Now I know you're shocked to read that statement from me. But I mean it, I really do!
Yes, we didn't know who the Frick was Bill. Yes, we got a bit ticked at them. Yes, we think they eat too many bon-bons in that castle of theirs. Yes, the House Majority Leader made fun of them in a roomful of bloggers. And now MCDCC Member Marc Korman wants to jack up my gas tax. But things could be worse. We could have the Prince George's County Democratic Central Committee.
Consider the silky-smooth job they did in selecting Senator Gwendolyn Britt's successor. Their pick, County Council Member David Harrington, endorsed Michael Steele for Senate in 2006. The runner-up, former Delegate Rushern Baker, refused to rule out running for County Executive. (The reigning County Executive, whom Baker ran against last time, cheered his defeat.) The only female candidate, Delegate Jolene Ivey, received no votes. Another losing candidate, Delegate Victor Ramirez, immediately vowed to run against the winner for Senate. (He told the crowd, "I’m going to ask for this seat the way I should. I’m going to come to you for your vote." So why was he running for appointment?)
But the line of the night belonged to the former Senator's husband, Travis Britt, who was also running for the seat. According to the Gazette:Britt, [county substitute teacher Kenniss Odetta] Henry and Ramirez withdrew their names from consideration early in the meeting, with Britt citing the vicious politics – he claimed backroom deals and mudslinging were rampant – for the succession race.
OK, I promise here and now to never call the MCDCC evil spirits. That is, unless you select someone who endorsed Michael Steele to fill one of our seats!
"These demons are after me, but I’m going to dispel these evil spirits. I am withdrawing," Britt said to the crowd, who gave him a standing ovation.
Update:
The Washington Post's story makes clear that Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson lobbied hard to defeat Baker and possibly even decided the outcome. Now that's understandable: many politicians will go to great lengths to punish enemies. But the thought of how easily the District 47 appointment process was manipulated makes my skin crawl. It requires much more effort for politicians or political power brokers to manipulate thousands of real, live voters than a handful of Central Committee members. That's why so many politicians are so comfortable with the status quo. The District 47 case makes at least as good of an argument for special elections as anything MCDCC has done.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thank God for MCDCC (Updated)
Leventhal and Trachtenberg Debate Domestic Worker Proposal
The Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU hosted a heated discussion between Councilmembers George Leventhal and Duchy Trachtenberg over the new proposal introduced by Leventhal and Councilmember Marc Elrich to require contracts for domestic workers who work more than 20 hours.
Trachtenberg believes that the proposal is "toothless" but would encourage people to investigate the legal status of employees and thus have a "chilling effect" on employment. Leventhal countered that federal law already requires immigration status checks and that the bill adds no new checks on unauthorized immigrants and is designed to protect a vulnerable population.
Trachtenberg then argued that women who do not have legal immigrant status have been unwilling to report assaults and rapes so that it is unlikely anyone would report violations under the legislation. She then went on to say we need more "culturally appropriate services". Leventhal pointed out that failure to adopt the bill would still provide "less protection" for workers against exploitation than without the bill.
Obama/Gansler v. Clinton/Floreen
State Attorney General Doug Gansler, who is the co-chair of the Barack Obama campaign in Maryland, will debate Montgomery County Council-Member Nancy Floreen, who will represent the Hillary Clinton Campaign, on the Political Pulse TV Show on Thursday, January 31st at 9:00 p.m. and Wednesday, February 6th at 9:30 p.m. Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Wynn Files a Complaint Against Edwards
Here is the latest flying across the internet about Wynn's charge against Edwards. He filed a 34 point complaint with the FEC claiming that Donna Edwards was in violation of campaign finance laws. I don't claim to know all aspects of campaign finance. But I am working on finding out more. In the meantime, here is a summary of the stories making the rounds.
The WaPo article seems to just get quotes and reacts and doesn't really explain the issue. It is complicated. But it is a disappointing piece if you want to know the story. A swing and miss from our local paper.
The Baltimore Sun did a story as well. They had the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit that focuses on campaign finance, review the compliant. CLC dismisses the compliant.
WaPo's corporate cousin, the Gazette, also wrote about it. I can't tell where the Post ends and this one begins. Must have lifted the same key points. Strike two for Team Graham.
The DC Examiner also weighs in. It too is a simple "he said, she said" story that does nothing to explain a complicated issue. So the Post and Gazette are off the hook, sort of.
Our friends at Free State Politics (FSP), who make clear that they are supporters of Donna, trumpet the Sun article and trash the WaPo one. Author Isaac Smith refutes the charges against Donna.
Politicker MD, one of the newer blogs in the state, does a nice job of giving Wynn's side of the story. This helpful for those of us not versed in campaign finance law. In fact, I think they took the time that the Post and Gazette could have but didn't.
Finally, FSP refers back to a MyDirectDemocracy piece, which is written by Matt Stoller immediately after the 2006 primary. Matt is now with Open Left. To say Matt is a strong supporter of Donna would be an understatement. Here is Matt's post from today.
I am working on digging into it myself but until I hear from the principles I will refrain from adding anymore.
What is unusual about the story is the timing of it. We are about to get the Jan 30 FEC reports. Not certain if the January reports will be released prior to the primary.
Last week I posted that the WaPo was not covering the race. With today's news I may have to back up a bit. But considering how poorly they are covering this race, I won't back up too much.
Tom Davis to Retire
The Washington Post reports that Rep. Tom Davis has decided not to seek reelection. His wife, Jeanmarie Devolites Davis, lost reelection to the Virginia Senate last November. The seat has been trending Democratic--Bush won by 1% in 2004 compared to 7% in 2000--and represents an excellent pick-up opportunity for Democrats.
Don't Ask Me To Endorse You
Candidates are always looking for money, supporters, and voters. Money and supporters get you in front voters and voters determine the election, unless of course you live in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. In the primary I have always picked a candidate before the Iowa Caucus and I have only hit correctly twice.
Officially my track record on supporting the winning Democratic nominee for President during the primary season is so far below the Mendoza Line that just getting to the Line might take me until I am a precinct organizer in Leisure World.
See the only time I picked the winning Presidential candidate pre-primary was Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. And the only other time I picked our nominee in advance was Walter Mondale in 1984. I am sitting on cold spell that could give "the guy downstairs" the shivers.
Why post this today? Now? See I am on the ballot in CD8 as a pledged delegate for John Edwards. He dropped out today. In fact, when I was asked to be on the ticket for him I told my friend Lynn Amano, who was coordinating Edwards for President in MoCo and across the state that maybe they should find someone else. She laughed. I filed. Edwards dropped out. It follows logically. At least in my head.
So I offer myself to the remaining candidates with the same caveat: Mario Mendoza hits better.
Fortunately, I have had some success further down the ticket. But after this post I may be kryptonite to local officials as well.
Montgomery and the Marriage Bill
Geography of Support
Montgomery legislators comprise just 32, or 17 percent, of the 188 legislators in the General Assembly. Yet a majority of the sponsors of same-sex marriage bill in both the House of Delegates (21 of 40) and the Senate (5 of 9) are members of the Montgomery County legislative delegation.
The bulk of the remaining sponsors come from Prince George's and Baltimore City. The late and great Sen. Gwendolyn Britt had planned to sponsor the bill in the Senate. It's wonderful to see that all three delegates from her district have cosponsored the bill. They've been joined by six delegates and one senator from their County.
Five delegates and three senators from Baltimore City have signed on as sponsors. District 41 is especially supportive as two delegates and the senator from this district in the northwest corner of the City are listed as sponsors. Rounding out the list of sponsors are four delegates from Howard County.
In contrast, Baltimore County Democrats are conspicuous in their lack of support. Baltimore County sends six Democratic senators and fourteen Democratic delegates to the General Assembly. However, only one Baltimore County delegate, District 8's Todd Schuler, is listed as a sponsor.
One is tempted to blame the lack of support from Democrats from Baltimore County and the rest of the Baltimore suburbs on their representation of marginal districts. Except that even the Democrats from safe districts haven't signed on yet. Indeed, one of the leading African-American opponents of the bill hails from Baltimore County.
Missing in Montgomery
While Montgomery legislators are generally quite supportive of the bill, not all members of the delegation have signed on. And the people who are being more or less supportive aren't necessarily the usual suspects in terms of support for liberal legislation.
Sen. Rona Kramer's (D-14) aggressive defense of Montgomery's economic interests and opposition to more steeply progressive income taxation doesn't always play well with Democratic activists. However, Sen. Kramer was an early supporter of the marriage bill and she represents one of the three more marginal districts in the County.
On the other hand, Sen. Brian Frosh (D-16) has yet to sign as a sponsor even though he represents safely Democratic Bethesda and all three delegates are sponsors of the House bill. Frosh heads the important Judicial Proceedings Committee in the Senate which will examine the bill.
Sen. Rob Garagiola (D-15) and Sen. Nancy King (D-39) also haven't signed on to the Senate bill even though all of the delegates from her districts are sponsors. An odd decision in both cases. Garagiola is rumored to have ambition for higher office and will need support from activists from outside his district--this isn't a good start toward winning them over. King may face a fight to hold her seat in 2010 from Del. Saqib Ali who is a sponsor of the bill.
The only Montgomery delegates who are not sponsors of the bill are Herman Taylor (D-14), Luiz Simmons (D-17), and Ben Kramer (D-19). Rona, perhaps you need to give your brother some sisterly advice?
Do We Need A Gas Tax Increase? Part 3
In the first two parts of this series I offered some background information on the gas tax, our infrastructure needs, and some of the proposals that have been put forth to increase the tax. In this entry we will consider some of the alternatives to a gas tax increase.
The first alternative is to do nothing. This is fundamentally flawed in my view because investing in transportation has many benefits. I would like to be able to take the Metro to Dulles, spend less time in traffic, and see local transit projects built. There is also a case to be made for the economic benefits of public works projects, which create jobs in the short term and improved economic efficiency in the long term.
Another alternative is more efficient spending. Conservatives have pushed a CATO Institute idea proposing just that. While better use of taxpayer dollars is always a good idea, CATO also assumes that many of the projects transportation dollars are used for are illegitimate, such as transit and trails.
The dissenting voices on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission proposed increased congestion pricing and toll roads, largely managed by the private sector. Congestion pricing and toll roads do not mitigate the regressive tax issue, as many working people do not have a choice in what time of day they go to and from work. There are also large tradeoffs for having the private sector own or manage these types of projects. For example, some road privatization agreements in other states have included non-compete clauses that do not allow state governments to improve roads in the area of a privatized one. But even if privatization does occur, many projects may not be attractive enough to warrant private investment and might need government assistance.
Another alternative is to raise other taxes and put that money towards transportation. Maryland did this during the Special Session by designating half of the sales tax increase for transportation. The sales tax shares the regressive problems of the gas tax, but linking transportation to other, more progressive taxes could have merit.
In my view, the need to invest in transportation speaks for itself, so it is just a question of how to pay and when. No one wants an increase in the gas tax, but an increase at the state or federal level makes sense. The needs are huge and must be met. Also, the historical link between the gas tax and transportation funding has a proven track record. It helped us build our highways, bridges, transit systems, and more. Now it can help us rebuild them. However, there are two caveats to any increase. First, an increase should come only after it is clear that the economy is out of the recession we may be sliding into, if we are not in it already. Second, a gas tax increase should be coupled with a refundable tax credit for the lowest earners.
Van Hollen Supports Stimulus
Chris Van Hollen issued the following statement:“Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this stimulus package for the relief it provides to over 117 million American families and the timely boost it delivers to our slowing economy.
“Let’s be clear: As a product of genuine bipartisan compromise, this legislation does not contain everything one might have included in a stimulus package. For example, I support — and I hope the President will accept — the Senate’s proposal to extend the relief in this package to low-income seniors and people with disabilities. That being said, this legislation proposes to put $145 billion into the hands of those who will use it to strengthen our economy, and it deserves our support today.
“The centerpiece of this package is tax relief in the form of rebates of up to $600 for individuals and $1200 for married couples — with an additional $300 available for every dependent child. Importantly, it extends relief to 35 million hard-working families who make too little to pay federal income taxes but do pay payroll, sales, property and other taxes. These rebates will generate $1.26 in economic activity for every dollar we put back into the economy.
“The package before us also encourages business investment by doubling the amount small businesses can expense for capital investments made in 2008 and by allowing all businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of depreciable plants and equipment purchased in 2008. Finally, it assists those facing foreclosure by increasing Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan limits to $729,750 in 2008, and it provides greater liquidity to the mortgage market by temporarily increasing loan limits for single family homes at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $417,000 to a maximum of $729,750.
“For this initiative to be meaningful, it must be timely. Therefore, while I agree with many of the additional elements being discussed by the Senate, such as an appropriate extension of unemployment insurance for those who need it, we must not let prolonged arguments over these items delay swift enactment of the stimulus our economy so clearly needs.
“If additional steps prove necessary, we will of course stand ready to act. But for today, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan agreement, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Do We Need A Gas Tax Increase? Part 2
From Marc Korman: In my first entry on this issue background was given on the gas tax itself and the perceived need for an increase. This has led to a number of proposals at the federal, state, and local levels to increase the gas tax. Nationally, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission just proposed a 40 cent increase in the federal gas tax in their report. As a former Congressional staffer, I have heard members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from both sides of the aisle repeatedly discuss the need for a gas tax increase. At the state level, Governor O’Malley proposed a half cent increase to the gas tax and a peg to construction inflation during last year’s Special Session. This was not included in the final package that was passed. As noted on a recent blog entry here at MPW, Senate President Miller has also previously proposed an increase in the gas tax of 12 cents a gallon. This session, Senator Rob Garagiola from right here in Locally, the Working Group on Infrastructure Financing for County Facilities proposed that the County seek state authority for a local gas tax of 15 cents a gallon, though this idea has not gained much traction with the County Council. Ike Leggett has also promoted an increase in the gas tax, though he has suggested it as a state, not just local, initiative. Of course, there is opposition to a gas tax increase all across the political spectrum. In the dissent to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and two other Bush appointees to the Commission opposed an increase in the gas tax, which I believe is largely philosophically based. Progressive
More on the Great Maryland Drivers License Feud
As David Lublin noted, Marc Fisher’s January 27 column carried news of alleged broken promises by the O’Malley administration over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. But this is merely the latest incident in an escalating, internal Democratic Party feud over the issue.
The drivers license issue has a bit of history worth recalling. Maryland is one of seven states (the others being Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) that do not require license applicants to prove legal U.S. status. On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers, all of whom were admitted to the country legally, were able to obtain a combined 13 drivers licenses and 21 other ID cards and use them to board and commandeer airplanes. Several of these documents were obtained with fraudulent records. Among the hijackers was Hani Hanjour, who fraudulently obtained a Maryland ID card from the Motor Vehicle Administration and used it to pilot a plane into the Pentagon. Later, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for strong national standards applying to ID documents including drivers licenses and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from acquiring them. In 2005, the Congress passed the Real ID Act, which among other things required that states not issue licenses to individuals illegally present in the U.S. The original date established for compliance was 5/11/08 but that has since been pushed back to 2010.
It is commonly believed that the 9/11 Commission recommended denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. But as the commission’s successor organization, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, makes clear on its website, that is untrue. The project authors state:Specifically, we did not make any recommendation about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation (often fraudulent) that appeared lawful to immigration inspectors. They were therefore “legal immigrants” at the time they received their driver’s licenses… Whether illegal aliens should be able to get driver’s licenses is a valid question for debate.
But President Bush and the Republican Congress explicitly set up Real ID requirements to block licenses for illegals anyway. Soon enough, the states began calculating the costs of bringing their license systems into compliance with Real ID requirements and began to balk. Maryland estimates its costs at $60-80 million. Seventeen states and counting have passed legislation and/or resolutions opposing Real ID, including Maryland. But the federal requirements remain and that is causing political turmoil.
Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari originally proposed installing a two-tier license system to deal with Real ID. Legal residents could obtain Real ID-compliant licenses while illegal immigrants could obtain non-compliant licenses that still conferred in-state driving rights. But Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (District 18) rejected this approach, telling the Washington Post, “In this climate, that's a scarlet letter… Any policeman could call [federal] authorities.”
Delegate Gutierrez need not have worried about Porcari’s proposal because Governor O’Malley swiftly killed it. The Governor declared, “We should not allow Maryland to become an island virtually alone on the East Coast” by issuing drivers licenses to illegals. He called instead for one license program that was completely Real ID-compliant. O’Malley was no doubt paying heed to the painful experience of another blue-state governor who proposed, then backed down from, a plan to license illegals.
Gutierrez responded by accusing the Governor of “betrayal” and even told Post columnist Marc Fisher, “The governor did not keep his promise… This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that.” That should make for interesting reading for the many anti-slots voters in District 18.
This issue is turning into a significant internal feud within the Maryland Democratic Party. Each side has something important to lose.
On one side is the Democratic establishment. Over the long term, the state party benefits by strengthening its ties to immigrant voters, especially Latinos. These voters are often socially conservative and will require economic reasons to vote Democratic. It would be wise for politicians to remember that immigrants often belong to large, mixed households that include legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and citizens. Measures that target illegal immigrants tend to antagonize their entire families, and many members of these families are citizens who vote.
On the other side is the state’s Latino leadership. As mentioned above, Delegate Gutierrez has used terms like “scarlet letter” and “betrayal” in describing the administration’s policies. (One can only imagine what is being said in Spanish-language media.) This sort of hot rhetoric, flung about in the newspapers like searing frying pans, may very well earn the enmity of both the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. And that may prevent the District 18 delegation from obtaining movement on its urgent transportation priorities. In fact, many of Delegate Gutierrez’s constituents are undoubtedly viewing the growing rift with unease, if not dismay.
And so the two sides have a strong incentive to compromise, perhaps using something resembling MDOT’s original proposal as a starting point. But neither side is showing much inclination at the moment. Happy memories of a new state-financed immigrant services center in Langley Park are rapidly fading. Should the feud escalate, it will create bad consequences for state Democrats, immigrants, and quite possibly, District 18 residents.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Stopping the Gazette, the Examiner, ... and Neighborhood Association Newsletters
The General Assembly is taking up a bill designed to regulate the distribution of regional free unsolicited newspapers. Perhaps unintentionally, it would also likely affect small community association newsletters and other neighborhood publications, as well.
People in my Forest Estates neighborhood have recently been talking a lot about free newspapers like the Gazette and the Examiner that we find left on our lawns regularly, whether we want them or not. Many people take the paper in and read it. Others have no interest in reading it but — being responsible citizens and good neighbors — take it in anyway and dispose of it properly. And far, far too many people let the newspaper sit on their property for days and weeks at a time, allowing it to become litter.
Several of my neighbors have told me that despite requests to one of these newspapers to stop delivery, the paper keeps getting delivered. This is a problem on many levels. It’s a problem for people who keep receiving something they don’t want and have asked not to get. It’s a problem for people who don’t want to live in a neighborhood strewn with litter. It's a problem when that litter degrades the environment. It’s a problem when vast amounts of paper are being wasted.
So here comes Del. Tanya Shewell (R – Carroll County) to the rescue. Her bill, House Bill 357, would regulate distribution of unsolicited newspapers, circulars, etc, like the Examiner and Gazette. The Shewell bill covers any "circular, newspaper, magazine, paper, or booklet that is published at regular intervals and distributed to the public" that is "delivered to a residential address in the state without the prior consent of the resident."
That definition would seem to include community association newsletters, as well as a number of other small-time neighborhood publications.
The unsolicited publications must tell people how they can have further deliveries stopped. Continued delivery would then constitute an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” and be punishable by a fine.
I expect some significant First Amendment issues to be raised in connection with this bill. The targeted newspapers are often engaged in political speech, which receives the highest level of protection under First Amendment jurisprudence. Unlike unsolicited telephone calls (which directly intrude into the home and can be regulated), a newspaper left on the front yard is minimally intrusive. (Those who don't care if it sits on their yards for weeks at a time apparently don’t feel at all intruded upon.) So I expect some interesting constitutional issues to be debated in Annapolis in the coming weeks.
I expect a groundswell of support for the bill from annoyed newspaper recipients and environmental activists. But if the large newspapers can keep the bill from being amended to exclude the neighborhood groups, they may form a coalition that could keep our free newspapers coming for a long time to come.
My Photos from the Obama Rally at AU
Sen. Barack Obama
The Entry Line Stretched Off Campus and Way Down Massachusetts Ave. 
The Crowd in Bender Arena Enjoys the Warm-Up Act
Students Standing Up for Change
Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy
Barack Obama and Caroline KennedyDo We Need A Gas Tax Increase? Part I
From Marc Korman The simple answer to why gas tax increases have been proposed is that we need a massive investment to maintain our current infrastructure and build new projects. Close to home, many of us want to see some type of Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway built, as well as an increase in funding for Metro maintenance to minimize crippling delays. Regular old roads also need continuous investment. There was an unfortunate reminder of the needs when the 35W bridge in To understand the issue, some context and facts are needed. Historically, transportation projects have been funded through the gas tax, starting way back in 1919 when At the federal level, the gas tax has been 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, with 15.44 cents per gallon going towards the Highway Trust Fund and 2.86 cents per gallon going into the Mass Transit Account. In The idea that we need a massive investment in infrastructure has been put forth at all levels of government. Nationally, one study by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young forecast a $1.6 trillion infrastructure investment deficit between now and 2010, though this goes beyond surface transportation and includes needs for sea and air ports. The state Secretary of Transportation, Keep Maryland Moving, and regional business groups are all advocating for an investment of $600 million in Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund to meet our state needs (up from $421 million expected to be budgeted in FY08). Here in Another reason cited in support of a gas tax increase is that it will reduce consumption. This may or may not be true, as many people consider gasoline a relatively inelastic good, meaning demand does not fluctuate much as prices increase. Of course, there must be a limit of how high prices can go before having an effect. When gas prices rise there is also increased interest in alternative energy, which is beneficial to the environment. In the next blog entry, we will look at the proposals that have been made.
It seems that at all levels of government, there has been some type of push for an increase in the gas tax. Given the serious potential for a recession and gas prices already around all time highs, this may be surprising. Why is there such a push for an increase in the gas tax and do we need it? In this three part blog series I will attempt to shed some light on this issue.
The first blog entry will set the stage by providing some general background information. The second blog entry will discuss the various proposals that have been made. The third and final blog entry will consider the alternative proposals.have been diverted from transportation. In the early ‘90s, the federal government used the gas tax for deficit reduction. Here in
Come Back Home
The best thing I can do is give back your love
Let you go away feelin' free as a dove
If you find you're a long ways from home
And somebody's doing you wrong
Just call on me baby
And come back home
Call Me, Al Green, 1973
Some debates remind me of a food fight, some a Texas Hold 'em poker tournament and still others make me feel the love. This debate should have been dubbed: I'm a Long Ways From Home (No More Foreign Wars) Debate. That should not be surprising as it was put on a coalition of peace activists. It got me thinking of the classic Al Green song "Call Me" (1973 Hi Records). Green sings of finding love closer to home. The candidates were singing the same hymnbook as well, although not always the same song.
That is not to say that there were not sparks flying at the Stella Warner Building (MoCo Council Building). There were some. But food fights won't win votes most places, especially among peaceniks.
This forum was sponsored by Peace Action Montgomery County and five other groups. The topic was Congress' role in US Foreign Policy. It included all candidates for Congress in District 4 and District 8 regardless of party, giving us 11 candidates (1 Green Party, 3 Republicans & 7 Democrats). Terry Kester of WPFW 89.3 FM did his best to moderate such an unwieldy format.
The only other non-Democrat was Gordon Clark (Web site under construction). In fact, Mr. Clark is not even on the ballot for the Greens in CD8. The previous candidate must have stepped down. Clark scored some points with his critique on Global Warming.
Since this is a Democratic politics blog and it is there that I will return.
Vollmer Spars With Van Hollen
Ok it was MoCo styled sparring. Nothing major. Chris Van Hollen's (campaign site) opening statement went after the Bush Administration for its "policy of slogans: 'Bring It On', 'You Are Either With Us or Against Us'" and for considering "diplomacy a dirty word". Immediately
challenger Deborah Vollmer (see picture on the right) claimed his words and actions did not match calling them "very mixed". She even generated a laugh from the audience when she pointed out that threaten incumbent Al Wynn (campaign site) voted against the September 2008 Omnibus Spending bill with $190 billion for the war while Rep. Van Hollen voted for it. That is the basis for her campaign and she delivered a solid shot at him. But is was neither a knockout nor was she able to hit a combination either. Chris was eager to respond but was unable to because others had to give their opening statements. Ok no more fighting terms during a peace forum.The rest of the District 8 portion of the debate was mild. Van Hollen and Vollmer agreed more often than they differed. Dr. Lih Young (2006 Senate candidate site) was also there. It was my first time seeing her. She described herself as a "perennial candidate since 1994". While that may not have been her best choice of words it does fit. She has run 11 times in the past 14 years. I couldn't remember one thing that she said that was noteworthy. Sorry.
Un Wynn able?
Al Wynn was the only Democratic candidate to fail to attend, along with six Republicans most of whom I don't recognize. According to organizer Fran Pollner, Wynn Congressional office never responded to the initial invitation as well as follow up requests. Once the date was set Wynn's office said he had an 'unalterable schedule'. According to his web site, he was at the same Women's Legislative Briefing that Rep. Van Hollen attended.
This was clearly not Wynn's best constituency. Having to highlight the changes in his votes would have put him on the defensive. So it does make sense as a campaign operative. However based on the audience response to Deborah Vollmer's opening statement, he probably could have faired better than he thought.
Wynn, Edwards and the Dynamic of the Underdogs
Almost all of the attention is on the top two candidates, Donna Edwards and incumbent Al Wynn. Rightfully so. Still there are four other candidates who are running. They are: Dr. Michael Babula, Jason Jennings, George Mitchell and George McDermott. Two points were of interest. No candidate was in favor in the war. All wanted us to come home. Second, was how often I heard the others take a shot at Donna Edwards and almost leave the incumbent untouched. It wasn't every time and it wasn't by all but it was a consistent pattern. I recognize that as an underdog you need to highlight differences with those ahead of you. But it sure did seem as though Edwards took more shots than the absent Wynn. The usual response was something along the line of "they are cut from the same piece of cloth". True or not on this charge, the consistency of the refrain had a talking points smell to it.
To be fair, I will explore the positions of the CD4 Democratic candidates during my upcoming interviews with them. But for now I was struck by this general theme of these four. In the meantime, I think these two sites (WAMU's Kojo Nnamdi Show and the Gazette) have nice voter guides on all 6 Democratic candidates in CD4. Take a look and form your own opinion.
Final ThoughtsThe only people who seemed to be undecided in the room were the news reporters and the organizers. Disclosure: I live in CD8 and I support Chris Van Hollen.
The lack of undecideds is normal for debates. The news coverage by the MSM was again weak. I sat next to the Sentinel reporter. There was another reporter who could have been the Gazette but it wasn't the WaPo. I think the WaPo is failing in their coverage of the race in CD4.
You want the shortest version of the debate?
There was more love than spin. A universal request to come back home from Iraq. Now if only we can get Al Green at one of these things. If he does call me.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What Ana Didn't Get for Slots
According to Marc Fisher's column, Gov. Martin O'Malley broke a promise to Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez to back retaining driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants:In the 2006 campaign, the governor won the Hispanic vote with appearances such as one at Casa de Maryland, the immigrant advocacy group in Takoma Park, where he told reporters that "I don't believe that at the state and local level that we should exacerbate the problem by enacting policies that put up . . . barriers to getting a driver's license or getting to and from work or home." Unlike the previous governor, who famously called multiculturalism "bunk," O'Malley seemed intent on embracing Hispanic immigrants, even if they arrived illegally.
So advocates such as Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) and Kim Propeack, Casa's director of political action, accused O'Malley of a "betrayal" -- both women used the word -- when he announced last week that Maryland would no longer issue licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. As of 2010, when the federal Real ID law kicks into effect, even people who have long held Maryland licenses will be denied renewals.
"The governor did not keep his promise," Gutierrez says. "This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that."
Town of Chevy Chase FAR Incentives
This post outlines the incentives for which homeowners can receive a higher FAR and thus build a larger house under the proposed ordinance currently before the Town Council. It relies heavily on the Land Use Committee's report and the worksheet on calculating FAR provided by the Town. (In a previous post, I explained Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) and how it is measured for purposes of the Town of Chevy Chase's proposed ordinance.)
Through the use of incentives, the permitted FAR can rise from .30 to .45 for additions and .50 for new construction. The central goal of the incentive program to encourage the construction of new homes that fit with the existing character of the Town yet provide homeowners a great deal of flexibility in deciding how to construct their home. There are a variety of incentives and homeowners can select which ones, if any, they would like to meet in order to receive additional FAR.
A key advantage of this approach is that it avoids the creation of some sort of design or review board which would rule on the aesthetics of each home. At the same time, it provides a set of incentives to construct homes which fit within the Town's current character for people who would like to receive additional FAR (i.e. build larger homes relative to the lot size).
Homeowners can build any home they like which is already permitted under existing law and meets the new height limit--two feet lower than the current County limit--at an FAR of .30. They can construct an even larger home depending on how many additional incentives are met. Some incentives are quite easy to meet; others will probably be met by relatively few people but exist to promote a particular goal (e.g. historic preservation).
However, one can receive the maximum permitted FAR by meeting different combinations of incentives so no one has to meet all of them or is expected to do so. For example, additional FAR is awarded for several different types of garages, for example, because there are multiple types which fit within the existing character of the Town.
One hopes that the use of well-defined bright-line incentives would help limit the number of variance hearings. If a proposed construction plan meets the incentives, it receives the additional FAR. Variances would not be granted for an inability to meet a particular incentive because no home (or lot) is expected to be able to meet all of them and there is a choice among incentives. Of course, nothing would prevent the Town Council from granting variances if the proposed plan furthers the general goals of the ordinance. And don't forget that all homeowners are guaranteed a certain minimum square footage no matter how small the lot.
The biggest incentive is for building an addition instead of tearing down the old house and building a new one. The permitted level of FAR rise by .05 for construction of an addition.
Additionally, homeowners can receive credits, and an increase in FAR of .01 for each credit, for a variety of other criteria listed below. Again, one doesn't have to meet all, or even most, of the criteria. Instead, one can pick and choose. No matter how many criteria are met, the maximum FAR is .45 for a completely new home and .50 for home with an addition.
Tree Canopy (2 points are possible)
- Retain all healthy shade trees over a certain size.
- Plant a new shade tree. (You must also retain all healthy shade trees.)
- No more than 10% of the front yard is covered by non-vegetative surface.
- No more than 40% of the lot is covered by non-vegetative surface.
- Building coverage (buildings, pool, deck, for example) if 25% or less. (If the coverage is 20% or less, you may get a credit for this incentive and the next one.)
- Building coverage (buildings, pool, deck, for example) if 20% or less. (If you meet this requirement, you also get a credit for the previous one.)
- Donation of a conservation easement.
- Historic landmark designation.
- A two story or less house, rather than a two and a half story house.
- The roof gable orientation is the same as others on the block if 60% of the block has a similar orientation.
- No portion of the front wall is more than 34 feet long. If a house is more than 34 feet wide, you may still receive a credit if there are indentions along the front of the house that mean no one wall surface is more than 34 feet.
- No portion of either side wall is more than 34 feet long. If a house is more than 34 feet deep, you may still receive credits if there are indentions along either side of the house that mean no one wall surface is more than 34 feet. (Each side of the house could get a credit, so two credits are possible.)
- An unenclosed front porch with a minimum size of 6’ deep and 10’ wide.
- An unenclosed side porch with a minimum size of 6’ deep and 10’ wide.
- A wraparound porch where the front portion meets the standard and the side portion is at least 50% of it (2 credits).
- An entry feature that is at least 3’ deep and has a roof. (If the front porch standard is met, you also receive this credit.)
- A one story element of at least 8’ x 10’ (a small enclosed room) on the front, side or back of the house (up to 4 credits possible).
- No projections (porches, stoops, bay windows, etc.) are made into either side yard setback other than a chimney.
- A walkway goes from the front of the house to the street and is not part of a driveway.
- A shared driveway is maintained and there is no other driveway on the lot.
- A side entry attached garage is maintained or built. (Note that credits may be received for only one of the three garage standards.)
- A detached garage of no more than 240 square feet is maintained or built.
- Only one story above a front loading cellar garage.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Out of Carolina
Off-the-cuff thoughts on the night of the South Carolina Democratic primary
Racial Poll Responses
After New Hampshire, there was much hand-wringing that white Americans were lying to pollsters and saying that they were voting for Obama even as they cast ballots for Clinton because they didn't want to admit that they didn't want to vote for a black candidate. In South Carolina, Pollster.com pegged Obama at 43% and the Real Clear Politics average had him at 38%. In case you didn't catch the news, Obama won 55% of the vote in tonight's Democratic primary.
By the way, before we break out the new storyline of anti-female bias (and how do you explain away New Hampshire?) or anti-white male bias, let's observe that Clinton and Edwards both performed within a couple of points of the pre-primary prediction by both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics. The undecided voters--black and white--swung hard to Obama who "routed" his two opponents according to the AP.
More thoughts after the jump
Campaign Tactics Shifting?
As the Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago, the Clinton campaign relied on a more traditional strategy of endorsements from well-known church leaders and politicians, including paying $135,000 in consulting fees to state Sen. Darrell Jackson who is also the pastor of an 11,000 member church in Columbia. In contrast, Obama's campaign--which originally offered Sen. Jackson a consulting contract of $5000 per month--relied on an untested strategy of building his own political organization, a page taken directly out of his own history as a community organizer. (See the very end of this story in the Washington Post as well).
More Hillary, Less Bill
Hillary won New Hampshire as appeared more human and more sympathetic as the fighting underdog. People forgot she was the establishment candidate and saw her as someone who was smart and hardworking. She answered tough debate questions with in-depth knowledge and aplomb. So why did the campaign dump that strategy and unleash attack-dog Bill? Put the candidate back front and center where she belongs. Which leads to my:
Worst Play of the Evening
The first major "candidate" speech after the primary was by Bill Clinton who spoke rather endlessly--it reminded me of his State of the Union addresses--early in the evening. It reinforced the impression that the Clinton campaign has forgotten which Clinton is the candidate--a theme media pundits were glad to bring home to the audience in their commentary.
Racial Politics Doesn't Pay--Especially among Young Democrats
Amazingly, the "first black president" was booed by Democrats at Obama's rally tonight in the wake of a campaign criticized as focusing too much on race as Bloomberg reports: The former president also drew fire today by comparing Obama's South Carolina victory to that of another black politician who won the state's Democratic presidential primaries in 1984 and 1988. ``Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice,'' Clinton said, according to the New York Times.
Some may write this off as simply a pro-Obama crowd but this is a stunning reversal for President Clinton. Indeed, the Clinton campaign turned off both black and white voters. According to MSNBC, Obama pulled 78% of black voters and 24% of white voters. In contrast, Clinton received just 36% of the white vote and 19% of the black vote. Note that Obama received more white votes than Clinton did black votes.
The comment ``just compounds'' the negative attacks on Obama that turned off South Carolina voters, said Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University in Atlanta. ``The implicit comparison is that Jackson won but he didn't win the nomination,'' Black said. ``That is just another round of trying to devalue what Obama has achieved.''
In South Carolina, thousands of supporters waiting for Obama to speak began booing when a video popped up of the former president speaking in Independence, Missouri.
Clinton fared especially poorly among young whites. She won just 27% of non-black 18-29 year olds compared to 52% for Clinton. One little reported fact is that native-son John Edwards won a higher share of the white vote than Hillary Clinton (40% to 36%). Clinton still owes South Carolina African Americans--without her 19% of the black vote she would have been relegated to third place as in Iowa.
The 24-News Media Despises the Clintons
I couldn't help but be struck by how unrelentingly negative the coverage on both CNN and MSNBC was of the Clinton campaign. One exception was Donna Brazile on CNN who rightly noted the inherent strengths of the Clinton campaign as the challenges faced by the Obama campaign as Super Tuesday approaches even as she gave Obama his due for his strong victory in South Carolina.
The Edwards Factor
Edwards finished a strong third and above the 15% threshold for receiving delegates. One pundit (me) says he still just might play king or queen-maker at the Convention. As someone on CNN put it, he got a ticket out of South Carolina to Super Tuesday. It may not be a first-class ticket but he has one.
Whether he hurts Clinton or Obama more, I don't know. Does he split the anti-Clinton vote? Or does he appeal to more moderate whites who would otherwise vote for Clinton. Despite his populist rhetoric, Edwards did best in South Carolina among moderate and somewhat conservative whites. On the other hand, Edwards received almost no black votes in South Carolina.
Gender in the Montgomery State Legislative Delegation
| District | Men | Women |
| 14 | 1 | 3 |
| 15 | 3 | 1 |
| 16 | 3 | 1 |
| 17 | 3 | 1 |
| 18 | 3 | 1 |
| 19 | 4 | 0 |
| 20 | 2 | 2 |
| 39 | 3 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 22 | 10 |
The table above shows the share of women in the Montgomery delegation by district. The Gazette reported on the decline in the number of women in the General Assembly:
Maryland boasted the highest percentage of female legislators in the country in 2005 and 2006, when 67 of the 188 state lawmakers were women, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. The state now ranks 8th, with 59 women in the General Assembly.Much of the decline has occurred in Montgomery. In District 15, Republican Jean Cryor was defeated by Democrat Craig Rice in the 2006 general election. District 16's Marilyn Goldwater retired and Bill Frick was appointed to the vacancy.
District 18 has gone from three to one female legislators due to the retirement of Sen. Sharon Grosfeld and the death of Del. Jane Lawton. Rich Madaleno won the seat vacated by Sen. Grosfeld in 2006; Al Carr was appointed to fill the vacancy in the House.
In District 19, Dels. Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold competed unsuccessfully for the open Senate seat in 2006. They were defeated by Michael Lenett; Petzold and Mandel were replaced in the House by Ben Kramer and Roger Manno.
District 20 saw Sen. Ida Ruben defeated by Jamie Raskin; however, Heather Mizeur won a seat in the House leaving the District 20 delegation evenly split between men and women. In District 39, Del Nancy King was elevated to the Senate upon the retirement of P.J. Hogan. She was replaced in the House by Kirill Reznick.
In sum, there has been a net decline of six women in the Montgomery delegation of 32 members of the general assembly since the end of the last General Assembly in 2006. The net losses occurred in just four of the eight legislative districts: Districts 15, 16, 18, and 19. Districts 18 and 19 experienced a net lost of two women with District 19 becoming the only all-male delegation from Montgomery.
Of course, the decline in women did not result in a total loss for diversity. African Americans filled two of six seats previously held by women in Districts 16 and 18. The first openly gay member of the House moved up to the Senate in District 18.
Still, I think it is safe to say that the trend is opposite of what one might have expected in Montgomery County. We've gone from a delegation evenly split between men and women to one where women compose just 31 percent of the delegation.
The share of women in the General Assembly will decline further if the Prince George's Central Committee chooses a man for the vacancy caused by the recent death of Sen. Gwendolyn Britt. Del. Jolene Ivey is a candidate for the seat though one wonders whether the goal of promoting her husband's candidacy for County Executive in 2010--as well as the presence of several serious male candidates--may slow down her own advancement.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Congressional District 4 and 8 Forum in Rockville on Sunday
This comes from Mike Hersh, coordinator for Montgomery County Progressive Alliance:
Don't miss the Montgomery County Congressional Candidates Forum on foreign policy this Sunday!
Topic: The Role of Congress in U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, Iran, and National Security
Sponsored by: Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), Democracy For America (DFA), and Montgomery County Progressive Alliance (MCPA)
Who: Democratic Candidates for Congress from the 4th and 8th Congressional District
When: Sunday, January 27, 2 – 4 p.m
Where: County Council Office Building, 3rd-floor hearing room, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville. From Rockville Metro Station (red line) 1 block N on Maryland Ave.
Should State Legislators Hand Over Their Salaries?
According to the Baltimore Sun, Senator Bryan W. Simonaire, Republican of Anne Arundel, is proposing to give the legislature the option to reduce its own pay. Currently, legislators’ pay is determined by a state commission, and the legislature can vote their recommendation up or down. Simonaire would like to allow the legislature to cut their own pay if the state’s finances suffer (as is currently happening). But is this such a good idea?
I’m not convinced that it is. I know quite a few politicians pretty well. They may be motivated by a lot of things, but pay is not one of them. After all, the typical state legislator makes just over $43,000 per year for a 90-day session and endless nights of putting up with crazed civic activists (like me). They would get a whole lot more money (and less aggravation) from continuous non-legislative employment, believe me. And the savings available from eliminating their salaries altogether amount to only $8 million out of a $15 billion general fund.
But the compensation question is an interesting one. In my industry – unionized construction – we have fixed scales for journey workers. But on certain jobs, we negotiate shared bonuses for the workers that are tied to targets. So if we meet our schedule dates, the workers would get a bonus. If we meet our safety goals, we would get another bonus. And if we keep absenteeism below a certain specified level, we’d be paid even more. Because the profitability of the contractors increases in line with our performance, they are more than happy to make these kinds of deals with us. In our case, bonus payments are made to groups of workers because construction is a team industry. So too is politics.
So why not have a bonus system for politicians? If all the legislators within a particular district get something important done for their constituents, let’s throw ‘em a bit of extra dough! So here’s my bonus schedule for my beloved District 18 delegation:
Install new sidewalk on west side of Connecticut Avenue in Kensington: $10,000 bonus
Bury power lines in Montgomery Hills: $20,000 bonus
End evil train horn noise in Kensington and Forest Glen: $30,000 bonus
Get special elections for legislative vacancies in MoCo: $40,000 bonus ($20,000 more for banning MCDCC members from appointing themselves)
Get funding for underground, deep-tunnel Purple Line: $50,000 bonus
Get new Metro entrance at Intersection of Death: $100,000 bonus plus Adam agrees to not send any email for a year.
So what are you waiting for? Come on guys!! Let’s get cracking!!!
WAMU Covers the 4th District
A hat tip over at FSP to Isaac Smith for posting the announcement of the radio debate between to the two principle contenders in this race. It will be live at noon on Friday.
Now when will WaPo begin their coverage?
Postscript: Here is the link to the WAMU site. To hear the radio click on the show over on the right. It starts around 19:50 and ends at 45:00.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Post Punks Pols & Us
The Washington Post (WaPo) is the preeminent political newspaper in the county. WaPo sends out teams of reporters to cover the smallest detail of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary. But they give a rats ass about local races. WaPo has punked us.
Right here under their nose they have the seminal race for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Eight term Congressman Albert Wynn represents the establishment wing of the Democrats; Donna Edwards is running from his left and with bloggers and activists by her side. There are another four candidates, perhaps smelling blood in the water, also vying for the seat. They had the closest race in the country just 16 months ago. So where is the coverage? Where are the heavyweight reporters and above the fold coverage?
So the Post, I have one question: "What is it good for?" Absolutely nothing.
In 2002, WaPo had three above the fold pieces on the Van Hollen, Marc Shriver and Ira Sharpio race before the primary. They had polls on the race. Their corporate cousin, the Gazette, had at two polls leading up to the primary.
Politicians love polls. Readers of political publications love polls. WaPo puts polls in any race of note. So one question: Have you seen a poll on the biggest Congressional primary in the country, that being the 4th Congressional District of Maryland?
WaPo what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again, y'all.
How come WaPo gave us three major pieces on Congressional District 8 in 2002 and all we get in this election season is a bunch of Metro pieces.
The Post should be ashamed of its coverage of Fourth District. No polls. Nothing more than the short bios. One reporter coverage. Heck, even NOW took 20 minutes to cover the race on Friday. And they wonder why readership is down.
By not covering the race, WaPo tells us a lot of what it thinks of the race -- and us. So where is the poll coverage of the pols.
WaPo, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Listen to me.
"I Was Just Following Orders"
Decades ago, a critically important principle in support of the rule of law was established: “I was just following orders” is not an excuse for breaking the law. When a person is directed by a government official to break the law, his obligation is to the law, not to that government official.
But that principle came under attack today, not just by the usual suspects, but by Barbara Mikulski, of all people.
As you probably know, Congress has been debating whether to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who collaborated with the Bush Administration and facilitated clearly illegal spying on Americans. By shutting down all ongoing and future lawsuits against the telecom companies, Bush and the Republicans want to make sure that no one will be able to use the judicial process to uncover the extent of their illegal spying.
To do that, they have to make “I was just following orders” a legitimate excuse to break the law. Considering that this is an administration that came to power through a Supreme Court opinion that itself assaulted the very idea of the rule of law, this is no surprise.
But Mikulski’s support of “I was just following orders” was a surprise, at least to me. I have long respected Sen. Mikulski and been glad to have her representing me in the United States Senate.
I had thought that when a fundamental issue like the rule of law was at stake, we could count on our senator to do the right thing.
I guess I was wrong.
It may be years before we uncover the extent of the Bush Administration's many violations of federal law, to say nothing of the U.S. Constitution. Barbara Mikulski has made that important task even harder.
Mike Miller (and Kumar Barve) Meet the Bloggers: Part Three
In Part Two, I recounted the Senate President’s remarks to our rag-tag band of bloggers. In this part, let’s find out what the number two leader in the House had to say.
Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader from District 17 (Rockville), is a fluid and intelligent speaker. His low-key style reflects the cool, technocratic politics still practiced in some parts of Montgomery County. While he is not as flamboyant a character as the belly-laughing, fist-pounding Miller, he has a tack-sharp mind, a dry wit and ample patience for blogger grillings.
Here’s what Delegate Barve had to say, as best as my scrawling hand could record:
On Governor O’Malley
“Martin O’Malley is a gambler. He likes to take calculated risks. He sealed 188 people in a pressure cooker and said, ‘Take as long as you want in there!’ And the special session produced a very good product.”
On Taxes and Spending
Barve described the last couple decades of state fiscal management as a “roller coaster,” noting that the state had swung between tax hikes and tax cuts. “I wish we could find a level of taxation we’re comfortable with and stick with that, but that would probably violate human behavior!” As Barve correctly observes, it’s too tempting to dispense tax cuts in good times, making tax hikes in bad times more necessary.
On Embattled State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick
“The Governor and the leaders want her to go. I assume that’s going to happen.”
On the Computer Services Tax
“The House got rid of the computer sales tax but it came back. It’s bad public policy. It’s unwise to tax businesses that are mobile,” Barve stated. “But unless we’re willing to find $200 million in extra revenues, it will be very difficult to get rid of.” And why was the computer industry vulnerable? “In politics, when something unpleasant has to be done, it’s usually done to whoever squirms around the least!” Barve noted that Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15, MoCo) had a proposal to replace it with a gas tax, “but that is a non-starter.” Added to Mike Miller’s comments, Barve’s opinion indicates that the computer tax is not going anywhere because there is no other way to raise the money.
On Marriage Equality
“I personally don’t think marriage equality is going to happen in the way we’ve sponsored the bill. But domestic partnerships will pass.” Senator Madaleno, the prime backer of marriage equality in his chamber, chimed in, “You start with what you want, and you fight for what you can get.”
On Filling Legislative Vacancies
I asked the House Majority Leader whether he would favor a bill allowing special elections to fill vacancies in MoCo and forbidding the practice of Central Committee members appointing themselves to state legislative office. The latter point actually made him laugh. “My goodness, if you took that away from them, no one would serve on the Central Committee!” Barve snickered. “We’d have to pay them to serve!” Barve indicated that he would vote for special elections on a statewide basis, but not for MoCo alone. He favors having every county use the same system for filling vacancies.
The Majority Leader’s sardonic suggestion that Central Committee members have to be paid to abstain from appointing themselves may be cynical, but it also may be true. The fact that the highest-ranking state legislator in MoCo holds this opinion of MCDCC should make them think long and hard about how they conduct their vacancy selections.
On the Democrats’ Relationship with Latinos
“I don’t think the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the Latino community. One of the problems from a strategic perspective is that many of the groups we support have the lowest turnout rate. But things are changing. People of color are noticing how bad things are under Republican rule.”
On Whether the Delegation is Bringing the Bacon Back to MoCo
I asked Barve this question: “The Gazette recently reported that of every dollar paid by MoCo residents to the state, only 15 cents came back to the county. The state average is 30 cents. When county officials and residents accuse the delegation of not bringing the bacon back to MoCo, how do you respond?”
Barve answered by pointing out the geographic income disparities of the state. “We generate an enormous amount of income. Eighty-five percent of the richest people in the state live in Montgomery County. And if you earn $200,000, no matter where you live, you are going to be taxed. A lot of social programs go to where poor people are living, like in Baltimore City. And it’s the job of government to help people who desperately need the help, wherever they live.”
I understand this argument but only up to a point. MoCo may be wealthier than the state average, but it is not universally wealthy. There are pockets of poverty even here. There are lots of needs for school aid, school construction and transportation. Our state transportation priorities list is full of projects that have sat in limbo for many, many years. The BRAC projects alone will likely demand hundreds of millions of dollars to be effectively implemented. I for one would like to see my MoCo state legislators throw their weight around a bit more than they currently are.
And now we get to David Lublin’s Big Question, which was asked of both Senate President Miller and House Majority Leader Barve. Correct me if I’m wrong, David, but the Big Question went something like this:
“In 2006, the Democrats had as good a year as it gets. George Bush was President. We were fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. The Republicans had hopelessly mismanaged the response to Hurricane Katrina. So the Democrats won a lot of extra seats. In 2010, those things will not repeat themselves. Bush will be gone and the Democrats will be held responsible for whatever is going on. You are more likely to lose seats than gain them. So how can you motivate Maryland’s progressive voters for the next election?”
Uncharacteristically, Mike Miller dodged this one. He flatly disagreed that the party would lose any seats and contended that Governor O’Malley’s progressive record would serve the Democrats well. Kumar Barve also refused to concede that the party would lose any seats. He responded, “In Maryland, we have modest taxation and very low poverty. Maybe we should point out how bad things are in other states that are run by the Republicans.”
Is this really a winning message for 2010? We may have raised your taxes, but the other guys are worse? Is that going to motivate liberals to turn out to save Democratic seats in purple districts? I hope we’ll have a better message than that, but I guess we’ll see.
Until then, let’s credit Senate President Mike Miller and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve for willingly sitting in the Bloggers’ Hot Seat. They were good sports and did their best to deal with an unlikely gathering unseen since the Mos Eisley Cantina. Let’s see if any more politicians have the mettle to do the same.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers: Part Two
In Part One, we laid the scene for you: on one side of the table sat the fearsome, powerful old bull, the indomitable Senate President Mike Miller. On the other side sat a gangly, geeky band of bloggers, united only by their common desire for a post-meeting trip to Ram’s Head Tavern.
A few comments on the Senate President. For more than twenty years, Mike Miller has reigned over the Senate with a gregarious combination of ego, fear and patronage. His personal magnetism is so overwhelming that he could likely charm a bird out of its nest and onto his open palm. But if the bird voted the wrong way on a must-have bill, the hapless creature would be quickly crushed and tossed to the back of the Senate chamber. This demonstrates the Miller Rule, which is a simple one: “Work with me and prosper. Work against me and suffer.” Most Democratic Senators respond to this rule predictably, although there have been exceptions.
We asked Miller a lot of questions, and he gave us a lot of answers. For the benefit of our readers, I did my best to keep up with the exchange. Following are the Senate President’s responses to a few of our prods and pokings. If anyone else in the room recollects it differently, please comment and we’ll adjust the record.
On Governor Ehrlich
A few people remember that at the beginning of Governor Ehrlich’s term, Miller was ready to establish a pragmatic working relationship with him. But that approach ran into problems. “Ehrlich was a nice guy, but he didn’t work, and the state suffered,” Miller grumbled. He was “surrounded by yes-men” and rarely came out of his office. “All he did was put bandages on things!” The old warhorse was clearly relieved to see him gone.
On Governor O’Malley
Miller gave O’Malley lavish credit for moving to act on a deficit that he inherited, even if it cost him politically. “O’Malley knew his numbers would go in the toilet no matter what he did, so he did the right thing.” Miller attacked some of the Governor’s opponents, criticizing them for being “mean-spirited” and spreading rumors. “The Governor is a very progressive person,” Miller insisted. But he warned, “This Governor, in order to get his numbers up, will have to do some things you won’t like.” As an example, he mentioned a new emphasis on crime prevention, not always the highest priority of liberals.
On Slots
As perhaps the greatest champion of slots in the state, Miller’s views are well-known. “We have got to have that money!” he cried. The Senate President predicted that a possible recession would hurt tax revenues, thereby making slots money all the more necessary. “We need to get the slots bill passed whether you like it or you don’t like it!” Miller thundered. So in case you were wondering if Mike Miller had changed his mind on slots, the answer is NOPE!
On Transit
I asked Miller if he had a choice to fund the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line or Baltimore’s Red Line, but not both, which of the two he would pick. I was sure he would dodge this one, but to his credit, he did not. “The Purple Line!” he declared. “You know, I was a University of Maryland – College Park graduate.” Miller pointed out that he proposed a 12-cent gas tax last year but he could not round up enough votes for it. “We need to move forward as quickly as we can on mass transit.”
On Illegal Immigration
“There aren’t more than 2% of the people that understand immigration,” Miller snorted. “If you crack down on illegal immigrants too much, they’ll just bring their families over here.” The Senate President does not support the draconian measures implemented in parts of Virginia, saying, “John McCain tells the truth on this issue.” As for drivers licenses, Miller says, “The Governor has spoken on this. He considers this a national security matter. It’s a tough issue.” Miller did not contest the Governor’s decision to abide by the federal RealID law and end the state’s practice of issuing drivers licenses to illegals.
On the Regressive Nature of the Special Session Tax Package
Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:
“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”
Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!” For the record, let’s stipulate that nobody – absolutely nobody – knows more about getting 24 votes in the Maryland Senate than Mike Miller.
The Senate President has a point and perhaps I was unfair with him. It is true that a substantial portion of MoCo legislators pushed back against the top income tax rate hikes but did not criticize the sales tax. If that part of the MoCo delegation did not protest the tax hikes on the rich, there would have been less need to rely on the more regressive elements of the package. And who knows? Perhaps there would have been less pressure to resort to the much-hated computer services tax.
So while I don’t agree with Miller’s assertion that the sales tax increase is in any way “acceptable,” I will no longer criticize him as primarily responsible for encouraging regressivity in the tax package. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for that.
On the Computer Services Tax
“The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it!” The principal reason for keeping it? “No one can agree on a replacement.”
So other than David Lublin’s Big Question, which I’ll address in Part Three, that’s what I have from Mike Miller. Even though many liberals occasionally disagree with the Senate President, let’s give him his due. He implemented a tough agenda of deficit reduction on the Governor’s behalf. He is more straightforward in answering questions than most politicians. And he keeps a lid on the natural parochialism that might otherwise prevail in the Senate through a hardened mix of guile, intimidation and pragmatism. With a weaker Senate leader, the special session may very well have failed and the need to raise taxes this year would be much greater. So you may not like Mike Miller. But you should respect him.
Even though Senator Jamie Raskin of District 20 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park) attended our blogger fest, we did not flay him as we did his colleagues. In Part Three, you’ll hear from House Majority Leader Kumar Barve.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Understanding Chevy Chase's Proposed FAR Ordinance
Much of this summary is based on the Town of
This post explains the concept of FAR and how it is measured in the Town of Chevy Chase's proposed ordinance.
The Basic Idea
The Town of
The base FAR proposed for
The Committee has proposed a maximum FAR of .50 for houses with additions. At this FAR, one could construct a 5,000 square foot home on a 10,000 square foot lot. The purpose of a higher FAR for homes with additions is to provide an incentive to retain existing homes and preserve the Town’s character.
Why FAR Tends to Underestimate What You Can Really Build
The figures cited above tend to underestimate greatly the permitted floor space within any building except on really large lots. Here is why:
Minimum of 2,500 Square Feet Allowed
No matter how small your lot, you can still construct a house of 2,500 square feet. Small lots are thus protected and given a bonus over large lots in terms of permitted floor space.
Below-Ground Floors Usually Don’t Count Toward Allowed Floor Space
Many below-ground areas thought of as basements by most people are legally classed as cellars. In general, if over one-half of the below-ground level is below the average elevation of the finished grade, this area is classed as a cellar as does not count toward your allowed floor space.
Unenclosed One-Story Porches Don’t Count Toward Allowed Floor Space
Porches are part of many existing homes in the Town. In order to help protect them and encourage their inclusion in new construction, the Committee recommended that unenclosed one-story porches not count toward your allowed floor space.
First 240 Feet of Detached Accessory Structures Don’t Count
This exemption is designed to encourage the preservation of detached rear garages which are characteristic in many parts of the Town. Caution: If you build an addition which attaches them to your home, then the first 240 feet will count as they are no longer an accessory structure.
Attics Count Only If They Have Structural Headroom of 6 Feet, 6 Inches
In other words, more traditional short attics don’t count toward the floor space limit.
Many Projections from the Home Don’t Count
For example, bay windows don’t count toward the allowed floor space unless they run from the bottom to the top floor of the house.
A Couple of Important Caveats Which Limit Home Size
Maximum of 5,000 Square Feet Is Allowed
Even if your FAR theoretically allows you to build more, you can only build up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. However, remember that this limit excludes all of exceptions mentioned above which do not count toward the limit. A below-grade basement, for example, could greatly expand the useable space in such a home.
Two-Story Rooms Are Counted Twice
Even if a floor isn’t laid, two-story areas (defined as 14 feet or higher) are counted twice under the recommendation, so you don’t get a break for cathedral ceilings. This makes sense since the goal of the Committee’s recommendation is to limit the bulk of homes. You can’t double your home size by having extra-high ceilings in every room.
Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers: Part One
It had to happen. Superman met Muhammad Ali. The King met Nixon. Alien met Predator. And last night, Maryland Senate President Mike Miller met the Bloggers.
How on Earth did this epochal event occur? Senator Rich Madaleno, political patron of the left-wing blogosphere, summoned us to Annapolis for an audience with the most powerful man in Maryland history to never serve as Governor. And so nine of us came from every corner of the state, some emerging from filthy basements, some crawling from cigarette-strewn alleys and others reluctantly shuffling out of comic book shops. None of us knew how the greatest culture clash since cream cheese Sushi was going to turn out.
A note on the bloggers. This may shock you, but they tend to be on the dorky side. Really. A white kid from Baltimore walked in with bright green earrings and a furry Afro. Following him was a middle-aged MoCo liberal with gray hair screaming down his back to be let loose from its unkempt pony tail. One blogger ranted about Massachusetts transportation policy to a glassy-eyed Senate President. Another earnestly pressed his essay on “Green Rail” into the hand of every legislator who would take it. The middle school teacher seemed fairly normal until he began reciting long-lost Industrial Workers of the World leaders unknown to even this former labor history instructor. Look, I’m not naming you guys, but I know you’re reading this and you know who you are.
Golly Wally, we’re a bunch of cross-eyed geeks! So why would Mike Miller and fellow attendees Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve want to talk to a raggedy crew like us?
The answer lies with Senator Madaleno. As an occasional blogger himself, Madaleno understands that blog readers are becoming a critical niche in the state’s political scene. Blog readership may never exceed the levels achieved by MSM outlets. But Madaleno knows that blog readers tend to be better-informed, more inclined to civic activism, and more likely to volunteer and contribute to political campaigns than the average MSM readers. That makes you, dear readers, a valuable political constituency. And the Maryland Democrats are starting to realize this.
So by talking to us, Senators Miller, Madaleno, and Raskin and Delegate Barve are really talking to you. What is it that they want to tell you? You’ll just have to keep chewing on that towel and wait until Part Two to find out.
Monday, January 21, 2008
“Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”
Have you ever had someone ransack your car? If so, did you say something like, “If I could ever get my hands on that punk, I’d…” Well, how about watching a video of that punk getting busted by the police? That’s exactly what the citizens of British Columbia can do and MoCo citizens should be entitled to the same pleasure.
Thefts from vehicles are a huge problem in MoCo. According to the Washington Post, between 1/1/07 and 10/15/07, there were 5,092 break-ins in MoCo, up 19% from the levels of the year before. In Police District 2, which includes Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Kensington, break-ins jumped from 577 to 1,062 over the same period. In my own neighborhood, car break-ins rose by 60% and car thefts rose by 56% over last year. And when my neighbor’s car, parked right across the street from mine, was stolen – that was the final straw for me.
Rising outrage over repeated crimes led us to identify a solution: bait cars. Used in dozens of jurisdictions across North America, bait cars are rigged with cameras, GPS devices and sensors linked to police headquarters. When a thief breaks in, the devices are triggered, the police are alerted and the cameras begin recording. If the thief tries to escape, police can remotely shut off the bait car engine and lock the doors. The trapped crook then bounces around the car like a panicked ping-pong ball as the long arm of the law reaches down to drag him off to jail.
Many of these bait car videos wind up on the Internet. You can find a lot of them on British Columbia’s marvelous baitcar.com website and on YouTube. Go ahead and watch these hilarious videos! You will quickly learn who these thieves really are. They are hardly hulking mastodons of the underworld. Rather, they are sniveling, larcenous weasels, so craven that they would likely flee in terror from the raised cane of an old woman. They scurry in packs like twitching, squeaking rats through parking lots, garages and neighborhoods looking for tasty morsels to grab. While certainly greedy, many are barely intelligent enough to figure out how to pick their noses with one finger.
Here’s a video from British Columbia. Note the teeth-chattering paranoia of the car thieves as they whine, “I hope this isn’t another f***’in bait car, man!”
And here’s another sorry miscreant on his way to jail. As the cops approach with police dogs, watch the crying wretch beg, “Please don’t let the dog chew on me!”
So do these programs really work? Absolutely, but only if done in tandem with aggressive marketing campaigns that inform criminals, “Steal a bait car and go to jail!” Minneapolis started the first comprehensive bait car program in the U.S. in 1997 and has seen a 30% drop in car thefts. Stanislaus County, California saw a 40% drop in two years. British Columbia has seen 10% annual drops since implementing their program in 2004. And in Arlington County, Virginia, their bait car program has helped cut auto thefts to their lowest level since 1965. Best of all, insurance companies often donate the cars and finance the marketing programs because reduced crime cuts down on claims. Upon learning these facts, nine civic associations in Forest Glen, Silver Spring and Kensington promptly asked that the MoCo police implement a comparable program.
So how could MoCo refuse a program that can draw on private funding to cut down on auto crime by double digits? Given its current budget problems, isn’t it time for the county to get creative? One thing is for sure: the car thieves aren’t going to take next summer off just because the county is cutting funding for police. So when they steal that next car, why not make these gibbering curs scream, “Oh NOOOO! It’s a BAIT CAR!!!”
Does Montgomery County Need An Arena?
From Marc Korman:
A recent Gazette article offered an update on the proposed Montgomery County arena. Back in June, the Maryland Stadium Authority released a feasibility study on the proposed arena. The basic concept is to build an arena with a total capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 people, which is considered mid-sized. The arena has many proposed uses including traveling shows like circuses, minor league sports, and concerts. Does Montgomery County really need an arena?
The report anticipates growth of 764 new jobs, $6.6 million in annual wage income, $19 million in annual business sales, and $2.4 million in annual tax revenue. While the Gazette article says the arena is projected to generate $7.5 million a year for the county, this number is actually the expected revenue of the arena itself from ticket sales, concessions, naming rights, and so on. There is no guarantee the County itself will get any of this. If a new arena were to be built, it is projected to be somewhere in the Germantown area.
After reading the feasibility study back in June, I noticed two problems immediately. First, the study does not accurately survey competing venues because it does not include outdoor arenas and stadiums in its comparison study. While some events are either indoor or outdoor affairs, many could occur in either type of venue, such as concerts. This increases the competing venues to at least include Nissan Pavilion, Wolf Trap, and the Frederick Keys stadium. Second, the study does not include the projected cost of constructing a stadium and the cost of infrastructure improvements to support it.
Beyond these two specific faults in the study, there is the broader issue of whether a new arena is really the right course for the county at this time. Montgomery County has many needs. In the short term, there is a $400 million deficit to balance and the County is already working on a deal for a new performance venue in Silver Spring. In the longer term, many of us want to see some type of Purple Line constructed, infrastructure improvements made to accommodate the consolidated military hospital in Bethesda, and development of the Corridor Cities Transitway. The last of these, the Corridor Cities Transitway, should be a prerequisite for any major new arena in Germantown since any large County facility should have regular transit access.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Hold That Mfume Endorsement of Donna
Seems the story of former Senate candidate Kweisi Mfume endorsing Donna Edwards was just a bit too premature. Look at this story from the DC Examiner.
District 47 Vacancy
Maryland Moment on the appointment to fill the vacancy caused by the passing of Sen. Gwendolyn Britt.
A Former Nevada Resident Reflects on the Democratic Caucuses
I'll bet you guys didn't know that I once lived in Nevada. Yes, it's true and I have the cheesy Las Vegas souvenirs to prove it. And as a former resident, I have a few things to say about Hillary Clinton's victory there.
Nearly a decade before I became acquainted with the joys of crossing the Intersection of Death, I was assigned to work a building trades organizing campaign in Las Vegas. Once I had unpacked my Van Halen CDs in my apartment, I went to see the Kings of Sinville - Culinary Workers Local Union 226. What I found was quite simply one of the most remarkable labor organizations that North America had ever seen. They had a savvy, battle-hardened leadership. They had the best research operation of any local union anywhere. They had an excellent organizing program. They had a hard-hitting political program. And best of all, they had a strong relationship with their members. Culinary was known for launching strikes against law-breaking casinos that went on for decades. That's right - their members walked on picket lines old enough to be mentioned in the Bible. As a young labor union researcher, I was in awe of them.
Culinary's political power in Las Vegas compares to MCEA's power in Montgomery County. But unlike MCEA, Culinary faces a state right-to-work law, a vigorous state Republican Party and giant, politically-connected gambling megacorporations that employ its members and occasionally run afoul of its contracts. Few unions can succeed in such a climate. Culinary does so through a ruthless blend of brains and brawn, mating its sophisticated staff with its militant, picket-sign-carrying membership.
That's why I'm as surprised as anyone that Culinary did not deliver the Democratic caucuses to its endorsed candidate, Senator Barack Obama. The Washington Post would have us believe that Culinary's power in Nevada is overrated. But I don't think that's a fair assessment for two reasons:
1. Culinary only announced its endorsement of Obama eight days before the primary. This did not give the union much time to educate its membership about its choice. All good unions know that members need to be persuaded, not instructed, to support their endorsed candidates at election time, and Culinary is no exception. Culinary's late endorsement was a miscalculation by its normally astute leadership, but it is not a sign of weakness.
2. Senator Hillary Clinton clearly has more name recognition and popular support than the Clark County Commissioners that Culinary usually beats up on.
So I'm not completely sure what this result says about Culinary, Nevada politics or Senator Clinton's campaign. But I'm pretty sure what it says about Senator Obama. The fact that one of North America's greatest local unions could not bring home a win for him in its stronghold is not a good sign for the junior Senator from Illinois.
Friday, January 18, 2008
A Million Dollar $mile
"Is there someone named Kevin here?" bellows the well dressed man. The candidate, a political novice, then does a veteran political move and works the room as he walks over. George Mitchell's web site says he has a million dollar smile. He did not disappoint. It can light up any room; even the cramped White Oak Starbucks where we met. In a six person race where everyone else has run for office before he is working to gaining ground on the leaders in the 4th Congressional District -- Donna Edwards and the incumbent Al Wynn. Behind in money and endorsements, the man who "has never had a bad day in his life" sat down for a wide ranging interview on the issues facing this bi-county district.
"We are where we thought we would be. People want to hear our positive message," says the former captain of the Morgan State Wrestling team, class of 1976. I have learned to respect wrestlers. A good wrestler can be flat on their back ready to be pinned and still have two or three moves to pin you. So when he tells me that he is going to win this race I take notice. But as a long time activist and a pretty good vote counter I have my doubts.
Born in Florence, South Carolina. Raised by a single mother first in the projects in Baltimore and later in the northwest side of Charm City. He was a junior high class mate of current Mayor Shelia Dixon at Pimilco JHS and a graduate of Mergenthaler High School. Four years at Morgan State, where as a promoter of bands including "Grand Jury", he crossed paths with the DJs at the campus radio station, including one Kweisi Mfume. A four year tour in the Army and it was time for this Business graduate to make some money. "My mom wanted me to get involved in politics immediately after school but my first loves were restaurants and entertainment." Starting out with his own restaurants in Petersburg, VA called "Farmer's Market" and later "Mitchell's", where then Baltimorean TV personality Oprah Winfrey was a regular customer, to a stint with a large food service company to being a franchisee in Golden Corral and then back to opening his own restaurant in Waldorf called "Prime Buffett" in the late 1980 and early 1990s. He moved to Prince Georges County and turned to real estate working as an agent in Temple Hills since the mid 1990's.
Why take on Wynn?
"Al Wynn has not done anything in the last 15 1/2 years. We have a school system (in Prince Georges) that has a 44% drop out rate. In Fort Washington, we have a 70% foreclosure rate in the past three years. We have the highest teen theft in Prince Georges and a lack of minority black businesses in the county. We need after school activities for the kids. The kids are our future," Mitchell says.
That leads to the obvious question why not run for School Board or County Council? "That's what (Al) Wynn says that 'these are County Executive issues'," he dismisses.
So why run now?
"What would Wynn's legacy if he was gone? He gave us a crab feast and a jobs fair in which less than 10% got jobs. Wynn has done a very poor job of overseeing local issues. I can do a better job of bringing people together. I am in a place in my life (his youngest son is a student at Boston College) where I can give back," says the father of three, stepfather of two, and grandfather to six. His late mother, Earles Rose Mitchell, was a both a labor leader in AFSCME and was active in her Baltimore neighborhood. I get the impression that this race is as much to fulfill her vision for her only son as it is his. George Earl Mitchell embraces that mantle now. And it willing to forgo long odds to make this their dream.
But when I point out there are other ways to contribute rather than take on an incumbent Congressman, probably the safest office in the US, like a 'restler he has been ready for my move. "It starts at the top. I can bring people together." He tells me that he looked at this race in 2006 but decided to not run. At this point almost on que -- but it wasn't -- a patron, Kevin Johnson, comes up seeking out the candidate and asking for more information. The picture is to the right.
"That happens all the time," he observes. But as a long time activist I know getting 'the feel' for how the campaign is going by the candidate themselves is a poor indicator -- few say "no" to a candidate directly. But for an eternal optimist that's par for the course. I could never pin him by pointing out that the race is a hopeless cause for a newcomer without a political base, a cadre of activists, and loads of money. "We are the Seabiscuit in this race," he responds. (Didn't he know that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic Presidential candidate, used that line in Iowa a few weeks ago? She wasn't even the first. Maybe he does; maybe not. But he is willing to charge ahead as any good wrestler would.)
A Look At The Issues
Blogger's Note: At this point my notes are not as clear -- so much for being a journalist. But here are some of the key points without direct quotes. It makes his positions look thin but he said more than this but this is what I have.
On Mitchell's website he cites four issues: Education, More Quality Jobs, Better Healthcare and Affordable Housing. His outline is very general. Who would disagree with any of those. So without specifics one is left wondering how does he accomplish those goals. It was something I failed to ask during our conversation.
I asked some questions that are not on his website. How do you balance the budget? He answer was to getting out of Iraq and making the tax system more fair. When I pressed him on the latter he came back with a flat tax. Since he is a real estate agent I asked about the home mortgage deduction, the largest single tax break on the books. He was willing to consider including that provision in a flat tax but he was willing to work on a consensus with others in Congress to make up the details.
On abortion he is pro-life with the exception of death, incest and rape.
Equal Rights for Gay Marriage he is not in favor but "the world is changing," he mentions. Mitchell would be willing to have a referendum on the issue to let the people decide.
How Are You Going to Get the Votes to Win?
"Three hundred and fifty thousand people did not vote (in the last primary who could)", he says. Mitchell sees himself getting 56,000 votes as part of a larger anti-Wynn vote. (Blogger note: He did have this up on his web site how he calculated the 56,000 votes and gave figures for Wynn and Edwards but now that information is down.)
Again it is back to his key point: Wynn "is the highest ranking black politician in the (Congressional) District. And only one other district has a worst record than Prince Georges is Baltimore," he charges.
So why not support Edwards?
"Who died and made her Queen?," he states. When I pointed out that is exactly what Rosalind Rose wrote on the Maryland Moment blog posted earlier this year (look at the second comment) I had to ask was that his wife, Rosalind Mitchell, masquerading as a neutral supporter? (Rose is his mother's maiden name.) He claims no.
Again the wrestler in him makes his move (in this case pitch). "She (Edwards) is a lot like Wynn... her base is not as big (as she thinks it is)," he claims.
Where is your money coming from?
I reviewed his two 2007 FEC filings. He has just over $55,000 cash on hand. Most of his money are from family members. His family names are Rose, English and Mitchell. His wife's maiden name was St. Amont. So I have him with 78% of his money coming from family (see graph below). Not exactly a groundswell of grassroots support for man proclaiming to be the "People's Congressman". He tells me that he has now raised over $100,000 an increase of 33% from his last filing. And earlier this week he was reported to say he has people pledged to raise $200,000 for his race.
So what is George Mitchell like?
He would not be a detailed legislator such as Ben Cardin or Paul Sarbanes. He does not have the depth of working in a legislature as they have done. I like candidates for legislatures who know their way around a legislature. Seems basic.
While Mitchell would not be the guy going over a bill line-by-line, there is still a place for someone like him. It would be in the networking and working with others who do the detail work. He is a hard guy not to like. He really does like to bring people together.
He believes he is the true alternative to Wynn, not Edwards. I hear it in his voice. A Doubting Thomas does not make a long shot race against a well funded challenger AND an incumbent Congressman. George Mitchell believes he will win and I have learned to respect wrestlers.
Blogger note: Next up Jason Jennings.
Even More Wynn and Edwards News
It is a six person race but tonight's PBS broadcast of NOW will highlight the race between Al Wynn and Donna Edwards. The program is called Divided Democrats. It will air at 10:00 PM tonight and after the program go to the link above and watch it online.
Having Ike's Ear
As a political observer, who wouldn't want to be a consigliere to a powerful elected official. See back in June 2007, I wrote one of my first pieces for Maryland Politics Watch (MPW) and I advocated that the Rockville Library not be named for the longest serving County Executive (CoEx) in our history. Well yesterday our current CoEx, Ike Leggett agreed with me using much of the same reasoning.
I don't have Ike's ear. We came to the same conclusion. It is not that Doug Duncan does not deserve something to be named after him but if the regulation is to wait for five years then let's wait the five years.
The naming rights issue had an impact in the recently completed Rockville Mayoral Race. Long time Duncan supporter and mayoral candidate, Susan Hoffmann, was widely expected to get his endorsement but Hoffmann was one of the two Rockville officials that sided with the library advocates against naming the jewel of the library system after him. Hoffmann snub of Duncan cost her his endorsement. He endorsed a full slate (and then some) of candidates for City Council but left blank an endorsement for Mayor. Duncan clearly wants the library to be named after him contrary to his public stance. What else would explain not endorsing the one person in the race who helped him in several campaigns and who he appointed to her current full-time job.
Because Ike left the Library unnamed we could revisit this once the five years are up. Come 2011 if Doug Duncan still wants the library and Ike wins reelection in 2010 then the Rockville Library will be renamed.
A Note on Labor Endorsements in CD4
Here's a quick observation from a labor guy on union endorsements in the Wynn-Edwards race.
The labor movement has been unusually divided between the top two contenders in CD 4: Al Wynn, the incumbent and Donna Edwards, the returning challenger. Wynn's biggest labor endorsers are the MSTA/NEA funds (the state teachers), the Washington Metro AFL-CIO, the Maryland-DC AFL-CIO, SEIU Local 400 (Prince George's local schools employees), AFSCME Local 2250 (Prince George's government employees) and the Washington DC Building Trades. Edwards' endorsers include the national SEIU, the national UNITE-HERE, UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers) and Progressive Maryland. She has also earned important non-labor endorsements from NOW, the Sierra Club and Emily's List.
When labor unions endorse, they bring either money, people power or both. In the Wynn-Edwards race, both of the leading candidates have enough money to compete. And both of them already have lots of name recognition in the district. So the labor endorsements that will matter the most will come from unions that 1. have lots of members in the district, 2. can get their members to turn out, and 3. have volunteers that can handle other tasks on behalf of the campaigns, including communication with non-members.
On the Wynn side, the most meaningful endorsements come from the Teachers. Both MCEA and PGCEA use Apple Ballots in their campaigns. But there are real questions as to whether either Apple Ballot will be used for a federal race and whether either affiliate will truly work hard for Wynn. On the Edwards side, the most meaningful endorsements come from UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers), the national SEIU and especially Progressive Maryland. PM has a large email list and engages in plenty of door-to-door work. But it will have to be just as active in Prince George's as it usually is in Montgomery to maximize its impact for Edwards.
So my best guess is that if the Teachers go all-out for Wynn, he'll have the edge. If they don't, PM will give the edge to Donna Edwards. But labor support is only one small dimension in this race. The overriding factors will be the level of satisfaction with Wynn inside the district and the relative skill each side shows in getting turnout. And the minor candidates could drain a few votes from Edwards, though none has yet demonstrated real strength in the district.
Two other interesting facts stand out. First, the 7000-member UFCW Local 1994 (the MoCo government employees) has not endorsed either candidate. Second, it is extremely unusual for a local union (SEIU Local 400) to take an opposite position from its parent. I cannot recall this happening inside my union, where the international and the regional councils closely align. It is probably a sign of the unusual volatility and strong feelings in this particular race.
Planned Parenthood endorses Rep. Wynn
Planned Parenthood Federal PAC endorsed Congressman Al Wynn yesterday.
"Al Wynn has a long history of advocating for women's health and is a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose. He is a solid pro-choice vote in the US Congress and I am thrilled that the Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed him." Patricia Shields, Board Member, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington Action Fund
To see the full campaign announcement click.
This does two things: it undercuts into Donna Edwards' mantle as the progressive candidate, especially among those who are advocates of reproductive rights, and it is also a signal that the incumbent has voted "correctly" on all of the issues of Planned Parenthood. National organizations are highly unlikely to back a challenger if the incumbent has voted with them most of the time.
We are starting to see the faults lines based on endorsements. Wynn gets Planned Parenthood and NARAL; Donna Edwards gets EMILY's List. Wynn gets the SEIU Local 400 endorsement but Edwards gets SEIU's national endorsement.
I fully expect to see more endorsements that seem to cut both ways.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
House of Delegates Remembers Jane Lawton
The Washington Post carried a short story on the Maryland House of Delegates' memorial for Delegate Jane Lawton. As usual, the best memories of Jane are the funny ones. The Governor had this to say:
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) told an anecdote from last fall's frantic special legislative session, when he called Lawton at her desk on the House floor to discuss the votes they needed to pass a particular bill.Can't you just hear her saying that?
"I said, 'Delegate Lawton, this is your governor,' and she said, 'Oh, no!'," O'Malley said, adding that Lawton was a strong backer of his policies.
"I said, 'Jane, how does that make me feel?'
"She said, 'I know if you're calling me, we're in trouble.' "
Mfume Endorses Edwards
According to the DailyKos, former Rep. Kweisi Mfume has endorsed Donna Edwards over incumbent Al Wynn in the primary District 4. This is huge for Edwards. Mfume may have lost his primary narrowly to Sen. Ben Cardin but retains influence, especially among African Americans. In 2006, Edwards won Montgomery big but lost Prince George's.
Mfume's support could help her gain the crucial votes from African Americans in Prince George's needed to put her over the top. It helps put the imprimatur of "serious candidate" on someone trying to unseat a key figure in the Prince George's political establishment. Will Wynn try to cast Mfume as an interfering Baltimore politician even though Wynn endorsed Mfume for Senate? And if he does, will it work?
Woodmont East II Meeting Hits the Papers
The Gazette and the Washington Post (with a broken link) both printed articles on public forum on Woodmont East II hosted by Councilman Roger Berliner. See the bottom of the post for the news on the latest action by the developer which didn't make either paper.
Bradford Pearson of the Gazette quoted Roger Berliner as stating the project is improved but may need a little more work:Berliner, who has been campaigning for a public park on part of the site, said progress has been made, but more can be done.
Pearson further quoted residents who agreed with this assessment:
‘‘The developers did hear our concerns, and have substantially revised their proposal,” he said. ‘‘But this will represent the heart and soul of Bethesda, and we need to make sure it’s done properly.”‘‘I think this plan is better, but I would suggest you go further,” said Bob Smythe, president of the Sacks Neighborhood Association, the closest neighborhood to Woodmont East. ‘‘We don’t want this to be D.C., with all its hardscapes. I live here because I like it better.”
In the Washington Post, Miranda Spivack caught the one major reduction in the public space in the new plan:
Other residents agreed.
‘‘I would like to see more green space, maybe with a butterfly garden or a place where children can explore,” said Susan Milner, of Chevy Chase.While many in the audience at last week's meeting praised the proposal as a big improvement over previous plans, there were still many skeptics.
It's even more problematic. The schematic presented by the developers includes cafe tables on both side of the mews/alley as one can see in the blurry photos from my original take here on the meeting. This shrinking of the width of the alley remains my major objection to the plan.
Some voiced concerns about a proposal to combine the hiker-biker trail with a 50-foot wide mews, reduced from 75 feet in the previous plan, where pedestrians and shoppers would mingle with hikers and bikers."
The developer never released copies of the plan to the public and Pat Harris, the attorney for the developer, didn't respond positively to my offer to post a copy here. It still is not posted to the Planning Board website even though the developers hope to have a hearing in February, so it is all we've got. Perhaps there ought to be a requirement that plans be posted on the Planning Board website at least six weeks before the hearing date for approval.
Interestingly, the Planning Board website now contains written testimony from people who spoke the public hearing but does not include submitted written testimony, thus one again showing the importance of being present at the Planning Board meetings even though they occur during the workday.
One final bit of news: Apparently, the developer intends to ask the Planning Board to rule favorably on the abandonment of Reed Street even as it approves the basic outline of the plan--a fact not mentioned at the public forum. One assumes that they didn't bother to inform Councilman Berliner either. The letter making the request is also not yet posted to the Planning Board website.
Special Report: Why Are We Talking About Rent Control in MoCo?
Last month, the Gazette reported that County Executive Ike Leggett told a meeting of 50 tenants in Silver Spring that he would sign a rent control bill if the County Council passed it. This no doubt pleased fellow attendee and County Council Member Marc Elrich, who was one of the prime supporters of rent control in Takoma Park when he served on its City Council. But other county council members may not be so happy with this hot-potato Christmas present from their executive.
So why are we talking about rent control?
Rent control is one approach to the issue of affordable housing, long one of the most intractable problems in Montgomery County (and the entire Washington region). No one from any side of the debate believes that Montgomery County has enough affordable housing. There is plenty of evidence for that view, including:
1. The Census Bureau reports that 46% of the county’s rental units required rents of 30% or more of the occupants’ income in 2006.
2. In that same report, the Census Bureau finds that 36% of the county’s owner-occupied units with a mortgage required payments of 30% or more of the occupants’ income.
3. Impact Silver Spring found that 47% of renters in Silver Spring were paying rents of 30% or more of their income in 2005. Silver Spring has long been thought to be one of the more affordable areas in Montgomery County.
4. The Montgomery County Planning Department reports that the median price of a new detached single-family home reached $1.1 million in the first quarter of 2007. That means half the new homes were sold above that price.
While the county has acknowledged affordable housing problems since at least the 1970’s, its recent difficulties occur in the context of two market realities: rising prices and slow population growth.
Rising Prices
The Montgomery County Planning Department reported that between 2002 and 2007’s first quarter, prices for new single family homes rose by 138%. Huge price hikes also occurred for new townhouses (91%), existing townhouses (105%) and existing single family homes (69%). These hikes may be tapering off, but no one believes that all the price gains of recent years will disappear.
Slow Growth
Since 1990, the county’s population has grown by a meager annual average 11,873 people, or 1.4% per year. In 2006, the county added only 5,000 people – its slowest population growth since 1983. These numbers mockingly lash the back of every wild-eyed MoCo activist who has ever used the term “hyper-growth.”
In fact, rising prices and slow growth may be related. Montgomery County has long been praised for its excellent schools, attractive parks, nice downtowns and quality government services. It is one of the most desirable places to live in the nation. So why does its population grow so slowly? The county simply does not have enough housing to accommodate everyone who wants to move in. Picture a giant bucket pouring endless numbers of people into a shiny, but small bottle. Not everyone will get in. Increasingly, it seems that those who do get in fall into two groups: those who are wealthy enough to afford high-price housing on their own, and those who are willing to tolerate overcrowded, substandard conditions. (The social tensions between these two groups, who sometimes live on the same block, are rising.)
And so when limited supply meets insatiable demand, home prices and rents rise. This is the experience of Montgomery County, most jurisdictions in the Washington area, and many parts of the country.
The county’s primary tool for encouraging the construction of affordable housing is its Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program. Created in 1973, the MPDU program is based on a simple trade: developers are ordered to construct below-market-rate units in return for permission to increase housing density. Currently, the law applies to developments of 20 or more units. It mandates that 12.5-15% of the new units be affordable for families earning up to 70% of the area’s median income. In return, the developer may build up to 22% more units than called for in a parcel’s zoning. A new workforce housing program based on similar principles was approved in 2006 but has not yet begun operation.
There are three problems with the MPDU program. First, developers are allowed to “buy out” from the MPDU requirements by paying into the county’s Housing Initiative Fund. Second, the program depends on new construction. When the economy slows down and residential development declines, so does MPDU construction. Finally, the program has actually created very little affordable housing. Since the first MPDU’s were constructed in 1976, only 8,527 owner-occupied units and 3,520 rented units have been built. The county’s total stock of housing units in 2006 consisted of 241,108 owner-occupied units and 100,330 rented units. So after 30 years of the MPDU program, only 3.5% of the county’s owner-occupied and rented units are MPDU’s – a depressingly low total.
In a recent Gazette column, four County Council members claimed that 31,616 housing units were currently approved for development with a projected buildout of 6 years. But how many of those units are MPDU’s? If we were charitable and assumed that 10% were to be MPDU’s and that all of them would be built, the MPDU percentage of the county’s housing stock would rise to a grand total of 4.1%. Even if every single one of these units was an MPDU, the MPDU percentage would only rise to 11.7%. Of course, this would never happen, but it would be a nice start.
There are other tools the county has to affect residential development, including master plans, Planning Board and planning staff reviews, rezoning decisions on individual parcels and zoning text amendments. But the provision of housing is only one factor affecting these decisions. Other factors including resident sentiment, environmental considerations, traffic tests, school capacity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods are also weighed. Inevitably, the number of units ultimately approved is less than would be built in a pure free market. And while the county offers rental and homeowner assistance through its Housing Opportunities Commission, these programs have not solved the affordable housing problem.
Deep in the long-lost regions of my mind that remember my college microeconomics coursework, a neoclassical voice cries out, “The government restricts supply, then micromanages construction and now is talking about fixing prices. Of course the housing market is broken!” But that view is too simple. Residential construction creates significant external costs that are not adequately priced in private buyer-seller transactions, such as pollution, school crowding and traffic. And these costs are not fully recovered by the county’s impact tax system. Some development limits are necessary to protect the county’s Agricultural Reserve, preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and prevent the county from resembling overdeveloped Rings of Hell like Phoenix and Las Vegas. But the cost of pursuing these worthwhile objectives may be to limit the provision of affordable housing, both owner-occupied and rental.
The two paradigms of development politics in this county do not have the answers for this problem. The affordable housing issue nicely demonstrates the critical flaws of each side of the ever-lasting development debate. Anti-growth people will not admit that limits on development tend to put upwards pressure on prices and rents over the long term. Pro-growth people will not admit that a true market solution to housing – allowing supply to meet demand – could necessitate massive new residential construction. No one knows the number of new units required to meet the true demand for Montgomery County housing – 50,000 or 100,000 or even more? – but that number is likely to be much greater than a strained county capital budget and a traffic-choked citizenry can accept.
And so we have market failure for affordable housing. And that’s why we are talking about rent control.
Chevy Chase Moratorium Hits the Papers
Read Audrey Dutton's take on last week's Council meeting in the Gazette. According to Dutton: "The council is expected to vote on the new building laws by the end of April." The Washington Post printed a separate article by Dutton on this topic but the online link doesn't work.
Much Ado About Purple
There has been much talk about new Purple Line funding in press releases from pro-Purple Line groups. However, these claims rest on promises which may prove ephemeral to say the least. Specifically, don't get too excited about the much touted $100 million announced for the Purple Line. Lawmakers -- chanting "P-U-R-P-L-E! O'Malley!" -- applauded the allocation, saying that the eventual construction of the line will help cut traffic congestion in Washington's suburbs. "We know that the Purple Line would be good for our environment, our economy and our quality of life," said Del. William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery). Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari called the Purple Line the "transit beltway," connecting Montgomery and Prince George's. The $100 million to fund the next phase of the project will help Maryland procure federal dollars for it in the future, Porcari said.
If one examines the new proposed state transportation budget, one does not find new funding in either budget years 2008 and 2009. The new funding for the Purple Line, promised to (or demanded by) legislators in exchanged for support for slots or taxes during the special session, all occurs in budget years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
One might notice that these budget cycles will not commence during the current governor's (hopefully) first term. One might further notice that these budget years are all labeled (as is 2010): "PROJECTED CASH REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY". In other words, these figures don't mean a heck of a lot.
One might finally notice that the numbers are very round: $18 million in 2011, $30 million in 2012, and $28 million in 2013, and total to an even rounder $100 million. Again, smacks of repaying a debt rather than a firm figure on the actual cost of this project. Even if the feds decide to fund it--still an open question--the State still hasn't made a serious commitment despite the recent frenzy of press releases.
Oddly, the Washington Post appeared to have missed this key point. Its budget article conflates its discussion of the $100 million into next year's budget. They shouldn't feel bad though. Legislators and the Transportation Secretary didn't highlight it either:
Purple Line supporters still have to overcome several major hurdles: (1) convincing the State that this project deserves priority, (2) proving that the light-rail is more cost effective than other options, (3) convincing the feds to fund it, and (4) convincing Maryland to find the money to fund it. Despite the hoopla, I don't think that they are any closer than before the $100 million was announced.
It looks as if gaining federal funding may also be trickier than expected. The Silver Line to Dulles is facing unexpected difficulties according to the Washington Post despite the strong efforts by Virginia to accommodate federal requirements: Officials on Capitol Hill, in Richmond and at the airports authority's headquarters have speculated in recent days about what the problem might be. Some say the FTA has long been skeptical of expensive rail projects; in recent years, it has more often championed bus rapid transit projects.
Still, Purple Line supporters are clearly fighting hard for the project and able to muster a fair amount of legislative clout even if they can't yet get the money. It also remains a crucial time for the proposed link as the numbers from the ridership study (though not the actual study) have been released and the environmental impact study is coming up soon.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Former District 39 Delegate Slams Tax Hikes
Joan F. Stern of North Potomac, a Democrat who served in the House of Delegates from 1999 to 2007, attacked the state's recently-passed tax package in a letter to the Gazette.
In the letter, Stern rages against her former Democratic colleagues, thundering, "County and state officials need to rethink their philosophy and understand that most people are no longer willing to put up with elected officials who keep increasing their taxes, especially when services are being cut. I have seen the light. How about the rest of you?"
After complaining about "expensive new mandates in a declining economy," Stern concludes, "No wonder Maryland had a net loss of 35,000 people to other states. It is time for a reality check."
Stern was not included on District 39's incumbent slate in the 2006 election. Nor did she make the Montgomery County Education Association's Apple Ballot. As a result, newcomer and MCEA-backed Saqib Ali defeated her by 1,238 votes. Are Stern's complaints about taxes a prelude to an attempted comeback?
EM Statement on Passing of Sen. Britt
Equality Maryland issued the following statement over the weekend and has temporarily replaced the front page of its website with a tribute to Sen. Gwendolyn Britt:
Dear Friends,
We are saddened to report that our dear friend and hero, State Senator Gwendolyn Britt, has passed away from a heart attack. We struggle to find the words to convey the depth of our feelings at this loss, and we offer our condolences to her husband, Travis, her children, grandchildren, and entire family. Sen. Britt's loss will be felt deeply by her colleagues in the Maryland State Senate, by her constituents in Prince George's County's District 47, and by virtually everyone who knew her.
Thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Marylanders and their families only knew Sen. Britt by name, and yet this name truly meant everything to them. At a time in our nation's history where LGBT people seek champions for the equal protection of our families, Sen. Britt rose up and declared our cause her own. In a feature article on "players to watch" in the General Assembly printed just last week by the Washington Post, Sen. Britt was described as a "civil rights activist." Sen. Britt fought Jim Crow laws down south and here at home in Maryland. She spent her life seeking to correct injustices.
When Equality Maryland approached Sen. Britt about being a lead sponsor on The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, she did not hesitate or ask to think it over first. Her answer was definite, her pride apparent, her convictions solid. In the past few days, as Sen. Britt prepared to file marriage equality legislation and advocated with her senate colleagues on the issue, she made us at Equality Maryland feel that with her by our side, anything is possible. She taught us to keep the faith, never to waver from our commitment to a cause, and to speak truth to power no matter what obstacles stand in our way.
Senator Britt, we will miss your grace, your dignity, your warmth, your intelligence, your smile, your solemnity, your beauty, your hugs, and most of all, your friendship and support.
You will always be with us.
The Staff, Boards and Lobbyists for Equality Maryland
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Charlie Cook in Chevy Chase
Councilman Mier Wolf introduces Larry O'Rourke and Charlie CookCharlie Cook has one of my dream jobs: he's a political prognosticator for a living. Although he normally gives his opinions for a living, he kindly shared his views of the political landscape at a community event at the Leland Center tonight. I always knew he had a lot of knowledge about politics on the ground. I hadn't known he was so entertaining--a political Garrison Keillor.
He has a real flair for explaining complex political events with easily understandable analogies and good stories, skills this classroom teacher could only envy. I won't report too much of what he said. It hardly seems fair to steal the political thoughts of someone who sells them as his livelihood. But I thought he shared some interesting views on why Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary and on the upcoming general election.
First, like me and many others, he believes that race does not explain why Obama lost to Clinton in New Hampshire. He argues that the last minute shift among college-educated women in New Hampshire is not plausibly explained by a racial voting. He also thinks that Clinton's moment of choking up in public helped her look more human to the electorate.
He also mentioned something which reflects less well on Sen. Clinton. Apparently, the Clinton campaign sent out a flyer to independent undecided women the weekend before the primary claiming that Obama had failed to stand up for choice in contrast to Clinton. Cook brought and read from a copy of the mailer. Someone also called in on WAMU who was in New Hampshire mentioning this today but I hadn't wanted to give it credence based on one phone call to the radio.
It certainly shows that the Clintons can fight hard and rough--some will undoubtedly also say dirty. I'm not sure how well this will play with Democrats since Obama is clearly pro-choice and the flyer does more than suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the campaign has moved on to the other states so it remains to be seen if this issue will get more press coverage or anyone will care.
On a different note, Charlie Cook explained that he thought it would be a close election even though the fundamentals support the Democrats. He indicated that he thought McCain would be the toughest Republican to beat for either Clinton or Obama, an assessment I share, though Cook noted that McCain is vulnerable on the question of his age.
Of course, the question remains whether the GOP will be savvy enough to nominate him in the first place. Romney just won the Michigan primary.
Glover Fits, Acquits; Mine Don't
In a whirlwind of activity that lasted no more than thirty minutes, actor Danny Glover came out to support Donna Edwards the principal challenger in a six person race with Rep. Albert Wynn at the New Carrolton Metro stop.
Congress "needs passionate people who are engaged in the body politic," stated Glover in his endorsement of Edwards. For a man used to the bright lights of Hollywood, Glover felt at home mingling with well wishers, campaign staff, assembled media, a beaming candidate and yes even the occasional voter in the dimly lit entrance to the Orange Line station.
Amateur photographers such as this fair blogger need not worry about lighting as a steady steam of flash cameras going off and TV lights covering every step made each shot a cinch. If there was to have been a fire drill no one could have passed such was the crowd that gathered to listen Glover, a one-time student of American University and a former city government worker. In fact that is the reason I switched from reporter to cameraman as the crowd made it difficult to hear all comments from both headliners. I have also not mastered the act of shorthand while wearing thick winter gloves on top of fighting a runny nose.
As a veteran of the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary where candidates and celebrities mix calmly among the voters and reporters last night's event was the Congressional equivalent.
These photo ops are usually not about targeting likely voters. You have no idea if the audience are: in your district, registered and then willing to come out for you. But you still do it because they create news, it is easy to find volunteers to staff it and you have a built-in buzz for those around the campaign.
Still her message of change to this Metro throng matched the national candidates as well on the same day that 8 term incumbent endorsed the leading change candidate.
Maryland may not be a player on the national stage come primary but this race might well be our personal Super Tuesday.
The Governor Pays the Price for Miller's Advice
According to the Baltimore Sun, Governor O’Malley now suffers a 35% approval rating, the lowest since the end of the Glendening administration. Why? Two words: tax hikes. And another two words: Mike Miller.
Reacting to the state’s $1.7 billion general fund deficit, the Governor proposed a tax hike and spending cut plan prior to last fall’s special session. While, as David Lublin points out, no one enjoys either tax hikes or spending cuts, some parts of the plan were more unpopular than others. The features enjoying the most voter support were tobacco tax hikes (69% in a 9/28/07 Washington Post poll), slots (68%), corporate income tax hikes (66%) and income tax increases on the rich (62%). The feature with the least support was the sales tax hike (29%). The Governor tried to soften the tax hikes with a property tax cut.
But Senate President Mike Miller had other ideas. The Senate junked combined reporting, a corporate tax reform that would have made it more difficult for corporations to reduce Maryland taxable income by assigning it to other states. The Senate reduced the top rates in the Governor’s income tax proposal, thereby making it less progressive. And the Senate eliminated the Governor’s property tax cut. So three of the Governor’s most popular reforms were reduced or taken off the table. While the final package was a compromise with the House that restored some of the top income tax rate increases, the contribution of the Senate ensured that the outcome was less progressive than it otherwise could have been.
The result? The hugely unpopular sales tax increase accounted for more than $700 million of the final $1.3 billion tax package, the primary reason cited by the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute in labeling it regressive. And Baltimore Sun poll respondents labeled the tax package “unfair” by a margin of 51-33%.
Now I was not a big fan of the Governor’s original proposal but in retrospect, it was far superior to the Senate's proposal. Unfortunately for the well-meaning but embattled Governor, the price of following Mr. Miller’s advice is the good will of the Maryland voter.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Tough Choices and Predictable Poll Drops
When the economy booms and revenue coffers bulge, state elected officials can hand out tax cuts and still increase spending, making voters happy and looking brilliant as they do it.
It is a lot harder when the economy contracts and revenues fall short. Requirements in most states to balance the state budget every year impose much greater fiscal discipline and make governing much more difficult.
Unlike at the federal level, elected officials have to make choices and can't simply rack up new debt on the federal credit card. States have to raise taxes and cut spending.
Unsurprisingly, voters don't tend to like either of these options. Support for the Governor has dropped according to the Baltimore Sun:Just over a year after O'Malley won 53 percent of the vote, only 35 percent of voters approve of the way he's handled his job.
Forty-five percent disapprove of O'Malley's job performance and twenty percent don't know. Voters aren't thrilled with the new taxes imposed by the State during the special session:In a state where education is perennially named by residents as the most important issue, high taxes have skyrocketed to the top of voter concerns, with 28 percent identifying it as the most pressing problem. . . .
Blair Lee of the Gazette cites a similar Gonzales Research Poll in his recent column. Lee doesn't bother to suggest how else the State might have coped with the budget crisis. Or if voters might have liked it better.
The poll found that opposition to the tax package is intense, with 39 percent of voters saying they disapproved strongly. Of the 32 percent who approved of the outcome, 20 percent did so "not so strongly." . . .
Asked to set aside their own personal feelings about the outcome and comment on the general fairness of the tax increases, 51 percent said they were unfair, compared with 33 percent who said the package was fair.
One doubts that major budget cuts proposed by the Republicans would have been better received than the tax increases. Many appeared unhappy with the budget cuts that occurred despite increases in the sales and income tax as well as the prospect of slots.
Tuition Battle Looms
The Baltimore Sun reports:Gov. Martin O'Malley vowed Monday to freeze tuition at most of Maryland's public colleges for a third consecutive year, but he acknowledged a likely fight over the issue with legislative leaders who have said tuition should be increased.
After the tuition hikes of the Ehrlich era, keeping tuition down is a worthy goal. Of course, I imagine finding the $55 million needed to freeze tuition isn't easy in the current budget climate.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller has said tuition should be increased to offset necessary budget cuts, and House Speaker Michael E. Busch Monday said he supports a tuition increase of no more than 3 percent.
"Senate President Miller and I have a disagreement," O'Malley, a Democrat, said Monday at a news conference at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
He said Busch's 3 percent limit "articulates a pretty good goal for the future, but for the present, I'm going to do everything I can to fight for at least another year of zero percent increases in college tuitions." The governor proposes to pay for the in-state tuition freeze with about $16 million in revenue expected to be generated by the in crease from 7 percent to 8 percent in the corporate income tax passed during November's special legislative session.
Political Flowers Are Blooming Early
The recent arctic blast leaves many a resident longing for warmer days. For some it is a chance to day dream of upcoming Nats spring training baseball games and for others they feel the pull to begin work in the garden. But political junkies know that in a Presidential election season this winter blast has us thinking of planting another type of flower. One that sprouts very quickly. It is called the campaign yard sign.
I saw my first ones this weekend. The first picture came from the Hillandale area that are part of Congressional District 4. Don't know much about Robert Broadus but since his signs were next to some Ron Paul signs it leads me to believe that the same person is putting them up. The Ron Paul yard signs are immediately outside Democratic newcomer's Jason Jennings residence -- the Enclave. Interesting that Broadus chose Albert Wynn's colors.
A google search of Robert Broadus found him to have a meetup location in Bethesda, which is outside of CD4. Yes, he is a disciple of Ron Paul. He is also a Naval Academy grad. Here is more about him.
This Donna Edwards yard sign came from my travels through Olney, in the heart of MoCo CD4.
Not to be outdone here is one of two Jason's yard signs I saw at the Colesville Giant (aka Northern Huckerville). Unfortunately, Jason's yard signs are near my home and I do not live in CD4. The entire intersection is in Chris Van Hollen's district. But upper New Hampshire Avenue cuts back and forth between the two congressional districts so he will be reaching CD4 voters.
Keep in mind that Ben Kramer had a huge yard sign there in the 2006 primary and it is well outside of the boundaries District 19. For Kramer the giant yard sign made sense since this shopping center is the world wide HQs of Kramer Enterprises, the family business.
Finally, after my interviewing George Mitchell yesterday I saw the handiwork of his campaign staff on my way to New Carrollton.
Keep your camera handy and send them along. We will see which campaign has the most creative ways of "beautifying" the neighborhood. Leave me a message. For a hint look at my profile. Let's have some fun with this!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Montgomery County's Forests
From Marc Korman:
Despite the recent passage of a new county growth policy, growth issues remain at the forefront of Montgomery County’s attention. One aspect of this is trees, which was the topic of discussion at last Thursday’s League of Women Voters Forest Conservation Law Forum. The Forum featured Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson, discussing the Board’s proposed changes to the law, and Councilman Marc Elrich, discussing his own efforts to build upon the Planning Board’s recommendations. Representatives of the environmental community and building industry also spoke. According to the Planning Board, the County had 93,000 acres of forest in 1951, 100,000 acres in 1973, and 92,000 acres in 2002. How much forest cover Montgomery County maintains in the years ahead may very well depend on reform of the Forest Conservation law.
It was apparent from all of the presenters that the current forest conservation law is extremely complicated. The law applies only to forests, defined as 10,00 square feet with 100 trees per acre (43,650 square feet). Essentially, when any type of development is occurring on a lot size that is at least 40,000 square feet (just under an acre), the forest conservation law is triggered. Depending on the type of land use the parcel falls under, a certain amount of the forest on that land is supposed to be maintained (the conservation threshold) and a certain amount of new forest is supposed to be planted (the afforestation threshold). Currently, the forest conservation law is not designed to be neutral in the amount of forest in the County and in most cases only a quarter of acre of trees needs to be replaced for every acre removed (above a certain level of removal, acreage must be replaced by two to one). The law aims to keep forests on site or in the area, but developers can also purchase offsets in other areas. This can be both good and bad. The good is that offsets can be strategically purchased in areas like stream buffers, which can provide maximum benefit for the environment by reducing runoff. The bad is that offsets can also be purchased from existing forests that are not in danger. Replanting can also be problematic, as replacing a large diameter mature tree with a small seedling is a huge, short term loss to the environment.
According to Royce Hanson, the Planning Board’s reform has a few major purposes including clarifying the existing law, eliminating some of the exemptions to the law, a slight increase of 5% in the amount of trees that would be retained, and an extension of the amount of time developers must maintain any new trees from two years to five years, which would increase the cost of development.
Councilman Elrich wants to amend the Planning Board’s changes and increase further the amount of trees retained, apply the law to lots as small as 10,000 square feet, and try to reach a goal of no net loss of trees by increasing the amount of acreage replanted or retained.
Many of us are supportive of both a new tree ordinance (which would apply to individual and small groups of trees) and improving the forest conservation law. The problem is that the county is growing, almost regardless of what policies the government puts in place and there needs to be a balance between some needed development and important conservation efforts. In order to accommodate that growth and maintain our trees and open space, we need to build up in dense areas, preferably those around Metro stations. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that many people who support preserving the Agriculture Reserve, limiting sprawl, and saving trees also oppose much of this vertical growth. Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons for this like traffic concerns. Other times it seems to be a reflexively anti-growth view. The growth debate in Montgomery County continues to rage. . .
That Other Congressional District
Most MoCo residents live in Congressional District 8 (I do) and therefore are represented by Chris Van Hollen. But almost a third of the county residents are located in Congressional District 4 (CD4) and therefore are represented by Al Wynn (official site). Ok and those people of Damascus are in yet a third district. But with 29 days to the primary I thought it would educational to meet and interview all of the six candidates running in the Democratic primary in CD4, where we will the potential to have the closest primary contest in the state.
Last election cycle, a mere 17 months ago, there were two challengers to Rep. Wynn (campaign site): Donna Edwards and George McDermott, between the two challengers they had a plurality of the votes. Not a good sign for an incumbent. The closeness of that race has spawned three additional candidates: George Mitchell, Jason Jennings and Michael Babula making for a crowded six person race. To help sort through things I thought it would be helpful to set down with each of them and get their opinions on the key issues.
So beginning this week I will be interviewing the candidates and posting here. Let me know if there are any questions that I should pose to the candidates. No below the belt comments, please there are other blogs for that.
First up will be the only newcomer in the race: Upper Marlboro Businessman George Mitchell.
Stop Slots Maryland Promises Aggressive Campaign
Aaron Meisner, Chairman of Stop Slots Maryland, promised a group of MoCo activists today that his organization would wage an aggressive campaign to defeat the slots referendum. What is his plan and will it work?
Meisner made his remarks at a public meeting of Progressive Neighbors, a liberal group based in Silver Spring and Takoma Park. He started by noting that most recent slots referenda have failed, a point previously demonstrated by Free State Politics blogger Eric Luedtke. So while slots have a 60%+ favorability in Maryland polls, victory is possible.
"We can win, but it won't be easy," Meisner said. "It's not easy to transform a grass-roots lobbying organizations into a statewide campaign. It's taking time to shift gears." Meisner indicated that the organization is recruiting political operators with statewide campaign experience in Maryland and is in heavy talks with several religious groups. He described the evolving coalition as a group of "strange bedfellows" including secular progressives, rural values voters and religious organizations. "It's a big challenge to get organized," he admitted.
Meisner did not get into specifics, but upon reading a hard copy of this blog post, he indicated that the new plan would resemble what we have outlined. Overall it seems that Stop Slots Maryland is just getting moving. As he says, they have a real challenge: radically changing the organization in the midst of waging its most critical and difficult campaign yet. It is very, very tough for any organization to change so much while on the move, but that is what has to happen for them to win.
Right now, the big questions on this issue are:
1. Will the Governor campaign in favor of the referendum?
2. How will Stop Slots Maryland raise the money needed to win?
3. How will the organization liaison with the street-level activists who will be critical to victory?
Elbridge James, President of Progressive Maryland, hinted at the answer to a fourth big question at the same meeting. When asked whether Progressive Maryland would "help lead the fight against slots," James said that the issue would be decided at a board meeting of the group in late January. "The question is will we oppose slots vigorously, oppose slots passively or not oppose them," he said. While James declined to provide a hard prediction of what Progressive Maryland would do, few of us left the meeting believing that the group would fight hard against slots. Several of the group's union affiliates may in fact support slots because of hopes to unionize casino workers, perform the construction work, or gain more public funding. This creates a significant possibility that Progressive Maryland will sit out this fight, thus lessening the chances of slots opponents.
Pay attention to this one, folks. The fighters are still in their robes, bouncing in their corners. Michael Buffer is only now reaching for the mike. I'd advise you to place your bets, but ah... maybe that's the wrong metaphor.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Sen. Gwendolyn Britt Died This Morning
Gwendolyn Britt on the Glen Echo Park Merry-Go-RoundPrince George's Sen. Gwendolyn Britt (D-47) died suddenly.
The Washington Post reports:
A Democrat who represented Landover Hills, Langley Park and Adelphi, Britt died at 4 a.m. apparently from heart failure or a stroke while still being admitted to Doctor's Community Hospital in Lanham, he said.Senator Britt was a real class act. Reflecting her long history of championing civil rights, she was the lead Senate sponsor on the same-sex marriage bill even though there was no political benefit--and some political risk--in being so outspoken on the issue.
"The legislative arena is one filled with people with sharp elbows. She was the antithesis of that," said Sen. Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George's). "She was warm, caring, honorable, principled and fair."
Britt, a civil rights and community activist, was entering her fifth year in the Senate.
During her first term in office, former Montgomery County executive Douglas M. Duncan strongly considered Britt as a running mate before he dropped out of the race for governor.
"It was clear she was coming into her own," said Pinsky. "She was taking on more responsiblity and she enjoyed that."
This week the county delegation unanimously reelected her as chairwoman. Britt, a lead Senate sponsor on a bill that granted voting rights to ex-felons, was expected this year to be the lead Senate sponsor of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. Advocates for gay rights said they were excited to have Britt leading their effort. . . .
Britt was a Freedom Rider in the 1960s who spent 40 days in jail for sitting in a whites-only train station waiting room in Mississippi. Closer to home, she and four other black friends sat on the merry-go-round at Glen Echo Park, which was segregated at the time, and was arrested for trespassing.
I know she'll be missed by many. Sen. Britt is survived by her husband, Travis Britt, two children, and five grandkids. (See also this story in the Baltimore Sun.)
Friday, January 11, 2008
Reflecting on Wheaton
Could Wheaton look like this someday?
So why have we been talking about Wheaton? After all, this blog is called Maryland Politics Watch, not Wheaton Watch. There are two reasons.
First, Holly Olson, author of the prior three postings, is my long-suffering wife. To get a sense of that suffering, imagine having to hear maximum-volume rantings about such things as the Baroness of Montgomery 24-7. One reason I blog is because she ordered me to “get it out of your system.” The least I can do is return the favor and give her a conduit for expressing her thoughts, which are infinitely better-formed than mine.
But second, and much more importantly, Wheaton represents the future of Montgomery County, the state of Maryland and the United States. Its bustling, chaotic streets, its teeming masses of every language and color and its combination of private-sector optimism and skepticism of government hearken back to our roots of a century ago. If we can bring Wheaton to its full potential, we will have a formula that could be applied broadly to every main street in America.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Wheaton, it lies at the junction of three of Montgomery County’s great avenues: Georgia Avenue, University Boulevard and Veirs Mill Road. Along with Silver Spring and Takoma Park, it is one of the county’s three truly diverse urban centers.
Wheaton does not have the prosperity or sheer population size of Silver Spring. It does not have the municipal government of Takoma Park. But it does have a friendly, welcoming spirit along with astounding diversity. In one small shopping center along University Boulevard, two Jewish food establishments co-exist with a Thai grocery, a Chinese restaurant and a Pho kitchen. Right across the street are a couple Latino restaurants. An Italian pizza joint is on the next block up and a Korean restaurant is around the corner. At several Wheaton businesses, when the owner hears I have walked in, he comes out, slaps me on the back and asks if my wife (who is invariably present) has gotten rid of me yet. (She usually answers, “First he buys me lunch.”) Unfortunately, Sabang was one of those places.
But Wheaton has its problems. Holly discussed the economic ones. In addition, I see a more basic one: the difficulty of communication and building relationships within the community. I worked with Holly and the Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) on the inspiring parking meter revolt of last summer. One of our strategies was distributing 3,000 handbills to business owners protesting the new hours, which they could then give to their customers. Now I’ve spent many years in the labor movement, so cold calls are no big deal to me. But Wheaton was a different experience. In some of these businesses, the music was blaring and bodies were flying. Others were barren and empty. Many, many languages were spoken. Many workers looked at me with a stare that said, “Are you here from the government to mess with us?” In some places, I could not identify the manager or owner. All of this causes me to have immense sympathy for the employees of the county’s Mid-County Regional Services Center who have to deal with all of these establishments.
This polyglot of polysyllables extends to the organizations in Wheaton. There are three county advisory committees with jurisdiction in Wheaton. There are several civic associations who are inside and nearby. There is both a Wheaton-Kensington Chamber of Commerce and a new association for local, small businesses being created by LEDC. There is also the management of Westfield Wheaton, the giant mall just outside the central business district. There is one county services center, but its brave, overworked staff faces the daunting task of dealing with all of the above as well as similar issues in many other areas outside Wheaton. The central communication challenge for politicians and outsiders is that while many people speak for a part of Wheaton, no one speaks for all of Wheaton.
But we are going to have to resolve that problem because Wheaton is changing, and not necessarily for the better. Holly discussed the continuing exodus of many long-time businesses due to rising rents. Many believe that redevelopment is necessary, and the county has long recognized its need. In 2006, County Council Members Marilyn Praisner and Tom Perez championed a new zoning text amendment that raised allowable building heights and relaxed obstacles to building improvements in the central business district, all while encouraging small square footages in new retail spaces. To date, not a single new development has taken advantage of the opportunities in this new amendment.
Instead, the market seems to be creating two Wheatons. On the outskirts of the CBD, high-end housing projects have been sprouting like gilded mushrooms, including a new one above the eastern Metro entrance. Until the recent housing crash, some of the new townhouses were selling for over $600,000. But inside the CBD, there’s not much going on. One low-rise project is under construction at Georgia and University, but it has failed to maximize its location’s potential and will have little impact on the district’s retail capacity. And as Holly has said, businesses are leaving. It seems that Wheaton has two possible paths before it: continued bifurcation or a general decline along the lines of Langley Park.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Wheaton is the last great opportunity for revitalization among the county’s four downtowns. It has Metro access and bus access. It has one of the area’s most diverse stocks of retail and restaurants. A few years ago, local residents worked with the county government to produce a vision of what a revitalized CBD could look like, and that concept appears at the beginning of this post. Here’s another view:
What about the existing businesses? Preventing further exodus is a high priority for both Wheaton’s business community and its devoted customers (including this author). How about getting the developers to build retail condos, grandfathering the existing businesses as owners and subsidizing their condo mortgages? Come on, guys, this is MoCo. We’re smart, we care and we’ve got resources, so we can get this done.
But somehow, the above vision has been lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and Wheaton is starting over – again. Just as in the past, resources are being directed elsewhere, a situation exacerbated by a tight budget. Businesses continue to feel disconnected from the government and some are leaving. Residents continue to wonder what, if anything, is happening. And rumor has it that the county is coming up with a new “theme” for Wheaton. Why does it have to be re-invented again? When will we stop planning and start doing? What are we waiting for?
The future of Wheaton, and the future of America, await.
Ronald Reagan Day
Sen. Andy Harris, in a move bound to excite the Republican base in his district - to say nothing of Maryland's first Congressional district - is sponsoring a resolution “commemorating former President Ronald Reagan and proposing a day for Marylanders to pay tribute to him.”
For once, I actually agree with the good senator: Let us pay tribute to our nation’s fortieth president.
I suggest we erect a large photo of Reagan in front of every crumbling bridge, alongside every decaying road, adjacent to every dangerously decrepit piece of our deteriorating national infrastructure. Next to his photo will be written, in large letters:
Ronald Reagan said that government is the problem, not the solution. He slashed taxes and helped cement the idea that actually paying for government services is unacceptable. The decay in our national infrastructure you see here is the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
Let’s do something similar to every national institution with insufficient federal support. Schools, national parks, research labs, whatever.
And let us not ignore Reagan’s great contribution to AIDS research, to say nothing of compassion towards those with the disease. Throughout his presidency, he couldn’t even mention the word AIDS. Nor could he be bothered to take a walk across the street to see the AIDS Quilt when it came to Washington. After all, he didn’t want to alienate his “pro-family” supporters by trying to save families with gay men in them.
It’s time to be honest about the real legacy of Ronald Reagan, as well as that of a Republican Party that has followed his reflexively anti-tax, anti-government, and anti-family principles for almost 30 years.
Heated Council Meeting in Chevy Chase
Is he taking a picture for that blog again?The Town of Chevy Chase Town Council held an unusually well-attended and heated meeting on Wednesday night. Most of the meeting was dedicated to the proposal introduced by Councilmember Kathy Strom (above right) for a new moratorium on the issuance of new construction permits excepting emergency repairs or additions of less than 500 square feet.
Public Comments
Twenty-eight residents spoke during the public comments period at the start of the Town Council meeting. Bridget Hartman presented a petition in support of the moratorium signed by 267 residents of the Town. Numerous people spoke passionately for and against the moratorium.
I haven't seen nearly so much tension at a meeting of the Town Council, normally relatively sedate and poorly attended affairs, since the last moratorium proposal was introduced. I felt bad for Irving Kaminsky who had come to speak on another topic--in support of a sidewalk on the north side of Thornapple St. (Bruce Russell speaks in favor of the moratorium and asks for action on a new noise ordinance.)
Consideration by the Town Council
The conflict over the proposed moratorium among the residents was reflected in some unpleasant moments and tension on the Council. Mayor Linna Barnes deserves credit for her management of this difficult meeting. One might note that her attempts to keep the meeting on time and residents (and councilmembers) within time limits were not so that she could dominate the debate--she didn't speak much at all--but so that all could be heard and in service of a fair and civil process.
Councilmember Kathy Strom formally introduced her proposal for a new moratorium on the issuance of new construction permits with exceptions for emergency repairs or additions which expand the footprint of a house by less than 500 square feet. The moratorium would take effect after a public hearing and action by the Council.
Kathy explained that the moratorium would prevent the loss of more homes while the Council considered the proposed FAR (floor-to-area) ratio ordinance crafted by the Town's Land Use Committee. Mayor Linna Barnes seconded the proposal.
Councilmembers Rob Enelow and Lance Hoffman spoke against the proposal. Rob felt that moratorium proposal is "unfair" and disagreed passionately with those who would say that the ordinances adopted in the wake of the first moratorium has accomplished little:
Have these ordinances succeeded? No. But they were the only tools we had. It was the best we could do. If there were no tree ordinance, those crepe myrtles on Virgilia would be mulch. If there were no water ordinance, there would be no water board appeal on the Underwood project. Are the new houses still too big? Yes. But many of these projects would have been even larger. And there would be fewer canopy trees in Chevy Chase today.Lance spoke in a similar vein, arguing that the moratorium "just does not make sense", is a forerunner of "more acrimony that is totally unnecessary" and would slow down consideration of the new FAR ordinance. (Councilmembers Lance Hoffman and Rob Enelow consult at left.)
While Rob and Lance spoke out against the moratorium, their comments implicitly acknowledged the justice of some pro-moratorium arguments. Rob said he was "upset at the scale of the new houses". Rob further acknowledged that the moratorium proposal had given the Council a second "kick in the pants" to move more expeditiously to enact a new FAR ordinance. Lance promised to do "whatever it takes" to move expeditiously on the FAR ordinance and stated that he would support a moratorium in a month's time if enough progress had not been made on the ordinance.
At this point, Councilman Mier Wolf suggested that the Council hold a hearing early next month on the proposed moratorium. Mier's thought was clearly that the Council should work to move forward quickly with the new FAR ordinance in the hope that a moratorium would become unnecessary and further conflict averted. Mier's personal calmness--perhaps the benefit of experience--helped bring down the temperature of the debate a notch.
Kathy suggested an earlier hearing date but Mier's proposal was ultimately adopted with the support of Kathy and Linna. Rob voted no and Lance abstained.
Moving Forward
The Town Council would do the Town an enormous service if it moved expeditiously enough on the new FAR ordinance that further conflict within the Town over a moratorium were averted. However, this goal is highly ambitious and is going to take both planning and hard work in the part of the Council to achieve.
The Council needs to move immediately to schedule the public meeting (or meetings) for Town residents with the consultant on land use issues within a few weeks time, so that residents can have questions regarding the proposed new ordinance answered. This needs to be done now so that proper notice can go to Town residents.
The document drafted by the Land Use Committee explaining their proposal for the new FAR ordinance should be mailed out to all Town residents about one week before that meeting. Julia Miller, the Chair of the Land Use Committee, showed a calm and impressive command of these issues at the Town Council meeting when the proposed ordinance was introduced. The report issued by her committee is unusually clear and well-drafted--it answered a lot of questions I had about the proposal.
The meetings for residents with the consultant need to occur soon so that the public hearing on the ordinance can occur shortly thereafter--even as soon as a week later. Moving at this pace is necessary so that the Council will have made enough progress in consideration of the new ordinance to avoid a repeat of the conflict on display at the last month's meeting.
The Council may be tempted to delay the public meetings until it has had time to review carefully the new ordinance. However, the Council should hold its own meetings in tandem with this public process. In any case, the Council will likely want to make any changes (or not) in response to public comments so the public process will aid its own internal deliberations.
Oh, and maybe we can reprint one of Mayor Bill Hudnut's talks on civility in the Forecast. Now I know why he used to give them so often. Hopefully, everyone will do their best to remember that we're all going to be neighbors long after this difficult process is completed.
Madaleno Moves Up
There is another change on the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, and this one is good news for people in Montgomery County (Are we Montgometarians?): Freshman Senator Rich Madaleno has been elevated to Vice Chair of the new Subcommittee on Health, Education, and Human Resources.
This one subcommittee will review roughly 75% of the general fund budget, and Madaleno's new leadership role will give him a better chance to help shape policy on education and healthcare. This helps progressives increase our influence on these issues. It also gets Madaleno into the Senate’s weekly fiscal leaders meeting. Not too shabby for a senator just starting his second year.
Now I know the very first thought that is occurring to most readers: If Sen. Madaleno is no longer on the subcommittee that deals with transportation issues, how will that impact the efforts to resolve the issues at Intersection of Death? Fear not - I called Madaleno's office, and his aides assured me that his influence on this issue will remain strong.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Why Did Hillary Beat Barack in New Hampshire?
Stuart Rothenberg gives an interesting analysis. As far as I can tell, he is the only one to notice that Clinton's gains did not come at the expense of Obama. He argues that Clinton's victory was at the expense of Edwards.
The data appear to bear out portions of this analysis. According to the Real Clear Politics average, Obama was on target to receive around 38% of the vote. Pollster.com had Obama at 37% of the vote. CNN reports that he received 37% of the Democratic vote on New Hampshire primary night--just one percent less than the share predicted by the RCP polls and the same share as expected by Pollster.com.
Rothenberg is, of course, right that Edwards performed much more poorly in New Hampshire, a less fertile ground for populism, than Iowa. However, Edwards did not perform much worse than predicted by the pre-primary New Hampshire polls. The RCP and Pollster.com pre-primary averages of 18% for Edwards was just one percent higher than the 17% he received on primary night--the same difference as for Obama.
Clinton received 39% of the vote--a full 9% above her pre-primary RCP average or expected by Pollster.com. Where did her votes come from? Two possible sources include undecided voters (roughly 4-5% in the polls) and one other source not much mentioned in the analyses I've seen: Biden. RCP doesn't report data for Biden but Pollster.com's models predicted he would receive 2.5% (and says his last-five polls average was 2.6%)--he received just 0.2% of the primary vote.
Clinton outperformed the pre-primary polls but Obama did not underperform. There isn't a lot of evidence to support claims that white voters were lying to pollsters to hide their preference for a white candidate over a black candidate as suggested in today's New York Times. Quick claims of bias are unhealthy and perhaps overly common in Democratic contests. Let's not rush to the wrong judgment here, especially regarding a black candidate who has clearly been embraced fervently by so many white voters.
Mike Miller's Turn
Senate president Mike Miller has made a change in the subcommittee structure of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, with at least one person losing a subcommittee chairmanship.
In recent years, most of the work has been divvied up among three subcommittees (with two others having less of a caseload). Now, those three subs have been reduced to two.
The work of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee is being subsumed into a new Health, Education, and Human Resources Subcommittee. Sen. Ed Kasemeyer, chair of the old subcommittee dealing with education issues, will be chair of the modified subcommittee.
What adds a little political drama to this bureaucratic change is the connection to the recent special session: The chair of the now-defunct Health and Human Services Subcommittee was Sen. Rona Kramer, who voted against the tax bill that Miller was pushing. I can't help but wonder if there is a connection between her vote then and the current restructuring.
Republican Judge in Republican County Rejects Republican Lawsuit
Maryland Republicans can't win an election, a vote in the General Assembly, or apparently, a lawsuit. Republican attempts to overturn the results of the special session by lawsuit after they didn't have the votes in the General Assembly were dismissed today.
The lawsuit rested on the premise that the Senate had unconstitutionally adjourned for too long without the consent of the House of Delegates. The point of this provision is to prevent one house from scuttling the work of the other by refusing to meet. Of course, this is exactly what was not happening in the special session as observers will recall that the Senate acted first and was waiting for the House of Delegates to act before reconvening.
In order to maximize the possibility for success, they filed the lawsuit in Republican Carroll County before a judge appointed by Gov. Bob Ehrlich. They still managed to lose even before in this carefully selected forum. One might also ask if the GOP really favored opening the Senate for a session of few minutes with all the extra costs entailed in opening the Senate and paying legislators for the extra day and to travel to and from Annapolis.
The Trent Lott Effect
From Marc Korman:
Back in December, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott resigned from Congress less than a year into his fourth term. Most have speculated that his motivation was to leave the Senate before the lobbying ban for former Senators was extended from one year to two years. Regardless of whether Senator Lott was trying to beat the ban, there was a financial motivation to his decision to leave the Senate during his term and enter the lucrative world of lobbying. Recently, rumors have spread that Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana may follow Senator Lott out the door in the middle of his term.
Here in Montgomery County, we have already experienced two examples of the Trent Lott Effect.
In 2005, Delegate John Hurson from District 18 resigned his seat mid way through his fourth term to become Executive Vice President of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association. Last year, Senator PJ Hogan of District 39 left his seat less than a year into his third term to become Associate Vice Chancellor for Government Relations at the University of Maryland. Both lobbying jobs. Their resignations have contributed to the large increase in Montgomery County legislative vacancies filled by appointments. Prior to John Hurson's departure, the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee has no record of a legislator resigning to take a lobbying position. These two resignations may be part of a disturbing trend of legislators leaving during their terms to lobby.
Lobbying has exploded in recent years. Since 2000, the number of registered lobbyists in Washington, DC has doubled according to the Washington Post. While not as extreme, states have also seen an increase in lobbying which creates increased opportunities. According to the Center for Public Integrity, state lobbyists increased spending by 10% between 2005 and 2006. There were three lobbyists per every legislator in Annapolis in 2006.
Until recently, lobbying opportunities were taken up by retiring legislators, not those currently in office. There may be many motivations for leaving the legislature to go into lobbying, including a lighter schedule and less political stress. However, there are also financial reasons.
Maryland has a citizen legislature which meets for a minimum of 90 days each year. Maryland legislators make $43,500 per year, plus $500 for expenses and a per diem and living allowance while in session. If Maryland legislators really only worked for 90 days, than this amount would be more than sufficient. Of course, Maryland legislators work year round as legislators and in their day jobs. In many cases, their day job opportunities are limited by their elected office. Legislators spend nights and weekends in and out of session at public events, meetings with constituents, hearings, and working on and writing legislation. Special sessions can also be called at any time. Legislators must also spend a good deal of time on the political aspects of their jobs. This salary and workload simply cannot complete with lobbying.
Given the growth of lobbying and the low pay and long hours of legislating, the years ahead will undoubtedly see the Trent Lott Effect continue to play out in Maryland and other states. This could lead to more vacancies mid-term and a brain drain from the legislature, both serious causes of concern.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The First Day Back in Annapolis
Written by Delegate Brian Feldman (District 15, which includes Potomac, Poolesville, Clarksburg, and portions of Germantown). Brian is also chair of the MoCo House Delegation.
As I walked into the House Chamber today for the opening day of the 2008 Session, it was readily apparent that the unprecedented, grueling three-week Special Session that we endured in November had left its mark.
There is usually a real sense of excitement in the air on opening day as we see colleagues for the first time in months and look forward to the legislative challenges that lie ahead. Things were different today as it is clear from everyone’s body language and conversations that the Special Session had left the General Assembly with a hangover of sorts. Members do not appear eager to be back in Annapolis so soon. It is as though some normal 9-month hibernation period away from Annapolis exists for this certain species of animal, i.e., legislators, and the natural time clock has been thrown off by the intervening Special Session, the longest in our State’s history.
For Montgomery County delegates, this hangover is compounded by the somber realization that we enter the House Chamber for the first time since the untimely passing of our friend Jane Lawton. Jane’s seat was left open on this first day and there was a moving ceremony honoring Jane in which Speaker Busch, Del. Maggie McIntosh, Sen. Rich Madaleno and her husband, Steve Lawton all spoke beautifully about Jane and her life. As I looked over at the empty chair, it was difficult to get rid of the picture in my mind of being out to dinner with Jane on the last night of the Special Session. Many of my colleagues indicated that they had had similar flashbacks or images of time they had recently spent with Jane.The Special Session may well go down as a demarcation point for our County Delegation. We have the largest delegation in Annapolis and a big issue in Annapolis these days is whether we can translate our numbers into raw political power in a way that MoCo has never done in the past. Most people are surprised to learn that 24 of our 32 legislators in the House and Senate were elected in 2002 or after. It is a group just beginning to form an identity and the Special Session accelerated the process by affording us with a rather unique opportunity to work closely together and get to really know each other under fire and extreme pressure in ways we rarely can during regular sessions. As Chair of our House Delegation, I was able to learn a great deal about each member and came to appreciate that the Delegation is far more diverse politically than I realized. We have a lot of raw talent in our Delegation and as it continues to mature, I am extremely optimistic that we will realize our full potential in terms of political power over the next few years. This is something to get jazzed up about as I look ahead despite the “hangover” I’m experiencing today.
House of Delegates Remembers Jane Lawton
The House of Delegates held a ceremony today to remember Jane Lawton. A number of people who miss Jane were there. You can listen to the remembrances on the General Assembly web site here. Go to time 30:30.
Attended a Budget meeting yet?
Written by Sharon Dooley. She has been a county resident for more than 30 years, now lives in Olney; Sharon was a Democratic candidate for County Council in District 2 (Olney, Poolesville, Damascus, Germantown) in 2006. Currently she is a Vice-President of the Greater Olney Civic Association (GOCA), a non-political organization of 33 local civic associations in and around Olney. Sharon actively explores land use and environmental issues. Additionally, she works in the health industry and is involved as a volunteer in healthcare advocacy; she remains an avid observer of the political process. Her comments here do not reflect those of any other group.
Facing a projected $400 million budget shortfall, County Executive "Ike" Leggett has taken his show on the road to both inform and learn from county residents.
At the crowded forum in Germantown on Monday evening, the county finance department provided an educational powerpoint on the income sources and expenditure streams the county experiences each year. This was followed by Q & A with the County Executive. For over an hour Leggett was in professorial mode as he discussed the mechanics of the county and state budgets and answered questions along the lines of his stated goals of full communication and transparency.
The audience appeared engaged and appreciative with many thanking Leggett for his leadership even as they pursued advocacy for their particular issues. These concerns ranged from libraries and schools to public safety. Other pleas were voiced about keeping programs such as those that support Linkages to Learning and Mental Health as well as keeping commitments to affordable housing. Even perennial gadfly and self-styled anti-tax resident, Robin Flicker seemed mollified when Leggett pointed out that it was he who authored the Charter Limit Cap Legislation.
Will audience participation solve this budget gap? No, but it is an excellent PR move as it gives citizens a direct voice in the process. If you don't want your pet project shelved - now is the time to speak up!
It is to be expected that more county residents will believe that they are now a part of the solution and the county executive and council may find an even more engaged electorate in these upcoming budget decisions. Leggett will present his budget to the County Council in mid-March and it needs to be approved by the end of May. I expect a lively Spring!
Sharon Dooley
----------------
Want to exercise your voice? The remaining meetings are noted below:
January 10, Belmont Elementary School, 19528 Olney Mill Road, Olney.
• January 16, Eastern Montgomery Regional Services Center, 3300 Briggs Chaney Road, Silver Spring.
• January 22, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, 4805 Edgemoor Lane, Bethesda
• January 31, Long Branch Community Center, 8700 Piney Branch Road, Silver Spring.
For residents who cannot attend one of the budget forums, an online form is available to accept comments and ideas about the budget. The form is available on the County’s website at www.montgomerycountymd.gov by clicking on the online form link under the FY09 Budget heading.
Sign language interpreter services will be provided only upon request with notice as far in advance as possible, but no less than 72 hours prior to the event. If these or other services or aids are needed to participate in this activity, call 240-777-6530 or TTY 240-777-6505, or email a request to karen.falcon@montgomerycountymd.gov
Power to the People
Part Three of a Three-Part Series by Holly Olson. (View Parts One and Two.)
In Part Two of my post on Wheaton, I was perhaps a little hard on our County Executive. It is not my intent to make him out to be the bad guy, but I do believe that we all need a little tough love every so often to get our butts in gear. And since I am an equal opportunity distributor of tough love, I feel that I must now turn my attention to the Wheaton community.
If there is one truth in politics, it is this: politicians pay attention to you if you make some noise. What do I mean by noise? Noise can take a lot of forms. It can be subtle (political contributions), it can be loud (letters, emails, public testimony), or it can be electoral (voting for candidates based on whether they support your issue).
Wheaton does many things well, but the one thing that the community does not do so well is MAKE SOME NOISE. Does this mean that there are no activists? No civic associations? No business groups? Absolutely not. In fact, many of them are vocal in sharing their concerns about Wheaton. But too often this takes place on a singular level. They do not speak with a united voice, and therefore they lack power. But when Wheaton does speak with a unified voice, the impact can be significant. I offer the following story to illustrate my point.
This past summer, the County was going to extend parking meter hours in the urban district parking lots. Businesses in all the affected urban districts were understandably upset. Downtown Silver Spring launched a massive campaign to get this reversed. And, lo and behold, Ike Leggett was listening. In fact, he listened so well to Silver Spring that he was going to reverse the hours for Silver Spring but not for Wheaton.
Given how precarious the businesses climate was for many of our restaurants, a group of us in Wheaton realized that we could not let this happen. We could not, and should not, be at a competitive disadvantage with other areas in the county. So, at the urging of County Council Member Valerie Ervin and with the help of the non-profit group LEDC, we created our own anti-parking meter campaign. Together, we launched an on-line petition. We canvassed business owners and encouraged them to write to the politicians. We gave them 3,000 flyers to give to their customers so that they could write as well. We solicited letters from community associations. We had a block of people testify before the county council: business owners, non-profits, citizen associations, and activists alike. In short, we ran a multi-faceted campaign to let the politicians know that we were not going to take this.
When we first launched the campaign, there was a sense of resignation among the business community. They had been so used to just taking whatever the County dished out that they felt like there was nothing that they could do that would make a difference. But gradually, that changed. And for the first time since I have been active in the Wheaton community, I saw hope in the faces of business owners. They began to realize that their actions did matter, and that they could make a difference. Why? Because they were united, they spoke with one voice, and they mounted an aggressive campaign to fight back. I share this story because I truly believe that more of this type of action needs to take place in Wheaton. Not just within the business community, but all facets of the community.
As we speak, there are efforts underway to do just that. The Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), a non-profit that provides technical assistance, training, and financing in the area is working with Wheaton business owners to launch a Wheaton Small Business Alliance. The goal of this group is to advocate and support local businesses while promoting the principles of diversity and economic and environmental sustainability. This is an important first step because it seeks to unite the business community, which has long been fragmented. If this is successful, I believe it will serve as a catalyst for other such efforts to give a voice to Wheaton.
In the end, the bottom line is this. If the Wheaton community wants to be a political priority in Montgomery County, they must unite and pursue their interests more aggressively. There must be constant pressure. They must demand to be treated with the same respect as other urban districts such as Bethesda and Silver Spring, and they must hold their politicians accountable when they do not. The only ones that can fight for Wheaton are the community itself — therein lies the power of the people.
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Progressive Dems deny Van Hollen
It isn't often that a non-endorsement is the lead of a story. But last night the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) local Montgomery Chapter voted to not endorse any candidate in Congressional District 8, where Chris Van Hollen is the three term incumbent and he faces perpetual candidates Deborah Vollmer and Lih Young. If there was one issue that turned the endorsement it was the war in general and specifically whether we should impeach those that got us there.
Ms. Vollmer and no-show Dr. Young may say "I am gaining on Van Hollen and therefore it is time for new leadership". Nothing could be further from the truth. Using Instant Runoff Voting and needing 2/3 to secure the PDA endorsement the only real choice was would the MoCo chapter of PDA endorse Chris or not. On the fourth ballot, "not endorse" finally edged out Chris to meet the 2/3 threshold.
Before I go any further I want all to know that I was an early supporter of Chris Van Hollen and I still support him. So my vote was never in doubt.
I also understand the frustration of those on the left who feel betrayed by the Bush Administration and their conduct of this war. We want to hold accountable those that got us there and feel frustrated by the lack of progress on getting after those who got us in this mess. They will be gone come January 20, 2009 and we will still be in Iraq trying to paying for and clean up from Bush's mess. As one PDA member said when I pointed to her "impeach them" button and asked why it did not say "both" she replying it was more than Bush and Cheney. She's right. There are a whole group of war minded zealots who should be sent to prison for their behavior.
Left picture: PDA member Sue Wheaton makes her point on impeachment; Right picture: Candidate Deborah Vollmer responds as Chris Van Hollen's Legislative Director, Bill Parsons looks on.
PDA has a seven point plan for reforming Congress and the White House and nowhere is impeachment on that list. Chris meets all seven points for reform. He is even the first chair of the DCCC to support election reform while leading the fund raising arm of the House Democrats. But it shows you the power of this one issue and anything that allows for continuing funding of Bush's folly and our country's burden.
That was the endorsement vote in a nutshell: end funding asap and impeach those that got us there. And to dismiss this as old fashioned enmity would be to misjudge the rancor that the left feels about being viewed as unpatriotic for wanting to find peaceful, less costly foreign policy solutions to the mess this administration has brought upon this country. And when the so called "left wing" media such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the major networks marginalize the left it boils over. We know that the numbers limit what can be done procedurally in Congress but seeing these yahoos getting off scot free is even more infuriating. We had a referendum on the war in 2006 and it looks like it will take another election to finally change things.
Moderate Democrats may also want to marginalize this issue but beware that this fury goes far beyond the reaches of a small but passionate group of progressive Democrats. I have seen it among rank and file than are nowhere near this close to the action. But it is there.
Tonight the talk will be about Hillary Clinton and her resurgent campaign. Others will become experts at reading the national polls from the upcoming primaries. But to ignore this betrayal is to miss the disconnect that many feel with their government and with those that claim to speak for the people.
On Political Pulse
Montgomery County At-Large Councilmember Nancy Floreen will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County on:Thursday, January 10th at 9:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 15th at 9:30 p.m.
Topics that will be discussed include:
-- The projected $400 million deficit in the County;
-- The County Council's recently-passed policy on growth and development;
-- Transportation/traffic issues and
-- Her recent trip to Iowa to campaign for Hillary Clinton.
Woodmont East II Meeting
JBG and Federal Realty presented their new plan for Woodmont East II tonight at a public forum in Bethesda sponsored by Councilman Roger Berliner (above) last night. In my opinion, the plan is a clear improvement over the original awful proposal, but still could use additional refinement.
Apologies for the fuzzy pictures of the plan here. The major improvement of the new plan is a public space along Woodmont Ave. This space is much closer to the urban park envisioned by opponents of the original plan.
The major drawback to the plan is that the alley between the new building and the existing building which contains Gifford's and Mon Ami Gabi has been narrowed by one-third--from 75 to 50 feet. The architect and the attorney insisted that this was just fine even though I recall the 75 feet in the original plan being barely sufficient to accommodate all the expected activity--and this doesn't even take into account the massive expected development in Bethesda as one audience member pointed out.
The new plan still envisions restaurant tables (or ice cream eating space) on both sides of the 50 feet along with the Capital Crescent Trail running down the middle. Oh, and movie-theater crowds will enter and exit and the same time. If the Purple Line is ever built, the alley would become a tail track. Twenty-five feet may seem like a small amount to dispute but this is also a safety and crowd-management issue, especially if one expects the Purple Line to ever be built. Advocates for kids and cyclists agreed on this even though they had radically different views about the appropriate speed of bikes in the space.
One other improvement over the original plan is that the connector between the two buildings has been moved further back and is now only two stories high. Nonetheless, the connector of the building over the alley will still block out sunlight in the area below it. (Holland and Knight Attorney Pat Harris advocating for the plan at right.)
The architect tried to sell the space in the manner of EPCOT at Disneyworld. One minute, it was the Piazza Navona; the next the bikes on the trail reflected Amsterdam. One person near me made me laugh when she said they could put an elephant or a camel there and say it was a bit of India or Arabia. Still, the architect ably defended his vision for the site despite being more evasive than I would have liked in answering questions about exactly how much space was between the building and the trail.
Bob Smythe, the head of the association for the Sachs neighborhood, had a major impact on the crowd. He received applause for his impassioned speech saying that the plan was better but that more green space was needed and that the developers shouldn't pat themselves on the back just yet--the right conclusion in my opinion.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Independent New Hampshire
Republicans will no doubt think of tonight as the Night of the Living Dead. They thought Obama has stuck a stake in the heart of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. On their side of the aisle, McCain was given up for lost. As I write this post, Clinton won a two-point victory over Obama, and McCain leads Romney by five points. What happened?
First, I should admit that like many, including Sens. Clinton and Obama, I was utterly surprised by the result. The pre-election night polls had Obama comfortably ahead. Even the New Hampshire exit poll suggested that Obama eked out a one point lead.
Many have pointed to Hillary's moment of welling up, though not actually crying, as a turning point. I agree, though not for the reasons cited by many. I don't think Clinton collected a sympathy or mercy vote. Instead, I think that her exterior, undoubtedly hardened by years of harsh attacks from the Right, was finally pierced. The electorate welcomed a sight of a human Hillary.
Sen. Clinton's victory speech was far more impressive than that of Sen. McCain. McCain's speech was adequate but the energy of the speech contrasted greatly with that of his young supporters. To my not so young eyes, it appeared relatively geriatric. Still, Sen. McCain is clearly a decent man. Like Sen. Clinton, he found his voice in New Hampshire.
Hillary should also continue to answer more questions from voters and the press. She often gives excellent answer to questions--she refuted Charlie Gibson's assertion that the surge in Iraq has worked not just adeptly but with style. By shielding her from the electorate and the press a la Bush, her advisers took away a major Clinton asset. Don't do it again.
Sen. Obama's long history of community organizing served him better in Iowa than in New Hampshire. Iowa is a process of collecting and mobilizing committed supporters to turn out. New Hampshire isn't quite the same affair. I suspect that Obama's ability to mobilize the young had less of an impact in New Hampshire. Clinton's long-term work at building an organization nationwide paid off in New Hampshire tonight.
Next, the Clintons learn fast. Let's be frank: Sen. Clinton gave a sad speech in Iowa, even for an unexpectedly poor finish. Gov. Huckabee (Governor Huckster?) made much more hay out of an eleven percent finish in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, instead of being flanked by aging establishment figures, she surrounded her television view with energetic under-30s. The speech was far better and more human.
It was a very hard night for Obama. Unlike Clinton in Iowa, he had reason to expect to win in New Hampshire. Just as he has lifted up so many crowds, his supporters gradually lifted him up in New Hampshire and his speech gained its verve towards the end. He began graciously by congratulating Clinton. Still, he might have made more out of his close loss here.
The one off-key aspect of Sen. Clinton's speech was her lumping of Obama and Edwards--two candidates who attracted significant support--at the end of her mention with the rest of the also-rans, including candidates who have already dropped out of the race. She clearly doesn't like the young Senator from Illinois. She'd be advised to be more gracious in victory.
It's the most exciting presidential nomination contest I can recall. An emotional night for all concerned. And it's far from over yet. On to South Carolina.
Upcoming Public Forums
Councilman Roger Berliner will host a public forum on Woodmont East II tonight January 8th, from 7-9pm at the Bethesda Chevy Chase Regional Services Center located at 4805 Edgemoor La. in Bethesda.
Public Hearings on the BRAC DEIS (that's Base Closure and Realignment Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement or, as I like to call it, BRACasaurus) for National Naval Medical Center (better known locally as "the Navy Hospital") on January 9 and 10 at the Pooks Hill Marriott. On January 10th, the Planning Board also has a planned briefing and public meeting on the same topic at 1PM.
Town of Chevy Chase Town Council meeting on January 9th at 7pm in the Town Hall at the Leland Center. The meeting should attract more interest than usual due to the introduction of a proposal for an emergency moratorium on construction (excepting additions of less than 500 sq. ft) and a petition in support of it.
Councilman Marc Elrich will discussing his proposed changes to the County's Forest Conservation Law at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters on January 10th at 7 p.m. at the County Council Building at 100 Maryland Ave. in Rockville
District 20 Sen. Jamie Raskin, Del. Sheila Hixon, Del. Heather Mizeur, and Del. Tom Hucker will be holding a town hall meeting on Sunday, January 13th from 4-6pm at the United Methodist Church located at 52 Randolph Rd. in Silver Spring.
Finally, County Exec. Ike Leggett is holding a series of six public forums on the county budget throughout this month. I must say that the County Exec has admirable stamina for holding so many of these events.
New Moratorium Proposed in Town of Chevy Chase
The Town of Chevy Chase will consider a new emergency building moratorium on Wednesday evening during its 7-9pm meeting. The purpose of the proposed moratorium is to stop new construction (except of additions of under 500 sq. ft.) until the Town can adopt the ordinance proposed by the Town's Land Use Committee designed to promote construction compatible with existing homes in the Town.
The crux of the proposed new ordinance is a new limit on floor-to-area ratio (F.A.R.) which allows larger homes on larger lots. The ordinance would also include new height and lot coverage restrictions beyond those already imposed by Montgomery County. The proposed ordinance also contains incentives in the form of permitting a higher F.A.R. for additions to existing homes (rather than teardowns) and for construction that meets certain environmental standards.
I favor both the moratorium and the concept behind the new ordinance. The new ordinance is complex and the Council will need time to consider it carefully and to hold public hearings on it before adoption. At the same time, I hope the Council moves expeditiously to move the process forward and enact the ordinance.
Even if the Council acts quickly on the ordinance, the moratorium is needed because the Town may continue to lose existing homes due to this delay and because the new ordinance has taken longer to enact than expected. If no new construction occurs, then no one is injured by the moratorium but Town residents will feel reassured. Supporters of the new moratorium plan to present a petition in support of it at tomorrow night's Council meeting.
The Town Council can feel safe enacting the moratorium on an emergency basis because of the long-established record in hearings and elections of support for measures like moratorium and the ordinance. This new ordinance represents the culmination of a process begun with the first moratorium.
Early NH Returns and the Republican to Watch
Dixville Notch in New Hampshire's North Country continued its fine tradition of voting just after midnight on primary day and the votes have been counted. McCain lead on the Republican side with 57% of the vote while Obama won an incredible 70% of the vote on the Democratic side.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton failed to win a single vote. Of course, only eight Republicans and ten Democrats voted in Dixville Notch. However, that is beside the point as we must Hear and Obey the momentum coming out of New Hampshire.
It is hard to imagine most of the Republican candidates winning the general election even if they get their party's nomination. Rudy Giuliani still needs to explain his poor judgment in aides and why he had the heroes of 9/11 drive his mistress around NYC. Mitt Romney is the jellyfish of politicians with new opinions as convenient--see today's Washington Post editorial entitled "Mr. Romney vs. Mr. Romney" on immigration for the latest example. Fred Thompson should have kept his well-paying gig on Law & Order instead of hitting the campaign trail.
Mike Huckabee is the Wall Street Journal's worst nightmare--a Republican who not only gives priority to social conservatism but doesn't always toe the line on economics (despite his tax plan). Moreover, unlike his predecessors, Huckabee could win the GOP nomination. His campaign will likely fare much better as it leaves libertarian New Hampshire for the buckle of the Bible Belt in South Carolina.
In contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a solid conservative and an electable one. His military service and heroism garners him instant respect around the nation and across the political spectrum. He also acts like an adult, giving him a gravitas which is utterly lacking from the rest of the Republican field.
McCain's noted departures from the Bush administration, even as the rest of the Republican Party walked in lockstep, give him the air of a man of conviction. Democrats admire and appreciate his firm stand against torture. Nonetheless, he remains a conservative Republican and broadly acceptable--if not trusted--by the Republican establishment in desperate circumstances.
And for the GOP, these are desperate circumstances. Right now, as their party founders on the shoals of Iraq and the Economy, McCain looks like the only remotely palatable or electable Republican. The Wall Street Journal appears to have figured this out--yesterday they ran one anti-Obama and one pro-McCain piece.
Democrats should also remain concerned as foreign policy will remain a key role in this election. Except for Bill Richardson, none of the leading Democrats has military or foreign policy experience. Even if Americans are tired of being bludgeoned with 9/11 in service to Bush administration, they remain worried about terrorism and threats from abroad.
McCain's embrace of the Iraq War is an albatross but can be cast as loyalty and he has strayed enough from Bush that many will believe he would constitute a real change from the current administration. He looks like a leader. While I don't think he is unbeatable, especially in the current political climate, Democrats should not underestimate McCain in the Fall.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Ask Not What Your County Can Do for You. . .
Now that the Redskins season is over, maybe you now have the time to apply to serve on that County committee.
County Executive Ike Leggett's office recently sent out a notice about vacancies on the following commissions, boards, and committees:
* Commission on Child Care
* East County Citizens Advisory Board
* Board of Investment Trustees
* Local Management Board for Children, Youth and Families (Collaboration Council)
* Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board
* Recreation Advisory Boards
The deadline for applications is January 25.
You may access vacancy announcements for boards, committees, and commissions through the following link:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/exec/vacancies/PR_list.asp
Bill Frick at The Breakfast Club
From Marc Korman:
Just before heading to Annapolis for the start of the legislative session, Delegate Bill Frick stopped by the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Democratic Club. The Democratic Club meets the first Monday of every month at 7:30am at the Original Pancake House in Bethesda. As regular readers of Maryland Politics Watch know, Delegate Frick was nominated by the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee and appointed by the Governor in September to replace the retiring Marilyn Goldwater. Full disclosure, I voted for Delegate Frick as a District 16 member of the Central Committee.
After a brief biography was given by Club President and dedicated Democratic activist Jim Mercurio, Delegate Frick began speaking about the Special Session. Rather than recite the legislative details of the Special Session that all twenty-five people in the room had heard and read many times, Delegate Frick offered a fly on the wall perspective of Annapolis from his position as a new Delegate.
Delegate Frick talked about the many differences between Annapolis and Washington, DC. While Congress is largely divided along partisan lines and nearly evenly divided, there are less than 40 Republicans out of 141 Delegates in the House of Delegates. Instead of spending a lot of time on Republicans versus Democrats, the House of Delegates is largely organized along jurisdictional lines. Counties and Baltimore City meet regularly with their colleagues from their jurisdictions to discuss legislation and strategy. Of course, in Montgomery County the entire delegation is Democratic, but even divided jurisdiction hold these meetings. Congress certainly has its share of parochial issues and state delegations do meet and coordinate, it is not institutionalized.
Another major difference is the amount of witnesses who testify on the issues. Delegate Frick comically compared witnesses in Annapolis to participants in a high school play where there are too many roles and not enough actors and actresses. The same witnesses were repeatedly coming before Delegate Frick's committee to testify on different issues. Delegate Frick also noted that he attended almost the entirety of each hearing, as opposed to many of his senior colleagues. This is not dissimilar to Washington, DC, where it is a rare Member of Congress who attends a hearing for more than an hour.
An additional difference is that unlike Washington, DC, members of the House of Delegates only sit on one committee. In the US House of Representatives, some Members of Congress sit on three committees. The US House also has over twenty committees, compared to the House of Delegtes' six. With the House driven by committee work, Delegates must have a good relationship with their Committee in order to accomplish much of anything. Delegate Frick was appointed to the Ways and Means Committee gave him an opportunity to really dive into legislative work right away since a majority of the issues dealt with during the Special Session came before his committee.
In response to a question, Delegate Frick also spoke about Governor O'Malley's work during the Special Session making bold proposals, calling and meeting Delegates, and generally engaging in the give and take of the legislative process. Although Delegate Frick did not make this comparison, this is a clear contrast with Governor Ehrlich who did not engage in this give and take. Of course, it is much easier for Governor O'Malley to engage other Democrats than it was for Governor Ehrlich. However, had Governor Ehrlich embraced the Democratic legislature he might have had more success passing his legislative program, especially in his own Special Sessions on medical malpractice and energy costs.
Understandably, Delegate Frick spent most of the time speaking positively of his new experiences in Annapolis and the Special Session. He briefly touched on his plans to work on dependent care issues, to help address the aging baby boomers, and environmental issues. Of course, most initiatives in the regular session will be constrained by the budget crunch. What will be worth watching is how Delegate Frick pivots from the Special Session, where the leadership set the agenda and individual members did not move legislation, to pursuing his own agenda on behalf of District 16.
Huckerville, 20910
It is not too often that a freshman Delegate is able to gather statewide political rivals to come to a fundraiser on his behalf. But it happened as Delegate Tom Hucker (District 20, Takoma Park, downtown Silver Spring, Hillandale, and Colesville) had an array of elected politicians on hand who gathered at Tom's district office ... I mean McGinty's.
The headliners were Governor O'Malley, who had returned to Maryland from a brief trip to New Hampshire for Hillary, and the Speaker of the House, Michael Busch. The rivals in attendence were O'Malley and Comptroller Peter Franchot who had differing opinions about the recently completed special session. The list of officials in the room is too large to list everyone but here is who I saw: Ike Leggett, Doug Gansler, Tom Perez, Duchy Trachtenberg, George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin, Shelia Hixson, Heather Mizeur, Brian Feldman, James Gilchrist, Herman Taylor, and host of officials from Baltimore City and Prince George's County. It was by far the most diverse group of supporters I have seen at a fundraiser in a long long time. Heck the only person missing was the person who coined the term "Huckerville" for Tom's ubiquitous red and white yard signs blanketing a portion of New Hampshire Avenue, John McCarthy, during the 2006 primary.
Why the crowd? Well getting the Governor and the Speaker sure as heck helped. And in fact, it was a major reason for the overflow crowd. The fact that the 90 day session begins on Wednesday, the buzz about the Presidential primaries and the lack of a conflict with the Redskins playoff game all were factors. But Tom Hucker was a major behind the scenes guy on the Governor's major initiative of the regular session, Living Wage, and he suggested a key compromise on the slots legislation during the special session to break the logjam between the House and Senate that the Governor seized as the opening he needed. These are things that most seasoned legislators can't accomplish much less a freshman. Tom Hucker did those things and that was the real reason for a packed house on a warm Sunday afternoon.
What Tom has done is exactly what I want from a legislator. Someone who is progressive but able to get legislation through. No use giving a great speech if you can't pass the legislation. That is my litmus test for a legislator. Good job Tom you have a placed the bar high in 2007 and you cleared it. Now what are your goals for 2008?
Tom Hucker and his wife Amy Fortin
Where is the Love for Wheaton?
Part Two of a Three-Part Series by Holly Olson. (View Part One here.)
While serving on the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee for three years, I had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents and business owners about redevelopment issues. A typical conversation would usually begin with me relaying the recent news about redevelopment and discussing some of the options we saw for the future.
It was at this point, that if I happened to be talking with someone who was a long-time resident, the following would inevitably happen. Their eyes would kind of take on this soft, pitying look that seemed to say, you seem like a nice girl, and we appreciate you telling us this, but we’ve been around for awhile. And then they would say, “Yes, but they have been telling us Wheaton would redevelop for the last 10+ years, and it hasn’t happened yet.” It was never said with meanness, simply resignation.
This reaction was so prevalent that I took to calling it the F squared factor: fatigue and frustration. Fatigue comes from having been told for many years that redevelopment is right around the corner. “Just be patient,” the community is told. “Redevelopment is coming. Things will get better.” They have heard this for so long and seen so few results that it no longer means anything to them. It is simply an empty promise. Frustration comes from the fact that they are seeing millions of dollars being pumped into the revitalization efforts of other communities in the County, while Wheaton considers itself lucky to get a few crumbs.
In many ways, Wheaton is an oxymoron. It is an urban center located on a metro stop. It is a diverse community with tremendous spirit. By all accounts Wheaton should be serving as a national model for redevelopment — incorporating the principles of smart growth, economic and environmental sustainability, and demographic diversity. And yet it doesn’t. Instead it just sits.
Ok, you say — but it hasn’t been all gloom and doom. There has been some progress. True enough. But given the economy over the last 10 years, the demand for housing, and the increased energy directed towards revitalizing older urban centers, the pace of redevelopment has been snail-like. Wheaton has faced an uphill battle in many ways including an outdated sector plan, and up until recently, zoning within the urban core that was less than conducive for development.
Development hang-ups due to technical issues such as zoning and sector plans are important and should not be underestimated. However, one of the major factors I see in the lack of redevelopment is that Wheaton is simply not a priority for many of our politicians. In particular, Wheaton seems to have gotten little play with our County Executive. On occasion, I hear statements indicating that the County Executive is committed to Wheaton. But I don’t see that in his actions. Instead, what I see is that he continues to pump millions of dollars into Silver Spring (most recently evident in his deal to bring in Live Nation) while Wheaton continues to receive very little.
As the County faces a looming budget crisis, it is naïve to think that Wheaton will be getting any deals of its own this year. But what I do hope is that the County Executive will make some concrete and tangible efforts towards helping the Wheaton redevelopment effort. Perhaps even that is too much to ask in this environment. But the community needs hope. They need to know that their County Council and the County Executive care about them and are committed to the future of Wheaton.
So, I ask you, County Executive Leggett, “Do you have love for Wheaton?”
Holly Olson is the former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
She's Come Undone
Maybe Hillary Clinton can still come back but her campaign looks in deep trouble. The latest polls suggest that Barack Obama has rocketed into the lead in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton, a Democratic icon, currently attracts around 30 percent of New Hampshire voters--about the same share that lead to her Iowa undoing.
Why is Hillary Clinton's campaign--the work of a lifetime supported by much of the Democratic establishment--unraveling? Why may she yet come back and overturn the new conventional wisdom on Obama's growing inevitability?
A Uniter, Not a Divider
George Bush promised to bring the nation together when he was elected in 2000. However, as the nation has learned, Bush's vision of unity turned out to be a hollow promise. Bush views compromise as a dirty word--the equivalent of surrender--and doesn't even like to get advice from people who agree with his goals but have different ideas on how to achieve them.
For some, Karl Rove's politics of division mean that polarization is the only option. Whether or not this is the correct political strategic analysis, I don't know but the country vehemently yearns for someone to unite the American people behind positive purpose. Bush's failure as a uniter and exploitation of 9/11 hasn't delegitimized this goal, it has increased the desire for it.
Hillary Clinton simply cannot be that person. Fairly or not, she is a deeply polarizing figure. Her campaign's premise that she knows how to fight Republican attacks through long experience reinforces perceptions that she divides the country. Americans don't want a continuation of the Bush-Clinton War of the Roses. They're ready to turn the page.
Inspiration, Faith, and Likeability
Clinton derides Obama's rhetoric as empty words but people welcome inspiration, especially in difficult times. Bill Clinton was a great candidate in 1992 precisely because he combined an ability to connect with people with campaign competence--a congenial combination in any campaign but especially to Democrats yearning to take back the White House.
Hillary Clinton lacks the same ability the speak to a crowd and connect with her audience. She is far better in small groups and in debates but much of a presidential campaign--and a presidency--is public speaking. Obama's bounce out of Iowa was particularly springy because of the contrast between his own amazing oratory and her failure to use a chance to connect with the American people. No one is going to vote for her because she is ready on "Day One".
Obama's ability to use rhetoric and connect with people may make him the stronger general election candidate even though Clinton is a more centrist candidate. More specifically, Obama shows respect for and connects with people of faith in a manner that reminds me of Clinton. Unfortunately, it's Bill, not Hillary. The last three Democrats to win the White House all shared this trait; the last three to lose did not.
Important in a primary campaign, Hillary Clinton evokes strong negative reactions not just from Republicans but from many Democrats. I've met quite a few core Democrats who express not just mild dislike but even loathing for the former First Lady. Why is really beside the point; the key here is that the feeling exists. One severe problem Clinton faces as she tries to regroup is that she doesn't appear to be anyone's second choice. Obama just grows stronger as more candidates drop out.
February 5th
If Obama wins in New Hampshire, it seems all but inconceivable that he will stumble in South Carolina--a state where African Americans will compose roughly one-half of the primary electorate. The current conventional wisdom assumes that a sweep of the first three primaries will make an Obama victory inevitable.
However, a plethora of states will then cast their ballots for delegates on February 5th. We've never had a single national contest quite like it. We've also never had a challenger--and that's what Hillary will be if she loses the first three primaries--as well funded.
Have the national polls begun to shift with Obama's Iowa contest? No public polls have yet been released so it isn't clear. Clinton faces the challenge of remaking her public image fast even though the view of her in the public mind is well formed after sixteen years of national exposure. However, she will have the reserves in terms of finances and political support to attempt it.
The Media
Which relates to my second reason not to count Hillary Clinton out just yet. The media loves to create a new star--and then to tear this same person to pieces. As he wins more primaries, Obama will come under more intense scrutiny. The national presidential press corps is a meat grinder unlike any other. Even the smallest gaffe is magnified instantaneously. No doubt Clinton will be prepared to take advantage.
The question is whether she will get her chance. So far, Obama has shown an impressive ability to deflect attacks back on the attacker. He has a self-discipline in a campaign that reminds me of Bill Clinton. Like Bill, Obama has the support of a formidable spouse.
Both Clinton and Obama will be tested by this primary campaign. Whoever wins will be stronger in the general election for it.
Besides that Pesky Presidential Primary. . .
Montgomery County voters can cast ballots in congressional and school board primaries on February 12th. Even independents can vote in the school board races. Despite holding her campaign kickoff just before the Redskins game, Alies Muskin attracted a good crowd to her campaign kickoff on Saturday for the seat being vacated by Sharon Cox.
The Washington Post reports:All three seats are up for election next year. Because the contests are nonpartisan, the top two vote-getters for each seat in the February primary advance to the general election in November. . . .
I hadn't met Alies Muskin before the event and had a chance to talk with her for a few minutes. When I asked why she was running, she said her big passion was making sure that the system works for all students and expressed concern about the rapidly rising share of low-performing students in high schools. In her remarks to the crowd, she also expressed concern about addressing the needs of students with anxiety disorders and other mental illnesses.
Muskin faces four opponents, including Philip Kauffman, a government lawyer from Silver Spring who collected the endorsement of The Washington Post -- but not of the teachers association -- in a failed bid to unseat Navarro last year. Also running: Tommy Le, an engineer and former teacher who was defeated last year by Shirley Brandman (At Large); Carey Apple, an aquatic-facility supervisor from Germantown; and Rob Seubert, a loan officer and former middle school science teacher from Silver Spring.
Active in PTAs since 1992, Muskin is a longtime advocate of Albert Einstein High School and its feeder schools as well as the Downcounty Consortium of schools. She was instrumental in building the annual college fair at Einstein into one of the largest such events in the region.
Besides MCEA, Muskin has been endorsed by SEIU Local 500 which represents school staff and the MCPS Student Government PAC.
George McGovern Calls for Impeachment
Former Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern called for President Bush's impeachment this morning. His column in the Washington Post is a must-read.
There are many reasons for not impeaching the President: it's too late, people don't want it, the Republicans will block it, Cheney will assume the office, etc. But McGovern, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross during World War II, makes the best case for it of any that I have read.
He thunders, "Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard." McGovern goes on to list the intentional lies on Iraq and Iran, the criminal negligence in New Orleans and the blatantly illegal wiretapping of American citizens as specific grounds for removal.
And then he predicted that, at age 85, he would not be around to witness the rebuilding of our country. That is a sad statement because McGovern helped to build our country's greatness throughout his entire life - a greatness that the current President has done everything in his power to destroy.
I have never been a big proponent of impeachment because I know the Democrats do not have the votes to remove President Bush. But when one of our most honest and principled national heroes calls for it in his final hours, we should at least have a vote.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Gray Lady Slams Hillary, Loves Barack, Ignores Edwards
The establishment media is going after the establishment candidate. There has been a tsunami of anti-Hillary and pro-Barack opinion pieces in the New York Times.
From Gail Collins in a column entitled: "What Would Hillary Rodham Do?":Somewhere, Senator Edward Brooke must be chortling. You will remember that in 1969 Brooke, a moderate Republican, had the bad luck to be commencement speaker at Wellesley College on the day Hillary Rodham made a name for herself as a voice of her generation. She politely gave the first black American to be elected to the Senate since Reconstruction the back of her hand. “For too long our leaders have used politics as the art of the possible,” she said. (“This is bad?” Brooke must have been thinking.)
Bob Herbert on "The Obama Phenomenon":
It was not actually anything in particular that Brooke and his ilk had done that earned Hillary’s lightly disguised contempt. It was just that they were tired and old and always looking for some way to cut a grubby deal instead of setting their sights on the impossible dream. She and her generation, she said, were “searching for a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.”
Nearly 40 years later, here she is, forged into an architect of the possible by every conceivable kind of political and personal disaster. Campaigning in New Hampshire, she’s warning voters that the guy who is promising to turn the whole process into something that people could actually feel good about is peddling “false hopes.”
Meanwhile Barack Obama gives his folks the ecstatic experience. “They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” he told them Thursday night, creating a patriotic lump in every throat in the room.
How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?
How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him as mortal?
But if she were around right now, Hillary Rodham the commencement speaker would probably be an Obama girl.The Clintons, especially, have seemed baffled by the winds of change. They mounted a peculiar argument against Senator Obama, acknowledging that voters wanted change but insisting that you can’t achieve change by doing things differently. Senator Hillary Clinton has had a devil of a time trying to cope with the demand for change while shouldering the legacy of an administration that defined the 1990s.
Even the supposedly pro-Hillary column by Kerry Howley entitled "It Takes a Family (to Break a Glass Ceiling)" was hardly a gift to her favored candidate:
Barack Obama has none of that baggage.
But for all the talk of change, it’s just one of the factors driving the Obama phenomenon. The simple truth is that hardly anyone — in politics, in the news media or anywhere else — realized what an extraordinary candidate Senator Obama would turn out to be.
He’s smart, hard-working, charismatic, good-looking and a whiz at fund-raising.
He has an incandescent smile, but it’s not frozen in place. He seems authentic. When he laughs, you have the feeling it’s because something is funny.
People are lining up to believe in him. He has the easy demeanor (in a long, lanky frame) of someone who’s comfortable with himself. Even when he fires up a crowd, he doesn’t get too hot. He has the cadences that remind you of King but the cool that reminds you of Kennedy — John, not Robert.
If the Clintons are going to stop Mr. Obama, they need to do it now. If he wins the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, the news media will go nuts and he will head toward the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada and the Jan. 26 primary in South Carolina (where half the voters are African-American) with incredible momentum.
I expect that African-Americans, under those circumstance, would view his campaign with almost religious fervor. All those questions about whether he’s black enough would be history. Mr. Obama would be perceived by many as within striking distance of the presidency, and there will be very few blacks in favor of stopping that train.SOME women, even progressive ones, are surely celebrating Hillary Clinton’s third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Those of us who think 43 male presidents in a row is quite enough, thank you, still sometimes question whether a woman whose greatest political move was her marriage deserves to be the first woman in the White House. . . .
No mother wants to tell her daughter that she can aspire to the presidency only if she snags the most gifted politician of her generation. But Hillary Clinton’s rise to power, unsettling as it is, follows a time-tested pattern for the breaking of gender barriers.
The great feminist promise of a Hillary Clinton presidency amounts to this: If we elect a political wife now, perhaps we won’t have to later.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Public Forum on New Plans for Woodmont East II
Councilman Roger Berliner (D-1) is hosting a public forum where the developers will present their revised plans for this critical property located at the corner of Woodmont and Bethesda Aves. Community members will also have a chance to ask questions and voice their opinions. The forum will be held on Tuesday January 8th from 7-9pm at Bethesda Chevy Chase Regional Services Center located at 4805 Edgemoor La. in Bethesda.
More from Councilman Berliner's flyer for the forum:Woodmont East is a proposed 539,825 square foot mixed-use development project (hotel, retail, and housing) located at the corner of Woodmont and Bethesda Avenues and extends over to Elm Street. After serious concerns were expressed by community members, the Montgomery County Planning Board, and Councilmember Berliner, the project developers asked the Planning Board to defer action on the proposal until they had an opportunity to revise the plan. The presentation on the 8th will reflect the project sponsor’s response to the concerns raised by the community.
"People Who Love This Country Can Change It"
An amazing speech. Tell me this man doesn't look like a president. You can also watch Sens. Clinton and Edwards after the jump.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Now, It's a Campaign.
Many others will say it in various forms but it bears repeating. Barack Obama's victory in Iowa in 2008 has to be regarded as momentous as John Kennedy's win in West Virginia in 1960. According to the figures now, Obama won 38% of the delegates while Edwards came in second with 30% and Clinton in third with 29%. Why and where does the 2008 campaign go from here?
Obama's win shows the hunger of the count