We have had a quite a reaction to our email this week, "Democrats: Epic Fail." Here are some of the emails from our members. About 25 to 1 positive responses, like this:
"I hope EVERY right-wing, corporatist Democrat in Congress loses. Since they're really Republicans, at least then we'll know where we stand and what we need to do to get REAL Democrats elected."
"Our so called 60 seat majority in the Senate was an ILLUSION. At least 4 and up to 15 Senators are FAKE democrats."
"I agree with you completely but if we lose the House I will slit my darn wrists if gd Boehner is Speaker, I'll definitely leave thus country and that I'm 100% serious about. ... What you're planning is something I totally agree with and will help any way I can. ...I'm active in working toward an end that will keep Progressives, strong and hardcore Progressives that will not step away from bills we need and helping those that require it."
But some critiques, as well, like this:
"If Blanche Lincoln loses to a Republican, we've shot ourselves in the foot. We can congratulate ourselves on overthrowing a Wall Street Democrat, but what we're stuck with is a Wall Street Family values Republican. Yippee. Instead of someone who might be moved by our voices, we get someone who turns a deaf ear. Again I say, Yippee."
"Bless you for all your hard work, but this country is broken. The money continues to win big time, bigger every day. The middle class should pack up and leave, but there's not place to go."
"I can't agree with you, I'm afraid. I, too, MUCH prefer progressive Democrats. But, even if we can't always count on the vote of the Blanche Lincolns of the world, we need every Democrat we can possibly elect -- and she's the only one running in that election."
"Well, I love progressives too. I am one. But you're messing around with peoples' lives . . . If republicans win they will absolutely repeal health care reform. They don't plan to pay one more tax dollar for 'the likes of you and me.'"
There have also been a few blog posts that run the gamut:
"I'm seriously doing the research into contributing to some of these folks backed by the website, because I completely agree. Maybe we need to shake some shit up... Whatever the case, it's clear that the agenda in Washington right now is simple. It's "M.O.B.= Money Over Bitches."
"From a purely political standpoint, one does not send a fundraising notice out to members based upon a REPUBLICAN failure and call it a failure on the part of Democrats. At least, not if one expects to maintain a coalition that will win and move toward progress."
We listen to our members and we pay close attention the the netroots. But here, I respectfully disagree with Karoli and our other critics, for this reason: (after the break)
When I was at Netroots Nation on Thursday, I pointed out why a majority in the House of members with D's next to their names isn't as valuable as a majority populated by Better Democrats:
We currently hold a 37-vote-margin in the House. Yet 34 Democrats voted against the health care reform and 19 voted against financial reform. It doesn't take a genius to see that it barely matters what happens in November when that many Democrats are voting with - and voting like - Republicans.
That's why you were there for Donna Edwards when she took on Al Wynn. That's why you were there for Bill Halter when he took on Blanche Lincoln. And that's why you should be with me as I take on Stephen Lynch.
As a reminder, my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, voted for the Iraq War and its continued funding, for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, and against health care reform, and has voted to restrict a woman's right to choose.
The differences between my values and Stephen Lynch's values couldn't be clearer. Ilyse Hogue, Director of Political Advocacy and Communications for MoveOn.org, highlighted as much when she sat down with Amy Goodman for an episode of Democracy Now! taped on location at Netroots Nation:
Amy Goodman (52:33): Ilyse Hogue, what about other primaries that are taking place?
Ilyse Hogue (52:37): Well, I think Bill Halter was the precursor. What we saw was him embodying a very strong feeling that our members have, and we think is sweeping across the country, which is he was taking on Wall Street. But Blanche Lincoln was also showing a friendliness towards the HMO's during the health care fight. And, what we're seeing is the base - our members - saying, 'Enough with Democrats who think that they're more accountable to corporate powers in this country than they are to us.
So we're seeing that same thing play out with Stephen Lynch and Mac D'Alessandro in Massachusetts-09. That primary is September 14th. What's interesting about that is that that is largely believed to be a safe Democratic seat, so the primary is actually the election. And Stephen Lynch, who is the incumbent, voted against the health care bill even though, at the end of the day, most of the Democratic base thought it would provide some relief. He did not do it as a champion for the public option. He was not there for the public option fight.
Mac D'Alessandro has come in and he's said, 'You know what? If we really want this democracy to be owned by the people and work for the people, we've got to do things. We've got to overturn Citizens United. We've got to actually get public financing. We've got to get lobbyists out of D.C.' And, I think that most Americans are looking for action on specific legislation like financial regulations, but they're also looking for people who are going to challenge the system because the system is not working for most Americans.
The kind of grassroots campaign that I'm running is built upon reaching out to voters directly, on the phones and at the doors. With the help of enthusiastic supporters across the 9th district, we have built a grassroots army that has generated strong momentum.
Just today, it was announced that we finished in second place in Democracy for America's Grassroots All-Stars contest, a competition that began with ninety candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives from across the country. I was the top finishing candidate among those still in a primary campaign, and I was the only candidate among the top five finalists not from the state of California.
I am running against an entrenched incumbent who has a million dollar warchest lined with contributions from big corporations and special interests. But, if there's one thing I've heard over and over again from voters as I've gone door to door across the district, it's that the voters want someone who stands up to big corporations, not someone who is funded by them.
That's why I need your support and the support of the netroots. Like Ilyse Hogue said, this is a blue district, so we have an opportunity to focus on electing the best Democrat we can. I urge you to support my campaign so that Massachusetts' 9th can be represented by a Better Democrat.
Now that Alabama Senate Republican Jeff Sessions has won a weeklong delay on the final vote to confirm Soliciter General Elena Kagan as a supreme court justice, a right leaning. tea party affiliated organization called Judicial Action Group or Jag, also based in Session's home state, is reportedly buying up commercial time for a new video ad aimed at swaying three important senate votes to 'no on Kagan.'
It was just over a year ago in June 2009 that Sessions, the Judiciary Committee's Ranking member vigorously questioned the record of then Supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, focusing attention on Sotomayor's affiliation with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. After Sessions raised those concerns, another right leaning organization called "Judicial Watch" released a report on Sotomayor's record it said shows PRLDEF supports a "radical legal agenda. That campaign failed and Sotomayor went on to see confirmation.
The more recent video campaign is more specific and aimed at two Democrats, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as well as Republican Senator Lindsay Grahm of South Carolina. Each video has basically the same script, however, each is tailored to either one of the the three Senators, for example, viewers are urged to call and tell Senator Ben Nelosn to vote no on Elena Kagan.
Produced by the "Judical Action Group", the ads features an urgent toned voice claiming that Kagan, as a professor and Dean at Harvard Law School, 'advocates judicial activism and favors foreign law over our constitution." The ad also says Kagan "welcomed law firms representing terrorists" and "banned our military recruiters" from the school's campus. Kagan also "welcomed law firms representing terrorists' and "took $20 million in Saudi Money to establish a center for Islamic Studies and Sharia Law." The video, set against still photos of Kagan and hightlighted text of the charges leveled in the video, does no offer any spefic context or sources as to where the charges extend from.
In a July 12 press release, the Birmingham based JAG said it was launching a "Nelson & Kagan" ad campaign by co-hosting a
press conference that day in Omaha, NE. The group confirms the effort is meant "to put pressure on Sen. Nelson to vote "No" on Kagan." JAG said it was co-hosting the July 12 event with Jennifer Hulsey of Tea Party Express, Doug Kagan of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, and Benjamin Smith (former Navy seal) of Move America Forward. They say similar Pressers and TV ad buys will occur Tues in Little Rock, AR and Thurs in Columbia, SC.
Judicial Action Group is a 501(c)4 non-profit corporation with offices in Washington, D.C. and Birmingham, Alabama. Founded in 2006, the 501(c)4 status (unlike a tax-deductible 501(c)3 status) allows JAG to engage in unlimited lobbying, 'maximizing its influence.' The group is part of a larger coalition of right leaning groups including the web umbrella, Freedom Federation.' That particular coalition of activists calls itself "a federation of multiracial, multiethnic and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations and leaders committed to plan, strategize, and mobilize to advance shared core values to preserve freedom and promote justice" Featured along with Judicial Action Group on the Freedom Federation website, several other widely known Right Wing groups including better known groups like Family Research Council, American Family Association, Eagle Forum and The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
Leading JAG is president Phillip Jauregu,a partner at Birmingham law firm Jauregu & Lindsey who Jauregu's biography says represents various clients ranging from small business, to corporate entities, to individuals, such as former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Judge Roy Moore, a hero in right wing circles gained national attention when as Chief Justice, he placed a washing machine sized replica of the biblical ten commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. When challenged and eventually court ordered to remove the replica, hordes of fundamentalist Christian groups from around the nation descended onto the capital Montgomery to pray, protest and hold vigils.
Moore was eventually ordered out of office and Jauregui led the legal team that eventually lost an appeal that resulted in the removal of then Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore from office, over his refusal to remove the granite replica.
Jauregui's JAG says it believes that the present state of the culture war created the need for a Special Forces unit that single-mindedly devotes itself to one mission: "defeating judicial activism." On its website, JAG says it serves this vital niche.
But, some saw Jauregui client Roy Moore as an activist judge. In a November 2003 Court of the Judiciary hearing, Alabama's Assistant Attorney General said Moore's defiance, left unchecked, "undercuts the entire workings of the judicial system. He said what message does that send to the public, to other litigants? The message it sends is: If you don't like a court order, you don't have to follow it."
Recently, Moore made a run in the 2010 Republican primary for Governor. Winning just 19% of state votes, he placed fourth.
The 40 year old Jauregu also served as Assistant Legal Advisor to Alabama Governor Fob James, the Alabama governor who gained attention by opposing the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. James' son, Tim James recently also recently made a run for Governor in the same race as Moore. He gained national attention of his own through television ads decryiny multi-linguil drivers license exams. James, like Moore, lost in the election, placing third in the primary.
As the Sotomayor nomination came closer to vote, in June 2009, JAG's Jauregu as President of JAG, joined a large group of conservative activists who wrote and signed a letter to Republican Senators urging that they fillibuster then nominee Sotomayer. But, many in that same group of activists had signed a similar letter a few years earlier during the Bush Administration "opposing" the use of filibusters during Supreme Court nominations.
That said, more recently, Jauregu's JAG has made the opposition of Kagan as a supreme court justice a priority. JAG's website points visitors to research and analysis by Alliance Defense Fund, American United For Life, Family Research Council and the Aiken ScotusBlog.
Perhaps more telling, an article detailing Jauregui and apparently the worry of many Right Leaning groups titled 'Do Ask, Do Tell - Whether Kagan's Public Policies are Improperly Dictated by Her Private Affairs.'
Here, Jauregui worries that "Kagan's decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard was either a horrible legal decision, or a use of her office to impose her personal views on the military."
Then, Jauregui writes "if media reports that Kagan is a lesbian are true, then her decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard has every appearance of growing from her personal preferences and practices. Obama says that he wants justices who have empathy and know what it is like to be gay. Well, it is relevant for Americans to know whether such a preoccupation of knowing how it feels to be gay, led Elena Kagan to ignore the law and ban the heterosexual military from Harvard because it conflicted with her own personal feelings and practices."
No word as to whether or not, Jauregui wondered if he thought Judge Roy Moore's defiance over a large replica of the Ten Commandments in the state Supreme Court building might indicate that the the former chief justice intended to impose "his" personal views on the state's highest court.
Meanwhile, all that said, the video aimed at Senators from Nebraska, Arkansas and South Carolina does not speak to Kagan's rumored sexuality.
(CROSSPOSTED AT my blogs at TPM/Political Cortex)
"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official said.
Well, its looking a lot less pointless now. The derivatives language (also known as section 716) Blanche Lincoln put in the Wall Street reform bill in order to make herself look like a populist fighter is now, stunningly, likely to survive. David Dayen breaks it down:
Earlier, I noted the House offer on derivatives, which will be a focus of tomorrow's final FinReg conference committee meeting. It's not bad, it actually strengthens in places (like closing the enforcement loophole, something sought by Maria Cantwell), and the weakening pieces aren't all that crucial. The exchange and clearinghouse requirements remain, as does Section 716, which would force the mega-banks to spin off their lucrative swaps trading desks into separately capitalized subsidiaries.
That's the House offer. It was determined by House members only, and so if the New Democrats or other coalitions wanted it changed or weakened, that was their opportunity to do so, though there will be others.(...)
There's now an investment in making Blanche Lincoln a derivatives hero. The leadership has other options but so far hasn't used them - the House offer is largely inoffensive. They really do look afraid to change Section 716. And that's good news for those who want to see a saner banking system.
The Democratic leadership even threw in a staged meeting where Lincoln supposedly confronted them, and made them keep 716 in the bill. Then, they leaked that meeting to the press, effectively turning it into a Lincoln re-election ad.
While it would be wrong to celebrate early, it now looks like section 716 will remain in the bill, and will pass into law. This will cost big banks literally billions of dollars every year--as much as $10 billion per year and $100 billion per decade. It will take just as much of a bite out of their concentrated power and wealth as the swipe fee regulations would (assuming that passes, too).
This would never, ever have happened without Bill Halter's primary challenge.
So, how much should it cost to take $100 billion out of the biggest banks? Frankly $10 million seems like a bargain.
Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?
Which side are you on boys?
Which side are you on?
--Florence Reece, 1931*
There are sides in history--although the powers that be will always deny it. And if they cannot deny it, they can at least minimize it, trivialize it, dissolve it into a mass of muddled details... or so they seem to think. We've seen this once again this week.
Following Bill Halter's narrow loss to Blanche Lincoln in the run-off Tuesday, Glenn Greenwald wrote a scathing analysis, the bare bones of which ran roughly thus:
The run-off between Democratic Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, which culminated on Tuesday night in Lincoln's narrow victory, brightly illuminates what the Democratic Party establishment is.... Obama loyalists constantly point to the Blanche Lincolns of the world to justify why the Party scorns the values of their voters: Obama can't do anything about these bad Democratic Senators; it's not his fault if he doesn't have the votes, they insist.
So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln....
Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the "electability" excuse.... That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman....
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we've been hearing for the last 18 months from countlessObamadefenders: namely, if the Senate doesn't have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it's not Obama's fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don't support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we'll support a primary challenger against you. Obama's support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive....
In what can be variously described as the law of unintended consequences, a series of lucky breaks, or a sign that Congress opposes progressive legislation just to oppose the DFH's proposing it, much of the best progressive legislation in 2010 was achieved unintentionally.
To put it a different way, four of the biggest blows against corporate and Wall Street power that happened in Congress over the past three months, or appear likely to happen in the next month, were the result of conservative political pressure that resulted in unexpected outcomes. Consider (more in the extended entry):
Even as labor is being scolded by the White House for spending $10 million on the Arkansas Senate primary, it has gone relatively unnoticed that the primary could end up costing Wall Street one thousand times as much money (literally).
Goldman Sachs could lose up to 41 percent of its earnings if Congress approves tighter regulation of the derivatives market, according to an analysis by Bernstein Research. That's equivalent to wiping away $3.9 billion in Goldman's earnings this year if the stricter regulations were in effect for the entire 12 months, according to a subsequent analysis of the numbers by DealBook using Bernstein's 2010 earnings-per-share estimates.
Other major banks, including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, would also withstand cuts of billions of dollars in their earnings if the derivatives rules currently being considered by the Senate are put in place.
Those estimates are only over the course of one year, too. Over the course of a decade, Lincoln's language could end up costing Wall Street over ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS (insert Dr. Evil laugh here). That would make this primary challenge one of the most successful attacks on corporate power in the United States ever conducted.
But those who believe the provision will be removed still think Democrats will find other ways to keep portions of it alive-possibly by tightening language in the Volcker rule in the bill, which places some restrictions on banks' proprietary trading.
"It is definitely going to be changed and in effect it is going to be dropped, but they will want to do it in a way that will preserve it as much as possible," said Joseph Engelhard, a senior vice president at Capital Alpha Partners LLC. "We are expecting Barney Frank to recommend changes to the Volcker rule language which would make the prohibition on proprietary trading more specific."
Even that will still cost banks a lot of profits--way more than $10 million.
Further, this entire effort to strengthen bank regulations could also end up saving the country a lot of money, in the form of avoiding, or significantly lessening the effects of, a future recession.
No, we didn't win in Arkansas last night. That is an undeniable fact. However, the $10 million could still prove to have a tremendous ROI, even apart from the real progressive power it built. If $10 million in arkansas ends up costing $100 billion in profits, and thus loosening their stranglehold over our democracy, then I say good deal.
First, let me just say that we lost, and there is no covering that up. Even though it was close, a win would have been almost 100% better than a loss.
Now, with that said
Anti-Wall Street messaging works: Blanche Lincoln produced strong language on the derivatives portion of the all Street reform bill. She went to the left of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate leadership in her language. Further, it ended up in the bill that passed the Senate because of her primary challenge, and then she proceeded to campaign on it:
[corrected: had the wrong video up overnight]
Even if the Chamber of Commerce went to bat for Lincoln, that is a strong, anti-Wall Street message.--and it is the message that voters heard Democrats should follow suit, keep Lincoln's language in the Wall Street reform bill, and run on it themselves. Honestly, it might be the only thing to save them in 2010, as it saved Lincoln.
Very few incumbents are challenged this hard: Primary challenges rarely come tthis close. For all the blather about the anti-incumbent mood, as Larry Sabato noted over Twitter:
So that's 4 incumbents down, 200 renominated. Um, how's that "anti-incumbent wave" going, my dear headline writers?
Incumbents almost never lose in primaries. Even the losses that have occurred this year all come with asteriks. Arlen Specter and Parker Griffith switched parties. Alan Mollohan had ethics problems. Bob Bennett faced a caucus, not a primary. A Halter win would have been the ultra-rare, straight-up defeat of a Senator largely because that Senator angered her base and progressive organizations. Those defeats happen less than once every two years. Getting challenged this hard is almost as rare.
Low union, netroots denisty: Arkansas is one of the weakest states for the labor and netroots organizations backing Halter. As Eddie Vale points out, Arkansas is 49th out of 50 in terms of union density. It probably isn't too much higher in terms of netroots density. If we can come close in this state, then Senators in almost every other state better take notice.
It is a tough night, but there are good reasons to be proud. We might get some good legislation from this campaign, primary challenges very rarely come this close, and it was this close despite Arkansas being a terrible state for labor and the netroots. Winning would have been a helluva a lot better, but that ain't nothing.
And, most importantly, we are going to keep running these primary challenges, no matter what, bad Dems don't get a break because of what happened here.
The media narrative around the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary is that labor and the netroots opposed Lincoln because she wasn't progressive enough. However, that is not exactly correct. Labor and netroots groups are largely piling on against Lincoln because she broke public promises on key issues that had previously earned her the support of various progressive groups. To put it more bluntly, she won the support of many groups by lying, and now it is payback time.
But the spotlight will shine brightest on Lincoln, who earned union scorn for opposing a public option in the healthcare bill and refusing to back card- check legislation championed by the labor movement.
The campaign dynamic present here is a simple left-right spectrum: Lincoln is being opposed because she is not sufficiently left-wing. This is actually a narrative that Lincoln is pushing in her own ads. In a recent TV spot, Lincoln says to the camera:
The labor unions are spending millions of dollars against me because I won't vote with them 100% of the time.
However, Lincoln did not simply oppose card check and a public option. She made public commitments of support for both policies, before flipping when it was crunch time.
On November 21st, 2009, Blanche Lincoln stood on the floor of the Senate and declared that she would filibuster any health reform bill that included a public option. However, earlier in the year she signed a document stating that she supported the public option. Further, even as she spoke, her Senate website said that she still supported a public option, she is still cool with the public option:
Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals of a public plan.
In the Ozark Mountain town of Rogers, Ark., more than 250 business owners gathered for lunch at a construction company last month to focus on what they saw as a major threat -- a proposal in Congress to make it easier to form labor unions.
At each place setting, attendees found pre-stamped postcards and pre-written letters to be sent to Arkansas' U.S. senators, Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, who had supported the labor bill in the past. After lunch, the business owners were ushered to computers to send e-mail messages as well.
Five days later came the good news: Two Senate votes had been stripped from the pro-union bill. Lincoln said she would oppose it outright, while Pryor declared the current version "dead" and said he would look for compromises.
It isn't just the public option and card check, either. EMILY's List had also previously supported Blanche Lincoln, but did not do so in 2010 because Lincoln lied to them. From Ellen Malcolm, EMILY's List chair
In 1998, EMILY's List helped elect Lincoln to the U.S. Senate. We believed her when she told us that that, if and when the Senate took up right-wing Senator Rick Santorum's bill to ban what he called "partial birth" abortion, she would insist on a health exception that protects women.
Our members gave generously to her campaign, believing that she would steadfastly stand by the pledge she made to us to protect women's reproductive freedom.
She took our members' hard-earned money to get elected. Unfortunately, when the Santorum bill came up for a vote, Lincoln voted for it even though it provided no exception to protect women's health.(...)
Since she wasn't there for us, we won't be there for her.
Sure, there is an ideological element to this campaign. Sure, there is an anti-incumbent mood. Sure, it is unusual to get a primary challenger as strong as Bill Halter. However, to ignore Blanche Lincoln's repeated betrayals on key issues to progressive groups who had once supported her ignores a central dynamic of this campaign.
Blanche Lincoln brought this primary challenge on herself by going back on several important public commitments she had made in order to win organizational support for her previous campaigns. She simply would not be in this sort of primary trouble if she hadn't lied and if groups like EMILY's List and labor unions were still supported her.
Research 2000 has a new poll in Arkansas showing Bill Halter leading Blanche Lincoln, 49%-45%. This is still a very close campaign, given not only the margin but also the poor record of public opinion polling in primaries.
However, the trendline from Research 2000 suggests that Halter is still in a very good position to win on Tuesday. In the eight polls Research 2000 has conducted of the primary, Blanche Lincoln's share of the vote has remained static, while Halter has consistently gained:
Lincoln's support is almost entirely unchanged over the past six months. She has hovered in the mid-40s the entire time, with no upward movement whatsoever.
Just in case you are counting . . . there are 5 days left until the AR Primary Runoff. Bill Halter is doing great and you can help push him over the edge. Check out this momentum - Pollster.com puts Halter ahead 47.9% to Lincoln's 45.2%.
They recently released 2 new ads. One features DFA member, Pauline, and
Arkansan who is ready for change. Take a look, they are both worth
watching:
Pauline:
Signs:
There's a ton of great energy in the campaign. And, DFA staff and
Members are there on the ground to help out. You can help too -- every dollar,phone call, and face-to-face conversation makes a difference.
There are only six days left in the critical primary between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter. Bill Halter has the momentum leading up to next Tuesday's vote. This race is a tremendous opportunity to deliver a knockout blow to corporate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln all across the country.
Yesterday, Bill Halter rolled out his closing ad from Arkansas retiree Pauline Wildman. Pauline depends upon social security for her livelihood. In the ad, she calls out Blanche's proposal to cut social security. True to her sellout ways, Blanche wants to cut taxes for millionaires, but isn't as concerned about preserving social security.
It's the final week before the runoff election between corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln and netroots challenger Bill Halter - time for closing arguments. Bill Halter's campaign just came out with a powerful new ad that features the story of Arkansas resident Pauline Wildman fighting back against Blanche Lincoln's proposal to cut social security.
"This is not a left vs. right debate. Voters care about who is going to fight for them in Washington against special interest lobbyists." - Charles Chamberlain, Political Director DFA
Here is what we found: Democrats in Arkansas want someone who will stand up for them, not stand with corporate lobbyists in DC. And, Bill Halter is ahead in the run-off 48-46.
STATE BLOGS
