A friend has urged me to look back at the Washington Post endorsement of Donna Edwards, who defeated Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.) in his primary last night. The endorsement is rather incredible, frankly, for a number of reasons.
Mr. Wynn has long touted what he regards as a pragmatic ability to work across partisan lines. We’re all for bipartisanship, but in Mr. Wynn’s case, too often his stances have been unthinking and out of step with his district’s interests. His vote to scrap the estate tax suggested he was indifferent to his own middle-class constituents. By flip-flopping on fuel-efficiency standards and opposing campaign finance reforms, he showed his contempt for clean air and clean government.
Translation: “We’re all for bipartisanship when it means a Republican is voting like a Democrat, but in Mr. Wynn’s case…”
The hyperbole that follows — “contempt for clean air and clean government” – who writes this stuff, anyway? And I have never heard a serious argument that the estate tax benefits the middle class.
The editorial goes on to criticize Wynn for joining the supermajority of members of Congress who showed up and voted to get federal courts involved in the question of whether to starve Terri Schiavo to death. We can debate on the role of the federal government in this case, but what a strange reason for attacking Wynn. A bipartisan group of 203 members of Congress voted with Wynn, and only 58 voted against.
Is the Post going to endorse a challenger against Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)? He voted the same way on this as did Wynn.