive. He is instead said to be considering a challenge to Representative Donna Edwards in the district that includes parts of Prince George’s and Montgomery counties.
Ivey has twice won election as State's Attorney in Prince George’s, but is that enough to help him beat a popular and energetic incumbent who trounced the machine of Al Wynn very recently with grassroots energy? Let's explore that.
First up is the vote total for the 2008 primary. Edwards beat the Wynn 59% to 37% (four other Democrats split the remaining four percent), for a very convincing victory against a long-time incumbent with no money problems and strong name recognition. Now while most are aware that Edwards trounced Wynn in Montgomery County where roughly 1/3 of primary voters lived by more than 2 to 1, many seem to forget that she also won over a convincing 57% of primary voters in Prince George’s.
Montgomery Prince George's Totals Albert R. Wynn 11,731 37,154 78,008 (58.9%) Donna Edwards 28,781 49,227 48,885 (36.9%) From: Maryland Board of Elections
Since the election Edwards seems to have gotten off to at least a decent start cultivating communities that she might not have been familiar with during and before the campaign and not a lot of discontent has been voiced about her work (* see below for the one exception). While there is always room to improve on her outreach and media work, she has been seen in the community more than Wynn was and at least as much as most Members of Congress who don't expect a serious challenge.
Second, it’s incredibly hard to garner endorsements or donations from PACs, prominent officials and other organizations when running against an incumbent. As now-Representative Donna Edwards learned when she challenged the incumbent Al Wynn, just like now State Senator Jamie Raskin learned when he went up against the Senate Presient Pro-tem Ida Ruben, and others have learned the hard way, even when the incumbent is not popular, doesn’t respond to their interests, or vote their way, few groups are willing to take a risk on a challenger.
While Edwards did manage to break Wynn’s hold on the seat, she did so with an intense, long-term effort that included a close loss in 2006 that demonstrated to would-be-2008 supporters that she could beat the incumbent. Since then she has locked down the support of corporations, associations, unions, advocacy groups and community organizations, as illustrated not just by the endorsing organizations listed on her home page, but by numerous groups that donate substantial sums of money for her reelection, including many who signed up since her powerful victory over Wynn.
Now any challenger knows that there are lots of sources of money. Some have suggested that Ivey may find the cash among a few strongly pro-Israel organizations and individuals who might not like her “present” vote one time, she has hardly raised the ire of even that block. After all, she was swept to office with strong support from Jews in Montgomery County and elsewhere impressed with her strong progressive credentials and work. This reader will be very interested to see where Ivey thinks he can get the money he’ll need to make his name known to the 1/3 of primary voters who live in Montgomery County, win over Prince George’s residents who just finished voting for Edwards, and run a competitive race in less than nine months before the primary with so many already firmly committed to Edwards. She has voted and acted well in line with what her constituents wanted when they elected her, so unless Ivey can demonstrate real differences or an incredible but hitherto unknown fundraising base, this may be a very tough race.
Questions have also arisen in publications, from the Washington Post to local blogs about how Ivey has served as prosecutor. While these questions may not be of any prominence or concern to many, they are surely as interesting to as large an audience as the few concerns Marylanders have about Edwards.
Finally, it seems that Ivey may have to compete with Montgomery County Del. Herman Taylor for whatever money there may be in the business community, moderate voters and whatever anti-Edwards sentiment there is. Taylor has been stirring rumors that he's interested in running for Congress, too, but while it's always possible that the double-team challenge will whittle down Edwards' support, it's more likely that the presence of Ivey and Taylor will assure Edwards of victory as they scramble to unseat her. And since Taylor has hardly set even Montgomery on fire with his performance as a delegate and is presumably far less well known in Prince George's, he is unlikely to stand a real chance himself.
Donna Edwards was a welcome change when she offered residents of Maryland's 4th congressional district progressive leadership that listens and responds to their needs. She ran a strong, grassroots campaign that succeeded in convincingly beating a long-time incumbent. Since winning election she seems to have served her constituents well, hasn't made any significant mistakes or powerful enemies, and continues to work to build her strength. While Glenn Ivey is widely thought to be a popular official and a capable candidate, it is not clear that there is any real room for him to beat Edwards in 2010 if she keeps working hard.
On Thursday, July 30th, the Progressive Caucus held a press conference to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the inclusion of a strong public option in the health care bill.
(video quality will improve once it has finished processing)
In addition to the controversy over Joe Lieberman in the Senate, House Democrats are also divided over who will be chairing the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress. John Dingell of Michigan, one of the longest-serving Congressmen in history and a major advocate for the US auto industry, is the current Chair, but Henry Waxman of California is mounting an effort to have Dingell ousted. This is a big deal because work on any climate change legislation will likely be conducted through E&C, and Dingell, in keeping with the industry he represents, has tried to block, delay, or water down climate change legislation; Waxman, by contrast, has been a leader on environmental issues, including climate change, for decades.
So far, it looks like Dingell has the upper hand, but there may be some kind of arrangement made -- perhaps brokered by, of all people, Steny Hoyer -- that could push Dingell to keep Chairmanship, but adopt a more progressive stance on climate change. In either case, we should hope that the newly expanded Democratic majority in Congress will make the most of the mandate they have been given.
While Barack Obama is working on his transition to the White House, there's a new conflict brewing in the Senate, over whether to oust Joe Lieberman as Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As you know, Lieberman's record of hard right-wing stances on critical issues like Iraq and Iran led to his defeat by Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in Connecticut in 2006; he then left the Democratic Party and won the general election, largely with Republican support.
Since then, he has acted mostly as a thorn in the Democrats' side: From failing to conduct proper oversight of the Bush administration to campaigning for John McCain and impugning Barack Obama's patriotism, Lieberman's sole use to the Democrats in the last two years has been to provide the 51st vote for Democratic control of the Senate. With last week's election boosting the Democratic caucus to at least 57 (Lieberman included), however, Democrats have far less incentive to treat him as a member in good standing. Thus, Majority Leader Harry Reid has been openly discussing the possibility of removing Lieberman from Homeland Security and giving him another, less prestigious, committee assignment; a vote on the matter is scheduled for next week.
The question for us is, where do our Senators, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, stand on Lieberman's status? On the one hand, turning against a Senate colleague is not easy, given the tradition of that body; on the other, it's clear that Lieberman, despite some liberal leanings on domestic issues, is a Republican in all but name, and it would be foolish to have someone like that, who also has a history of attacking his party's leadership, in charge of conducting oversight on an Obama administration. So far, I've seen nothing that indicates where either Senator would go; Mikulski, as far as I know, stayed neutral during the Lieberman-Lamont battle, and Cardin wasn't in the Senate at the time. Do any readers have any information in this regard?
Via the Great Orange Satan, the 1st Congressional District has been rated by House Republicans as "Leaning Democrat, expect to lose... unless there's serious change." This comes from the same "death list" that predicts a GOP net loss of 34 seats this year. We all knew this race was close, but if even House Republicans are prepared to write off Andy Harris, he's got to be in serious trouble.
Of course, that hardly means Frank Kratovil has got it in the bag, so contribute or (better yet) volunteer if you can.
UPDATE: Also check out the Washington Post's endorsement of Kratovil:
FOR THE FIRST time since 1990, voters in Maryland's 1st Congressional District, which stretches from the lower Eastern Shore to northern Baltimore County, won't send Wayne T. Gilchrest to Congress. In a bruising primary this year, Republicans ousted the nine-term House member known for bucking the party establishment, choosing state Sen. Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County). Now, in a hotly contested race that has attracted national attention, Mr. Harris faces Queen Anne's County State's Attorney Frank M. Kratovil Jr. (D). Mr. Harris is a staunch conservative who would bring another partisan voice to Washington. Mr. Kratovil is an independent-minded moderate whom Mr. Gilchrest crossed party lines to endorse. Voters should elect Mr. Kratovil, a thoughtful candidate who will continue Mr. Gilchrest's practice of rejecting politics-as-usual.
The House bill that was voted down Monday wasn't great, by any means. Although it included a number of things that I thought were necessary to keep the bailout package from being simply, well, a bailout for Wall Street, the basic premise of the plan -- that the Treasury should buy up all the mortgage-backed securities that went sour, then sell them if and when the housing market recovers -- was intact. It's a flawed premise, especially with $700 billion on the line, but with the concessions made to congressional Democrats, I thought it was better than nothing. But, of course, the House voted it down, thanks, in large part, to a revolt from Republicans. Although many Democrats, including Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings, also voted no, the divisions within the GOP have been much more significant, with the ostensible leadership of the Republicans, from George W. Bush to John McCain to John Boehner, unable to persuade enough of their rank and file that simpleminded free-market rhetoric won't get us out of this mess.
As for the "No Bailouts" plan put out by Edwards and other House progressives, I'm actually a little underwhelmed. For starters, it's less an alternative proposal than a list of things they would like to include in a financial rescue package. Second, most of the agenda items aim at speculation in financial markets, which I think has had little to do with the financial crisis. (Short explanation: short-selling and other speculative attacks may seem bad, but they only work if there are underlying weaknesses in the institutions under attack.) Third, I'm surprised that these progressives didn't propose outright nationalization of the financial sector, as was done in Sweden during its financial crisis in the early 1990s, and which has been endorsed by such worthies as Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman.
In the end, I don't think we're likely to see anything like an optimal solution emerge this week, as the looming credit crunch is likely to scare enough Congressmen into voting for a revised bailout plan. What we should hope for is that the final product can be revisited by the next administration and the next Congress; since it seems pretty likely at this point that we're going to have a Democratic trifecta next year, the important thing is that this bailout plan not permanently tie our hands.
It seems that the Bush Administration, Congressional Democrats, and Senate Republicans were close to completing a deal to save the financial system -- one that, at least in principle, allowed for oversight and protections of taxpayer money. Then John McCain decided to go all prima donna on us, barged into the negotiations, and sided, kinda sorta, with the House Republicans' deeply unserious proposal to cut capital gains taxes as a way to solve the crisis. (Because the problem with Wall Street is that all those mortgage-backed assets on their books have gained value lately.) In any event, it looks like McCain's antics have brought negotiations back to square one, with the economy still in crisis. Now that's leadership we can believe in.
Of course, it may not be such a bad thing if Congress takes a little more time to hash out a solution. Why $700 billion is needed, now, to save the financial system still doesn't make sense to me. And if alternative proposals, like James Galbraith's, get more consideration in the meantime, that's hardly a bad thing.
(Excellent post on the coming battle for universal health care. - promoted by Isaac Smith)
82% of Americans think our health care system needs a "major overhaul." On top of that, over 90% of Americans [pdf] think the next President and Congress should improve the quality and affordability of health care.
With the worsening economy continuing to be the top issue for most Americans, this hope for change isn't hard to understand. American health care spending is projected to reach a full 1/5th of our GDP by 2015, which means by then, we'll be spending twenty cents of every dollar we make on health care. Health care premiums have risen 86% between 2000 and 2006 while wages only rose 20%, putting the strain on working families. Health care costs continue to be the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America.
"Rapidly rising health care costs are not simply a federal budget problem," the GAO report says. "Growth in health-related spending is the primary driver of the fiscal challenges facing state and local governments as well. Unsustainable growth in health care spending also threatens to erode the ability of employers to provide coverage to their workers and undercuts their ability to compete in a global marketplace."
Quite simply, with rising health care costs (including $50 billion per year to pay for insurance industry advertising) being born out by working families and American businesses, health care is a top economic concern. To keep American workers at their best, and to keep American business competitive in the world, something has to change.
Nancy Pelosi has recently declared health care expansion to be #2 on her list of legislative priorities, right after ending the Iraq war. In the past month, tens of thousands of Americans have told us they want quality, affordable health care for all. Now it's time to ask Congress.
So, Congress, which side are you on? Are you with us for quality, affordable health care for all? Or are you with the insurance companies, working to preserve our broken system?
We've set up a quick and easy way for you to contact your Members of Congress and ask them if they support our vision for health care reform. Just click here and enter in your phone number and address. Choose the elected official you want to talk to and in a few moments, we'll call your phone and connect you automatically.
Over the next few weeks, we want to make 100,000 calls to Congress, asking every Member which side they are on. We need your help to do it, so please click here to call!
Once your done with your call, tell us what happened so we can keep track of where Congress stands. As of today, we're proud to announce Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), are with us. The rest, so far, are unknown. You can see the full list here.
Health care is a priority for the American people. It's a priority for Nancy Pelosi. It's up to us to make sure it's a priority for Congress as well. Please take a moment, call your Members of Congress, and ask them which side they are on.
Oh, and if you have a blog or website, you can help spread the word about this campaign by embedding the widget you see above on your site. Just copy and paste the code here.
