Maryland Senate race: Israel divides liberal Van Hollen and Edwards

[brooklynite]

The Guardian:

Conflict in the Democratic Party over Israel has long revolved around symbolic issues, such as the drama around how many elected officials would show up to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress earlier this month. A primary in Maryland for an open Senate seat could now bring many of these tensions out into the open.

...snip...

So far, two Democratic members of Congress from suburban Washington, Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards, have announced their candidacy. Both have very liberal records and are well liked by progressive groups. However, there is one distinct policy difference between the two of them: their views on US policy in the Middle East. And this difference could doom Edwards on election day.

Van Hollen’s views on the Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinians are rather mainstream. A former staffer on the Senate foreign relations committee, Van Hollen has long been viewed warmly by Jewish Democrats in Maryland. He was described to the Guardian as “a classic progressive Democrat who was not in lock step with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] but very much within their space”.

In contrast, Edwards has long been close to J Street, the leftwing Jewish group which takes a very dovish view of the peace process, and has long voted against efforts toughen sanctions on Iran and its nuclear programme. In 2013, she was one of only 20 members of Congress to vote against the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill which contained measures to strengthen sanctions.

[elleng]

1. Recent events with Bibi etc. might have an effect on sentiment here, re: Israel policy

and Van Hollen, imo.

Funny, J Street = 'leftwing' Jewish group???!!!'

[BillZBubb]

2. Edwards would get my vote!

Free Staters need to punish IPAC and its supporters.

[Mosby]

25. what's IPAC?

[BillZBubb]

31. The large Israeli PAC.

They claim to be "American" but they always put Israel's interests first.

[swilton]

3. Both are well liked by Progressive Groups?

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Before I moved from Maryland in 2010 I was in multiple Maryland progressive groups - Progressive Democrats and Progressive Neighbors - to name two - possibly more if you include Veterans for Peace. Many of the groups members had worked on Van Hollen campaigns - but our progressive issues (at least until 2010) seemed to be ignored. Van Hollen's victory in 2003 to many of us had been the bright spot in that (Kerry, Townsend) that election cycle. Similarly, many of us also worked on Edwards' campaign to unseat Wynn in the 2008 Democratic Primary. Van Hollen's and Edwards' districts are linked geographically.

But our complaint with Van Hollen was that he failed to be proactive in standing up for single payer (failed to co-sponsor Kucinich-Conyers Universal Health Care Bill); to support a measure to impeach Bush, Cheney; to oppose Bush Administration efforts to dismantle environmental regulations , to oppose warfare as the first tool (as opposed to the last resort) of foreign policy; and despite giving lip service to home-owners protections from mortgage foreclosures that despite his positions in house leadership, he did nothing to have that language included in legislation. Finally, we found that he rarely attended constituents' meetings where we could discuss these issues.

Perhaps something has happened between 2010 and 2015 but this was Van Hollen's record from one of his constituents. Unlike the source article would have us believe, imho the issues distancing Van Hollen and Edwards are more than just Israel. It's within the realm of possibility that this primary will be like the Mayor of Chicago primary where the test will be whether corporate funding trumps the passion of high voter turnout for a progressive candidate. Having said that, this Maryland primary features two progressive candidates (Cummings is on the Progressive Caucus but I know less about) and Edwards against Van Hollen....It's also possible that Cummings and Edwards will split the progressive vote and Van Hollen will take it.

[elleng]

4. Thanks for this Feet on the Ground summary.

I have little doubt that, between the two, Edwards is the true progressive. 'Professional' Democrats would probably not want this spread around.

Post similarly in Maryland?

[swilton]

12. Thanks

for the cross-post in Md.!

[leveymg]

5. Von Hollen is being groomed, Edwards is expendable

As is the entire Black Caucus that is being used to try to punish Obama for defying AIPAC on Iran. The arm twisting that went on to force signatures on the seditious House letter is proof of the basic hostility Netanyahu has for Obama.

Likud is perfectly happy to destroy the Democratic Party if it serves its purposes of derailing diplomacy with Iran.

[Oilwellian]

6. Here's another difference between Edwards and Van Hollen

Representative Edwards was an original co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act to expand Social Security benefits. Representative Van Hollen went on and on and on about a balanced approach to deficit reduction and endorsed Simpson-Bowles plan to cut SS. I would wager the liberals in Maryland will take note of that huge difference between the two.

[elleng]

7. If they/we recall it, we will.

[sabrina 1]

9. She sounds like a real progressive Dem. We need to start supporting people like her. There will

be major money poured into trying to smear her I'm sure, though those tactics are growing a little old now that we all have a more clear picture of the way things are.

[elleng]

10. Van Hollen's already got support of TPTB in Dem party,

so Edwards needs all the support she can get.

[sabrina 1]

13. Yes I agree.

[Oilwellian]

14. Bold Progressives & Democracy For America are behind her

This will be one of the classic battles our party is facing between a true blue Democrat and one who is Third Way, which we know is anything but Democratic. I hope she wins for the party's sake.

[sabrina 1]

15. That's good to know. But from past experience we know it will be a huge battle against obscene

amounts of money for Edwards.

Otoh, if Warren keeps talking about Wall St and Wall St actually carries out their threat, Edwards would have a much better chance.

[elleng]

16. Sure, IF wall street actually carries out their threat.

Emily's List and DFA are with Donna, Reid and other 'big' Dems are with Van Holllen. (I do object to referring to Van Hollen as 'third way.' I know you didn't say that, but just putting it out there.)

[Oilwellian]

19. Van Hollen was the trumpeter for the Third Way's effort to cut SS

Many of us remember him hitting the circuit and pushing for the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. I think his schtick was "we need a balanced approach" and if you Googled his name and those words, you would find a slew of articles covering his tour. No true Democrat would EVER support cutting Social Security. Instead, they're busy trying to pass a bill that would increase SS benefits. Donna Edwards helped write it.

[elleng]

20. which is why I've contributed to Donna Edward's campaign.

Join me?

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/ots4donna?refcode=20150326-match-nd&amounts=5,25,50,100,250,500

[Oilwellian]

21. Oh, I already have! LOL Believe me

She is a breath of fresh air!

[elleng]

22. Good. Thanks.

Yes, she is.

[sabrina 1]

27. Thanks for that link, I made a donation also. n/t

[Oilwellian]

18. You mean money for Van Hollen

I don't see Warren cowering to their threat. I hope to see it become a major campaign issue.

[sabrina 1]

24. Oh yes, Warren's going after Wall St is popular across the political spectrum. And yes, I did mean

Wall St Financial support for Van Hollen will be enormous. But if Edwards can get HER message past all the expected attack ads paid for by Wall St, I think it will resonate with the people. AND she should make a huge issue of that Wall St money. Every progressive Dem should make that a huge part of their message, using stats of how much their opponents are getting from Wall St and asking the question? 'Who do you think my opponent is going to represent, YOU or those who are paying for his/her campaign?'

[sabrina 1]

8. Good for Edwards. I would be more than happy to send her a donation for her campaign.

Not sure why the Guardian thinks voting for her own country's interests might 'harm' her in the race.

[oberliner]

23. How can you not be sure?

You can very easily find direct quotes from voters (and potential donors) who are saying they will not support her due to her positions with respect to Israel. Taking positions that are unpopular among large chunks of Democrats might harm you in the Democratic party primary. That seems pretty basic and self-evident.

[elleng]

26. I hope those who took those positions in the past will change,

since bibi's recent behavior (AND POTUS' evolving response to it.)

[sabrina 1]

28. Netanyahu's recent behavior towards this country, his attempt to undermine what the president

and most Americans, consider to be in our national interest, has changed the minds of many Americans regarding where their interests lie.

It's too bad Israel didn't get rid of him, but they didn't and as we had to endure the world's disappointment when Bush managed to stay in the WH, Israel is now facing the same global disappointment.

You will find many more saying they WILL support BECAUSE of her position on Israel. That country needs new leadership, and Americans are not going to condone ANY foreign leader interfering in our country's dealings regarding international affairs, especially when that leader is trying to use US Troops for his own interests. War is not popular here after more than a decade of failure. And certainly not with Iran.

[oberliner]

29. You are definitely wrong

If you think more people will support her because of her position on Israel then I think you ought to take a closer look at the polling data.

Most voters do not really care about Israel one way or another.

Those who do, for the most part, are more likely to oppose her because of her position on the subject, not support her.

Among potential donors, I would suggest that this is even more true.

[sabrina 1]

30. Donors are one of the problems in this country. One that across the political spectrum, especially

among young people, that needs to be seriously curtailed.

Big Donors have been buying our democracy for far too long, and in fact, if Edwards uses this now politically toxic issue, the money in Politics, that too will be to her advantage.

This country badly needs serious finance reform and a good issue for Progressive Dems, a popular issue, IS to stop the flow of special interest money into our elections.

In fact, voters are now very wary of those who receive huge donations from Corporate and Special Interest groups, as they have become much more aware of what a threat it is to this democracy.

If Van Hollen is the recipient of huge funds from corporate and special interests, that is not a plus for him. More and more people are looking for candidates who are free of those financial influences.

[qwlauren35]

34. Oberliner, I agree.

Maryland has a very strong Jewish voting bloc and they are being encouraged to vote for Van Hollen... or even a Republican, rather than Edwards. It doesn't get more damning than that.

[Chathamization]

38. Because of her position or what her enemies say about her?

J Street isn't quite as dove-ish as the article seems to depict (it seems like they mostly align with Labor's position?). If I remember correctly, their initial reaction to Netanyahu's last war in Gaza was immediate support for the military offensive as well in addition to statements that they hoped for peace. I'm not sure if people that care about Israel in MD will see that as a terrible thing.

It sounds like AIPAC doesn't like her and will try to attack her by saying she's anti-Israel. I guess we'll see how strong the AIPAC campaign machine is and how many people will be moved by their arguments. But being opposed because of what AIPAC says about her is different from being opposed because of her positions.

[fadedrose]

11. Always liked Van Hollen, BUT

in this case, I prefer Donna Edwards. I had thought that the personable Van Hollen would make a good presidential candidate, but now prefer Edwards for the Senate seat.

Her voting with the minority is a good thing. Shows courage.

[elleng]

17. Yes, she's very courageous.

[tritsofme]

32. Not that it matters, but that sure makes Van Hollen an easy choice for me.

Good luck to him!

[qwlauren35]

33. Any Marylanders Here who want to get active with Edwards' Campaign?

I'm ready to wave some signs and hand out some flyers. Just looking for a few folks to join me. Anyone interested?

[Xyzse]

36. I'll go.

I can forward contact information if need be.

Granted, I am pretty busy, but I will see what I can do.

[qwlauren35]

37. I'll keep you posted.

I'm trying to contact the campaign office. Not having any luck. Don't want to run off half-cocked when we could have a coordinated effort.

FYI: I'm in Brooklyn Park between South Baltimore and Glen Burnie in northern Anne Arundel County. I am thinking that places we could go to would be womanish, since that's where she's strongest. I have Monday and Thursday evenings (6-8:30) and Saturday and Sunday mornings (9-1:30) open.

Lauren

[Xyzse]

39. Thank you.

I apologize, I went in hiatus, from the 2nd onwards today, so only saw this reply now.

I am generally in Baltimore after work on Fridays since a close friend is there.
I am also currently under the weather. So I can not do a thing any time this week.

[Xyzse]

35. I am in love with Donna Edwards.

I mean that in a political way only by the way.

She gets my vote there.