The Developers’ Man In Rockville…..
by Angry White LiberalMoCo County Executive Doug Duncan has closed ranks around his pro-highway buddies; just about all of the local politicians that aren’t “neutral” are supporting his bid for the Democratic gubenatorial nomination.
This time, most Montgomery Democrats are supporting Duncan, but there is a noticeable divide on the County Council.
Although no Democratic council member has publicly endorsed O’Malley, three are neutral, which says a lot about their relationship with the county executive.
And, perhaps not surprisingly, the split on the council has its roots in the 2002 election.
The five council members backing Duncan — at-large members Steven A. Silverma n , Nancy Floreen , George L. Leventhal and Michael L. Subin and district member Michael Knapp (Upcounty) — were all members of his End Gridlock slate in 2002.
Duncan spent several hundred thousand dollars to help elect the slate, whose members all support the proposed intercounty connector highway.
The three Democratic council members who oppose the project– Council President Tom Pere z (Silver Spring) and district members Phil Andrews (Gaithersburg) and Marilyn Praisner (Eastern County) — are neutral in the 2006 race.
Since the 2002 vote, those three have generally advocated a more restrained policy on growth and development than the positions taken by Duncan and the End Gridlock team.
Click here for link.
4 Responses to “The Developers’ Man In Rockville…..”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 7th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Of course we should continue to remind ALL Democrats that both O’Malley AND Duncan support the ICC.
I wish we had a Green gubenatorial candidate.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
OT: Sorry to post here, but couldn’t find a more appropriate place, and really anxious to get an answer.
I don’t like that the GP supports ‘Feminism’ - and specifically, I don’t like the idea of using this radically-toxic word. Gender equality? Of course. But ‘Feminism’? C’mon.
Can someone explain to me why it’s necessary to use this language? Did the GP just want to make sure it’s never gains acceptance as a mainstream party?
Thanks. I really want to know, b/c I’m a Dem looking for a Party to support, but I’m inclined to start a new one called, “Greens, But Without the Feminism, Socialism, Communism, and Other Assorted Isms”.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Actually…we used to call it post-patriarchal values…but that was a mouthful.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Oh…and there is no “socialism” or “communism” in the Green Party. *laugh*