Pelosi to Endorse, Fundraise for Al Wynn

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:59


Lovely.

Meanwhile, Wynn campaign manager Lori Sherwood said Wynn raised about $160,000 in the last quarter, and has $400,000 still on hand.

She said the campaign plans to bank over $1 million, and that a fundraiser scheduled next month in Montgomery County with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should help them rake in the dough. Sherwood said the details of that event are still being worked out.

UPDATE: It's hard to figure out quite what Pelosi is thinking, considering this is much more support than even Steny Hoyer is offering Wynn.  My read is that Pelosi is wooing support within the CBC, which is strongly backing Wynn.

In the end, though, the insider angles don't matter.  Queen Pelosi just made her bed.

I'll also note that this confirms a rule of thumb I live by.  Here it is.  No matter how brazenly stupid or corrupt you think that insiders might behave, they will not only be worse than you expect, but will continue to shock you with how much worse they are than you expected they would be.

Matt Stoller :: Pelosi to Endorse, Fundraise for Al Wynn

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This is reality (0.00 / 0)
Short of a scandal, the Dem party and especially leadership will put down any challenge to a sitting incumbent. We should expect it.

It is going to be VERY difficult to beat an incumbent that has the support of the Party (nat'l., state and local) and the power of the incumbency. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try but be very aware of the challenges.

In some Districts, an independent run might be more likely.


donna's going to win (4.00 / 2)
This is stupid on Pelosi's part.

[ Parent ]
I'd rather sleep with Pelosi than Donna Edwards (0.00 / 0)
Pelosi didn't become Speaker of the House because she makes bad political allies.  She knows her stuff and she wouldn't back someone (even in such a competitive race) without being absolutely certain they would be the winner. 

[ Parent ]
ha ha (4.00 / 1)
Ok, now you're back.  Remember when you were trying to pretend that Al Wynn's LCV score was a 96, and that he hadn't lied.  Ah, those were the days.

Pelosi has her own reasons for doing this, but she can hardly be sure Wynn is going to win. 


[ Parent ]
yeah... (0.00 / 1)
http://www.openleft....

Sorry man, wasn't me pretending anything.  Just stating facts and opinions... like you do.  Or are we both pretending?


[ Parent ]
Somebody's pretending that's for sure.... (0.00 / 0)
The idea that Donna Edwards can't win because Pelosi in such a great politician that she would never back a loser is....

Well, it's pretty dumb is what it is.

I've got it!

Why don't we all just go back to sleep and let the Dem 'leadership' just appoint who they want?

Does that work for you?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Totally (4.00 / 1)
Speaker Pelosi is a visionary because of her position that Bush is too wily to be defeated on the war. Clearly that's the mark of genius.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
It's tough to beat an incumbent. (4.00 / 1)
  But it's not impossible.

  Lieberman was a much bigger fish than Wynn. He had seniority. He had national recognition. He had the full backing of the party machine in his primary. He still lost.

  The votes are there to beat Wynn. Remember, by a strange coincidence, it was his district where Maryland had the famous ballot-box snafus. We'll just have to work at it a bit harder.

  As for Pelosi...there's probably some favor-trading going on here. Let's upset the applecart. Let's piss them off. Let's make Donna Edwards win.

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


[ Parent ]
Cold Reality... (0.00 / 0)
Have you asked MoveOn who they would support?  No, scrub that == who MoveOn will actively campaign for?  My reasoned guess is that MoveON will back Pelosi!

Still waiting for the results from MoveOn's [Carville  connected polling company(?)] poll that was supposed to be released weeks ago [according to the NY Times] asking what MoveOn MEMBERS felt about primarying bad dems!!!  Actions speak louder than words and all that.


Time to Move on... (0.00 / 0)
Donna may appear to be a great candidate. but at this point, primaries against dems have to take a back burner to taking back the Senate and the White house. Priorities people.

[ Parent ]
I can multi-task - can you? (4.00 / 2)
However, the Senate is important -- I'm not looking forward to having to deal with Ben Nelson STILL in a position of power in the party, as well as having Bob Kerrey being shoved down our throats... If you have a strategy how to tackle the Senate with neolib, hawk Schumber in charge -- I'm listening.

[ Parent ]
senate or bust (0.00 / 0)
no real ideas. there are too many republicans retiring this year to ignore. We should have a shot at dem gains in many of those seats. I'm willing to go to Idaho if that will help.

[ Parent ]
So by extention (0.00 / 0)
If Bush or Cheney were running for Senate with a D behind their name, you'd support them. Fantastic.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
um (0.00 / 0)
They will support who their members support, and last cycle that was Donna.

[ Parent ]
Sorry... (0.00 / 0)
With the 'lack' of feedback and answers from MoveOn's 'paid' regional coordinators, when members of our council have questioned their approach and forthcoming strategy [as time is getting short!] -- I'm afraid I don't have much faith in your answer.

[ Parent ]
agreed (0.00 / 0)
They've been distracted by the Petraeus fight, and have not focused on this.  But I am confident they will.

[ Parent ]
Petraeus ad -- was a couple of weeks ago ! Jeezz Louise (0.00 / 0)
Also, the Petraeus fiasco is also doesn't smell right... Apparently we have Eli meeting or talking with the 'elite folks' on a daily basis -- right?  Then, you have the planning of that ad with the artwork, placement, talkingpints etc -- and you don't think a little birdie from the NY Times didn't give the 'elite folks' a heads up, and maybe some of them telling Eli that they wouldn't support the ad - AND what the consequences would be?

Either way, whether Eli had a huge brainfart regarding the ad, or he was setup, or he went along without realizing that his ad would be used as a distraction -- I don't know...  But, the whole thing still doesn't smell right.

Back to the polling -- It was carried out 'before' the Petraeus ad.  In addition, any low-info voter knows that the primary season has started early == and we now have 'elite-folks' ginning up their support for their candidates...  Eli is leaving it a tad LATE if he wants MoveOn members to create an 'organized' movement to tackle the establishment and their choices.

MoveOn is all over the place at the moment.. the SCHIP vigil -- I mean -- certainly people who I'm speaking to are getting a little tired of MoveOn - NOT finishing what it started.


[ Parent ]
Point is? (0.00 / 0)
what exactly? This doesnt seem to have much to do with whether Wynn or Edwards would better represent the district.  It also doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not Pelosi's rationale- specifically that Wynn is a better tool than Edwards to end the Iraq debacle.

I'd be fascinated to hear from people who think that Al Wynn in Congress is a faster resolution to Iraq than Donna Edwards in Congress.  Or for that matter, a faster resolution to ANY Democratic issue.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


[ Parent ]
key question (4.00 / 2)
...for me in reacting is whether or not this is a done deal-- Wynn's people are SAYING that Pelosi is going to fundraise for them, but obviously they've been known to be full of it and at any rate they said "details are still being worked out." Regardless I think there's an opportunity not just to fundraise off this or get pissed, but to actually stop it from happening (and I'm guessing that thought was in mind here).

So by all means Pelosi should feel heat over the mere possibility of involvement here, or if lower level folks in her operation have started negotiations without her knowledge. And bringing up her previous full-of-herself comments (even if they were in response more to her own primary challenge, which is frankly stupid) makes sense also.

But the tone taken on in calls, etc on this on should definitely be to put the nix on this thing, as opposed to building broader dissatisfaction with Pelosi (though obviously it needs to be stressed that the mere mention of this does say something really crappy about her leadership).


Good points... (4.00 / 4)
...........one and all.

Hard to understand the stance many take which appears to be,

'Oh! Nothing we can do....we can't change the way Pelosi and her 'Versailles' posse want things to be...because of X progressives can't win this fight....keep our powder dry.'

Well....

Go ahead and surrender.

Me?

I'm gonna fund raise and blog about Edwards and any other real Democrat who challenges a Bush Dog or Bush Bitch for their seat.

Last I hear we could still do that.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
LieberWynn 2008? (4.00 / 3)
I'm sure Pelosi owes Wynn some favors: "Help me out in my election, and I'll help you with some of your votes".

We really need some new blood, and some better Democrats. I'm sold on Donna Edwards, and chipped in my $100 last month.

Primmaries are gret. They produce TV and media coverage, and extend the political season. Primaries get issues and ideas out in the open. They create narratives and expose weaknesses and bad votes. They give voters choices.

Insurgent or non-establishment candidates are also great. They bring new voters into the elections and the Party.


Queen Pelosi? (0.00 / 0)
This is bad news for progressive Democrats, but this is not going to be the end of the Donna Edwards campaign. She ran against an entrenched incumbent in 2006 and she came within 3,000 votes out of more than 80,000 cast, and she begins this cycle in a much stronger position.

That said, can we avoid the third grade insults like "Queen Pelosi"? While I think that Pelosi is going a bit too far in her support for Wynn, she has proven herself to be much more progressive than her caucus and she has to work with congressmen and -women like Wynn for at least the rest of the 110th Congress. (And, if we fail in our primary challenges next year, throughout at least the 111th Congress.) She is not in the position to endorse or campaign for primary challengers and, while we may not like hearing it, Sen. Chuck Schumer is right when he says incumbent protection should be the highest priority because, even if we lose all the generic advantages we hold today -- cash advantage, poll leads, anti-Republican electorate -- we will still hold a majority if all of our incumbents win again, and a "centrist" Democratic majority is far superior to reactionary Republican majority.

We should never stop making progressive challenges to Bush Dog incumbents, but we should not fault our current representatives for working with the small majorities they were given. So, can we knock off the name-calling? I expect that sort of immaturity from Sean Hannity, not progressive bloggers.


La la la la la (0.00 / 0)
This is really just over the top vitriol from Stoller.  Look, Wynn's the incumbent, and the speaker is going to fundraise for the incumbent, that's just the way it is.

Until the netroots can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they can actually knock off a Wynn or a Lieberman, expect Pelosi to assist in fundraising efforts for the incumbents.

What I'd like to see is the netroots stop flailing about and actually *focus* on winning one or two races, ideally Edwards and Pera.  Resorting to name calling isn't going to help the cause.


[ Parent ]
"the way it is" (0.00 / 0)
says who? why shouldn't the job of the speaker be to create the most potent possible caucus?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
"...most potent possible caucus" (0.00 / 0)
It is the speaker's job to create "the most potent possible caucus," but that is going to be achieved in the current Congress by working with the New Democrat and Blue Dog caucuses, not against them.

The New Democrats and Blue Dogs, led by Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, are the ones who pushed FISA in the House, totally undercutting Pelosi and the progressives. If Pelosi were to start endorsing and fundraising for progressive primary challengers, we would likely see Hoyer and Emanuel's power in the House grow, as the insulted incumbents being to work more actively with them and agaist Pelosi on other issues. If Pelosi reaches out to Wynn and other incumbents feeling outside pressure, she may be able to strengthen her hand and prevent another FISA-like coup.

Also, it was activist pressure, not Pelosi's endorsement, that moved Ellen Tauscher on Iraq, and it's going to be activist pressure that moves other entrenched incumbents on future Iraq supplementals and other important issues.

The speaker builds a strong caucus by working with what voters give her. Activists build a strong caucus by pushing progressive challenges everywhere.


[ Parent ]
Pelosi is the Speaker (0.00 / 0)
And the first woman Speaker of the house. To be Speaker, you have to get along with all factions of the party. Give her a break. If I were Speaker, I would want my party to spend money on defeating republicans, not dems in the leadership. Would you rather grow your majority in both chambers or lose the presidency and have one more progressive freshman in the house.

Well.. (4.00 / 3)
It depends what type of 'majority' you want to create.

[ Parent ]
true but (4.00 / 1)
I don't think that means giving her a break. And I think Matt does recognize the realpolitik involved here. The CBC can indeed cause Pelosi some headaches on this-- there's a definite historic tendency among some members to see an attack on one of them as an attack on all of them, if not on the Civil Rights Movement itself.

(Seriously, a former professor of mine who worked as a SNCC field organizer in Mississippi for 5 years attended the CBC's founding dinner in the early 1970's; he went in hopeful because he considered its existence a LEGACY of grassroots civil rights organizing around voting rights, and left with a permanent skepticism from having heard several self-aggrandizing speakers proclaim the Caucus to BE the "new Civil Rights Movement.")

But that doesn't obviate others-- including and especially African-American progressives who support Edwards-- trying to make it a losing calculus for her to get involved in this. I can't stand it when politicians respond to intra-Democratic/intra-progressive challenges-- whether from the left, or among left-leaning Dems/Greens, and I've experienced the latter up close-- by accusing the chosen candidate/incumbent's opponent and their supporters of diverting resources. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy that wouldn't come to pass if those propagating it would simply NOT WASTE RESOURCES on this and let the campaigns and voters hash it out.


[ Parent ]
Pelosi and leadership make blunder after blunder (4.00 / 3)
The biggest of course was backing down in May, then FISA now backing dunces like Wynn against the wishes of the district and the grassroots.  Clearly the massive fundraising edge over the Republicans has gone to their heads and now we are being shat upon.
The leadership will have to pullout all the stops to win this race for Wynn. It'll get extremely ugly.

And the ironic thing, is that they turn to us for help for races like MA-5 that they fucked up for Tsongas.  Idiots but alas we are just idiots with cable modems.

We are going through similar boneheaded shit here in Michigan.  Debbie Dingel is now trying to FORCE the democratic candidates names back on the ballot to keep the 1/15 primary date.  We are fighting tooth and nail on Michiganliberal to move back to the Feb 5 or 9th caucus date.  Poorly thought out stupid shit over and over.


do you have (0.00 / 0)
against the wishes of the district

a poll for this claim? I'd be interested in seeing it.


[ Parent ]
Queen Pelosi told us all to STFU (4.00 / 1)
Now it is time to show her that she works for US.
DEFEAT WYNN not only because he is corrupt and deserves to be thrown out, but to tell Queen Pelosi...no YOU  STFU girl!

Al Wynn (0.00 / 0)
Apparently primary challenges do have a positive effect. According to the CBC Monitor report card, Wynn has improved on his positions that are important to black interests.
Maryland's Albert Wynn, who scored 80 percent on the current Card, has dramatically altered his behavior since narrowly defeating progressive challenger Donna Edwards, in 2006. Wynn was one of four CBC members that voted to give War Powers to George Bush, in 2002, along with Sanford Bishop (GA), William Jefferson (LA), and Harold Ford, Jr. (TN). Faced with an opponent from the Left, Wynn joined the Out of Iraq Caucus and began acting as if he were born again, voting-wise. Edwards is making another run for Wynn's seat, so we can expect that he won't backslide to the Right before November, 2008.

Both Donna Edwards and Donzella James drew on CBC Monitor's Report Cards to denounce Wynn and Scott. Accountability has an effect.



I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox