Editor's Blog

Yesterday, Green Party candidate, Kevin Zeese responded to my endorsement of Democrat Ben Cardin for U.S. Senate. I posted his e-mail below. I feel that it warrants an answer, which I give here—though the voting is all but over.

I want to be clear from the start that I do not believe that my endorsement of Ben Cardin requires that I be his apologist. I am not entirely happy with his record. In the primary, I endorsed Kweisi Mfume, whom I believe was the better candidate. Nor was my endorsement for Cardin an endorsement of the Democratic party, either generally or in Maryland. I am troubled by the process by which Cardin was selected as the Democratic candidate by party insiders, which had much to do with the outcome of the primary.

However, once Cardin had won the primary, I accepted him as a necessary Democratic place-holder, given the current political climate. As I write at the end of my endorsement, the current Congress has given George W. Bush the powers that befit a dictator. Whatever issues I have with the Democratic party have dropped on my priority list. I see no benefit to this Senate seat being filled by a Republican. However unhappy I may be with the Democrats, I am much more so with the Republican majority that now holds Congress.

One point that I have heard many times from Kevin Zeese and from other third party proponents is that people ought not vote out of fear. Maybe. I'm not sure that I agree with that entirely. People vote out of both hope and anxiety. Ideally, the voter puts the candidates on a balance sheet and evaluates the positive points of each against the negative points and compares the results. Sometimes, a candidate with a low positive rating is worth voting for over a candidate with a high negative rating. It is logical to vote to relieve your anxiety in any way possible.

Kevin Zeese rates high on the issues. He is the most progressive candidate in this race. There's no question about that. However, the fact that he will not be elected this year looms as a huge negative point against him. Thus, Ben Cardin becomes the most progressive candidate who can be elected. And he does have several strong positive points on his balance sheet.

Having concluded my long-winded prologue, let me address some of the specific arguments that Zeese makes.

The War

I amend my statement that Ben Cardin has "advanced" measures to de-escalate the war in Iraq. I should have more accurately said that Cardin has been a consistent opponent of the war. I used "advanced" in the rhetorical sense. Zeese presumably questions the use of the word when Cardin has not introduced or co-sponsored legislation pertaining to Iraq. If that is the point, I concede it. The point I was striving for, however, is that Cardin has put a plan on the table for leaving. Agree or disagree with his plan, call if rhetorical puffery if you will, but he has advanced a strategy.

Cardin voted against going to war when most of his colleagues voted for it. He has been a public critic of the war from the moment that it started. I've had a chance to track down the amendments and bills that Zeese refers to in his message and am unconvinced that they constitute support for the war. A vote for a bill that lauds the Iraqi election is not a vote for the war. Nor is voting to fund troops. Bush placed U.S. troops illegally and immorally in Iraq. The billions that we are spending on this travesty is beyond alarming. But I can understand the logic of a war opponent who nevertheless votes to keep U.S. troops equipped, given that they are there and are under fire. I can understand a vote in favor or Iraqi elections.

It feels as if Zeese is splitting hairs here because Cardin is not sufficiently activist. I would agree with Zeese on that. But Cardin does have an anti-war record. Argument on the details of that record belong in a grey area, not one that starkly paints him as supporting a war he voted against. Cardin does need to be held to a high standard, but he is the anti-war candidate who can get elected, and for that he received my endorsement.

Other issues

Zeese then takes Cardin (and me) to task on a host of other issues. I had said that Cardin has "a solid record on other crucial issues." Zeese quite effectively tears holes throughout Cardin's record, from the Patriot Act to Israel. Originally, I was going to address these point by point. But looking through them again, I find fatigue setting in. As I stated up front, I am not Cardin's apologist. I know that I'd sure hate to be in a debate with Zeese. No wonder Cardin was ducking him!

I'm not going to try to rationalize votes for the Patriot Act or Israeli aggression in Lebanon. But I do stand by my statement that Cardin holds a liberal view of government. He supports the basic liberal agenda. He is pro-Choice, supports better health care, supports workers rights. Feel free to pick that agenda apart. I never said that the man's feet were not made of clay.

I've been lucky enough to have traveled around the United States over the past few years—from Orem, Utah, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri—and I have gotten a reality-check about the political spectrum. We live in a very conservative country. Cardin would be an unelectable, flaming liberal in most of the non-coastal United States.

(BTW: As far as the Letters to the Editor go, they are unsolicited and placed in no particular order. To imply otherwise is to be flat wrong.)

What are you going to do about it?

So Zeese has effectively shredded Cardin. Where's the fury against Steele, I wonder? Throughout this campaign, Cardin, rather than Steele, has appeared to be Zeese's main opponent. What does that say (and I presume nothing here—feel free to comment, Kevin)?

I have asked Zeese if he would consider bringing his energy into the Democratic Party and fighting from within to reform the party. His reply is that he would never do that. So I wonder about the purpose of his campaign against Cardin. Is it to get Steele elected and wake up the Democratic base? Is it vanity? Is it an expression of Quixotic fury? Is it, as Zeese claims, simply disgust at the system, offering a better choice. All of the above? Something else?

These are questions that I ponder as I try to place myself on the political spectrum (Zeese's e-mail message has really gotten me thinking, obviously). I was raised in a Republican family, but registered as a Democrat when I reached voting age. The Democrats seemed pretty radical after my upbringing. In the late 1990s, I registered with the Green Party, having become disillusioned with the Democrats, who seemed more like Republicans than I was comfortable with. I have to admit that I have since broken with the Green Party, which now strikes me as well-intentioned, but ultimately solipsistic and futile (I am now registered Independent.) .

In the Green idealism that once excited me, I hear an undercurrent of zealotry and dogma. I am uncomfortable with that. I will keep listening to political ideas from all quarters. I will remain open. But I don't believe in messiahs, and I am extremely wary of people who do, be they Green, Democrat, Republican, or other.

When I endorsed Cardin, I was not anointing a messiah. I was saying that he is the best we have at this juncture. I believe that all candidates, Zeese included, will disappoint. A post-cynical electorate goes to the polls with that in mind and send the best hope they can muster with their vote. Then after the vote they continue the struggle, even against the very candidate that they have endorsed.

—Eric Bond
Editor

Posted by EB at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kevin Zeese wrote the following response to the Voice editorial endorsing Ben Cardin (see below). I will do my best to answer him (though we are in the final moments of the election). But I thought that in the meantime Zeese has a right to express his point of view and rebut our editorial.
— ed.

While I am disappointed to see you endorse Ben Cardin you obviously have the right to endorse who you want. But, to publish false and inaccurate statements is not appropriate:

YOU SAY: "He has repeatedly advanced measures that would de-escalate the violence in Iraq and undo the damage that the U.S. has wrought there."  How do the following votes by Ben Cardin support that claim:

Cardin Iraq Votes:

Voted against an exit plan from Iraq, even without a timetable, House Amendment 214 to H.R.1815, failed May 25, 2005.

Voted to stay the course in Iraq, House Amendment 488 to H.R.2601, passed July 20, 2005.

Voted in favor of expressing moral support for the Iraq War. H.Res. 60 passed on February 2, 2005.

Voted in favor of resolution praising the Iraq War and linking it to the war on terrorism. H.RES.757, passed on September 9, 2004.

Voted against an amendment to the Use of Force Resolution, H J RES 114, that would have urged the president to work through the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, and urge the use of peaceful means to resolve the issue, including the resumption of weapons inspections. Rejected. October 10, 2002.

Voted seven times for a blank check for the occupation of Iraq which has cost the U.S. $320 Billion and for the bloated military budget, H.R.1815, passed December 19, 2005; H.R. 5122, passed May 11, 2006; H.R.5631, passed June 20, 2006; H.R.1815 passed May 25, 2005; H.R. 1268 passed March 16, 2005; H.R. 3289, September 30, 2004; H.R.1559, Passed, April 3, 2003.

CAN YOU POINT TO ONE VOTE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM THAT HE IS WORKING TO DE-ESCALATING THE VIOLENCE? HOW ABOUT ONE BILL HE INTRODUCED? OR, EVEN ONE BILL HE CO-SPONSORED?

Related to this Cardin voted for the Patriot Act all three times it has come before him. He even voted for the version filibustered by Democrats in the Senate. H.R.3199, December 14, 2005. Cardin also voted to keep open the notorious Guantanamo Bay Prison as essential to the defense of the United States, House Amendment 487 to H.R.2601, passed July 20, 2005. Can we trust someone to determine Supreme Court nominees if they have so little respect for the Constitution?

Cardin gets about the same grade as Albert Wynn on the Peace Majority Report scorecard -- Cardin gets a 53% compared to Albert Wynn who gets a 52%! See http://www.peacemajority.org/scorecard/index.jsp?region=MD&type=FL

YOU SAY: "Cardin as a solid record on other crucial issues" Like these?:

Cardin Support for Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Waste: Cardin has voted on both sides of the question of nuclear proliferation, below are his votes that increase nuclear weapons.

Voted against an amendment to the appropriations energy and water bill that would have shifted funds away from nuclear energy subsidies toward energy efficiency. May 24, 2005.

Opposed negotiations to prevent nuclear weapons in space, House Amendment 475 to H.R.2601, failed July 20,2005.

Voted against an amendment to the 2003 Defense Authorization/Nuclear Weapons Development, HR 4546, that would state the U.S. policy toward toward Russia on nuclear weapons matters is to pursue cooperation and transparency. It also would repeal the ban on designing and developing low-yield nuclear weapons under certain conditions, including that another nation is conducting nuclear tests or developing nuclear weapons, May 2, 2002.

Exempting India from requirements that prevent nuclear proliferation under the Atomic Energy Act, H.R.5682, passed July 26, 2006.

Voted for a military budget that included funds for Iraq war, "star wars" program, and new nuclear weapons, HR 4200, passed on May 20, 2004.

Voted for an appropriation for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage $174 million above requested by President Bush which also cut funding for renewable energy research by $30 million. Amendment to HR 2754, July 18, 2003.

Voted to override the state of Nevada’s veto and approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. This will result in tens of thousands of radioactive shipments through communities in 44 states. HR 87 May 7, 2002.

Cardin voted for a bill slashing environmental, health and safety standards for the disposition and transportation of nuclear waste to create a new "temporary" above ground dump in Nevada is mandated by the bill while safeguards for permanent isolation are eliminated. Over a period of 30 years, 100,000 shipments of waste would travel by rail and truck through 43 states and within a half mile of 50 million Americans. H.R. 1270, October 30, 1997.

Voted for nuclear subsidies when he refused to cut the remaining $5 million from a nuclear subsidy known as the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. H.R. 4060, June 22, 1998.

Reckless Militarism and Recruiting our Kids: Cardin has voted for the militarism of the Bush Administration.

Voted to force military recruiters and the ROTC on campus if the school wants to receive federal funds. H. Conf. Res. 354 passed March 14, 2006; House Amendment 211 to H.R.1815 passed May 25, 2005.

Voted to reaffirm the Global War on Terrorism, H.RES.427, September 8, 2005
Endorsed the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush Administration has recklessly carried out since entering office. Instead of endorsing our prolonged involvement in a misguided war, this bill misses a significant opportunity to focus on a plan to leave Iraq. The bill is punitive toward the UN, endorses Guantanamo Bay prison policies, and continues military support for Egypt and Israel. H.R. 2601 passed July 20, 2005.

Cardin Puts Israel First: No Matter What Crimes it Commits: Cardin has been among the most loyal supporters of Israel in the Congress and has been rewarded as a top 20 recipient of money from the hard right Israeli Lobby according to OpenSecrets.org. See: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=2006. In candidate forums spokespersons for the Cardin campaign proudly proclaimed to Jewish audiences that “Ben Cardin tells any country that wants to trade with the U.S. that they must trade with Israel.” Thus, Cardin puts Israel’s need for trade ahead of the United States. Jewish Voice for Peace gives him a score of only 40%. Among his pro-Israel votes:

Supporting Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and its disproportionate military attack that forced 25% of the civilians in the country to leave their homes. H RES 921, July 20, 2006.
To punish Palestine for electing the ‘wrong’ government. H.R.4681, May 23, 2006.
Voted against the Palestinian government and limited the ability of the U.S. to provide foreign aid. H R 2601, July 20, 2005.

Condemning the International Court of Justice for ruling the separation wall, which took 10% more Palestinian Territory and ensured that 70% of the water was in Israel, for ruling that the wall was illegal under international law. H RES 713, July 15, 2004.

Supporting setting of boundaries by U.S. and Israel rather than Israel and Palestine. H CON RES 460, June 23, 2004.

Voted to support Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories despite U.N. Resolutions urging Israel to leave the occupied territories. H RES 392, May 2, 2002.

Cardin gets a 40% rating from Jewish Voice for Peace. See: http://hq.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/jvfp/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=144 But, he is one of the largest recipients of funds from the right wing pro-Israeli lobby.

In favor or corporate trade agreements: Ben Cardin has been a big supporter of trade agreements that empower international corporations at the expense of labor, consumer, human rights and the environment. Cardin is a supporter of NAFTA – which is a key cause of illegal immigration because of the economic diclocation it has caused in Mexico, Central and South America. He has voted for trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco. He voted to force state and local governments to use taxpayer money to impose the threats and rulings of international trade and investment tribunals. H.R. 4276, August 5, 1998.

In favor of corporate power in government: Ben Cardin has voted to limit the ability of the government to regulate industry, no matter how dangerous or damaging their practice if it is too expensive for the industry. HR 2342, May 18, 2004. He has voted to limit the power of investors to sue for fraud. H.R. 1058, March 8, 1995.

For Corporate Welfare: As you can see below, Rep. Cardin gets a lot of business money. In addition to voting for corporate trade agreements, wasteful defense department budgets there’s more corporate welfare he’s supported. A handout for pharmaceutical companies at the expense of children. Ben Cardin voted for the Best Pharmaceuticals for Childrens Act which would have given drug companies a six month extension on their patent if they tested the dangers of drugs in children. This should have been a basic requirement of drug testing before drugs come to the market. HR 2887, November 15, 2001. Cardin voted for corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry rather than for clean energy alternatives when he voted against shifting $52 million from fossil fuels to clean energy on June 21, 2001. He voted against a similar amendment to cut $50 million from the fossil fuel subsidy and transfer it to clean energy alternatives on July 14, 1999. Cardin voted for funding for risky foreign corporate investments with tax payer dollars when he refused to cut funding to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation by $11.2 million. H.R. 2159, July 30, 1997. He voted to increase corporate welfare through OPIC in 1996 as well, HR 3759, September 11, 1996. He also voted to provide corporate welfare for U.S. investors in Mexico when the peso was devalued in 1994. HR 2020, July 19, 1995.

Wrong on Making Television Time Available to Candidates: The cost of campaigning is in large part due to the cost of advertising on the public airwaves – television. But, Ben Cardin voted against an amendment that would have required television stations to charge the “lowest unit charge” thereby resulting in increasing the cost of television airtime so only the wealthiest candidates can compete. HR 2356, February 13, 2002.

Against Importation of Less Expensive Pharmaceutical Drugs: Cardin voted against two measures that clearly would have allowed for the importation of less expensive prescription drugs from Canada. In 2003 Cardin joined 34 Democrats and 142 Republicans in voting against a Democrat-sponsored motion to include language in the fiscal 2004 omnibus appropriations bill allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. The motion passed 237-176, but the language was eventually replaced by the regulation included in the Medicare overhaul. Cardin also voted against a bill introduced by Republican Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota that would have called on the Food and Drug Administration to create a program that would allow FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved sites in select countries to be imported to the United States. The bill passed in the House with 141 Republicans and 45 Democrats voting against, but died in the Senate.

YOU SAY: "He is a true blue liberal, clearly committed to to the idea that government has a responsibility to serve the citizens it governs."  Come on. All of the above votes are consistent with the interests of his funders—as opposed to the citizens. On every key issue -- health care, pharmaceuticals, Israel-Palestine, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, sustainable energy, election reform -- Cardin has put the interests of his funders first and the citizens a distant second. Cardin is the largest PAC recipient of any Maryland politician -- health insurance, banking, pharmaceuticals, the Israeli lobby, military-industrial complex. He is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party. You can see his funding sources at: http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/204/5/.

Now, all of the above is true—and you can admit that is true—and still decide that the greater evil is too dangerous. That is fine -- it is a common method of voting in the United States -- to not vote for what you want, but instead vote based on fear. That is fine -- you can vote for what you don't want -- but don't mislead your readership (or yourself) to think that Cardin is going to help solve the problems our corporate-government creates for citizens and the world. He is part of the problem - not part of the solution. CARDIN IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY - HE IS A SELL-OUT TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS ON ISSUE AFTER ISSUE.

Also, very nice to have a Letter to the Editor supporting your editorial above your editorial. Would it not have been more fair and balanced to have printed a different view? 

Kevin

Posted by EB at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here our short explanations of the ballot questions for November 7:

State ballot questions in plain English

On Nov. 7 Maryland voters can vote up or down on four statewide ballot questions:

Question No. 1 – A vote in favor would amend the state constitution to say that the Board of Public Works cannot dispose of parkland without General Assembly approval. This initiative arose from Governor Bob Erhlich’s attempts to sell state land to Republican friends at below-market prices.

Question No. 2 – This initiative is an attempt to diminish the power of three-judge circuit court panel. A “yes” vote would allow litigants who lose in front of a three-judge panel to make an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. It would also provide uniform procedures for litigation that comes before three-judge panels.

Question No. 3 – The point of this initiative is to reduce the number of civil cases that go to juries by adjusting the minimum financial threshold for inflation. A vote in favor would mean that a case must involve damages of at least $10,000, rather than current minimum of $5,000, for plaintiff to be entitled to a jury trial

Question No. 4 – The key change in this initiative would be to take power away from local boards of elections and give it to the State Board of Elections, notably in regard to setting rules for absentee ballots for people living in nursing homes, drawing precinct boundaries and determining who is a registered voter. A vote against the initiative would keep the authority with local boards.

Montgomery County ballot questions generate little controversy

by Tisha Tryens

On Tuesday November 7, many Montgomery County residents will head to the polls and cast votes for their favored political candidate but then two other question will appear on the voting machine asking them to make a decision that will play a role in the legislation of the county. These ballot questions have been historically convoluted and controversial and have brought about such important changes as the length of Council tenures, the size of the County Council, and what tax class limits should be put in place.

This year the ballot will consist of two questions which will be, “very quiet compared to previous years,” according to Michael Faden, legal contact for the Montgomery County Council.

The first concerns the implementation of a charter which will regulate compensation for Council members and whether or not they, like the County Executive, should be considered full time employees of the county. This would not restrict them from seeking employment outside of the Council as many members currently do, but perhaps make it less likely that they will have to. By increasing the Council pay, they may be more inclined to focus their attentions solely on their county duties. However, voters need to contemplate whether this is an effective means of distributing the county’s funds.

The second question is posed in order to clarify how the 10-day period in which the County Executive has to veto or sign proposed legislation is determined. In the past there have been uncertainties about which days counted, and the new language should correct this problem.

Posted by EB at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Maryland Senate race, I endorse Ben Cardin—an effective and principled legislator. As a Congressman, Cardin was one of the few who voted against the bill authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. He has repeatedly advanced measures that would de-escalate the violence in Iraq and undo the damage that the U.S. has wrought there. If the Democrats were to gain control of the Senate, Ben Cardin would bring moral authority to this issue and have some influence on changing national war policy.

Cardin has a solid record on other crucial issues: the environment, health care, education, social security, jobs, women’s rights, and human rights. He is a true-blue liberal, clearly committed to the idea that government has a responsibility to serve the citizens that it governs.

Cardin’s main opponent, Republican Michael Steele, offers few ideas and almost no record on such issues. Steele certainly makes the most of his pleasant personality, but he really doesn’t offer the voter much beyond his smile and his puppy. And unfortunately, if he were to take this seat in the Senate, he could easily block the effort to build a new Congress that will challenge President Bush.

Some people I know are planning to vote for Green Party candidate Kevin Zeese. Zeese certainly makes valid points about the flaws in our two-party system. His candidacy, however, illustrates a disconnect between intention and consequence. In the current context, a vote for Zeese will not effect change in Congress. Our priority now ought to be electing a Congress that will put a check on Executive power—which has moved perilously close to dictatorial rule under the current administration.

In Maryland Congressional District 8, I recommend Democrat Chris Van Hollen for another term. Van Hollen has been an ethical and progressive congressman. He has been consistently outspoken on Iraq. I look forward to seeing him take a leading role in a new Democratic House of Representatives.

Democrat Al Wynn, Congressman for Maryland District 4, has done little to warrant an endorsement. He has acted against the environment and against citizen rights on too many occasions. His primary opponent, activist Donna Edward, is far more deserving of the seat. However, with the potential for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, I grudgingly support Al Wynn—if only to keep the seat warm until Edwards or another feisty challenger takes it away in two years. Wynn has publicly stated that he learned the lesson of complacency in this primary. Perhaps we will see better work from him this term.

I endorse Martin O’Malley for governor.

Bob Ehrlich can take pride in some of his policies—such as the law he signed to reduce smokestack emissions. But on too many issues, Ehrlich chooses against ordinary people, failing to grasp the negative impact of his policies. By raising University of Maryland tuition by 40 percent he put higher education beyond the grasp of many. He slashed Project Open Space, removing important protections. His “flush tax” has turned out to be an invitation for developers to encroach on environmentally sensitive areas. And he vetoed a one dollar increase in the state minimum wage. The number of uninsured Marylanders increased by 800,000 during his term.

Democrat Martin O’Malley supports progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage, reducing special interest funding, and investing in education on all levels. As mayor of Baltimore, O’Malley has made progress on reducing crime and raising test scores. He is charismatic and idealistic. I hope that that combination will help him accomplish many of his ideals for Maryland.

Local Democrat Peter Franchot has run a strong, well-organized, and well executed campaign. The Comptroller has limited power; much of the job is administrative—but he or she does hold a crucial vote on the Maryland Board of Public Works. Franchot is an activist with a commitment to the environment, education, and health care.

For Attorney General, Montgomery County Democrat Doug Gansler is the best choice. Though he can be a bit of a showboat, Gansler understands the details and nuance that goes with this important job.

In the District 20 Maryland Senate race, Jamie Raskin is running unopposed. But we pull the lever—or touch the screen—.enthusiastically for Jamie, an inspiring and energetic activist.

In the District 20 Maryland Delegate race, I endorse the strong new Democratic slate: Heather Mizeur, Sheila Hixson, and Tom Hucker. Each brings strong credentials to the state legislature.

In Montgomery County, we see one of the best progressive slates in years. For County Executive, I endorse Ike Leggett. For County Council, District 5, I endorse Valerie Ervin. For County Council At-Large, I endorse Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenburg, and George Leventhal (only three names—but whatever you do, don’t give your fourth vote to gadfly extraordinaire Steve Abrams).

For the Board of Education, I recommend Shirley Brandman in the At-Large seat and Nancy Navarro in District 5. We have a problem with two-tiered education in Montgomery County—with more resources often going to those who least need them.

Brandman has raised her voice against the philosophy of “teaching toward the test.” And as a lawyer, she has advocated on behalf of children who have been denied access to basic human rights.
As a co-founder of Centro Familia, Navarro has a laudable background in the education issues that immigrant families face. She has shown her commitment to keeping any Montgomery County kids from falling through the cracks. We need to keep Navarro on the Board, and add Brandman.

I recommend Democrat John McCarthy for the office of Montgomery County State’s Attorney. McCarthy has built a solid reputation over the past ten years as a Deputy State’s Attorney.

This is a crucial election—get out and vote!

— Eric Bond, Editor

Posted by EB at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)