The Dems’ biggest win yesterday

February 13, 2008

I received an email recently from a friend of mine with a reasonable question: why is it that so many Dems are so worked up about the Democratic primary fight in Maryland’s 4th congressional district? He could understand people in the area showing an interest, but the contest between incumbent Rep. Al Wynn (D) and challenger Donna Edwards (D) had captured the attention of bloggers and activists across the country. What’s the big deal?

TNR’s Jonathan Chait summarized the point nicely today.

Last year I wrote a column … about how significant elements of the Congressional Black Caucus had been corrupted by K Street, and advocated measures like estate tax repeal or the bankrputcy bill that harm their own constituents. The most egregious case by far was Maryland’s Al Wynn, who has evolved into a virtual appendage of the business lobby. One of the people I interviewed for the column was Donna Edwards, a good-government liberal who challenged Wynn in the primary two years ago, and again yesterday.

Edwards won a resounding victory. Hopefully Wynn’s defeat will be a useful example to Democrats everywhere that there is a price to be paid for following K Street over the interest of the country or their own constituents.

Was Wynn really that bad? Without question. He partnered with right-wing crooks like Bob Ney to oppose campaign-finance reform; he partnered with right-wing lobbyists on the estate tax; he partnered with right-wing lawmakers on the ridiculous bankruptcy bill; and he partnered with right-wing hedge-fund managers on the private equity tax break. It wasn’t just corporate lobbyists, either — Wynn also voted with Bush on Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy.

What’s more, while Wynn was uniquely unreliable as a Democratic incumbent, Donna Edwards was uniquely extraordinary as a Democratic challenger.

When Edwards defeated Wynn yesterday — as she did, decisively — it marked an important milestone for the party.

There are, to be sure, plenty of Democratic lawmakers who are unreliable on key issues. Most of them come from competitive districts, and so it’s easier to cut them at least a little slack now and then — these lawmakers know that if they vote with the party on some high-profile bills, their careers are in jeopardy, and an even less reliable Republican will replace them. I think some of these right-leaning Dems would be pleasantly surprised if they tested this belief more often, but they’re in a tough spot. I get it.

Wynn, however, represented a bluer-than-blue district, facing token GOP opposition, if he faced opposition at all. And he still became a lawmaker beholden to corporate lobbyists, not because he needed their support to stay in office, but because he actually seemed to agree with them.

In contrast, Donna Edwards will use this seat to become a champion of the progressive agenda, and she’ll be rewarded indefinitely by her liberal constituents.

Best of all, this primary fight was a test, which we passed with flying colors. As Ezra explained:

[Edwards’] victory was by no means assured, as Terry Samuels pointed out, “Wynn has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as well as the endorsements of NARAL and the AFL-CIO; Edwards has the backing of the maverick Service Employees International Union and the liberal blogosphere, including Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zúniga.”

And the mavericks won…. As Matt correctly says, “the tree of progressive politics must be watered with the metaphorical blood of sellouts ever now and again. Some people seem to me to walk around in their head with a model in which politicians are very principled ideologues who then divert from their default status due to electoral fears. In a more plausible schematic, they have a natural tendency to drift in the direction of utter corruption and only electoral fear keeps them doing their jobs in a somewhat responsible manner.” Wynn’s loss will help power that fear for years to come. Primaries are the countervailing power that progressive activists can exert against corporate influence, and it’s a deeply healthy development that the Left has begun using them successfully.

It’s a very good day.

Amen to that.

Wynn has been an embarrassment, but now he can be a cautionary tale for all the Democrats in solid blue states who take their constituents for granted. Edwards is a terrific candidate, someone who can use a safe district to make bold moves for her constituents and the progressive cause write large.

Oh, and Dan Lipinksi? We’re coming for your head next.

  • This was all news to me, but it would sure be interesting to know the details behind Wynn’s support by Pelosi and Hoyer. If the picture of Wynn in this post is accurate, why would they back him against an insurgent Democrat who would likely be more loyal to a progressive agenda? The post doesn’t mention any overt corruption, but there does seem to be this faint smell….

  • Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering myself.

    However, I’m a little uncomfortable with the way the word “reliable” has apparently become synonymous with “ideologically pure.” This guy Wynn sounds pretty awful, of course. But in more general terms, surely there are worse things than being “unreliable” when it comes to blindly following the party line on everything? Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the party that values diversity of ideas and open debate? Is someone who disagrees on a key topic really best characterized as “unreliable”?

  • CB,

    If you have anything on Congressman David Scott of Georgia, I’d love to hear about it. I could be mistaken, but I understand that’s he’s a Wynn-like rep in a Wynn-like district. I also understand that the folks over at CREW have quite a file on him. If so, I’d love to see him replaced as well.

  • We all won yesterday. Pay attention Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer because the voters have proven that they will lose patience with sell outs, no matter what party those sell outs label themselves as being a member of.

  • Wynn has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer….

    ’nuff said.

    And while I am bitchin’, I wrote Give ’em Hell Harry today to tell him I thought he was useless and thanks for nothing.

    Give ’em hell, my ass!

    /rant off

  • And he still became a lawmaker beholden to corporate lobbyists, not because he needed their support to stay in office, but because he actually seemed to agree with them.

    Or their money.

    Either way, good riddance.

  • Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the party that values diversity of ideas and open debate? Is someone who disagrees on a key topic really best characterized as “unreliable”?

    This wasn’t a congressman breaking with the party orthodoxy on “a key topic” or even two because his constituents demanded it. Nor was it a case of a congressman voting his conscience on “a key topic” even though his constituents disagreed with him on that one point. No, it was a Democrat representing a very liberal district and yet voting like Tom DeLay’s more conservative twin brother — pro-Iraq, pro-big business on a host of issues, etc. etc. — on a wide array of votes before him.

    In the end, the voters of his district got someone who more accurately reflected their views than him. That’s not instilling an orthodoxy from above. That’s practicing democracy from below.

  • ***Jim Strain comment #2***Curiously Obama supported the ‘party pick’ over a true progressive in the Illinois congressional race. Seems the party decides they want those most cooperative to their agenda over what the people want.

  • TR@10: I think you missed the part where I said this guy sounds pretty awful, but that I was uncomfortable with the use of “reliable / unreliable” in the more general way that this article used them.

  • Donna Edwards endorsed Obama, and won the Primary. End of Story.

    This is exactly the “Up and Down the Ticket” excitement that Obama talks about.

  • But in more general terms, surely there are worse things than being “unreliable” when it comes to blindly following the party line on everything?

    Yes, but why are you asking? I see nothing in the post that indicates one must blindly follow the party line on everything.

    Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the party that values diversity of ideas and open debate?

    Yes, they are, but how can you have a party(or party platform) if you don’t agree on some things? Don’t you think that after a bit of debate something has to get done? How much should you put up with before you ask someone to leave? Would it be okay with you if, say Joe Scarborough, said that he was a Democrat, but continued to say the same things he’s been saying? Would his, or anyone’s, self-identification be enough to you to allow them to represent your party/platform?

  • Brooks, I’m not sure what you’re looking for here, but it seems like your definition of liberals and progressives being tolerant is supposed to extend to tolerance for people standing in the way of important parts of the agenda. The word for people who do that isn’t “tolerant,” it’s “sucker.”

    Activists work and voters vote in order to put someone into office who shares their values and is willing to fight for them in Congress. If the person elected is not only not meeting those goals but actively working against them, they’re not being ideologically impure; they’re just not doing the freaking job they were hired to do. If that’s the case, boot them and put in someone who will.

  • Brooks, sorry, but I took your use of reliable from your context, not the article’s:

    But in more general terms, surely there are worse things than being “unreliable” when it comes to blindly following the party line on everything?

    I agree that being “reliable” on the party line isn’t the best measure of a politician and I certainly have no problem with red-state or purple-state Dems breaking with the party line every now and then because that’s what their voters demand.

    But Wynn was a guy who was a representative of his district in name only. He campaigned as a Democrat, won votes from Democrats, and then voted the reliable party line — the GOP party line. His district had every reason to throw him out for a representative who would actually represent them, and we as a party have every reason to celebrate that too.

  • I was hoping that Ned Lamont’s momentary triumph in ’06 would send a message to Blue Dogs everywhere that their breed is increasingly unwelcome and unfounded. Lieberman’s unfortunate end around play cancelled that message. The Blue Doghouse was still safe ground.

    With all the Republican retirements, a netroots candidate winning in the form of Donna Edwards and increasingly certain Democratic change in the Chief Executive, spines on Capitol Hill should start to stiffen and calcify for the Democrats still there as dramatic change in Washington looms nearer. The handwriting’s on the wall but but these Dems need to get outside of the beltway to read it. Now is the time to lay the groundwork for reelection as Congressional progressives, or soon the wrath of the primary voter will lay upon the necks of Blue Dogs.

  • Curiously Obama supported the ‘party pick’ over a true progressive in the Illinois congressional race. — bjobotts
    Proof? This is the first time I’ve heard this, and a quick Google search comes up with nothing.

    Donna Edwards endorsed Obama, and won the Primary. End of Story. — Ohioan
    To be fair, Al Lose tried to do the same thing. He tried to make it look like Obama had endorsed him.

  • I’m surprised at the reaction I’ve gotten here. I love CB’s writing and I find his articles, including this one, to be insightful. I’m just opposed to contrived tags and orthodoxy, and I think that reliable / unreliable smacks of both.

    And, of course I’d be OK with *anyone* calling themselves a Democrat and doing what they could to lobby other Democrats to support their vision of where the party should go, even if I personally strongly disagreed with them. I’d reserve the right to call them “misguided” or “wrong” or even “scary,” and I might fault them for their views, but I wouldn’t fault them for being “unreliable” to ideals that they didn’t share. Is that really unreasonable?

    Heck, much as I love CB, he characterized a hypothetical Republican as “unreliable” for not supporting the Democratic platform. Surely that’s taking the rhetoric and semantic games a little far? I thought it was simple constructive criticism. I’m sorry if it came across as fighting words.

  • Thank you, Brooks (4). I couldn’t agree more. Nothing has disturbed me more in the past year than people who think Dems need a Tom Delay type. That just invites more machine politics and by extension, corruption.

    After reading TR (16), I interpreted Brooks’ comment as a response to “What’s more, while Wynn was uniquely unreliable as a Democratic incumbent” only. Not that he was endorsing any one specific Wynn vote.

  • And TR, come on, you took “unreliable” from my context… and left off the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, which made it clear that what “more generally” referred to, and which also made it abundantly clear that I was not defending Wynn. That’s a really cheesy way to make a point by distorting mine.

  • Brooks (#4) said: Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the party that values diversity of ideas and open debate? Is someone who disagrees on a key topic really best characterized as “unreliable”?

    There’s a difference between a “diversity of ideas” and allowing The Enemy inside the building. And on key topics, yes, there does have to be a Democratic position that is absolutely opposed to the Republican position, and the estate tax, the bankruptcy bill, the private equity tax breaks, and campaign finance reform, should be “third rail” subjects for Democrats.

    It is time for Democratic office holders to start realizing that the constituency they represent is not their fellow pinstriped pimps down the block on K Street.

    It’s also time for so-called “liberal/progressive interest groups” like the AFL-CIO and NARAL to start looking at the world beyond the end of their nose, and get it that a guy who votes wrong on the estate tax, the bankruptcy bill, private equite taxes and campaign finance reform, can’t preserve his “liberal” positions with a no vote on partial-birth abortions or a yes vote on the minimum wage, when his actions on all these other things actively harm the members and constituents of these groups (too many of whom have leadership that’s as firmly in bed with the enemy they get drunk with at DC parties as anyone else is).

  • In defense of the Blue Dogs, most come from red states where they represent their constintuencies, which are often more conservative than districts in blue states.

    I’d rather have a Blue Dog than a Republican, any time. Wynn, though, represented a “liberal” district and should have been removed. Edwards came close two years ago, and now she’s won. Great for her and her district.

  • I like Atrios’ idea of targeting every Dino in a Dem District. Call it — 3-D. Leiberman, I’m sure, is looking to be McCain’s VP since he knows he’s losing all his committee assignments — now that he’s the deciding vote, the only power he has is to go to the GOP convention and switch parties, so like John Solomon, he’s back where he belongs. And Reid needs to go. I actually wouldn’t mind seeing Hillary replace him if she doesn’t make the nomination, since she’s a master of trench warfare, and someone needs to be the “hammer” against the obstructionists.

  • Brooks, from my own perspective: you seemed to be veering a bit in the direction of concern troll and that raises the hackles on a lot of internet activist-types mighty quick; a classic newspaper version being your namesake, David Brooks, explaining how virtually anything that happens is bad for Democrats and good for Republicans.

    The bottom line, however, is that the Democratic majority in Congress is so slim that the most important parts of the agenda (you know, kooky-crazy things like supporting the freaking Rule of Law) require near-unanimity to accomplish. These goals like defending the Constitution, preventing unlawful surveillance of US citizens, and stopping torture by US intelligence services are not exactly trifles. This is about issues that define our country to ourselves and the world, and it’s more than a little upsetting when you have reps like Wynn who are so distracted by shiny things that they’re willing to work their asses off to hand a hugely unpopular President more power so he can misuse it.

    I understand your dislike of the word “reliable” (not a fan of it myself), but think of it as “cannot be relied upon to do the right thing for the country and its citizens” and you’ll get a much better picture of it. And in this case “the right thing” is stuff like restoring Rule of Law, stopping torture, and preventing a war with Iran. So, yes, people are going to get a little worked-up.

  • And TR, come on, you took “unreliable” from my context… and left off the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, which made it clear that what “more generally” referred to, and which also made it abundantly clear that I was not defending Wynn. That’s a really cheesy way to make a point by distorting mine.

    Sorry, I assumed that anyone reading my comment would have already read yours, seeing how it was before it in the comments section and all. I usually only cut and paste just enough to make it clear to whom/what I’m referring or responding.

    In this instance, I left that sentence off because I wasn’t taking issue at all with that point — we both agreed Wynn was a bad apple. I was instead taking issue with what seemed to be your quibble with the post, that Wynn was being punished for being “unreliable” to the Democratic line when my point was that he was being unrepresentative of the constituents’ will.

    If it makes you feel better, I will formally stipulate for the Official Record of the Carpetbagger Report that you, Brooks, feel that Wynn was a bad politician and that you, Brooks, do not in any way support Wynn.

  • Jim Strain –
    If the picture of Wynn in this post is accurate, why would they back him against an insurgent Democrat who would likely be more loyal to a progressive agenda?

    Have you been paying attention? Pelosi and Reid are Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they’re “progressive”. Pelosi orignally hails from the liberal wing of the party, but leadership makes one tend to take a more conservative approach. Reid is (and always has been) in the conservative wing of the party. He’s a great attack dog (which made him a decent minority leader) but a terrible standard bearer – why do you think he did what he could to torpedo Dodd’s efforts to hold telcos accountable?

    And, reagardless, both of them are part of the “incumbent protection racket”. That’s how Congress works – legislators get chummy with their fellow legislators and don’t want to see them kicked out of office. Plus it sets bad precedent – if solid Dem districts can kick out an incumbent in a primary, then even folks like Pelosi (who comes from a district that normally gives her the Congressional equivalent of “tenure”) have to worry about getting voted out of office. They don’t like that – being held accountable by the voters generally terrifies folks who have been in office for any length of time.

  • One seat at a time, folks … one seat at a time. The fact we won this seat, against an incumbent the Dem establishment loved, speaks to the power of the grassroots.

    Sure, we probably won’t take over the whole government, nor will there be a permanent progressive majority. But that’s not really necessary because: a.) every seat we pick up is a game changer and can pave the way for future success; b.) like all things in life, balance is important, thus one party should never dominate for any length of time.

    I’m interested in seeing what Dem, if any, will run against Claire McCaskill here in Missouri for her Senate seat. She’s been all over the damn map, and joined with the “It’s Okay to Violate the Constitution if the DoJ Says So” crowd yesterday.

    At this point, I may have to consider running …

    😉

  • It appears that a showdown is brewing between the DLC / “Free” Trade advocates of the party and Obama:

    “It’s a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who’ve seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years…So today, I’m laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity.”

    This reads like a shot across the bow at the DLC. I have the feeling that most of us posting here would be glad to see that element of the party marginalized or at least forced to explain how their ‘deals’ will create jobs in America.

    The DLC folks in my state are refugees of the takeover of the local GOP by Christian fundamentalists in the 80’s. They are unlikely to rejoin the GOP after years of Bush/Cheney and the diceyness (is this a word?) of the current Republican presidential contenders. What I mean to say is McCain and Huckabee would be unlikely to vault the GOP back into power.

    Does anyone posting on this site have a prediction of how the power struggle between the DLC and the rest of the Democratic party might play out if Obama is serious about taking on trade deals?

  • All Al Wynn has to do is pull a Lieberman. With the help of Pelosi and Hoyer, he may even swing it in general… I supported Edwards (from Emily’s list, but directly to the candidate; I no longer support Emily’s list as such), but I had also supported Lamont… Which experience taught me not to plan the cut of my fur coat, while the bear was still roaming free in the forest (I think the English is “don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched”)

    D.Pecan, @29,
    It reads to me like something borrowed directly from Edwards (John, not Donna). Wonder if it was done because he feels that, now that he has a bigger popular support, he can afford to take slightly less um… “flexible” positions, or whether it’s keeping his promise to Edwards (especially before the talks with Edwards re endorsement). Or both (hopefully).

    • Comments are closed.