This is a picture of Donna Edwards during debate prep for the NAACP forum.
In a piece titled The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries in October, I laid out the serious structural problems facing us because of the lack of intraparty democracy within the Democratic Party. One, lacking primary challenges means that we over-allocate resources to letter writing and advocacy instead of the electoral process where voters can weigh in. Two, democracy is a core progressive value that makes us stronger, and lacking challengers means we lack the capacity for democracy within our party. Three, a lack of primaries disenfranchises Democratic primary voters in all districts and general election voters in safe districts. Four, primaries are a check on calcification and corruption within the party, and the lack of them creates decay.
We're already seeing the consequences of the Edwards victory, and it's looking like great news for progressives, and bad news for incumbent Democrats. And frankly, the same dynamic applies to Dennis Kucinich and his primary challenge, as he has been forced to respond to the voters who put him in office. But the progressive dynamic in Maryland's fourth is more interesting because of institutional shifts like this.
The powerhouse health care union 1199-SEIU is celebrating the upset primary victory yesterday of liberal Maryland Democratic insurgent Donna Edwards against eight-term moderate incumbent Rep. Albert Wynn.
The New York-based union, which also has members in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts, invested big in Edwards, spending several hundred thousand dollars in independent expenditures on her behalf, including $175,000 on mailers alone.
Union insiders say the Maryland effort should be viewed as a warning to New York Democrats, indicating that 1199 is not going to shy away from backing candidates it views as more progressive and friendly to its issues against incumbent Dems in the state Senate and Congress.
This is happening across all the interest groups involved in Maryland's fourth. EMILY's List, the League of Conservation Voters, SEIU, UNITE-HERE, Moveon, Friends of the Earth, and Progressive Maryland have all become emboldened by this race.
And there's more.
Recall that 1199 has traditionally been a close ally of the Senate Republicans, but this union - like so many others - has been hedging its bets for some time now, giving money to both sides of the aisle in expectation that the Democrats will soon take control of the Senate.
A number of intra-party state Senate primaries are already shaping up for this September - Stewart vs. Parker, Connor vs. Squadron, Monserrate vs. Sabini, Baldeo vs. Addabbo, just to name a few (I'm sure there are more percolating out there, given the 2009 term-limit problem so many Council members are facing).
The Senate Democrats have signaled that what they care about is keeping Democratic seats in Democratic hands, but not necessarily protecting incumbents, since resources are already limited for GOP-on-Democrat races.
It's unlikely that 1199 will be alone in backing Democrats against other Democrats this fall. Look for the Empire State Pride Agenda to possibly get involved in trying to flip seats that are currently held by lawmakers opposed to same-sex marriage, regardless of party affiliation.
UPDATE: George Gresham, president of 1199, released a statement congratulating Edwards on her "amazing victory," saying that she had defeated Wynn "against all odds."
1199 is now using the primary process within the Democratic party rather than backing Republicans. That is a huge and excellent strategic shift that progressives everywhere should applaud.
One of the most important, in fact, the most important consequence of this race is the precedent it sets for enticing good people into the primary process as candidates. It's undeniable that Donna Edwards was immensely talented and dedicated as a candidate, and there aren't many like her willing to buck the system in politics. However, there are many like her in America, people like Al Franken and Steven Colbert, who can learn politics and apply the professionalism they exhibit in their lives to this craft. These talented community leaders don't want to become the next Ned Lamont, because Lamont is not a Senator. As activists we think Lamont was a good race, but candidates don't run to make a point but to get into office. I've made a good number of calls around the country to recruit primary candidates to incumbents, and it is really hard. What could I say, you'll be just like Ned Lamont, a hero but not a Senator who also happens to have hundreds of millions of dollars? By contrast, Donna isn't wealthy, and she is going to be in Congress.
The second important consequences is that outside grups are moving resources away from inefficient advocacy and towards the electoral process. This will create a virtuous cycle of increased competitiveness within the party, increased responsiveness to constituents and voters, and eventually, better decision-making by political elites.
The third consequence is that Donna Edwards's message, a strong anti-corporate argument based on progressive values, worked. This was not a localized race but a nationalized one, and the internal polling showed that people care about the Bankruptcy Bill, the foreclosure crisis, energy costs, the war, and telecom influence in DC. Donna's ads and the outside groups were organized around these themes, not just of corruption but of a specific form of corporate corruption. The attacks on corporate interests in both parties should accelerate, Lou Dobbs-ian on the right and Donna Edwards-esque on the left. There are no more free votes for pro-corporate legislation, and members will pay for taking telecom money because voters get the connection at this point between right-wing corporate socialism, campaign contributions, and the mess in Washington.
It's worth noting as well that Rahm Emanuel comes out looking pretty good in this fight, and Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi do not. Rahm gave to Lipinski but not Wynn, Hoyer and Pelosi not only gave to Wynn (and not Lipinski), but they put their credibility on the line in a public manner in the district. Wynn used their names in his literature, justifying his vote for the Bankruptcy Bill by saying that Hoyer voted for it as well. And he was crushed. Pelosi and Hoyer don't carry much weight with voters.
Still, let's not overstate this and suggest that every corporate Democrat is in trouble. Most likely, what will happen is a turnover via open seats, not a mass unseating of incumbents. Corporate Democrats (and Republicans) are still politicians, and the move left of the country will change their behavior; only the worst of them will be picked off, as it's obvious that without strong local dissatisfaction against a candidate, even with a talented candidate, it's incredibly difficult to beat an incumbent in a primary.
But this is a big deal, and behavioral changes are already starting in the Energy and Commerce Committee, shifts you will never know were due to this primary and that will never be reported. But they are happening.
So I sent a Blogpac email out on Donna Edwards with a couple key points. One, no sitting Congressperson, no one from the 'progressive caucus', or anyone else endorsed Donna, but Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi among others went with Wynn. And two, we won this without their help, and their legitimacy is now somewhat in question because of the magnitude of the shellacking.
Some people wrote back and asked a very interesting question. What was the difference between Donna Edwards and Mark Pera? Pera lost badly, and Donna won with a rougly similar margin.
What do you think? And I'd especially appreciate people from the various districts and with political experience chiming in, but feel free to chime if you have neither. There were some weird local dynamics to each of these races, but in trying to systematize primary challenges we should start to tease out the differences.
We received a tremendous response again this morning from voters across the district. Our volunteers and I, as we have been for many weeks, were out early greeting commuters at Metra train stops as they headed into the city. I can't tell you how many people said, "You have my vote," or, better yet, "I early voted for you!"
I have a great feeling about tomorrow.
While we were working this weekend to get out the vote on Tuesday by running phonebanks and canvassing door to door, Dan Lipinski was trying desperately to make up for lost time by taking cheap shots at our campaign and our supporters, volunteers and staff.
(cross posted at PrairieStateBlue, MyDD, Booman Tribune and DailyKos)
To me, it's shocking that a sitting Democratic Congressman would attack the people - including hundreds of constituents - who have sacrificed to support us.
My campaign is focused on the issues that are important to mainstream Democrats: the war in Iraq, the economy, energy and the environment, choice, embryonic stem cell research, immigration and ethics and corruption and good government. Lipinski's failure to provide true Democratic leadership - and his propensity for voting with Republicans - on these issues is at the very center of our campaign for change in Congress.
Rather than respond to my opponent's attack line by line, I want to take this opportunity to tell you my thoughts about the people who are supporting my campaign.
Sandra Verthein is an organizer with Northside Democracy for America (DFA). Many months ago, I met with DFA and told them about my vision for representing this district. I told them that this campaign against a sitting incumbent was going to be a tough slog. DFA endorsed my candidacy and asked how they could help. We assigned them to Chicago's 11th Ward - the home of the Daley family and my Chicago White Sox. Through the entire winter, the snow and near-zero temperatures, Sandra and her fellow volunteers walked the ward, street by street, and knocked on over 4,000 doors.
Ahlam Jbara is a Bridgeview resident, a parent of two young children and an Arab-American. She is the field director in our Palos Hills office and is in charge of our outreach effort in the Arab and Muslim American community that is such an important part of our district. Last week, Ahlam and some 75 volunteers sent out nearly 5,000 hand-addressed letters to voters throughout the district.
Howard Handler is the chairman of the Jewish Political Alliance of Illinois (JPAI), which was an early endorser of our campaign. He has been a tremendous supporter and he's helping coordinate our Election Day plan.
Peggy Peterson is a volunteer for my campaign. She serves on a local school board. On Sunday afternoon, she brought her teenage daughter into the office to show her a little bit about campaign work. At 6:15 a.m. this morning, she was at the La Grange/Stone Metra Train Station passing out our literature to commuters.
Trevor Montgomery is a member of our campaign staff, an Iraq war veteran and an active member of the Illinois Air National Guard Reserve. He's been my right-hand man at churches every weekend and he's been with me every morning for many weeks at train stations from Berwyn to Beverly.
Betty Gutierrez has been a member of St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church for more than 25 years. She is a resident of the district, a mother and a grandmother. Before she retired, she fought predatory lenders and assisted first time homebuyers as the deputy director of the Greater Southwest Development Corp. Betty spends four nights of the week in our Chicago campaign office, calling voters to tell them why they should consider voting for Mark.
Dave Atwood has worked for months on our behalf in his home ward - the 19th Ward - through rain and snow. We've walked precincts together and he's come out morning after morning to meet me at train stations in the beautiful Beverly and Mount Greenwood neighborhoods.
These are my supporters, I'm proud of them and I'd jump into a foxhole with any one of them any day.
Our contributors are also a microcosm of America. We've received hundreds of contributions from the hard-working people of Illinois' 3rd Congressional District. We've also received contributions - more than 4,000 in all and averaging $70 each - from all 50 states in the Union.
Dan Lipinski has received just nine contributions from his home district in the last six months. The majority of his cash was delivered to him by PACs and special interest groups at a per contribution average of more than $1,000. You can draw your own conclusions about who's running the real people-powered campaign here in Illinois' 3rd District.
Our campaign listens to the people that the current Congressman has ignored. We're the campaign with an office in two suburban communities and the city.
The best way you can push back on this attack on good people like Sandra, Ahlam, Peggy, Trevor, Betty and everyone else who has helped out is to spend some time during the next 16 hours before the polls open up to get the word out about our campaign. Tell people why it's so important that we realize change here in Illinois' 3rd District. Tell people that you're tired of business as usual in Chicago, Cook County and Washington D.C.
You can also contribute to our campaign via ActBlue.
If you live nearby, or if you know someone who lives in the district, there is still time to get involved in our Get Out The Vote effort. If you're interested, call our campaign offices at (708) 579-2834 and ask how you can help.
I'll be at Union Station in Chicago greeting commuters around 4:30 p.m. this afternoon if you want to join us. Tomorrow, we will have more than 250 volunteers working across the district, but we can use more.
Rick Perlstein has a great piece on how we're not about to get beyond the 1960s. Apparently Dan Lipinski's campaign read the article, because here's a flyer they are circulating attacking us as dirty hippies. My favorite is the use of the word 'punks'.
That's some compelling messaging, especially the part about us crying as babies because our diapers were full. Is that even an insult? It seems like that's kind of a standard thing that happens with all babies.
Update (Chris): I also received the following email from a Lipinski supporter a couple days ago:
Neither is "Irish-Americans for Pera", he probably just put that on his website since many of his volunteers that are not from the District have anti-Irish attitudes. Pera's endorsements are far from diverse, mainly coming from anti-life groups and organizations and politicians not from the District.
Apparently, we Pera supporters are anti-life and and anti-Irish. My Irish-American mother would be surprised to learn that one.
Also, while I have never lived in any of the placed the flier mentions, I have lived in Chicago as recently as 2004.
UPDATE AGAIN: This is coming from Dan Lipinski. Here's a half hour radio show where Lipinski rants about 'left-wing extremists pouring money into his district'.
In a huge sign of the way the winds are blowing in the extremely important Illinois 3rd primary next Tuesday, Representative Luis Gutierrez, the only member of Congress listed on Dan Lipinski's endorsement page, has now un-endorsed him:
Many progressives were bitterly disappointed when Congressman Luis Gutierrez went along with the powerful Daley Machine to endorse reactionary incumbent Dan Lipinski in his hotly contested bid for re-election. But, like so many politicians from Chicago, regardless of how they are on national issues-- and Gutierrez is good-- when it comes to local issues, the Machine rules…. So it came as quite the shock in Chicagoland politics today when Gutierrez officially withdrew his endorsement of Lipinski.
Blue America, Blue Majority, Democracy for America (DFA), Citizens Action/Illinois, Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century, Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, Irish-Americans for Pera, Jewish Political Alliance of Illinois, Mexicanos for Political Progress, NARAL/Pro-Choices America, Northside DFA, NOW - National Organization for Women, Oak Park DFA, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, United Citizens for a Better America, United Muslims and Arabs for a Better America
I have argued it before, and I will argue it again: victories in Democratic primaries like IL-03 and MD-04 will have more of an impact on Democratic congressional behavior than will the outcome of the presidential primary. We can only influence Democrats in Congress when they believe we have serious, legitimate means of pressuring them, including removing them from office. So, with only a few days left, I am asking you again: Donate to Mark Pera for Congress. If you live in the area or if you can make the trip, volunteer for Mark Pera. We have very few chances to influence national Democratic behavior like this. We have to make what few chances we have count.
There is a very important post by Howie Klein here that talks about how immigrants' rights organizers of all kinds- in the 501c3 non-partisan category, and on the more partisan side- are playing a huge role in the Lipinski race. It's great to see this happening. We are not going to see immigration reform in this country absent a really tough, muscular, aggressive political strategy by immigrants' rights organizers, and we are starting to see evidence of those strategies around the country. Chicago is ground zero for that, being the home of Rahm Emanuel, who has been leading the "spooked and scared Democrats" on this issue. The Lipinski primary is huge, as he has been on the wrong side of this issue despite having a lot of immigrants in his district. If Pera wins or even comes close to beating the Lipinski machine, that would be a sign the immigrants' rights movement, in combination with their allies in the blogosphere, has really come of age.
There are four pillars to the working conservative majority in Washington D.C.: Bush, Bush Dogs, timid Democratic leadership, and a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate. Despite commanding an overwhelming amount of attention, the presidential election actually does not deal with many of these. In less than a year, Bush is leaving town on his own. Also, neither the Bush Dogs nor the Democratic congressional leadership will be impacted by the outcome of the primary campaigns. However, two immediate elections, the IL-03 congressional primary on February 5th and the MD-04 congressional primary on February 12th, will make a huge impact on both Bush Dog behavior and on the Democratic leadership. Further, these two primary campaigns are just about the last chance we have to influence the behavior of either Bush Dogs or the Democratic Congressional leadership for another two years.
Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority (Bush Dogs and timid leaders) don't care about what we write, but they do care about what David Broder writes. Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority don't care about low approval ratings among progressives, because they know the vast majority of us will vote for Democrats in the general election. Further, they don't even care about the small number of progressives who choose not to vote in general elections, because they are no threat to their dominance of the Democratic Party. Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority also don't care if we decide to stop donating to them, because now that they are in the majority there is more than enough corporate PAC money to make up for that lost revenue.
Throughout the Bush Dog campaign, we have seen that the only way to change the behavior of Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority is to spend resources on them. Four Bush Dogs flipped on SCHIP only when BlogPac and Blue America ran ads against them. Only two Bush Dogs, Dan Lipinski and Leonard Boswell, flipped their support on Iraq, and they also happen to be the only two Bush Dogs facing primary challenges. Although he is not technically a Bush Dog, the often conservative and corporate Al Wynn only joined the Out of Iraq caucus after Donna Edwards nearly defeated him back in September of 2006.
The only proven way for grassroots progressives to change Democratic behavior in this Congress has been to spend actual resources that make Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority feel a legitimate, left-wing challenge to their position in Congress. Simply put, we have had no success in flipping Bush Dogs against whom we have spent no money. This is actually a lesson we have known for some time, given that the progressive grassroots were not taken seriously until Howard Dean was a legitimate threat to win the nomination, and since Democrats only really started running against the war in 2006 after Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. Nothing else has worked so far.
Now, only two weeks from today, two of the three legitimately threatening progressive primary challenges against Democrats who facilitate the conservative working majority will be over. In other words, once the Donna Edwards and Mark Pera campaigns are over, our ability to influence the behavior of Bush Dogs and indeed the entire Democratic Congress will virtually evaporate. It is now, or never. Donate to Mark Pera and Donna Edwards today.
Concerning the direction of the Democratic Party over the next two years, these two primary campaigns are just as, if not more, important than the presidential nomination campaign. They are also two of our last chances to really influence the direction of the Democratic Party for quite some time. Make these opportunities count. Tell Bush Dogs and Democratic congressional leadership that they can't take you for granted, and that grassroots progressives will not be ignored. Donate to Mark Pera and Donna Edwards today.
Speaking of Blue Majority, Mark Pera's primary against Dan Lipinski is in just 11 days time (February 5th), and Donna Edwards faces off against Al Wynn only one week later. The time to give to them is now.
Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.
"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."
There is no one in the Senate who I respect more than Senator Feingold. While I disagree with him on this one, I have to admit that Edwards did not engage the big fights he needed to while he was in the Senate.
President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."
Whatever. "Fundamental change" is not something that can be immediately wiped away by the next President. Outside of Kosovo, I can't think of anything that Bill Clinton did, against Republican objections, that Bush has not entirely reversed. Considering that "Clintonian" has come to mean a series of incremental, targeted government programs, I can't see how anyone would think that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country.
Now that we are down to just three candidates, primary straw polls become much simpler. So, I have included one in the extended entry. I'm interested to know where Open Left readers stand.
This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
Mark Pera is running against corrupt right-winger Dan Lipinski in a February 5th primary in Illinois. Throw him some coin. While the Presidential is sexy, change actually happens in primaries. Don't be dumb money, make your political money count.
The new Red-to-Blue DCCC list is out, focusing on open seats. Frankly, I think the DCCC should focus first on helping people who ran strong races last cycle, not open seats. This would be a clear message that people who run for office get backing, and a long-term boon to recruiting. A high quality candidate challenging a Republican incumbent is probably in a better position than a weak Democrat in an open seat contest.
UNITE-Here is running Spanish-language ads against Clinton on her trying to prevent people from voting. This is some explicitly issue-based progressive advertising, in contrast to much of the personality-based stuff we're seeing about antipartisan personalities.
The AT&T wants to play traffic cop and spymaster to the internet, policing it 'for abuse'. Scholars and Rogues has more.
Jonathan Singer has more on the closing gap between Clinton and Obama in California.
The Coal industry is pushing clean coal with a $35 million astroturf campaign. 'Clean coal' is also known by its more traditional name, 'coal'.
Tim Shorrock has a significant article on the outsourcing of our spying apparatus, and millionaire neocons like Steven Cambone and Mike McConnell.
By joining QinetiQ, less than a year after he resigned from the Pentagon, Cambone has been hired to implement the very policies he helped pioneer at the Pentagon, not as a public servant but as a private businessman benefiting from taxpayer dollars. And with Cambone in the driver's seat in northern Virginia, QinetiQ is set to build on its already thriving business to become one of the premier suppliers of technology to the "intelligence enterprise" that Cambone built.
I'm learning more about the military reform movement, and the defense procurement industry. it is EXTREMELY messed up, and it's time civilians reassert control over policy-making and stop acting so obsequiously to anyone in a uniform. The lack of oversight and the immense corruption has ravaged our military and killed a good number of American troops.
The Director's Guild has settled on a deal. The implications for the writer's strike aren't clear yet.
Looking at ActBlue early this morning before heading out to meet voters at a train station in suburban Oak Lawn, I noticed that, in the wee hours of the night, the contributions were still flying in from across the country. It's great to know that when the campaign closes up shop for a few hours every night, our supporters are still hard at work, drumming up more contributions and spreading the word about our campaign for change here in Illinois' Third U.S. Congressional District.
I had been wondering when the bitter conservatives would begin coming for the primary challenges we'd set up. It got so bad in 2006 that Lieberman advisor Dan Gerstein said outright to the New York times, unchallenged by the reporter, that Lamont supporters were antisemitic and that the progressive movement evidenced a "growing tolerance" of antisemitism.
The Presidential race and the limited nature of our challenges is making the reaction much less fierce from the right, but they are now coming. This endorsement of Lipinski from the Chicago Tribune is a warning sign that the establishment doesn't like challenges from progressives.
The Presidential campaign is exiting and important, and will have a major impact on the national party. However, underneath the national radar, another, equally important effort to change the Democratic Party is taking place: primary campaigns against Bush Dog Democrats. One of those primaries will take place in just twenty-two days on February 5th, as Mark Pera challenges Dan Lipinski. The 3rd congressional district of Illinois is the battleground, and it also happens to be the bluest district in the nation held by a Bush Dog. The simple, blunt truth is that if we can't win here, we are going to have a difficult time winning anywhere. This primary is a key test of progressive strength in the party, and as such will have a major impact on Democratic behavior in Congress. The case against
Deep Blue District: Lipinski represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district, with a partisan voting index of Democrat +10.3, and where Kerry won 59% of the vote in 2004. This is a blue district in absolutely no danger of falling into Republican hands. It should be represented by a strong progressive.
Nepotism Lipinski never had to campaign for the seat, not even in a primary. When he first won back in 2002, his father actually was the Democratic nominee. However, after his father won the primary, he stepped aside and had the junior Lipinski placed on the ballot in his stead. In other words, Lipinski has no real campaign experience, and only scored his seat in Congress through pure nepotism.
Until his dad crowned him a congressman, he spent 15 years out of town working at universities in North Carolina, Indiana and Tennessee. Somehow, while being a resident of other states, he managed to vote here, not by absentee ballot but in person. Election judges in his father's 23rd Ward marked him present in every Chicago election since at least 1990, according to official records.
Oddly, Lipinski, can't recall casting those votes. "I'm trying to think back to that time," he told me. "I honestly cannot remember."
Now the voter records are missing. This is clear voter fraud perpetrated by a local machine. Lipinski probably did not vote for over 15 years.
Bush Dog: Lipinski is a Bush Dog who voted with Bush on the war and on FISA. In fact, the IL-03 is by far the bluest district represented by a Bush Dog. We will never have a progressive governing majority if Bush Dogs occupy seats like this.
Hard Right Anti-Choice: In addition to being a Bush Dog, Lipinski is staunchly anti-choice. He has a zero rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He doesn't believe in family planning at all, in fact.
Not Progressive On Much Of Anything: In addition to his records on Iraq, FISA and choice, he also is below average for a Democrat on immigration, gets a big fat zero from Progressive Punch on GLBT issues, and only a 50% score from the Drum major institute on progressive family issues. Basically, he sucks at just about everything.
Already has a primary opponent: Recruiting a primary challenger against Lipinski isn't even necessary. Mark Pera has already signed on to run against him. You can compare some of their views here.. The simplest way to put it is this: Dan Lipinski is one of the worst examples of Democrats out of step with their districts. Mark Pera is a real progressive who has a good chance to defeat him. If we want to change the behavior of the Democratic Congress, this will be one of our very best chances to do so.
This is designed to be a blogosphere-wide push to help bring victory in IL-03. We are targeting 5,000 donors for Mark Pera on Act Blue, and we started today at about 2,300. Already, nearly 200 new donors have participated. Even thought I had already participated, I've chipped in, too. This is how we can make a better Democratic Party, but it won't happen unless we donate to all of the campaigns that campaigns that can change the party. The Presidential primary isn't the only way to make change, and through the IL-03 we can have a huge impact even before November rolls around.
A good friend of the campaign here in IL-03 - Don Reed - asked me to write up a short piece on stem cell research to circulate among proponents of stem cell research.
He posted it here at DailyKos and asked me to cross post it. I think it does a good job of drawing yet another distinction between myself and Dan Lipinski.
The election is just 32 days away. Please take a minute to read this and keep following our exciting campaign for Congress here and at www.PERA08.com.
Thank you - Mark
Dear friend of stem cell research,
My name is Mark Pera and I'm a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois' 3rd district. I'm writing you today to ask you an important question. Have you, like me, wondered why a Democratically-controlled Congress cannot override President Bush's endless mistakes, including his opposition to stem cell research?
Part of the blame belongs to a handful of Democrats, including Congressman Dan Lipinski, who have consistently voted with Bush on many issues important to Democrats, including the critical issue of stem-cell research.
Congress' passage of its omnibus budget this week provided Congressman Dan Lipinski with another opportunity to try to have his cake and eat it too.
I think he exceeded everyone's expectations this time around.
He, like many Democrats, voted against the omnibus budget bill. Now take a look at this press release, in which Lipinski takes credit for the federal funding for state, county and local projects included in the bill that he had just voted against.
How can he claim to bring home funds when he voted against the budget bill? This is simply wrong on so many levels, but it's par for the course for Congressman Lipinski. On top of that, we have here the quintessential back-bencher, someone who is widely regarded as among the most ineffectual member of the House, brazenly trying to take credit for the collective efforts of the entire Illinois delegation.
While Lipinski was taking credit for funding initiatives that he voted against, he was also engaged in another shameless act of desperation, one familiar to those of you who have been following our campaign.
Comparing the two blank check bills, one from May 24 and one from December 19 is interesting and gives us a slight undercurrent of optimism. Even as Democrats have given up the fight, the number of members willing to vote against war funding has increased. The May vote tally was 280-142, and the December 19 vote tally was 272-142. That's a pick up of 8 votes. It's interesting to note that every single Bush Dog Democrat voted for the $70 billion blank check bill for Bush except two: Dan Lipinski and Leonard Boswell.
Lipinski has a primary challenge, which explains his change of heart, and suggests that he is taking Mark Pera very seriously. Boswell is a more interesting case that I cannot explain at this point. Beyond the Bush Dogs, the people who flipped to become war funding opponents are as follows: Joe Baca (CA-43), GK Butterfield (NC-01), Steve Kagen (WI-08), Nick Rahall (WV-03), Bart Stupak (MI-01), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20). Good for them.
Those who flipped to become war funders from war opponents include Artur Davis (AL-07), Stephen Lynch (MA-09), and Bobby Rush (IL-01). All three of these districts are heavily Democratic. Alabama seventh is D+17, Massachusetts ninth is D+15,, and Illinois's first is D+35. I have no explanation for their switch.
With this vote, I'm thinking Artur Davis might just have become a Bush Dog. He voted for the FISA wiretapping bill in August, and has now become a war funder. What do you think?
And isn't interesting that we've gained votes even though there is no longer any organized Hill pressure? I have no idea what this might mean, but I'm going to think about it.
STATE BLOGS
