Local Machine Defends Brian Higgins (NY-27)

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 10:29


Brian Higgins, who is not a Bush Dog but does come close (FISA), got some coverage in the New York insider political blog the Politicker because of this post.  The article by Steve Kornacki, who I like very much, was fairly good, but ignored the fact that we are not calling for primary challenges, just criticism.  That said, I found the first comment on the post quite instructive.

With a close relationship with Erie Dem Chair Len Lenihan, Mayor Byron Brown, and likely the next Erie County Executive, Jim Keane, any primary challenge to Higgins is DOA.

Down here, we know the machine is dead. Up in Erie, Democrats are poised to sweep the Republicans out of office, solidify their hold on the county legislature, and target Tom Reynolds and perhaps a GOP state senator or two in 2008.

Brian Higgins is the most popular politician in Western New York, his approval numbers are in Clinton-Schumer range.

Stoller, who is not from Erie County, and probably has never been there, would probably be better served in supporting Captain Jon Powers against Reynolds than in leading a vain and silly fight against a politically powerful and very popular incumbent Democrat.

I don't know why there's so much bitterness that we are simply offering up criticism, but it's kind of funny that the arguments from the other side are never 'Bush should have more wiretapping authority' or 'The Bankruptcy Bill was a good bill', but always seem to boil down to 'We're the machine and you're a dirty hippy'.

I wonder why 80% of Democrats are unhappy with Congress.

Matt Stoller :: Local Machine Defends Brian Higgins (NY-27)

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Local Machine Defends Brian Higgins (NY-27) | 21 comments
Similar attitudes in Maryland (0.00 / 0)
  One thing I've noticed about many of our local Democratic political figures (certainly not all, though) is the attitude that politics is nothing but an elaborate basketball game -- it's all about Team A beating Team B because Team A rules and Team B sucks, not because Team A stands for certain principles and wants to carry them out once in office.

  That's what I take away from that "Democrats are poised to sweep Republicans out of office" statement in that comment. That's all fine, well, and good -- we ALL want to see that happen -- but there's little evidence of the goal of winning elections being guided by policy commitments or ideals. It's more about winning for the sake of winning.

  I've been struck by how little some of our local county Democratic leadership actually cares about issues; stuff like FISA and Iraq elicits nods of mild agreement when I bring it up in conversation, but almost no passion, and the discussion quickly moves on to who we can invite for the next fundraiser. At our last Committee meeting the chairman told us we need to "watch what we approve for posting on the listserv", in reference to an anti-DLC post someone (not me) contributed...

  Like I mentioned, though, we DO have some strong, committed, issue-oriented Dem officeholders in our midst. I do my best to encourage them...

  Just a Sunday morning ramble...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Starting to get it (4.00 / 1)
A light bulb went off reading the highly instructive profile of Bud Cramer from Left in Alabama cited in the previous thread. The district covers Huntsville and northern Alabama, where I have friends, but know squat about the politics.

This is a great way to engage and tie together local political blogs, which seem to be getting increasingly sophisticated, around a common thread. Some will not be receptive or even push back; a mistake IMO, but one showing the vitality and diversity of the local bloggers, so characteristic of the left blogosphere. Very smart movement-building politics.

Am I right (4.00 / 3)
To guess that all this reaction to the Bush Dog campaign comes as gravy in the Lieberman primary defeat?  We're just rumbling about primary challenges, with no specific targets named (those lists are just prospects and no one has been singled out as target #1 or anything) and yet the campagin garners plenty of flack.

So I'd say it's already working.  My biggest fear is that the campaign would generate deafening silence, and blithe dismissals by the Reps in question if asked about it. 

Walk Softly, Yadda Yadda Yadda (0.00 / 0)
Who knew that one primary could be such a big stick?

(Notice I wrote walk softly, not "talk" or "speak" softly as in the TR original.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That, actually, was the intent. . . (0.00 / 0)
but only a down payment on changing the party.
[ Parent ]
I Know, I Know (0.00 / 0)
I'm just riffin' on a Sunday Morning, listenin' to KPFK/Pacific, playin' all innocent and like.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I think this is a key observation (0.00 / 0)
we would not be seeing so much defensiveness if they didn't take this seriously.

The Ned Lamont campaign was a success even though it was not as much of a success at it should have been. Reid and Schumber dropped the ball when it was handed off to them to do their jobs and get the Democrat elected ater the primary. We did our part. They failed theirs.

Higgins does not need a primary challenge and no one is proposing a primary challenge to him.

What we do want to see is Democrats standing strong against the worst presidency of all time and not capitulating or getting fuzzy on defending the U.S. Constitution against the republican assault on it.

That's all. Be Democrats. Don't be afraid to be Democrats. Don't be afraid to do what is right for America. Don't cede anything to the republicans.

This reaction shows they are paying attention but it also shows that they aren't paying close enough attention and haven't quite gotten it yet.

I don't think any of us on board with this campaign really want to expend energy taking on other Democrats. But we are watching our Democratic majority being undermined by Bush Dog democrats.

If the Bush Dog democrats will stop undermining the Democratic leadership and Democratic agenda then we'll go on to other endeavors and leave them alone.

There is nothing wrong with being a conservative democrat... as long as you are not undermining the rest of the Democratic Party in the process.

Peace,

Andrew

[ Parent ]
Vain?Silly? HUH? (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who has read Matt's posts or seen him interviewed, KNOWS....that those observations are unfounded. Geezzzzz
wake-up. What is wrong with people saying what they think?...this is our National nightmare, no one thinks anymore.
I've always had a problem with the Bush Dog thing (4.00 / 1)
I never like how you wanted to criticize 40 US House Democrats, when half of them are in Republican favoring territory, not to mention, a couple who were in Republican + Over 10. 

Seriously, if you want to run a liberal in a R+10+ district, you're surrendering the seat.  I can see pushing a liberal in R+0-6 or so, but after that the likelihood gets sketchy.  What you should focus on is lifting the Primary challenger to Lipinski since he is in an extremely liberal district.  Then save the list (and possibly add more on) for another year. 

What I'm thinking, is that after 2008 when we have a new leader, some of these guys will turn around and join us on *some* of the big issues.  Also, if we pickup another 20-30 seats, these "Bush Dogs" won't matter very much.  We win the majority of votes we want in the house already, another 15-25 seats will just solidify the majority. 

Again With The Strawman Argument (4.00 / 4)
(A) Since when is defending the Constitution and Magna Charta a purely liberal thing?  I thought is was an American thing.  It may be a quintessentially liberal thing, but it's not exclusively a liberal thing.  And the national maps of support for the Iraq War speak for themselves.

(B) Being in "Republican favoring territory" means very little in itself.  As I've noted repeatedly, 22 of the 38 Bush Dogs are in safe districts, according to Democracy Corps. They won re-election last time by an average of 78%.  The low was Matheson, a 4th termer at 59% in UT-02 with a PVI of R +16.9.  (Maybe he'd been in trouble with a PVI of R +21. Maybe not.)  No one else was under 61%.

(C) There are only TWO Bush Dogs in Battleground Districts with PVIs of R +10 or worse: Edwards, TX-17, R +17.7, in his 9th term, winning 58% of the vote last time is in Tier II, while Lampson, TX-22, R +14.5, 1st term non-consecutive, (5 overall), who won 52%, is in Tier I.

You are writing as if they are all Nick Lampson, when in fact he is the only one of his kind.

In contrast, Bush Dog Lipinski, IL-03, has a PVI in his district of D +10.3!

Neither of these guys is the typical Bush Dog, but they do illustrate the extremes.  And all we're asking any of them to do, on this occassion, is simply represent their districts.

How hard can that be?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Lipinski already has a primary opponent (0.00 / 0)
Mark Pera.  And as far as I recall, Open Left had nothing whatever to do with that.  But since Lipinski does have an opponent, is pretty far right and is in a district with a Dem PVI (IIRC), he'd be my choice for primary #1 if a demonstration is needed.

That said, step 1 has to be the record, step 2 having locals call the rep, step 3 publicize the voting on Iraq and the budget this fall and step 4 join in a promising and already existing primary challenge or 2 if there isn't any postive response.  That way proper deference is given to the locals and we can concentrate most of our energies on challenges in R-held seats.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Again with the misinterpretation. We only disagree on one thing it seems. (0.00 / 0)
As of recently, defending the constitution is a liberal Democrat thing.  Almost exclusively.  While Bush continues to run the country as a Neo-Con, and the Republicans follow him, that is in fact, the case. 

Just because a Democrat wins, doesn't mean that after they leave, we'll have the same ground to win on.  Name Recognition and popularity are both huge parts of getting re-elected. 

I said there were a couple who were in districts over +10.  And I was right, as you clearly pointed out.  The rant afterwards must have misdirected you a little. 

I clearly wrote that I think the blogosphere should help raise Lipinski's primary opponent (Mark Pera) to make an example out of Lipinski.  (That example being that Democrats won't stand for such attrocious voting when it isn't necessary) then save the list for next time around and see if anyone fits the profile Lipinski fits, or the closest to it.  Seriously, the name recognition, financial power, and popularity required to overcome Lipinski is a lot and if the blogosphere is going to do something, they have to focus in or Mark Pera won't get enough support to overthrow Lipinski. 

So really the only thing we disagree on is the fact that losing incumbents for seats that are currently "Safe Democrat" seats, you don't think they'd be a big problem to take back, where as I do.  (1994 was a result of massive amounts of retirements due to ethics laws some Democrats didn't want to live by)

[ Parent ]
You have attacked the power structure, don't be suprised .... (4.00 / 3)
You say .......
"I don't know why there's so much bitterness that we are simply offering up criticism, but it's kind of funny that the arguments from the other side are never 'Bush should have more wiretapping authority' or 'The Bankruptcy Bill was a good bill', but always seem to boil down to 'We're the machine and you're a dirty hippy'."

What???

You're surprised?  Let me assure you that this response is to be expected.  In the final analysis the Dem power structure does not allow internal criticism of elected Democratic officials beyond certain bounds and when you even suggest that "an elected one" should possibly have a primary opponent you have crossed the line big time and the fires of hell will be on your doorstep immediately.  You should have gotten a taste of that in Connecticut and have seen how the power structure responds - by undercutting the elected Democratic opponent.  You don't challenge the club and walk away from it without scars.

My suggestion is to get use to it - in a very clear way this criticism is a sign that you have hit the target.  Please note these establishment critics won't be from the top of the power structure but rather lower level players and ordinary members of the party - the enforcers and insider wannabes.

I hate to say it but the top layer of the so-called progressive bloggers are more on the inside of the Dem power structure than the outside and will not openly support your Bush Dog initiative - its too threatening to the power structure.  Bush Dog is the thing that needs to be done the most but believe me don't expect invites from the power structure ever again.  You are a threat and will be treated as one.

Keep It Up (4.00 / 2)
Please keep reminding them that this is about real issues and real policy and real lives not our team vs. thier team.  Hang in there!
I Hope You'll Pay A Little More Attention to My Battleground Polling Proposal (4.00 / 1)
I'm 100% behind the Bush Dog project. But it's focused on an acute problem with the worst offenders, and it gives local machines and their sympathizers an easy (if mendacious) out.

In the long run, we don't want to be fighting these guys.  We want to be persuading, if not becoming them.  Like you say, there is no substantive ground for supporting Bush Doggism.  Those dogs not only don't hunt, they bite the kids and shit all over the floor.

So the more we can focus on substance, and weave substance-based narratives that can reach substance-averse voters, the less these nay-sayers will have to say against us, and the more we'll hear from their more perceptive, more pro-active bretheren.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I love it. (0.00 / 0)
"they bite the kids and shit all over the floor."

I've endured (and yes voted for, many times) these easy-gun-laws, forced childbirth, keepin'the-faggots-down Dems  all my life. I can't tell you how glad I am to have a chance to work with others to, at a minimum, educate them.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Where do you get the 80% of Democrats are unhappy with Congress? (0.00 / 0)
Link, please? 
here (4.00 / 1)
http://www.zogby.com...

he has linked to it before.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
to the "you don't know MY district" whiners (4.00 / 3)
I say, when the guy (or gal) in YOUR district stops making votes that infringe on MY rights, MY national security, MY pride in being an American, then I'll keep my nose out of YOUR district.  Until then ...

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
Bush Dog camapign is important but (0.00 / 0)
There is a point to concentrating scarce resources in NY against Walsh in NY-25 and Reynolds in NY-26.  Beating either or both gives us 2 more votes, whereas Higgins isn't going anywhere.  But there are some pretty inviting targets among the Bush Dogs, especially Costa and Lipinski.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Adding votes (0.00 / 0)
Adding seats in the Northeast (excluding PA outside the Philly area) is likely to get us votes in the House.  The same is true for California or Illinois.  Adding seats in say Texas (considering we already hold many of the urban areas) is less likely to produce votes on roll calls.

Within that context, Higgins and especially Costa are recent electees who had a hard time making it in but who cruised in 2006.

Oher House members fit another circle, coming from strong Democratic districts but having poor overall voting records that don't make the Bush Dog criteria.  Exhibit A is Rob Andrews (NJ-1).  His $2 million war chest is constantly and I mean constantly dragged up by the local press any time there is a vacancy or rumored vacancy for Governor or US Senator.  He's got the lowest Progressive Punch score of any Jersey Democrat, represents a district anchored by a city in crisis (Camden), and is tied by the state's key paper as an errand boy to their least favorite "machine."
Oh yes, they are constantly pushing the Jersey legislature to give rax breaks to business (particularly big business)at the expense of ordinary residents.  Drain that war chest before it does some real harm.

Pascrell's voting record is better, not the best, plus in 2006 he had billboards proclaiming himself a Democrat in large lettering on the major highways. 

Some of the Maryland pols come from safe seats but have so so voting records and a bad history of undermining progressives in the media.  Yes, it's the trio of Dutch Ruppersberger, Al Wynn, and Steny Hoyer.  As far as i can tell, Al's the best of the bunch (and the most vulnerable, hint, hint).

Iwent to college in PA-15 and later moved back ans spent a couple more years in the district.  We were represented by a Bush Dog of the time, Paul McHale, who was the only northern Democrat in the House to vote to impeach Bill Clinton.  He became the enemy to many local Democrats (especially active ones), not the Republicans and when he term-limited himself, it was winger Pat Toomey who was elected from a moderate district.  In such a district, a surrender mentality does not build the party.

[ Parent ]
Local Machine Defends Brian Higgins (NY-27) | 21 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox