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.
We at Sum of Change, attended a health care town hall last night, hosted by Congresswoman Donna Edwards. The Congresswoman gave a brief speech, and then opened the floor for questions. The town hall was heated, which should come as no surprise. Not only were conservative groups organizing to get people out to these town halls (with detailed instructions about how to act and talk), OFA 2.0, several Unions, and liberal bloggers pushed progressives to turn out as well. The debate was vigorous, but not disrespectful. If anyone came there with the intent of disrupting the town hall, they failed miserably.
We'll go through a round of the Q&A's. I strongly recommend watching these all the way through, the Congresswoman knows how to finish an answer.
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)
Donna Edwards' statement on her bailout vote is presented in full, after the jump. But basically, what she says is that she switched her vote after Senator Obama promised to support providing financial relief to homeowners. She ran on the issue of homeowner relief here in MD-04, so this is in keeping with her campaign promises. Also, if the Maryland commenter I quoted in a comment to an earlier post was accurate in her assessment, this vote won't actually hurt Edwards among many (most?) older middle class constituents, who (apparently incorrectly) made a direct connection between this bankers' crisis and the stability of their stock market-based 401K retirement accounts.
The bailout bill stank to high heaven, so I still consider this unfortunate, no matter what good promises Edwards received in return for her vote. Congresswoman Edwards would also do well to remember that Senator Obama was against telecom immunity before he was for it, so he is entirely capable of changing his mind and going back on promises. She may well have to hold his feet to the fire to get him to keep his promise. Toward that end, she had better start assembling (or join up with) a caucus in the House NOW, to enforce this promise from Obama, since it will take more than a promise to a single Congresscritter to ensure that something favorable happens. As the FISA business showed, Obama can be flipped, depending on the exigencies of his immediate situation. Ain't nuthin' personal, just business as usual up there on the Hill.
UPDATE: Shoulda done a quick Internet "news tour" before hitting Save - bill has passed. Title updated, otherwise too busy now to tidy up original text accordingly; consider it a(n) historical diary/post, or something...
UPDATE #2: Just took a look at the roll call. In the Maryland CODEL, only Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06) stayed with his original opposition, voting against this new version as well. Previous opponents Donna Edwards (MD-04) and Elijah Cummings (MD-07) voted in favor this time. Ugh...
_____________________
As widely reported, some version of the "Bailout Bill" close to that passed by the Senate will likely pass in the House soon. There is a full-court press on for its passage, including personal calls from Obama to various Democratic Congresscritters. While some of the major lefty economists and economic populists still oppose the latest versions (Dean Baker, Ian Welsh, David Sirota, and William Isaac were among them, last time I checked), big names like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Joseph Stieglitz are falling in line, though very unhappily so.
While the "Skeptics Caucus" headed by Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) continues to voice opposition from the left side of the political spectrum, theirs is likely a lost cause for the time being. From Brad Sherman's Website comes a 7-page criticism (.pdf) of the bill; a decent alternative would have been nice, but given the breathtaking speed at which events have transpired, it would have been a huge effort to put something decent together in so short a time. These criticisms will hopefully be taken seriously and considered during the development of responsible legislation under what will hopefully be an Obama Administration.
To wrap up, here is a You-Tube video of Brad Sherman on the House floor (0:48), providing further indication of just how hard arms are being twisted up on the Hill.
From Tuesday afternoon's press conference by the House Democratic progressives caucus offering their bailout alternative, here's Donna Edwards (1:30):
From the Website of Peter DeFazio (D-OR), after the jump comes the text of a "Letter to (his) Democratic colleagues", and the text of the proposed Act itself. And, if you have the appropriate software - Real Audio, I think - you can watch video of today's entire press conference (57min) from DeFazio and cosponsors, via cspan.org - you can try this direct link to see if it works; since I don't have the necessary Real Audio software, I was unable to check out the direct link myself, to see if it works.
UPDATE: I finally got into Donna Edward's {house.gov} Website, as well as Elijah Cummings'; hopefully the House server continues to stay up. Here is a statement Edwards released yesterday on the bailout, and Elijah Cummings also released a statement yesterday; although relevant, they are separate and distinct from today's just-announced DeFazio bill these two MD Dems are cosponsoring (see below). Both announcements have been inserted in this post - after the jump, at the bottom...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
There has presumably already been a press conference on this (scheduled for 3pm today, according to Stoller), but I am TV-less, so here is the information from SEIU's Website:
New Plan Would Protect Taxpayers, Tighten Regulatory Safeguards
WASHINGTON, DC - The two million-member SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is backing the plan announced today by Rep. Peter DeFazio and other Members of Congress to restore confidence in the financial markets. The new bill, called the "No BAILOUTS Act" (Bringing Accountability, Increased Liquidity, Oversight, and Upholding Taxpayer Security), is being introduced by Rep. DeFazio (OR-04), with Rep. Kaptur (OH-09), Rep. Scott (VA-03), Rep. Cummings (MD-07), Rep. Doggett (TX-25), Rep. Holt (NJ-12), Rep. Edwards (MD-04) and Rep. Hirono (HI-02).
[continued...]
The rest of SEIU's announcement is after the jump (along with Edwards' and Cummings' press releases from yesterday)...
Although she hasn't said much publicly - not that I can find, at least, including on her official government Website - Donna Edward apparently is still part of Congressman Brad Sherman's (D-CA) caucus opposing the bailout, at least in its original form.
I haven't yet seen a lot of analysis online of Sunday's agreed-on bill worked out by the House leadership, at least at my usual favorite sites - no surprise, given that the bill just became public, and is over 100 pages long. It looks like Krugman is reluctantly signing on with the "improved bill", though with nose firmly pinched shut. Barry Ritholtz has compiled a long list of links to analysis and commentary here. We'll have to wait an see, as the experts read and analyze the 100+ page bill, whether they agree with Krugman that it is sufficiently better than Henry Paulson's original 3-page proposal to be worthy of support. And of course, how the members of the progressive caucus led by Brad Sherman respond will be of particular interest.
Matt Stoller has information on the position taken by Brad Sherman's caucus. See his post here, which includes the final page of the caucus' letter, showing the signatures of the caucus members, including Edwards. From Stoller's Flickr photo archives you can access small print but readable images of page 1, page 2, and page 3 of the caucus' 24Sep letter to Speaker Pelosi.
Brad Sherman is usually considered a moderate, from what I've read. However, his background is as a financial professional (accountant), and as one commenter noted, maybe he simply found this hubris and BS from Wall Street too much to bear, and as someone knowledgeable about financial practices, felt he needed to take the lead on this. If so, good for him.
The Baltimore Sunreported last week that calls to Donna Edwards from "hundreds of constituents" were entirely against the original Paulson proposal. There wasn't much specific in the quote she gave the Sun last week:
"Members on both sides of the aisle are hearing very similarly from their constituents. And I think it begs the question of how quickly we need to proceed. I think it's much more important to get it right than to get it done fast."
If the bill that is introduced on the House floor doesn't measure up, Donna Edwards and the other members of Brad Sherman's caucus will have to hold fast, in the hope they will be able to add to their ranks and get stronger, before too many Blue Dogs and similar corporatized Congresscritters gain an upper hand.
It appears that all the intensive weekend discussions have mostly involved Congressional leadership and the chairs of the relevant finance committees. When business opens on Monday, things promise to be interesting on the floors of the House and Senate.
...
...The real significance of the bailout debate is that it lays bare the moral foundation of the conservative worldview about small government: that wealth is a sign of virtuous character, while financial mediocrity signals vice: laziness, sloth, an inability to set limits. Anything that interferes with the natural reward system for individual effort is, well, unnatural, and ought to be opposed...
...
...Critics have cried "hypocrisy" at conservatives' willingness to throw a government lifeline to Wall Street while refusing to do the same for ordinary Americans. But calling free-market, pro-bailout conservatives "hypocrites" lets them off easy. In reality, there is a consistent worldview behind their position -- it's just not one most are willing to talk about: the reason government should aid the rich but not the poor is that the rich are presumed to use money more wisely -- after all, that's why they became rich in the first place. This belief is the cornerstone of trickle-down economics: the theory is that tax breaks to those with money -- individuals and companies--are more important than tax breaks to those without, because the investment savvy of the rich will trickle down to benefit the rest of us...
...
...While trickle-down economics theory can be used to mask a raw power grab, it is also a philosophy of moral superiority which many conservatives have come to truly believe. It credits the wealthy not only with financial savoir-faire, but with character excellence: the rich are not just financially wise, but morally good, because they use their resources in ways that promote, instead of harming, the general welfare. With the meltdown of the Wall Street giants, it's time to admit that's just not so...
...
...Whatever you think of the merits of the government rescue plan,... its moral underpinnings -- and thinly veiled class component that views the rich and poor as having grossly uneven desserts -- should be part of the conversation. Conservatives should get the chance to explain if they are hypocrites or just think they are holier than the rest of us.
Yep, it would appear we are in a new version of the Gilded Age.
Among our two U.S. Senators, along with my own Congresswoman Donna Edwards, and leading corporate Democrat, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, only Ben Cardin has provided an early response to the Administration's proposed $700,000,000,000* (*for starters) Christmas-in-September present to Wall Street. Here is Sen. Benjamin Cardin's statement:
September 19th: Our financial markets are in free fall and we must take bold, bipartisan action to restore predictability and confidence to our economy. I am looking forward to reviewing details of the bailout proposal, but Congress will work quickly with the Administration to provide the tools that are necessary to ensure our nation's economic security.
Once the immediate crisis has eased, we must closely examine how our financial system was allowed to become so vulnerable in recent years. Any examination must include the effects of deregulation, deficit spending, the trade deficit and our over dependence on foreign energy sources. Once the dust settles, we must take decisive action that will prevent the type of financial collapse that we have witnessed in recent weeks and restore fiscal soundness to our economic system.
I'm sure the others will have something to say tomorrow. I cannot see Donna Edwards signing on to this abomination as is, based on who she is and how she conducted her campaign. As for Steny Hoyer... well, I'm sure he has been in some back room discussions on this, given his position. As a primary Democratic functionary representing corporate interests in Washington, he definitely bears watching, though.
Sen. Mikulski's response might also be interesting. In looking at the items on which she issues press releases (i.e., what she considers worthy of "bragging" about), and the topic titles that pop down under the subheading "On The Issues" (go to her Senate Homepage and hover your cursor over that subheading), she should be very afraid of this proposal, since it is likely to take money from an already depleted Treasury that could otherwise go for all the programs she advocates. My theory about her otherwise inexplicable sell-out on FISA and telecom immunity is that it was a politically defensive move on her part, i.e., she chucked the Fourth Amendment over the side to build up some political/negotiating chits for use in defending the ever-endangered programs she holds dear, a lot of them being social programs important to her constituents - the kind of programs that are always first on the chopping block when budgets get tight. In light of what is happening to the middle class - see Eric Luedtke's recent post concerning the "state of working Maryland" , and the related post that follows it - Sen. Mikulski has good reason to be concerned.
For my part, I hope Congressional response will be more like that of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which is presented in its entirety, after the jump.
