As I read around the list of Senators and House members that teabaggers and their allies want to primary, I find myself raising eyebrows at nearly every one besides Snowe. Kay Bailey Hutchison? Orrin Hatch? These people aren't hard-right?
Then I realize that policy is only one measurement, and maybe not the most important one, to these folks (and the same is true on the left, to some extent). If Sen. Bob Bennett went on FOX and Limbaugh and breathed a little fire now and then, I'd bet my Reagan bobblehead he would have survived. Orrin Hatch's sin isn't being hard-right, it's collaborating with Democrats and his long-noted friendship with Ted Kennedy. Here's Atrios:
One point I haven't seen made anywhere is that the teabaggers have made any Republican cooperation with Democrats impossible. The teabagger policy agenda is mostly incoherent, but what really pisses them off is any perception of cooperation with that man in the White House or his allies. It's why Orrin Hatch is probably going to get teabagged in 2012. It isn't because he isn't conservative enough, it's because he occasionally does (or at least did) work with Dems on things and he was Ted Kennedy's buddy.
It will be interesting to see whether the media equivalent of moving the way McCain did over the past two years will save some incumbents' rears, and be a measuring stick for those up-and-coming, too.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).
Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.
Rep. Lance actually was challenged by not one, not two, but three "Tea Party" candidates. One of Lance's opponents, David Larsen, even produced this nifty video, helpfully explaining that "Leonard Lance Loves Cap & Trade Taxes." So, did this work? Did the Tea Partiers overthrow the tyrannical, crypto-liberal Lance? Uh, no. Instead, in the end, Lance received 56% of the vote, easily moving on to November.
Meanwhile, 100 miles or so south on the Jersey Turnpike, Rep. LoBiondo faced two "Tea Party" candidates - Donna Ward and Linda Biamonte - who also attacked on the cap-and-trade issue. According to Biamonte, cap and trade "is insidious and another tax policy... a funneling of money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore through derivatives creating a carbon bubble like the housing bubble." You'd think that Republican primary voters in the year of the Tea Party would agree with this line of attack. Yet LoBiondo won with 75% of the vote.
Last but not least in New Jersey, Christopher Smith easily turned back a Tea Party challenger - Alan Bateman - by a more than 2:1 margin. Bateman had argued that "Obama knows he can count on Smith to support the United Nations' agenda to redistribute American wealth to foreign countries through international Cap & Trade agreements and other programs that threaten our sovereignty." Apparently, Republican voters in NJ-4 didn't buy that argument.
Across the country in California's 45th District, Mary Bono-Mack won 71% of the vote over Tea Party candidate Clayton Thibodeau on June 8. This, despite Thibodeau attacking Bono-Mack as "the only Republican west of the Mississippi to vote for Cap and Trade." Thibodeau also called cap and trade "frightening," claiming that government could force you to renovate your home or meet requirements before you purchase a home. Thibodeau's scare tactics on cap-and-trade clearly didn't play in CA-45.
Finally, in Washington's 8th Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert has drawn a Tea Party challenger named Ernest Huber, who writes that Cap and Trade "is widely viewed as an attempt at Soviet-style dictatorship using the environmental scam of global warming/climate change... written by the communist Apollo Alliance, which was led by the communist Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar." We'll see how this argument plays with voters in Washington's 8th Congressional District, but something tells us it's not going to go over any better than in the New Jersey or California primaries.
In sum, it appears that it's quite possible for Republicans to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation and live (politically) to tell about it. The proof is in the primaries.
There are lots of ways to change Congress that falsely appear easy, that would alter the rules and patterns of behavior if only Congress were already fixed and willing to make the changes, or if we owned the television networks, or if people could suddenly hear what they're paid good money never to hear. But I've got a way to change Congress that is actually easy.
I'm here at the America's Future Now conference, where an interesting dialogue broke out on the topic of elections and the prospect of Republican Congressional majorities. Markos of DailyKos, who was a speaker at a lunch plenary, made the comment that at DailyKos, it used to be "more Democrats" as the rallying mantra for raising money and other kinds of activism. After we (Democrats) took back the majority, he said, it became "more AND better Democrats".
A number of people stood up to say they wished progressive advocates focused more on the Republicans because before you know it, we would lose the majority. MoveOn's Ilyse Hogue, also doing the plenary, said she had nightmares of Speaker Boehner. I think a lot of people do, frankly.
What I wonder is at what point does the progressive ecosystem return to investing in candidates who aren't necessarily strong progressives, but are acceptable to retain a majority? One call circulating around the blogopshere- that, if I recall correctly, was first started by Markos- is that (when it was stated), it's better to have 59 Democrats and Sen. Durbin as Majority Leader than 60 Democrats and Sen. Reid in that position. In other words, that it would be acceptable to let Reid lose.
The question I have is, at what point does being willing to allow Democrats to be defeated no longer become an option? 59 or 60 Democrats isn't going to exist forever. At what point do progressives return to the "more Democrats" mantra and shelve the "more and better Democrats" vision, for the sake of retaining majority control? Is it at 55 Democratic Senators? 53? 51? On November 3rd, 2010, will folks regret being so cavalier about letting Sen. Reid- still a decent Democrat, if a less-than-effective Majority Leader- perish?
The answer isn't clear to me, but as this election cycle continues on, and more and more forecasts show Democrats in trouble- as of June 3rd, ours at OpenLeft currently shows 53 Senate Democrats- I think that question will come up more and more, and will generate discussions and divisions about where to invest resources.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even if you're not from either of these two states, these races impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
1. Comically, while Ford has described himself as an "independent Democrat", attacked "bullying party bosses" for trying to keep him out and hired former campaign operatives for Joe Lieberman, he cites "for the good of the party" as his reason not to run in his NYTimes op-ed.
I've examined this race in every possible way, and I keep returning to the same fundamental conclusion: If I run, the likely result would be a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary - a primary where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened.
Whatever, Harold.
2. I have thought from the beginning that whatever Ford choose to do, it's a win for him personally. Key graph:
The possibility of a run by the telegenic Mr. Ford, who has been working as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch and a political commentator on NBC and MSNBC since moving to New York in 2006, had riveted New York's political world, and touched off a furious behind-the-scenes effort to keep him out of the race over the last six weeks.
Ford will go back to his private helicopter tours of NYC, his breakfasts at the Regency Hotel with the Giants and Jets owners, his pedicures and multi-million dollar bonuses- all times ten. One thing the moneyed political set loves is a media star and for his personal life, perhaps Ford as "the-guy-who-threatened-to-run-but-chose-not-to-for-the-sake-of-the-party" is the path he's wanted all along.
3. There are probably a few folks out there who are disappointed that he's not running under the argument that primaries are always good. As I have argued here and here, this one would not have been a good investment for progressives- and there was always the chance that Ford could have ended up as the Democratic nominee from the State of New York. Stranger things have happened in the history of American elections. In this case, it's good that there won't be a chance at that.
4. A pat on the back to folks who magnified how horrible Ford is and would be for New Yorkers, along with blowing up all of his amazing missteps (even if this exploratory phase only lasted about 1.5 months, I feel I could write a best-of post on that front). I recall in one of my posts, a commenter said he'd never seen the netroots so united on anything (and that goes for offline TN and NYS LGBT community pushback, too). I think that united front as a threat really helped.
Update:Adama's take at The Albany Project re a win for pro-reform politics against a system of moneyed interests is dead-on.
There is an interesting debate going on around whether or not, and to what degree, people who support the netroots community should consider supporting candidates who are not necessarily bold progressives. It has come up in four instances:
When Rep. Kendrick Meek (who despite having a lifetime Progressive Punch score of 90.59, is considered conservative by some) was coming to Netroots Nation and a member of his staff offered the opportunity to netroots activists to meet with him on a one-on-one basis
Folks have asked me why in the world Chris is working for the campaign of Joe Sestak, who is not normally considered a progressive hero
I've chatted with a number of folks who were upset that Netroots Nation organizers invited Specter to speak
SenateGuru is doing a series of diaries with 2010 Senate candidates of all stripes asking why they should receive progressive netroots support, giving Conservadems like Kentucky's Dan Mongiardo a platform.
The question is two-fold: (a) Why are progressive netroots activists giving conservative Democrats a platform (b) Why are progressive netroots activists expending resources and asking others to contribute to, Tweet about, etc. these candidates?
I have some general thoughts about the usefulness behind this in the extended entry.
Any Democrat who does not vote for a "public option" insurance plan in health care reform must be challenged in a primary. And this includes any President who does not go to the mat and fight 100% for a public option.
Our elected officials gave away our opening negotiating position by refusing to even consider the popular "Medicare-for-All" plan. Had they started with Medicare-for-All they would have the option of giving in and compromising with a public option. In fact they could well have won with this because Medicare-for-All just makes more sense. It is simple, costs less, is easily explained and the public loves Medicare.
So here we are. Just like the stimulus fight, the administration gave away essential policy to please Republicans and appear "bipartisan" before even entering negotiations. Just like during the fight for a solid stimulus plan, the Republicans took that compromise as an opening position, whittled it away without having to exchange their wins for votes, and after reducing the plan to bad public policy won't vote for it anyway.
If -- let me emphasize that I am saying "if" -- the President is really backing away from the public option these are the lessons that will be learned:
Lesson learned for members of Congress who spent political capital and backed their President, going public supporting a public option: The President can't be trusted to be consistent and stand with you. So the lesson is don't go out on a limb to back him again.
Lesson learned for teabaggers who shouted down Democratic legislators as they tried to explain the advantages of a public option: Intimidation works, so ramp it up.
Lesson learned for big corporate interests who orchestrated the terrible lies and intimidation: Do more of this.
Lesson learned for the public: Why even bother to vote? You might win, but what does it matter if the leaders you elect feel free to do the opposite of what you voted for.
We need to fix this. We need to apply pressure the way it should be applied in a democracy. We need a credible threat to run solid progressive candidates in primaries against any elected official who lets us down, rewards the big corporate interests and enables and encourages the intimidation tactics of the teabaggers. We need to start now to find a candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 primaries if he does not step up and fight for us. If.
All Democrats, all progressives, and really all Americans need to stop thinking that primaries are a bad thing. Since primaries are elections, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that elections are a bad thing.
Compare: All Americans really need to stop thinking that disease-infested rats are a bad thing. Since disease-infested rats are animals, such a belief is literally the same as thinking that animals are bad. Why do you hate pandas?
Its true--I made a fallacious argument. I incorrectly argued that attributing a negative value to a subset (primaries) or a larger set (elections) is that same as attributing a negative value to the larger set.
However, while what I wrote was a logical fallacy, Yglesias actually mocked it with a fallacy of his own. He wrote that attributing negative value to a subset (disease-infested) of a larger subset (rats) of a still-larger set (animals) is the same as attributing negative value to the still-larger set.
Had I wrote that attacking Democratic Party primaries is that same thing as attacking elections, then his analogy would work. However, I did not make the Democratic Party primaries" specification in the two sentences Yglesias cites--I only wrote "primaries." Further, had Yglesias mocked me by saying that attacking rats is the same thing as attacking animals such as pandas, then he would have been correct. However, he wrote "disease-infested rats" instead.
Anyway, leaving the specifics of two poorly written sentences aside, the central thesis of my article was that one of the main reasons Democrats who hold publicly elected office are often unresponsive to the desires of Democratic Party voters is because, in the vast majority of cases, Democratic Party voters do not determine Democratic nominees for elected offices. Rather, such determinations are more commonly made by donors, party officials, or a combination of both. As such, Democrats who hold elected office are often more responsive to the desires of the donors and party officials then they are to Democratic voters.
The extent to which Democratic elected officials are often unresponsive to the political desires of Democratic Party voters is certainly debatable. Still, it strikes me as a fairly safe proposition that when Democrats--whether in the grassroots or the leadership--work against competitive primaries, they are working against one of the main, if not the main, safeguards against Democratic elected officials becoming unresponsive to Democratic voters.
But, for the record, I hate pandas because I have a bamboo fetish.
In his announcement that he wouldn't challenge Kirsten Gillibrand in New York's Senatorial primary, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer indicated that he made that decision mainly to fit with President Obama's wishes:
"In light of President Obama's clear desire to avoid a Democratic primary in New York state, I have decided to focus on my reelection race for Manhattan borough president and to suspend my exploratory committee and fundraising efforts for the 2010 Senate race," Stringer said.
President Obama survived one of the most bitterly contested primaries in Democratic history, which perhaps is a source of his reputed antipathy toward primaries. However, research on whether primaries help or hurt parties in general elections shows decidedly mixed results:
In researching Democratic primaries in recent House and Senate campaigns, David Kowalski and I both found a generally, though not universally, positive effect on Democratic general election performance.
As we all saw in the blogosphere in 2008, divisive primaries can have a negative effect on personal relationships and involvement in political social networks. However, as we also saw in 2008, it can be reasonably countered that while the existing participants within political social networks can fracture as a result of a divisive primary, such primaries can also bring many new people into the social networks.
There probably isn't any universal rule on whether contested primaries help or hurt, because there isn't any universal way in which contested primaries unfold, or any universal context in which they take place.
Still, there are good reasons to recoil from powerful figures within parties trying to prevent primaries. The entire exercise reeks of powerful people trying to protect other powerful people, and one the last thing we need these days are even fewer ways to hold politicians accountable. Uncontested primaries cuts the number of electoral opportunities we have to hold politicians accountable in half, and that just isn't a good thing. I know that I feel personally disenfranchised when primary fields are cleared for an establishment favorite. I'm sure that President Obama would have felt the same way if everyone in the Democratic Party had worked to clear the field for Hillary Clinton.
For those who didn't get to see the drama unfold in real time this week, I thought I'd compile a brief summary of the major points to keep everyone up to date (minus the blink-and-you-miss-it appearance of Tom Ridge).
I met Joe Sestak in 2006. He came to speak at Haverford College, which sits right on the border of Pennsylvania's Montgomery and Delaware Counties. The latter had been represented in congress by Republican Curt Weldon for the last 20 years, but Joe fought to change that. Wearing blue jeans and an obnoxiously vibrant collared shirt, Sestak did not look the part of a true pol as he stood at the front of a small lecture hall. What prevailed upon us in that meeting though was Joe's sincerity and concern for the people of Philadelphia's western suburbs. He spoke plainly and at length about his personal commitment to restoring competence to the military appropriations process and to extending the public health privileges that his family enjoyed to all Americans. We who met Joe that night were relatively unsurprised when, despite early skepticism, he defeated Weldon by 7 points.
Born in 1983, I have never known a Pennsylvania politics not dominated by the unique, wishy-washy leadership style of Senator Arlen Specter. As a kid, I knew him as the guy who would call in occasionally to the local sports talk radio station and walk his dog through my East Falls high school campus (an entitlement which, needless to say, no other Philadelphian enjoyed). Since that time I have gotten to know the man better as something of a political coward--championing desperately needed progressive reforms and then voting against them, and apologizing for when not scripting Bush administration legal policies in the Senate. No, it came as no surprise to me when Specter decided that the Republican electorate in PA was no longer entitled to gauge his performance.
A New Democrat, Sestak is less progressive than I and I'm sure many of you. For the first time though, I see the very real potential for Arlen Specter to be replaced by a legislator who actually stands for something and respects the wants and needs of his constituency. So what else could I do but my best to ensure that Rep. Sestak does indeed decide to fight this time? If you feel the same, I encourage you to join our new Facebook group, Congressman Sestak, PLEASE challenge Senator Specter, share your opinions on our wall, email your support to the congressman and amplify the voice of Pennsylvanians no longer content to concede to the personal ambitions of a man whose opportunity to lead has so long been squandered.
Official description:
Joe Sestak is a United States Congressman representing the 7th District (Delaware County) of Pennsylvania. A Democrat, Sestak is a retired Navy Vice Admiral and the highest-ranking former member of the Armed Forces to serve in the Congress.
In 2006, Sestak challenged 10-term Republican Curt Weldon for the 7th District seat in Washington. Weldon, a Delaware County institution, had won re-election in 2004 with 59% of the vote in spite of Presidential candidate John Kerry's 53% winning tally in the district. Still, Sestak was able to raise funds beyond Weldon's in 2006 and win the election by a 7+ point margin. Since his election, Sestak has actively served on the House committees on Small Business, Education & Labor and Armed Services, earning Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's designation as the most productive freshman congressman.
Sestak has made indications that he may seek election to the United States Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter. Specter has recently thrown that bid into question by declaring that he now is in fact a Democrat.
So what kind of Democrat the Keystone state inherit in Specter? He ardently supports the death penalty. He has voted against the Brady Bill, background checks at gun shows, the ban on assault weapons, and trigger locks for handguns. In 2006, an amendment written by Specter in to the USA PATRIOT act allowed the Bush administration to appoint United States Attorneys without confirmation by the Senate or limits on their terms. He voted for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, then voted against the bill. In 2009 he has vowed to not vote for cloture on the same. This exemplifies a long history of voicing tacit support for progressive measures and not voting for them in congress. Still a representative of a large blue-collar constituency from Philadelphia, Specter has recently showed more interest in investigating the destruction of "Spygate" tapes by the NFL following the New England Patriots' defeat of the Philadelphia Eagles in Superbowl XXXIX.
The longest-serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history, Arlen Specter will represent the state for a 30th year in 2010. Now 79 years old, Specter is seeking re-election to a 6th term. His decision to switch parties in April of this year represents his desire to do so, facing a strong Republican primary challenge from his right and voicing no future policy ambitions to endear him to either side.
Always the fighter, Joe Sestak has appropriately wondered aloud about what exactly Arlen Specter is fighting for, aside from his establishment status. If he is to be re-elected, it is possible that Specter will earn the very powerful charimanship of the Senate Appropriation Committee, though it is unknowable to anyone what Democratic measure he might champion there. What is widely understood about Specter is that he is loyal to no one and bafflingly unpredictable. Sestak has meanwhile sought to make the most of his deep personal commitment to armed service personnel and the people of Pennsylvania, notably through his stance on accessible and affordable health care, which Arlen Specter has shown no meaningful signs of supporting.
So this is our choice, Pennsylvanians! The Washington establishment has rallied around Specter, but it will ultimately be our responsibility to choose a Democratic candidate to face anti-tax pitchfork-wielder Pat Toomey. If you would like to see Pennsylvania represented by an energetic agent for change, and not the original proponent of the single-bullet theory, please join our group, email Joe and let him know that it's time to fight again.
Over in Quick Hits, there were two posts consecutive posts this afternoon that bear mentioning on the front page. In the first, demoinesdem points us to new Progressive Punch scores that compare how members of Congress vote to the partisan voting tendencies of their distracts. In the second, bruoton tells us about a new, non-partisan primary system in California, where the top two vote getters move on to the general election, regardless of party. According to this Quick Hit, Nate Silver thinks that conservative Democrats will be the biggest beneficiary of the new system. These two developments are worth looking at simultaneously, because they impact each other.
The new Progressive Punch tool is extremely useful, since it serves as a quick reference on which Democrats are voting more conservatively than their districts, and thus are vulnerable to a left-wing primary challenge. However, the new California laws probably render, as I think Nate Silver argues, either a left-wing or a right-wing primary challenge to a Congressional incumbent far more difficult. While an upstart progressive might be able to use the new law to reach the general election against one of California's many Blue Dog incumbents, those Blue Dogs can now fend off the challenge in the general election through the support of Republicans, ala Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign. Similarly, Blue Dog type Democrats will now have a greater chance to reach the general election in one of California's many lean-red districts that are held by arch-conservative Republicans, thus giving LieberDems a second way of retaining or winning more U.S. House seats in California. At least, that is the theory. In practice, I think it will turn out quite differently, and put an end to the totalitarian control the Republican House leadership holds over California Republican U.S. House members.
Correctly pick the winner in ten different 2010 U.S. Senate primaries primaries. Measure your prognosticating skills against other political junkies and amateur pundits. Again, you have until 5pm ET today to make your picks.
STATE BLOGS
