Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wal-Mart Wallop

In the moments after the vote that turned the Wal-Mart bill into law, the whoops and cheers of advocates echoed in the vast hallway outside the House of Delegates.

House Speaker Mike Busch was whisked outside the State House to do a national television interview on CNBC, just one of many national news outlets that swelled the press corps for the vote on the bill forcing the retailer to pay more for employee health care. Union members and their lobbyists hugged lawmakers and posed for photos, giving the thumbs up, some with tears in their eyes. "We prevailed. Yes!" said an exuberant Del. Veronica Turner (D-Prince George's).

Things were not so sanguine hours earlier, when Busch was still counting votes to see if he could reach the magic number--85--to override Gov. Bob Ehrlich's veto of the bill. (He ended up with 88) During a morning caucus meeting, Busch reminded delegates why they needed to get on board.

"This is about protecting the middle class, the working class, from corporate greed," he said in an interview later, holding up a newspaper headline about the Enron scandal.

There was also the task of getting all the members together at once--several Democrats had doctor's appointments, funerals, and one was away playing golf.

"I'm not a babysitter," Busch fumed. "The session starts on the same day every year."


Matthew Mosk

By Phyllis Jordan  |  January 13, 2006; 12:21 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Stem Cell Stutter
Next: Union Muscle

Comments

Matt Hi.

Could you please let us know the voting record of the Montgomery County House Delegation on the Wal-Mart Bill Override?

Thanks
-Sam Percher

Posted by: Sam Percher | January 13, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Montgomery County's entire House delegation, and its senators as well, all voted to override the veto.

Posted by: Matt Mosk | January 13, 2006 2:02 PM | Report abuse

What's going on in the health care area other than WalMart. Which committees/chairs are addressing important health care coverage, availablity and cost issues? What are the hot button issues other than WalMart?

Posted by: s | January 13, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Since this is a Maryland political blog, is there a reason you guys aren't posting about the latest poll results from Maryland that show Michael Steele and Bob Ehrlich leading their respective races?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Maryland%20Senator%20January%2010.htm

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Maryland%20Governor%20January%2010.htm

I was hoping this blog would be more balanced, but seeing how you are going out of your way to bury these poll results, it appears this blog will be as liberal as the rest of The Washington Post. That is a shame because I thought this blog had some potential

Posted by: Harold | January 13, 2006 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Where can I get a breakdown of the vote on the Fair Share Health Care override?

Posted by: clare | January 13, 2006 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Clare,
Today's paper, see the Financial section, has a breakdown of how all the Washington area lawmakers voted on the Wal-Mart bill. I'll try to post on the blog later. Basically, all Montgomery and Prince George's legislators supported it, with more of a mix in the outer suburbs.

Posted by: Phyllis Jordan | January 14, 2006 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Phyllis,

I see you responded to clare's question. Any response to my question about why you guys are not posting the latest poll results?

Posted by: Harold | January 14, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen has never been accurate with its polls, its a known partisan polling agency which is probably why it doesnt get much credibility.

Posted by: TJ | January 14, 2006 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, The Washington Post has referred to polls from Rasmussen Reports in the past as legitimate. Here is one article I found from December 19th in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/18/AR2005121800834.html

But when a poll from Rasmussen Reports comes out that doesn't agree with Phyllis Jordan's political opinions and shows Ehrlich and Steele winning their respective races, she refuses to post it. I think that is very telling that this blog will be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

I honestly was hoping for better and would be willing to give Ms. Jordan the benfit of thedoubt if she would just take the time to respond.

Posted by: Harold | January 15, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Harold,
I'll get you an answer on Rasmussen when I'm back at work on Tuesday.
You'll note an earlier posting on this blog, "At the Starting Gate," quotes a poll that is favorable to Ehrlich.

Posted by: Phyllis Jordan | January 15, 2006 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Phyllis for responding.

Just as a side note, The Baltimore Sun had a report on the Rasmussen poll today.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.notebook15jan15,1,504890.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Posted by: Harold | January 15, 2006 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I had posted the Rasmussen poll results in an earlier post by Phyllis assuming she would see it and have a separate post so that we could all comment on it.

Even if The Washington Post doesn't think the poll is valid (although based on the link you provided, they have felt Rasmussen was valid in the past and both the Washington Times and Baltimore Sun found it worthy of articles), this is a blog and they could add a disclaimer about the reliablilty. To just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist is a little strange. I hope it was just an oversight on Phyllis' part and we will see a post tomorrow on the poll.

Posted by: Harold | January 16, 2006 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I had posted the Rasmussen poll results in an earlier post by Phyllis assuming she would see it and have a separate post so that we could all comment on it.

Even if The Washington Post doesn't think the poll is valid (although based on the link you provided, they have felt Rasmussen was valid in the past and both the Washington Times and Baltimore Sun found it worthy of articles), this is a blog and they could add a disclaimer about the reliablilty. To just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist is a little strange. I hope it was just an oversight on Phyllis' part and we will see a post tomorrow on the poll.

Posted by: dave W | January 16, 2006 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about that, for some reason I typed Harold's name in the name box becasue I was responding to him and thought I caught it in time, but apparently I did not. Which is why there is a double post.

I am not Harold and I do not think Phyllis is biased. I was just hopnig for a post to be able to discuss the poll, although there seems to be a pretty lengthy discussion in this post. :)

Posted by: dave W | January 16, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company