Mark Plotkin • September 10, 2014

If my grandmother Sophie Rosenthal were alive and observing the D.C. mayoral campaign, she would say in vintage Yiddish that David Catania is trying to portray his opponent Muriel Bowser as “treif.” “Treif” simply translated is unclean.

The former Republican turned Independent Catania wants voters, especially Democrats, to make Bowser guilty by association. First, he assailed her connection with Phinis Jones and the Park Southern Apartment controversy. Jones is a Ward 8 businessman and political operative, who is under federal investigation. Catania claims that Bowser should have chaired an oversight hearing on the entire matter. She refused. A not too subtle inference is that Jones’s role as a donor and supporter stopped Bowser from performing her Council responsibilities.

Now, Bowser’s former campaign consultant and strategist Tom Lindenfeld is reported to be under federal investigation for his alleged role concerning illegal campaign funding in the 2007 Philadelphia mayor’s race. In this episode, Bowser has acted differently and swiftly. She said, “I have the highest expectations of transparency from my campaign team: Tom no longer has a role on the campaign.”
Catania knows he will have trouble bringing diehard Democrats to cast a vote for a former Republican. If he can paint Bowser in any way as “ethically challenged” or “treif,” maybe that will move them to overlook or ignore Catania’s past Republican affiliation.

What I hope both candidates would do is something that is not being done, or in my memory has never been done in a D.C. mayoral campaign: present a strategy to empower D.C. Show me how D.C. attains budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, congressional representation and, ultimately, statehood.

When is the last time you remember a candidate for mayor drop a name or two? Telling us they have met with somebody in the White House or someone in the Senate or House. I asked Bowser if she would go see Democratic senators on the Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee and seek their sponsorship of the D.C. Statehood Bill. At the Ward 3 Democrats meeting, she said she would go see the “senators she knew.” She did not name the ones she knew. She should also be seeing the ones she does not know.

Catania talks about going to the New Hampshire State legislature and getting supportive resolutions. That’s irrelevant and misguided. Why doesn’t he try to convert congressional Republicans to our side? That’s where the action is.

Both major candidates don’t even know the legislative players who perpetuate our colonial and un-American status. Why aren’t they forming friendships, informing and lobbying for D.C.? The campaign is a perfect place to start.

Mark Plotkin is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics.

Mark Plotkin • August 20, 2014

Jim Hudson was present at the creation. By that, I mean he was an active participant in the first mayoral election for Washington, D.C., in 1974.
Hudson was a close and trusted adviser to Mayor Walter Washington, who was appointed mayor by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. The District was granted limited sovereignty after Congress passed the Home Rule Act in 1973. A provision of the law specified that elections were to be held for mayor and the 13-member District Council.

Washington faced Clifford Alexander in the very first race for mayor. Washington beat Alexander. But what Hudson stressed to me in a recent conversation was that no mayor has ever been elected in D.C. without being a Progressive.

Washington and Alexander proudly wore the Progressive mantle. Every mayor since would embrace that moniker. Marion Barry, Sharon Pratt Dixon, Tony Williams, Adrian Fenty and Vincent Gray. Hudson is a sage observer of the D.C. political scene. He has been a major fundraiser and strategist for most D.C. candidates. He is an ardent supporter of Muriel Bowser, and he is a good and loyal friend of mine. (Don’t hold that against him.)

Hudson’s main point is, above all, this is a Progressive city. All you have to do is look at the staggering numbers Progressive presidential candidates have racked up every four years since 1964. The current president outdoes all of them with 92 percent and 91 percent in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
Hudson believes that Bowser is in that Progressive tradition and thus will win easily. In fact, he estimates she will win by 25 points. Bowser will never win any contest for charisma. Yet in Hudson’s view by inclination, ideology and philosophy, Bowser is in tune and in sync with the D.C. electorate.
His not too subtle inference is that David Catania is not. Nowhere is that more apparent in my view than Catania’s selection of his campaign chair, Sharon Ambrose.

Ambrose is a former Council member from Ward 6. No one would ever accuse her of being a Progressive. Before being elected to the District Council, she served as chief staff member to non-Progressive councilmembers, Betty Ann Kane and John Ray.

Kane was the only member of the council to vote against a moratorium on condo conversion and Ray eagerly sought to do away with rent control. By picking Ambrose to lead his campaign, Catania is sending a clear signal of his political leanings and posture.

Watch for Bowser to tie Catania to anti-Progressive stands. His opposition to paid sick leave comes immediately to mind. Bowser will seek to portray Catania as alien to the political tradition of this Progressive town. It is probably her strongest card to play. What Bowser lacks in personal appeal, she hopes will be more than compensated for by claiming that she “is one of us.”

To Progressive African-Americans and Progressive whites and Hispanics, Bowser wants you to know and believe she fits, while Catania definitely and deliberately does not.

*Mark Plotkin has been writing about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner and will be doing so until the election in November. He is a political analyst and contributor to BBC on American politics.*

Mark Plotkin • August 7, 2014

Muriel Bowser should be a shoo-in for mayor. The main reason is that she is the Democratic nominee. Democrats are 76 percent of the registered voters of Washington, D.C. Thus, […]

Mark Plotkin • July 2, 2014

Todd Purdum has written a highly interesting and compelling book chronicling the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Its title is “An Idea Whose Time Has Come.”

Right here in D.C., we have an “idea” which seems far from becoming a reality: D.C. statehood.

As we celebrate our nation’s birthday, once again we should be reminded that citizens of D.C. do not enjoy the same rights as every other American.

This is very sad. Because at no time has the dream of D.C. becoming the 51st state seemed so poised for a stunning launch. Way back in November 1993, there was a vote on D.C. statehood in the House of Representatives. It received 153 votes. There never was a vote in the Senate. (Even with Jesse Jackson being the elected D.C. Statehood Senator.)

Today, the picture is far different. The D.C. Statehood Bill was introduced in January 2013 by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. The bill goes to his committee — Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Being the committee chair, he is in charge. He determines the scheduling of hearings and the mark-up of the bill. Simply put, the bill is his to move or not to move. And this is the crucial point, Carper has not moved his own bill.

Two members of Carper’s own committee – Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska — have personally told me they will vote for the bill. The other Democratic senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota have not stated their position.

The key senator on the committee is Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. He is considered to be the most endangered Democrat incumbent in the Senate. Pryor has not stated his view on this subject. I have even contacted his father David Pryor, the former house member, senator and governor. No response.

Before I go further, one important person is strangely silent on this issue: the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Not a single word. Not one utterance. He obviously thinks his policy of taking us for granted will go unnoticed and unpunished.
So far, he is right.

Our local elected officials are even worse. With the notable exception of Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, no one has raised their voice.

District Council Chair Phil Mendelson should be pointed out for his indifference and appalling lack of leadership. Right now, it looks like Sen. Carper will not act until after the November elections.

The time is now, before the November election. The entire Democratic leadership is a co-sponsor of the bill – along with three of D.C.’s neighboring senators (Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin of Maryland and Tim Kaine of Virginia). Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, told me he “would make it happen.” Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is no help. She sits idly by and refuses to talk to Democratic senators on the committee. This is a stunning case of incumbent malfeasance.

There are a few politicians who have spoken up in support of statehood for D.C. MaryEva Candon, the National Committeewoman from D.C., and Arrington Dixon, the National Committeeman, have been vigorous in contacting their counterparts in the National Democratic party. They are to be applauded for these efforts.

The citizenry of D.C. must act and raise the visibility of this issue. If we the vote-less and second class citizens don’t care, no one else will.

Mark Plotkin is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics.

Mark Plotkin • April 11, 2014

One perceptive observer of the D.C. political scene commented on the winner of the Democratic primary for mayor: “Muriel Bowser – most of the voters in Ward 2 and Ward 3 couldn’t pick her out of a police line-up.” This is not mean or vindictive. It’s the truth.

Bowser won because she became the “anti-Gray” candidate. She evolved into the clear alternative to the incumbent. Yes, she was known in her home ward, Ward 4. But in the wards with overwhelmingly white populations – Wards 1, 2 and 3 – she was no more than a name. A name that was not Vince Gray. That was good enough.

She piled up huge margins in those wards. In Ward 3, she received 7,836 votes, an astounding 64 percent of the vote. In Ward 2, she got 50 percent of the vote (3,396 votes). Next in line was Ward 2 councilmember Jack Evans, who has served for 23 years and got only 17 percent of the vote (1,190 votes). In Ward 1, Bowser got 45 percent of the vote (4,654 votes). Vince Gray did better there, but still got only 24 percent of the vote (2,396 votes).

Four years ago, Vince Gray won Ward 4. This time, he lost it by 14 percentage points. Gray did win Wards 5, 7 and 8. But the story there is reduction: in voter turnout and in his totals.
Four years ago, Democratic turnout in Ward 5 was 39 percent; this time it was 22 percent. Four years ago, Ward 7 turnout was 36 percent; this time, it was 16 percent. Four years ago, Ward 8 turnout was 31 percent; this time, 11 percent. Even more important – the key factor – was the total vote Gray got in the wards he won.

In Ward 5 four years ago, Gray got 14,160 votes or 74 percent. This time, he got 5,221 votes or 47 percent. In Ward 7, the same story. Four years ago, he got 17,889 votes or 82 percent; this time, only 4,831 votes or 60 percent. Finally, in Ward 8: 12,993 votes or 82 percent four years ago; a mere 3,058 votes or 58 percent this time. (These figures do not include absentee or provisional ballots.)

Two major events propelled the vote to Bowser. The first was the March 10 indictment of “shadow campaign” fixer and financier Jeff Thompson. Gray was not indicted, but he was perceived to have been. Second, two polls and the early Washington Post endorsement of Bowser made it a two-person race.

Jack Evans, in my opinion, was by far the most experienced and qualified candidate. He never caught on. Tommy Wells hoped to parlay the clean ethical mantle. That did not work either. When Bowser, Evans and Wells were bunched in the early polls, Gray looked like the winner. Once Bowser broke out and started climbing in the polls, the momentum and the election went to her.

There is plenty of time before November to talk about Bowser versus Catania. I have plenty to say about each. I promise you it will be blunt, and I will predict the next chapter.

Mark Plotkin is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics.

Mark Plotkin • July 4, 2013

As we begin our celebration of our nation’s birthday, we in Washington, D.C., have a special reason to celebrate. On June 19, for the very first time, the citizens of D.C. were finally represented in the U.S. Capitol Building.

No, unfortunately, it was not with a voting representative or two U.S. senators, but with a glorious and magnificent sculpture in Emancipation Hall of D.C. resident and freedom fighter, Frederick Douglass.

Each of the 50 states has at least one statue. We, until a few weeks ago, had none.

A little history is in order. Many years ago, I observed a memorable ceremony in Statuary Hall in the Capitol Building. Sacajawea, the Native American who guided Lewis and Clark on their Northwestern expedition, was being honored with a statue. It seemed to me the entire state of North Dakota was there. There was such a wonderful spirit of state solidarity and pride. I thought to myself: why doesn’t D.C. have a statue of its own?

I once had a very brief conversation with former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert about this idea. Hastert was extremely unpleasant and hostile to the idea. In fact, he mumbled that “Then, the territories will want one,” (as if they were not U.S. citizens too).

On my radio commentaries and in articles, I frequently mentioned how a statue could be a catalyst for concrete action towards full D.C. statehood.

On July 15, 2012, I wrote an op-ed piece in the local opinions page of the Washington Post, headlined “Monuments to the Mistreatment of the District.” Accompanying the article was a picture of the sculpture of Douglass which Steven Weitzman had so beautifully done.

On June 19, the ceremony finally took place. But the ceremony was seriously marred by one of our own elected officials, who failed to share the credit for this momentous moment. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton navigated the bill through Congress but she never once mentioned the essential role that others played.

First of all, Norton did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge or recognize our present Mayor Vincent Gray or former Mayors Sharon Pratt, Anthony Williams and widow of the first appointed and elected Mayor Walter Washington, Mary Washington. She couldn’t have missed them. They were sitting in the front row.

Second, she ignored the sculptor Steve Weitzman, who lovingly created this powerful presence in bronze. This was inexcusable.

And, finally, the councilmember who secured the funding and was most responsible for the statue actually being constructed, Jack Evans, was never acknowledged. This brazen and deliberate omission by Norton has to be called out.

The highlight of the day was the inspiring remarks of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and, best of all, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s stirring endorsement of D.C. statehood by saying he had “signed on” to the D.C. statehood bill.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the introducer of the bill, said he would hold hearings in the fall. The statue had achieved its purpose. Now, things are starting to happen.