The WaPo suggests it won't let itself be used to push Donna Edwards around in a primary challenge

Rep. Donna Edwards reads to students at Laytonsville Elementary School.

"We're all for unbridled electoral competition. If Mr. Ivey or Mr. Taylor mounts a challenge, though, we'd also like to hear about which votes each would have cast differently than Ms. Edwards did and which of her views each rejects. Ambition is fine and hardly unknown in Washington, but it's more compelling when informed by substantive debate."

-- from an editorial in today's Washington Post

by Ken

Howie has been tracking the talk, or should we say threats, of a primary challenge to Donna Edwards in MD-4 as payback for her independence and forthrightness in her first congressional term. What popped out first from this Washington Post editorial is the kind of Village nattering that that paper's editorialists seem constitutionally unable to resist.

For example, when the editorialist describes her as " a rookie whose leftist, maverick leanings may not sit well with some established power brokers," it may be sort of understood that the "leftist, maverick leanings" may reflect the views of those "established power brokers," wouldn't it have been much fairer and more accurate to say that her "independent, progressive views may not sit well with some established power brokers"? I could hardly improve on such a statement myself! (Note, by the way, how being "maverick" is seen as a splendid thing for dangerous political retards and die-hard right-wingers like Young Johnny McCranky and Princess Sarah Palin, but a dangerous thing from someone with "leftist leanings.")

Then with regard to the notion that "she has angered some Jewish voters by taking an equivocal approach to Israel," could we have some acknowledgment that a lot of Jewish voters are enraged by those Jewish voters, whose uncritical zealotry in support of Israel seems to us at least as dangerous to its continued existence as a democratic, humane state as the actions of any of its enemies? And this "talk that her staff and constituent services are not up to snuff," is there any indication that any of it is coming from her constituents, rather than from hack political gossip-mongers?

As I said, these are the things that pop out to a reader too accustomed to WaPo pontificating along strict Village-orthodoxy lines. Looked out more dispassionately, the editorial is practically a love letter to Donna. Why, the editorialist actually refers to her as "a quick-witted, hardworking incumbent with powerful allies" -- though of course the "powerful allies" (the one mentioned is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, from Maryland CD-5, which adjoins her district) may have something to do with the paper's official open-mindedness to the leftist-leaning maverick.

Of course Donna doesn't have any automatic right to renomination, and if there are serious challenges to be made to her service, then as the editorial suggests, the challengers have every right, even obligation, to pursue those challenges. But it would be nice if Donna doesn't have to face the massive diversion from her work which be required to push back a primary challenge merely aimed at punishing her for her independence and integrity. And it's rather heartening to find the Post issuing what can be read as a warning that it won't let itself be used for such purposes.

Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards may face challengers in next primary

Saturday, December 26, 2009; A22

DONNA F. EDWARDS'S insurgent campaign for Congress in Maryland's 4th District last year unseated a longserving incumbent and elevated a bright, liberal community activist to the halls of power. Her success in ousting Albert R. Wynn, who'd held the seat for 16 years, also upended the political order in one of the nation's most affluent minority-dominated congressional districts. Little wonder, then, that at least two other Democratic officeholders are now considering their own bids to topple Ms. Edwards after she's served just one full term in Congress.

The 4th District, spanning eastern Montgomery and most of Prince George's counties, is one of the most heavily Democratic and left-leaning in the nation. In the presidential race, Barack Obama collected 85 percent of the vote there. Mr. Wynn's defeat in the Democratic primary last year owed much to some of the centrist votes he had cast and his own tincture as a Capitol Hill insider backed by powerful business interests. That inspired national liberal groups such as MoveOn.org to rally behind Ms. Edwards, furnishing her with volunteers and cash. She helped her own cause by mounting an aggressive campaign that capitalized on her status as a political outsider with grass-roots backing who had fought big developers and big business.

Neither of Ms. Edwards's putative challengers has made his campaign official; the Democratic primary (which, given the paucity of Republicans in the district, will seal the deal) isn't until September. The better-known of them is Glenn F. Ivey, the state's attorney in Prince George's, who has stressed crime prevention and community outreach in his two terms as the county's top prosecutor. The other is Del. Herman L. Taylor II, a state legislator from eastern Montgomery. Others may also consider jumping in the race.

Neither Mr. Ivey nor Mr. Taylor has provided a rationale for their campaigns yet. Still, Ms. Edwards, a rookie whose leftist, maverick leanings may not sit well with some established power brokers, may be vulnerable. In the district, she has angered some Jewish voters by taking an equivocal approach to Israel, and there is talk that her staff and constituent services are not up to snuff. On the other hand, she is a quick-witted, hardworking incumbent with powerful allies, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, a fellow Maryland Democrat with whom she shares representation of Prince George's.

We're all for unbridled electoral competition. If Mr. Ivey or Mr. Taylor mounts a challenge, though, we'd also like to hear about which votes each would have cast differently than Ms. Edwards did and which of her views each rejects. Ambition is fine and hardly unknown in Washington, but it's more compelling when informed by substantive debate.