February 15, 2008

Now that the Democratic Primary is Over, Where do we go from here?

Friends,

Now that the vote totals are coming in from the vote on Tuesday, February 12 (with a total to date for me of just under 10,000 votes, with percentage of 9.3% of the vote), I am giving some thought as to possible next steps. I think it is of utmost importance to keep the pressure on our representative, Chris Van Hollen, on certain issues, especially the issue of ending Congressional funding for the war and occupation of Iraq, and bringing the troops home NOW.  As I see it, I have three (or perhaps 4) options.  Let me lay them out for you.  If you have any thoughts about this, I welcome your input, as I think all of this through.  This will not be an internet poll.  But I do invite you to just send me an e-mail, if you wish to share your thoughts with me on where we should go from here. 

  1.  I could just congratulate Mr. Van Hollen on his victory, and keep urging him from the sidelines to take a stronger leadership position on ending Congressional funding for the war, and bringing our troops home.
  2.  I could file to be an official write-in candidate in the General Election. This is actually a very easy thing to do, in terms of procedure. There is no filing fee. It would give me a platform from which to continue to debate the issues with Mr. Van Hollen.
  3.  I could support the candidacy of Gordon Clark, the Green Party candidate for the 8th Congressional District.  I consider Gordon to be a friend, and I like what I have seen of his campaign so far.
  4.  O.K., I said there would be three options, but maybe there really is a fourth.  Write-ins seldom win, so my running as a write-in could well amount to little more than giving me a platform on which to continue to talk about the issues.  From that platform, I could continue to advocate for peace and social justice, and provide some gentle and friendly competition to Gordon Clark, as well as Chris Van Hollen. If Gordon develops a strong campaign on the issues that he and I both support, I could then shift to supporting his candidacy.  For that matter, if Chris Van Hollen were to emerge from his role as timid follower and assume new leadership in getting us out of Iraq, I could shift my support to him, at that point.  Option 4 actually gives me some flexibility to address any change in Van Hollen’s positions that might emerge in the course of the campaign.

 I am leaning toward Option 4, but I invite your input.  Send me an e-mail, if you have any thoughts on this.

Finally, I want to emphasize that although election calendars and ballot access rules do inject a certain level of competition into the process among activists with different party affiliations, ultimately we need to be thinking about working together—all of us voters for peace—be we Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or independents.  We need to develop some new strategies to use the electoral process to support peace candidates—regardless of party affiliation.

Peace,
Deborah Vollmer signature
Deborah A. Vollmer
   December 30, 2007

The Vollmer for Congress Campaign:
What it is all about, the current status of the campaign, and what you can do to help

Friends,

         Let me summarize the status of this campaign.  I am running against a powerful member of the House of Representatives, Chris Van Hollen, who is Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  Mr. Van Hollen represents the 8th Congressional District in the State of Maryland. I am running as a challenger in the Democratic Primary to be held on February 12, because I have serious differences of opinion with Mr. Van Hollen, with regard to his voting record, especially with regard to continued funding for the War and Occupation of Iraq.

          On November 1, 2007, I wrote an Open Letter to Chris Van Hollen, which I sent to his campaign office, challenging him to debate his voting record, in one or more public settings, with dates and times to be mutually arranged.  To date, I have received no response from Mr. Van Hollen.  I know that the letter was received by way of a signed return receipt, which I assume to have been signed by a Van Hollen campaign staffer.  Mr. Van Hollen will, no doubt, be busy during this short campaign cycle.  But he owes it to his constituents to set aside the time to debate the issues, and clarify his reasons for voting the way he has voted on Iraq War funding and other issues.

         Mr. Van Hollen has a mixed voting record, with regard to the funding of the Iraq War.  Three of his votes on Iraq war funding, cast within the last few months, serve as an example.  The first of these is the vote that he cast on September 26 in favor of a Continuing Resolution to keep government funded at current levels.  This particular bill, which received very little media attention when it was passed by the House, contained an estimated 14 billion for the war in Iraq.  There were no conditions in this bill requiring that the funds be used to withdraw troops.  Van Hollen voted for it.  Fourteen of his colleagues voted No, which is what I would have done, had I been in a position to cast a vote on this.  

The second piece of recent legislation regarding Iraq War funding was the “bridge fund” bill, with some fifty billion dollars for the war.  The House version, passed on November 14, 2007, contained some conditions that this money be used to withdraw troops, but the language was such that this condition would have been unenforceable.  The Progressives in the House were split on this one.  The bill died in the Senate, because most Senate Republicans were unwilling to agree to the conditions that the money be used to withdraw the troops.  Van Hollen had voted for this bill in the House; I would have joined Dennis Kucinich and Pete Stark and voted No.

The third vote worth noting was cast on December 19, when the House of Representatives considered the spending bill sent back to it by the Senate, H.R. 2764.  When the House voted on this legislation initially, it contained no funding for the war in Iraq.  The Senate added some $70 billion dollars in war funding.  Chris Van Hollen, to his credit, voted against the bill.  The bill including the Iraq War funding passed the House by a vote of 272 to 142.  

          The three votes that I have discussed above are only a part of the picture; Van Hollen’s voting record over the long haul on the issue of Iraq has been mixed.  I consider him to be well intentioned, but in effect an “enabler” of the Bush Administration’s flawed foreign policy regarding Iraq and other issues.  Van Hollen is somewhat sensitive to the wishes of his constituents on the issue of Iraq War funding, but not sufficiently so.  He will sometimes do the right thing, when he is in the company of a substantial number of his Democratic colleagues.  But on those really tough votes—those in which a vote of conscience would put him at odds with the majority of his colleagues, he tends to take the “easy” way, and vote with those colleagues.

          There are other issues where I differ from Mr. Van Hollen, although the issue of the funding for the Iraq War remains the crucial difference.  On some issues our differences are slight, on some of the issues there are significant differences.  For example, Mr. Van Hollen recently voted for H.R. 1955, the so-called “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.”  Concerned groups have pointed out that this bill threatens civil liberties. Van Hollen voted for it.  I would have voted No.

          I am disappointed that Chris Van Hollen has not been in support of efforts to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  What message does it send to future Presidents if we do not take steps to impeach these two, for what they have done to our nation?

          On the issue of Israel/Palestine, I recognize the power of the Israeli lobby, and I understand that Van Hollen does have a better record than some on this issue.  But I would like to see him come out more strongly in support of rights for Palestinians living under conditions of occupation.  In the long run, I believe Israel, too, will benefit if justice is brought to Palestinians, because it will be possible for the two nations and their peoples to achieve a genuine peace.

          On the domestic front, Mr. Van Hollen and I have some differences of opinion regarding Health Care.  We agree that Americans should all have coverage.  I favor a version of single payer health care which guarantees Americans quality health care with a choice of health care providers.  In particular, I favor legislation along these lines proposed by U.S. Representative John Conyers.  Chris Van Hollen has not signed on to support this legislation.

          People often ask me what they can do to help.  First let me say that (and some find this absolutely shocking!) we are not doing fundraising.  Political campaigns do fundraising in order to have the resources to get the message out.  The media then focuses on the fundraising itself.  This is wrong.  The media should be focusing instead on the positions that the candidates have on the issues, their qualifications to hold office, and their honesty and integrity.  I hope that folks will find this No Fundraising approach to be refreshing.  And there are definitely other things that folks can do to help.

          Here are some things people who want to help this campaign can do.  Help to get the message out by sending your own message to individuals and listservs, with a link to this website; remind people in your message that the date for the Democratic Primary is February 12.  Help me to meet potential supporters by inviting me to gatherings of folks, large or small.  I will be happy to listen to the concerns that people have, and to answer questions about my campaign, and my positions on the issues.  Contact Chris Van Hollen—and help generate the pressure on him to accept my challenge to debate.  If you belong to an organization that sponsors candidate debates, arrange for your organization to invite both myself and Mr. Van Hollen (and Lih Young, who I understand is also running in the Primary) to participate in one or more candidate debates.

          Finally, I want to emphasize that although election calendars and ballot access rules do inject a certain level of competition into the process among activists with different party affiliations, ultimately we need to be thinking about working together—all of us voters for peace—be we Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or independents.  We need to develop some new strategies to use the electoral process to support peace candidates—regardless of party affiliation.

Peace,
Deborah Vollmer signature
Deborah A. Vollmer

Return to Home Page
Designed by Clouds Hill Publishing
Maintained by Imad-ad-Dean, Inc.