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!
As many of you are probably aware, a number of conservative groups, including Conservatives for Patients' Rights and FreedomWorks, intend to derail health care reform by disrupting town hall meetings held by members of Congress while on August recess. The tactic is reminiscent of the so-called Brooks Brothers riot in 2000, in which conservative activists, pretending to be ordinary citizens, successfully shut down the recounting of the vote in Florida. By creating the appearance of mass outrage over President Obama and Congress' attempts to enact comprehensive reform, conservatives hope to scare members away from finally making health care available and affordable to all Americans.
The latest example of this faux grassroots uprising happened in New York, and involved our own Steny Hoyer.
As Eric Kleefeld notes, the guy yelling at Rep. Hoyer organized one of those Tea Party protests back in April. So he's hardly just a concerned individual.
We're likely to see more of these antics in the next few weeks. Below the fold, I've posted some of the scheduled town hall meetings that our representatives will be holding in Maryland. If you have the chance to attend one of these meetings, see if these conservative groups try to disrupt the proceeedings there.
(Comments to the original post in question are now closed, but since I already went to the trouble of putting this together, I'm posting it as a diary)
The idea of opposing Hoyer in a primary race comes up now and again, although generally from progressive activists outside of Maryland politics. Given all the power he has amassed, and (relatedly) all the chits he has collected from other state and national politicians over the years for favors he has done, any great state legislator will certainly also be smart enough to know what a formidable challenge it would be to take on Hoyer.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be tried, just that one should go into it with eyes open, and steeled for a very steeply uphill battle. I also think it needs to start early, with voter education, as in, here's why you MD-05 voters should toss out a guy with huge power and seniority, who brings home lots of bacon to your district....
Hey, Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) got beat back in the 90s (a general election rather than a primary), so it could happen, but as in the case of that Foley-Nethercutt race, it will likely require a number of external factors to break in certain ways, and victory may not happen the first time around. [I think one could also make a decent case for a valid historical comparison being provided by Ned Lamont's successful 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary challenge of Sen. Lieberman, who ultimately won re-election in the general, but not as a Democrat.]
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.
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.
John Boehner, House Minority Leader, believes the American people are so annoyed about gas prices, and so supportive of the hissy fit the Republicans threw on the floor about offshore drilling last week, that they want to hang Nancy Pelosi. What is it with these guys? It's just violent crack after violent crack. Huckabee and his 'someone just shot Barack Obama' comment. McCain and 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.' Violent rhetoric has become endemic among the national Republican Party.
We have huge opportunity to affect change in Global Warming Policy (or lack of it) right here in Maryland. With Rep. Hoyer (MD-5)as Majority Leader and a new administration on the way, Hoyer needs to hear from us now. Action on global warming is already way overdue and we need to hit the ground running with strong legislation early in 2009.
I urge everyone to make their voice heard on this. The lack of action on the part of our federal government needs to change here and now.
h/t Politicker for having it up first. Not eloquent, but gets his point across. Though next time he needs to come up with a better metaphor than the environment as serial killer, choking our children in years to come.
PolitickerMD reports that the Fifth Congressional District is getting hit with robocalls from the Blue America PAC and Color of Change criticizing Steny Hoyer's support for retroactive immunity. The call seems to be based on this video by the Rev. Lennox Yearwood:
I doubt that robocalls are going to change anyone's mind or motivate people to press on Hoyer to change course, but it could serve as a wake-up call.
After Steny Hoyer's shameful performance in pushing the FISA bill through the House [which just sailed through the cloture vote in the Senate --IS], there's been talk about putting up a primary challenge to him in 2010. Even if it's only a protest candidacy, it might at least register the outrage many Democrats feel about their party's leadership giving in to Republicans' demands to let telecom companies break the law, and then turning around and portraying it as a victory for Democrats. It was infuriating enough when Democrats were in the minority, but to see Hoyer, et al, do the same thing as the majority party is almost inexplicable.
But is a primary challenge the best way to hold Hoyer accountable? I see three things to consider here:
Is FISA a big enough deal that Hoyer ought to be taken out because of it? Certainly for many Democrats, it is: Not only is Hoyer abetting the Bush administration's erosion of the Fourth Amendment, but by implicitly conceding that the Republican position is right, he is giving them an unearned victory in the national security debate. On the other hand, while rank and file Democrats are exercised over it, it's less clear that the broader public feels the same way. Yet again, FISA capitulation could be the issue that leads to a broader discontent with Hoyer, much as Al Wynn's attempts to quash net neutrality led to the discovery of a whole set of issues where he was serving his constituents poorly.
If we answer yes to the above, could you find a candidate wiling and able to run against Hoyer? That's tricky. Hoyer's got connections to just about everybody in the Maryland Democratic Party; unlike Wynn, Hoyer has been pretty successful in making more friends than enemies during his career. Moreover, the Fourth District was extremely lucky that someone as smart and talented as Donna Edwards decided to run for office when she did. It's possible that someone of similar caliber is willing to risk it (Populista mentions Paul Pinsky, my state senator, for example), but even then, it would be very much a long shot candidacy.
And lastly, does a primary challenge potentially put Hoyer's seat at risk of being scooped up by Republicans? The Fifth District has a Partisan Voting Index of D+9, and Hoyer hasn't faced a viable Republican opponent in years. At the same time, the Fifth District has a fairly high proportion of rural and conservative voters compared to neighboring districts; if and when Hoyer decides to leave Congress, the GOP will likely make a strong play for the seat.
So while it's possible that someone could mount a successful primary challenge to Hoyer, the stars would have to align in a very precise manner for that to happen. Besides, I suspect that, for better or worse, FISA, warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity could well be old news by 2010: The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and unaccountable power is sui generis, and while the FISA "compromise" sets a bad precedent, I doubt it will survive a Barack Obama presidency. If John McCain is elected, on the other hand, we may still have a problem.
UPDATE: The Great Orange Satan's discussion of primary challenges in 2010 is worth a read.
