Chris posted yesterday about the swelling of the Bush Dog ranks to 70. These are the democratic representatives who voted “yes” on the FISA bill (with telecom immunity) and “yes” on restriction-free funding for Iraq into early 2009. Given the weakess of Bush and Republicans in congress, it's a dispiriting development. You might wonder what else you can do.
Here's an idea. Let's take a look at the Bush Dog polar opposites: the 117 Democratic representatives who vote “no” on both these bills:
Abercrombie Allen Andrews Baldwin Becerra Blumenauer Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Capps Capuano Carnahan Carson Clarke Clay Cohen Conyers Costello Courtney Cummings Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards (MD) Ellison Eshoo Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Grijalva Hall (NY) Hare Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holt Honda Hooley Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kagen Kaptur Kennedy Kilpatrick Kucinich Larson (CT) Lee Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lynch Maloney (NY) Markey Matsui McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McNulty Meek (FL) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Price (NC) Rangel Rothman Roybal-Allard Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Scott (VA) Serrano Shea-Porter Slaughter Solis Speier Sutton Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Tsongas Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Woolsey Wu
Credit is due all of these members for their votes on these bills. But certain members took bigger political risks than others when they took their votes. So here's what you can do to further voice displeasure at yesterday's developments: consider donating to one or more of the campaigns of the candidates listed below.
Tom Allen (Running for Senate)
Andre Carson
John Hall
Paul Hodes
Steve Kagen
Chris Murphy
Carol Shea-Porter
Peter Welch
More on these representatives on the flip.
There’s More…
:: (14
Comments, 390 words in story)
digg it
Atrios Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama. Digby and Matt are cheering the effort to go after Steny. 285K has been raised for that very reason. 116 comments smacking Steny here. This top recommended Dailykos diary takes Obama to task for supporting the bill. Pelosi doesn’t escape rebuke. Chris plans removing those responsible.
I know this is a crushing defeat. But damn if this doesn’t make me proud of the netroots again. For awhile there the primary fight was gut wrenching in many regards. But here everyone is again, firing on all cylinders against the very people they helped elect.
Note to anyone who espouses the ridiculous idea that “both extremes are the same” in any form: What did the Republican base do when their Majority leader was actually indicted for multiple felonies? What did they do when their Speaker was found covering up for a Republican known to make advances on teenage boys? What did they do when their President’s rationale for war proved untrue, then proved to have been known to be untrue? They stood by them. Tooth and nail. Clearly there are some core principles at stake on the left, lines people will not cross even for people they really like.
I don’t like losing these fights any more than any of you, but I am proud of the response. We are fighting the fights that need fighting and I don’t imagine we will have any regrets about this. Chris thought we might be approaching peak “I told you so” but I think we just found some new reserves yesterday.
The only bit of good news to report is that three of the Bush Dogs from 2007, Leonard Boswell, Baron Hill and Tim Walz, all voted against at least one of the above bills, thus moving them out of the ranks of the Bush Dogs. The Boswell change is particularly important, since it demonstrates that even failed primary challenges can have a positive impact. Also, now with thirty-five new Bush Dogs to choose from, we have a wide range of primary targets for 2010.
The new potential primary targets, signified by an asterisk in the table below the fold, include virtually every member of the House leadership, such as James Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, and Steny Hoyer, not to mention prospective leadership member John Murtha. Numerous blue district Democrats have joined the ranks of Bush Dogs, as have a handful of Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic caucus members. With a list this broad, it should be possible to build an organization over the next two years that targets a large number of these Bush Dogs–possibly as many as half of them. If we can take out a dozen of these Bush Dogs in 2010, it would change the behavior of the Democratic caucus for a long time to come.
Anyway, the gruesome details on the 70 Bush Dogs can be found in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (47
Comments, 107 words in story)
digg it
It would appear that today, June 19th, will go down as the day that Bush Dogs achieved total victory in the 110th Congress.
Ten months ago, here at Open Left we coined the term “Bush Dog” to describe the forty House Democrats (38 plus two of the three special election winners) who sided with Bush on both blank check Iraq funding and warrant-less spying on American citizens through FISA. Today, it appears that Bush Dogs are headed to victory on both counts.
So a deal has been reached on no-strings-attached war funding well into the next President’s first year, and all the Democrats get out of it is a GI Bill that isn’t paid for (they had to drop the tax on millionaires), some appropriations for flooding in the Midwest and Gulf Coast and modified unemployment insurance for an additional 13 weeks. That’s not nothing, but given that it’s a signing of a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, it’s perverse to even talk in terms of what you “get” out of the deal.
CQ reports (sub. req.) that “a final deal has been reached” on FISA and telecom amnesty and “the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday.” I’ve now just read a copy of the final “compromise” bill. It’s even worse than expected. When you read it, it’s actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program with the “Protect America Act,” so it shouldn’t be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is:
While it is not particularly remarkable that the Bush Dogs won these two fights, it is kind of remarkable that they happened on the same day. In fact, I just heard that the FISA bill and Iraq the supplemental will even be merged into a single bill. As such, it would appear that June 19th, 2008 will go down as Bush Dog Victory Day for the 110th Congress.
More in the extended entry, focusing on achieving a non-Bush Dog majority.
There’s More…
:: (11
Comments, 327 words in story)
digg it
In the IA-03 Democratic congressional primary, progressive Ed Fallon lost to Bush Dog Leonard Boswell by a seemingly wide margin by on Tuesday, 61%-39%. That is a margin quite similar to Mark Pera’s defeat at the hands of Bush Dog Dan Lipiniski in the IL-03 primary back in February. As such, it appears that our only progressive primary victory in 2008 will be Donna Edwards’s historic victory over Al Wynn back on February 12th.
While a 22% defeat is not a cause for celebration, it still provides a very useful bit of information for future progressive primary challenges. Considering that Fallon had no paid media and Boswell was endorsed by every single establishment organization except the Des Moines Register, we now know the benchmark, floor support for an Internet supported, progressive primary challenge to a conservative Democrat. As Matt wrote the day before the election:
So now, this is the rawest test of an internet fueled grassroots campaign with none of the bells and whistles of a Donna Edwards or Ned Lamont, up against everything the establishment can throw at a candidate. It’s an interesting test case of paid media – this primary will demonstrate what percentage of primary voters have moved their information and political habits away from low information broadcast channels, and towards internet and a more social form of politics.
So, now we know the answer, and it confirms the results of the Illinois 3rd primary back in February. We start a campaign like this at 39%, and need more allies and paid media in order to earn the rest.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to Ed Fallon on Open Left. While a 22% isn’t great, it is 78% better than we would have done if we didn’t try at all. If we don’t keep trying, we will never get better. If we don’t keep trying, we have no means to hold Bush Dogs accountable. Even though they were unheard of only four years ago, now with Ned Lamont, Donna Edwards, Mark Pera and Ed Fallon, progressive primary challenges to incumbent, conservative Democrats are becoming something of a regular occurrence. We are learning a lot, finding our bearings, putting many Democrats on notice, and building toward the future. This is important, because next year, when we have a large Democratic trifecta in D.C., we will have to be ready to identify and recruit many more of these primary challenges. Any and all congressional Democrats who hand Republicans any victories during our brief progressive window need to be held accountable in primaries in 2010. Our primary campaign experiences in 2006 and 2008, even the ones we lose, will be invaluable to maximizing the impact of our efforts in 2010.
Building a movement is a marathon, not a sprint. Even without paid media and allies, we are at 39%. While that is not where we need to be, it is still progress.
Several elections tonight. In the Iowa 3rd, we have Bush Dog incumbent Boswell vs. progressive challenger Ed Fallon. In New Jersey, we have Incumbent, machine-bakced, but generally progressive Frank Lautenberg vs. corporate challenger Andrews. And, of course, we have the final presidential primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I will begin live-blogging returns here at Open Left at 8 p.m., when the first polls close in South Dakota and all polls close in New Jersey. All polls close in Montana and South Dakota at 9 p.m. eastern. Polls close in the Iowa 3rd at 10 p.m., eastern.
What Is At Stake Tonight
Momentum. Currently, Barack Obama is precisely tied with John McCain in national polls, and effectively tied with McCain at the state, electoral college level. The ideal scenario for Obama to pick up momentum this week is to win both primaries tonight, reach the magic number tomorrow, and for Clinton to give her “acknowledging reality” speech on Thursday. That would give Obama three consecutive positive days of press coverage, and allow the nomination campaign to end on a positive note for the nominee.
The nightmare scenario for Obama is if he actually loses one of the two primaries tonight. As unlikely as it seems, this is actually possible. Poblano predicts Obama to win South Dakota by only 5%, and ARG predicts Obama to only win Montana by 4%. (Granted, Poblano predicts a Montana blowout while ARG predicts a South Dakota blowout.) Given that the Clinton’s have been campaigning in the two states much harder than the Obama’s, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Clinton to sneak out a victory tonight. This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of “stumbling across the line” scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past. So, a double victory for Obama tonight, while not important in terms of winning the nomination, is important in terms of positioning for the general election.
More of what is at stake, along with my personal predictions, tonight in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (13
Comments, 479 words in story)
digg it
Thanks again to Matt and Chris for letting me post here about this race, and for creating an Open Left for Fallon page at Act Blue that has raised $6,200 so far.
It’s election day in Iowa, and the Democratic primary between Congressman Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon is one of the highest-profile races in the state.
Both campaigns have expressed confidence about the outcome–Boswell’s because of an internal poll reportedly showing him way ahead, and Fallon’s because of direct voter contacts by the candidate, his staff and volunteers.
In this diary I will discuss Boswell’s closing argument, as expressed in broadcast media advertisements as well as direct-mail pieces.
I will also go over the main rationale for Fallon’s campaign and the key events during the final days before the primary.
Join me after the jump for more.
If you weren’t here over the weekend, I discussed some other recent developments in the race in this post.
There’s More…
:: (4
Comments, 1436 words in story)
digg it
There’s a nasty fake scandal in Minnesota about Al Franken’s candidacy for Senate. Eight years ago, Franken wrote an article for Playboy, which is kind of funny and kind of obnoxious. You can read excerpts here. Franken was, for many years, an artist, who helped create the groundbreaking show Saturday Night Live. He has done huge amounts of work fundraising and supporting Democrats for more than ten years, and USO tours to support and entertain soldiers on tours in the Middle East. The jokes he told aren’t always family-friendly, but then, I’m assuming that we’re all adult enough to recognize that life isn’t always family-friendly. Writing Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them was important; when few Democrats stood up against the right and when few journalist would call Bush and the punditocracy a group of liars, Franken did. And he’s continued that track record in his campaign, smacking Norm Coleman around and refusing to condemn Moveon when they ran the Petraeus ads, unlike Amy Klobuchar, the junior Senator from Minnesota, who proudly voted to condemn 3 million Democratic activists.
There’s More…
:: (51
Comments, 546 words in story)
digg it
I just got this thank you note from Ed Fallon for our fundraising. I was honestly shocked at how much you are willing to throw down against bad guys, and immensely proud.
Our race for Congress is a hard-fought one. It’s tough running as a progressive candidate against a six-term incumbent who is well funded by corporate PACs and who has spent months attacking my character. As this campaign has worn on, I’ve been grateful for and encouraged by the coverage our race has received from Open Left.
And now, with less than a week before our primary, you have given me an additional boost with your fundraising on behalf of our campaign. Your donations will help us to answer the latest scurrilous attack from our opponent and the local 527 group supporting his campaign. The races for the presidential nomination and some other high-profile campaigns have made this a tough environment for raising money. But a lot is at stake in this central Iowa district. We have the opportunity to retire one of the Blue Dog Democratic votes that President Bush has been able to rely on to support the Iraq War, his assault on our civil liberties, and a host of other issues that have weakened our country at home and abroad. We have a chance to add another voice to the Progressive Caucus in Congress that will work for real, lasting change.
Thank you so much for your support.
Ed Fallon
Candidate for Congress
This is a tough race, but we’re excited to back Ed. And since there’s such an appetite among OpenLefties for supporting liberals, we’re going to think about cool ways to fundraise for candidates that select for the most transformational of the bunch.
Still, if you want to know why Boswell is such a putz, just watch this video where he justifies – even today – the invasion of Iraq as a ‘liberation’.
Over the few days, we have held a fundraiser on Open Left, and right now we stand only $3,000 short of our financial goal. However, for the next week, we are putting that fundraiser on hold, and instead asking you to contribute money to Ed Fallon instead, whose primary against conservative Bush Dog Leonard Boswell is only seven days away.
Matt’s post earlier today covers many of the issues where Boswell is a Bush-enabling conservative, and an old post of mine from last August tackles several more. Suffice to say that at Open Left working toward a progressive governing majority is our tagline, and changing Bush Dog behavior was one of our very first campaigns (heck, Matt actually coined the term “Bush Dog.”) It is difficult to find a clearer opportunity to take a step toward accomplishing both goals than the IA-03 primary campaign. Defeating Leonard Boswell would send a message to all 39 of the other Bush Dogs: stop supporting Bush policies, and start voting your districts, or you will be held accountable. If you support the founding missions of Open Left, then supporting Ed Fallon is a no-brainer.
Fallon is a serious candidate, and a proven winner in this district. Even before the Des Moines Register endorsement today, Fallon defeated an incumbent Democrat for state assembly in a primary in 1992, and did so by a 2-1 margin. Ten years later, also by 2-1 margins, he fended off party-backed primary challenges for his seat. In 2006, he won this district in the Gubernatorial primary. He is experienced at winning primaries in this district, and surely with the endorsement of the DMR he will be charging hard at the end of this campaign.
In his endorsement interview, Boswell talks about how we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein and how the Iraqis have had elections.
Last week, I blogged about Ed Fallon and his race against Bush Dog Democrat Leonard Boswell. Fallon faces a tough race, but got a key boost this weekend. Here’s what I noted on Saturday.
The hope for Fallon is that the media continues to report on the race in a substantive manner, and that Boswell’s ducking of debates continues to annoy the voting public.
Today, the Des Moines Register endorsed Ed Fallon. Here’s what it said about Boswell:
But currently holding the job of congressman doesn’t mean a candidate automatically deserves to be re-elected. After interviewing both candidates and reviewing their records, the editorial board can no longer embrace the congressman as the best person to represent Iowa in Congress. Fallon is running under the slogan “new energy for Iowa.” On June 3, Democrats in the 3rd District should give Fallon a chance to unleash some of his ideas and energy in Washington.
Why Boswell falls short
Boswell’s own record of accomplishment in a dozen years in Congress is relatively light, and, in a recent meeting with the editorial board, he seemed out of touch about some serious issues facing the country.
One example: Boswell expressed skepticism about the financial problems facing Medicare, asking what economists the Register had consulted to conclude the health-care program was in fiscal trouble. It’s hardly an issue for debate. The Medicare Board of Trustees has issued numerous reports outlining the trust fund’s looming deficits. David Walker, former comptroller general, has expressed concerns about projected Medicare spending. Yet Boswell talked about further studying the issue rather than proposing how to address it.
On immigration, he suggested that undocumented immigrants should go back to their home countries and “get in line” for a chance to come here. That’s hardly realistic considering there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
When asked about Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s prediction the previous day that most American troops could be home from Iraq by 2013, Boswell seemed unaware of McCain’s statement. When asked about education in Iowa, Boswell said the state does “pretty good.” And when asked what he based that on, he said Iowa’s history and his own experience. But Iowa’s educational system – not to mention the world economy – looks nothing like it did in Boswell’s childhood.
Fallon has endorsed Obama, whereas Boswell is a Clinton superdelegate. There couldn’t be a more stark difference. Here’s Fallon’s letter on May 10th to Boswell on his vote in the Intelligence Committee offering retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
May 10, 2008
The Hon. Leonard Boswell
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congressman Boswell:
I am writing today to ask you to disclose to the people of our district how you voted last week in the House Intelligence Committee on Rep. Heather Wilson’s measure to add the Senate-approved FISA bill to the fiscal year 2009 intelligence authorization bill.
Published reports indicate that one of the Democratic members of the committee voted in support of Rep. Wilson’s measure, thus supporting the Bush Administration’s agenda of giving retroactive immunity to the telecom companies for assisting in the Administration’s program of eavesdropping on Americans. You were also one of the 21 Democrats who signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on January 28, 2008, asking the House to grant such retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.
Your original and continued support of the so-called “Protect America Act” and of the PATRIOT Act is an issue to be addressed in public debates. As one of your constituents, I want to know why you supported these bills, and whether you continue to support them. In particular, I want to know whether you continue to support granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
On a related matter, I am disappointed that you have refused to debate me, and I encourage you to reconsider. You and I both know that, as candidates for public office, we have a responsibility to voters to let them see us, face-to-face, discussing the key issues facing our district, state, and nation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ed Fallon
Candidate for Congress
We are thinking of doing a special OpenLeft fundraiser for Fallon.
What is progressive if not a willingness to push back? There is much to be gained by pushing back against right winged conservatives and even Blue Dog Democrats and, I would maintain, there is also much to be gained by pushing back against ourselves. The blogosphere, including the Open Left, not unlike other collections of people, is such a diverse assortment of homogenous pod. Safe though it may be, the chrysalis has little impact on the world beyond its shell.
I am not a wonk. I am an activist on a very local level, which, I suspect, puts me in a different universe than those focused more nationally and globally. One of the few sources I read for analysis of the world beyond my own little pod is Openleft.com. It is practically the only blog that I read and I read it only sporadically. I find depth and insight here that broadens my understanding from a perspective that I share. I have never found a lot of connection between most of the posts that I read here and the Bush Dog strategy. But here lately I keep stumbling against this approach that seems somewhat ancillary to the value I find in Openleft. I am increasingly irritated and baffled by this Bush Dog approach.
I suspect that part of this difference may be a reflection of perspectives from different scales. As a local activist, I am very much of the “all politics is local” perspective. The authors of Openleft come more from a “politics of the possible,” big institutions perspective. As someone who works on very localized and often nonpartisan issues that allow me to join hands with Republicans and others I might not agree with on issues other than those at hand, I want to consider context and extenuating circumstances. National politics serves to average context across great distance.
Two years ago while I sat on the leadership council of our local Planned Parenthood facility, I worked to help elect a City Council woman who is rather avidly anti-choice. It just so happens that this woman also believes in quality of life for our community and opposes sprawl development. The clinic is in a neighboring town so she could do no damage there. Many in our progressive community could not bring themselves to support this candidate. While I can appreciate this principled stance, I feel that in supporting her I gained a lot for my community, and for a progressive agenda. While my support is not going to change her stance on choice, this woman now sees progressives as her ally on at least some issues. No longer will she be able to marginalize and demonize all progressives – nor I all conservatives.
As a southerner, I know the power of welcoming hospitality. While many southerners are anything but progressive, they often do hold this uniquely southern and distinctly progressive value of hospitality. I know some who are eloquent in their defense of civil rights, yet treat the individuals around them with little dignity. I know others who hold racist thoughts, yet manage to treat all with dignity. Neither is justifiable, yet both hold the elements of redemption that we seek.
Painting all Bush Dogs with the same brush is counterproductive and maybe even ill-progressive. Where there is a chance to replace a conservative Democrat with a more liberal one we should make the effort, but attacking Democrats who represent Republican, or swing districts for making some less than progressive votes is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So often what we get from Openleft is detailed and nuanced analysis, yet this approach lacks any of that. As a progressive I am thrilled to be represented by a Bush Dog. My congressman, Chet Edwards, has received a few letters from me lamenting his votes against such things as gay marriage. He has also received donations from me for his consistent votes for choice and even his only occasional vote against the war because I know that if he were not in office we would probably have a big-business, anything but compassionate, mean spirited Republican in his place.
It is annoying to see Edwards listed as a Bush Dog by people outside of my district who have failed to consider the extenuating circumstance that he operates in. Even if you are unwilling to compromise idealistically, consider that maybe that is what he is doing. Democrats in Republican districts do not have the luxury of voting on principle with each and every vote. They must measure each vote against its likely impact and its proximity to election time. Look, for example, how these Democrats votes have changed since there has been a Democratic congress. Consider how critical their “wrong” votes are. Are they voting “wrong” when their vote has no chance to make a difference but coming through when they need to?
One cannot help but chuckle when Open Left points out the homogeneity of the Bush Dogs. I’m sure that the irony is lost on no one, least of all these perceptive writers. I am no more threatened by the maleness or whiteness of Bush Dogs than I am of that of Chris, Mike and Matt. And I can assure you that there is nothing in the warm water of the south that makes people conservative. These are correlations that cause some to make sweeping generalizations that malign what it is to be progressive.
I am just as willing to be tolerant of the few differences that I have with Openleft and this Bush Dog approach as I am willing to be of my Bush Dog representative. I can only hope for reciprocation
We’re headed for a realigning period in American politics, but whether we get there with a group of conservative Democrats or progressive Democrats is an open question. In fact, in many ways, it’s the political question.
Who will Obama be as President? If he is confronted with 60 Blue Dogs in the House that feel no pressure, he will be a moderate President, necessarily. If he has progressive allies advocating from the left pressing for a low carbon economy, a sustainable food system, and a return to a civil society that respects the rule of law and criminalizes torture, he will be progressive. The place to make this change is in primaries, but there is a reason most DC groups won’t go there. It is because when you try to go after someone within the party, party establishment figures go after you. It’s a compendium of little things, from denying credentials to conventions to being unable to find consultants and pollsters and media buyers to work a race.
The political market is divided into Democrats and Republicans, and if you don’t play by the standard partisan rules, you get pushed out. And so it’s not a surprise that after Donna Edwards in Maryland’s fourth district, there is only one other significant primary going on, in Iowa’s third: incumbent Bush Dog Leonard Boswell versus progressive activists Ed Fallon.
Fallon is hated by the establishment, much more so than Donna. He has raised a much smaller amount of money, around $200,000 versus $900,000 for Donna. The Iowa legislature actually passed a law during this campaign making it harder for Fallon to take a salary from an organization he runs, just to be punitive. Fallon is a pure anti-establishment guy; he beat an incumbent to get into the state legislature, and then came in third in the gubernatorial primary against the current Governor of the state (though winning the third district). He backed Edwards first, and now he backed Obama, though in 2000, he supported Nader. He refuses PAC money of all kinds, and has taken the Change Congress pledge put forward by Larry Lessig. There is literally no one less likely to piss off the establishment than Ed Fallon.
On the other side is Leonard Boswell, a 74 year old conservative Democrat representing a liberal district. Boswell is a Vietnam vet, and has been in Congress for twelve years, though redestricting changed the contours of who he represented; local politicos tell me that he has ‘yet to jell with the district’. In other words, he’s a jerk. A mean, curmodgeonly, sonuvabitch. About two thirds of his money comes from corporate and labor PACs.
If you can name it, Boswell’s bad on it. Free trade, net neutrality, torture in the Military Commissions Act, subsidies for oil and gas companies, CAFE standards, the estate tax, increasing the use of coal, immigration, the Bankruptcy Bill, factory hog confinements, etc. My favorite is factory hog confinements, which are industrial size pig farms that create football field size pools of shit in rural areas. Boswell is for them. He’s a mean-spirited, degraded, evil man who wants to jail immigrants, torture people, burn more coal, hurt the middle class while paying off the wealthy, and help AT&T; spy on all of us to boot.
Boswell is also corrupt, sending out taxpayer funded mailers promoting himself and using $1.1M in PAC and wealthy interests to blanket the district. The abuse of franking privileges is a fairly common problem in Congress, but it’s still the use of taxpayer money to run a political campaign. Nevertheless, the establishment closed ranks around him instantly, with major endorsements from labor, public officials and even liberal Senator Tom Harkin. This has resulted in a twenty four point lead in the only poll taken in the race for Boswell, back in April.
Boswell is a Blue Dog, and as part of that group, has pushed aggressively for retroactive immunity for telecom companies. While he has backed off his strident pro-war record since the primary began, in a recent intelligence committee vote, he was in all likelihood the vote that flipped the committee from 12-9 to 11-10 on immunity provisions. We don’t know for sure, because he’s ducking debates with Fallon, ten at this point, which means it is difficult to get him on the record.
The primary is on June 3, and Fallon has several advantages to offset Boswell’s massive warchest and establishment help. He’s the candidate of change, having endorsed Obama while Boswell (who is also a superdelegate) hews to Clinton. Yard signs in the district that have Obama signs tend to also have Fallon signs, and vice versa with Clinton. Obama took the district. It’s also a low turnout primary. The Iowa caucuses have already happened, so people who vote again in a lower ticket race are going to vote for either Fallon or Boswell, so Fallon has a stronger activist core likely to vote in June. Finally, the media narrative is changing. Throughout most of the race, the media has been attacking Flalon for petty meaningless campaign problems, going along with Boswell’s critique that Fallon is small-time and refusing to cover issus. Recently, that shifted, and Fallon’s position on hog confinements is getting wide press
The hope for Fallon is that the media continues to report on the race in a substantive manner, and that Boswell’s ducking of debates continues to annoy the voting public. He won’t have the money to spend against Boswell, and he won’t have the party establshment, so we’ll see what his activists can do.
How do the Bush Dogs stack up on reproductive rights issues? Mostly bad, especially compared to the rest of the Democratic caucus. Not as bad as they could be, especially compared to the Republican caucus.
I used two voter scorecards to evaluate them on, the most recent available from NARAL Pro-Choice America (2007) and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (2006). The NARAL 2007 House scores were based on two 2007 votes, one partially repealing the global gag rule and the other and one preserving federal funding to support Planned Parenthood in providing family planning services to low income families, with possible voting scores of 0, 50 and 100%. The PPAF 2006 House scores are based on a composite of 11 votes and/or issue positions, which you can look at by clicking on any representative’s name at the link, and giving a more nuanced view of a member’s stance on reproductive justice.
I’m including here only the scores of the Bush Dogs. Scores of other House members were tabulated separately but from the same references, means were calculated without the inclusion of those marked NA, or otherwise indicated below.
There’s More…
:: (10
Comments, 127 words in story)
digg it
There is one significant pieces of news hitting today about FISA and immunity for telecom companies. The fight is being taken directly to the voters through two complementary strategies. In the House, Steny Hoyer has been relentlessly focused on pulling a deal together, one that would probably grant some sort of de facto immunity to lawbreakers in the Bush administration and in the telecommunications industry (though it’s often hard to tell the two apart). He has so far been unable to negotiate between the White House, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Kyl, and liberals in the House, but every time I make inquiries I hear that there is ‘encouraging’ news that a deal is possible. By the same token, the ACLU is quite aware of what is going on, and has been lobbying aggressively.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, even Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a deal. The significant news is that this issue is being taken to the voters. There are two strategies being employed to make this happen. One, the Blue America PAC has raised $75k and is blanketing freshman Blue Dog Democrat Chris Carney’s district with radio, billboard, print, and cable ads criticizing him for caving to Bush on immunity for telecom companies. The extraordinary television ad they put together is here, and the theme is betrayal.
Two, the following radio ad, and one similar to it, are running in the district of Blue Dogs John Tanner in Tennessee and Bud Cramer in Alabama.
You can hear the radio ad in Cramer’s district here.
These ads are put together by They Work for Us, an organization sponsored by Moveon and SEIU designed to hold representatives accountable to their constituents. I consult for this organization, and we are experimenting with some issue-based advocacy around core progressive values. This strategy is designed to be a positive encouragement to Congressional representatives to refuse to give immunity to the phone companies. The script is at the bottom of this post.
By moving FISA and civil liberties out of the activist space and educating voters through broadcast media, They Work for Us hopes to demonstrate to Congressional representatives that when Democrats stand up to the lawless Bush administration, voters will be supportive. At the same time, the Blue America action is designed to show that betraying progressives carries substantial costs. Glenn puts it well:
That is true particularly if there continues to be no incentive for Congressional Democrats to pay attention to their base and do anything other than support the right-wing agenda, because they perceive that they only pay a price when they oppose the Right. That is the incentive scheme that has to change.
I first noticed this problem in August, 2007, in a piece about the Working Conservative Majority, in which I traced both how the Democratic caucus has become substantially more progressive in the last six years and that it is still controlled by a swing group of conservative Democrats that mostly reside in the Blue Dog caucus (we call the worst ones part of the ‘Bush Dog’ caucus). Electing more Democrats – exceptional ones like Darcy Burner, Eric Massa, Leslie Byrne, and Martin Heinrich (who spoke out eloquently on FISA here), is part of the solution. Subsequent to August, progressives have defeated a reactionary Democrat – Al Wynn – in a primary and seated a progressive, Donna Edwards, in his place, but at the same time, added three new Blue Dogs to Congress: Bill Foster, Don Cazayoux, and Travis Childers. It’s clear that an incentive system designed around rewarding Democrats, Blue Dog or otherwise, when they oppose radical right-wing policies, and criticizing them when they cave, is necessary. And that’s what is happening, with Blue America and They Work for Us.
The script of the radio spot is below.
There’s More…
:: (3
Comments, 171 words in story)
digg it
Less than a month before the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third district, Ed Fallon is trying to make Congressman Leonard Boswell either debate him or pay a political price for refusing to debate.
Join me after the jump for more on that and other recent developments in the race.
Former Vice President Al Gore has sent out an e-mail to Democrats asking for financial donations and support for Boswell’s campaign. Boswell is being challenged in the 3rd District Democratic primary by Ed Fallon, a former state legislator from Des Moines.
“The congressman is honored that Vice President Gore has endorsed his candidacy for re-election and is actively participating in this campaign,” said Boswell campaign manager Scott Ourth in a telephone interview with Iowa Independent.
The fundraising e-mail notes Boswell’s support for Gore during the presidential campaign of 2000. “I will never forget traveling across Iowa back in 1999 and 2000 during my presidential campaign with Leonard and his wife, Dody, joining Tipper and me. Few people fought as hard for me as Leonard did,” stated Gore. “From our very first bus trip until election night — every step of the way, he was right there beside me, standing up to pharmaceutical companies, fighting to make Iowa a leader in alternative energy. As you remember, we won the caucus.”
Fallon did not support Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign, opting instead to endorse and work on behalf of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Many Democrats still blame Nader for playing a part in Gore’s 2000 loss to George Bush.
It’s basic political loyalty, and I don’t begrudge Al Gore his right to engage in some payback against someone that hurt him in 2000. Still, Leonard Boswell has a bad showing on subsidies for oil companies, the war in Iraq, and constitutional rights in Guantanamo.
Gore is not above politics, and despite his post-2000 persona, his political instincts remain constant. He praises John McCain and supports Boswell, much as he pushed for Free Trade in the 1990s and failed to fight for the Presidency in 2000. In other words, Gore is like a lot of antipartisan Democrats who emerged in the 1970s, speaking in media circles as a liberal while operationally supporting the status quo.
UPDATE: I suppose it’s possible Gore did not know that Boswell is in a primary with a progressive primary opponent, so I sent a request for information to Al Gore’s spokesperson, Kalee Kreider.
Before sending an email solicitation for Leonard Boswell’s reelection campaign, did Al Gore know that there’s a primary, and that Ed Fallon (Boswell’s opponent) supports a moratorium on coal fired power plants? If so, why did he choose to endorse a candidate who prefers a less optimal solution on climate change than his opponent?
If you want to know why Democrats don’t stand up to do the right thing, look no further than the difficulty of running in a primary. There are very few credible candidates, and one of them, Ed Fallon, is getting attacked by the Iowa state Senate itself because he dared challenge a sitting Congressman, Leonard Boswell. Boswell has run a nasty and dishonest campaign focused on extremely petty characteristics of Fallon’s campaign operation. Now the Iowa Senate is getting into the action.
The Iowa Senate has passed a bill that would forbid candidates involved in state-level races from using campaign funds to pay themselves a salary. The issue has flared during a Democratic primary that pits Congressman Leonard Boswell against former State Representative Ed Fallon who paid himself a salary from his campaign funds when he ran for governor in 2006.
This is just a crazy slap in the face to progressives and to those who are not wealthy. There are huge hurdles to running for office already, so adding another one – you have to go without salary for six months – simply privileges the wealthy and entitled incumbents like Boswell. Does Boswell have to give up his Congressional salary? No. But Boswell is sending out extremely pricey mailers from his House office on his accomplishments in office.
Moreover, passing this so close to a primary election is entirely political. People in the Iowa establishment just do not like Ed Fallon, and they are making it known by abusing their power.
I’m going to guess that Boswell will vote against supplemental funding for the Iraq war, and then, if he wins reelection, immediately flip to be as hawkish as the person he endorsed in the primary, Hillary Clinton.
Last week we launched Change-Congress.org. After that event, I made my first call on a Member of Congress, to ask him to join. I knew he was a supporter of at least some of our ideas. I had come to many of my own ideas about how Congress needs to change after long conversations with him.
I am very proud to announce today that Congressman Jim Cooper (TN-5) (Dem) has become the first Member to join the Change Congress movement. (He supports planks 2, 3, and 4). Congressman Cooper is a “blue dog” Democrat.
http://campaign-archive.com/ar…
I am not sure how I feel about this. More below the jump.
There’s More…
:: (21
Comments, 482 words in story)
digg it
McJoan has the news on the FISA victory today. It’s a bit hard to describe just how much work this took and how significant a change this represents. I never believed we had a chance to stop immunity for telecom companies, I thought it was a fight worth having anyway. But something has shifted in the last few weeks that suggest this Congress is willing to stand up to Bush.
There were always two leverage points for the right on this one. First of all, the fake deadline that would leave our country vulnerable was trotted out as an excuse for expanding wiretapping authority and immunizing telecoms. I had private assurances from senior Democrats that they would make sure that the country fixed this vulnerability before the temporary FISA fix expired in August. Amazingly, the House was willing to let the bill lapse and go back to the 1978 FISA law, and called out the dishonest characterization instead of knuckling under to Bush. Second of all, 21 Bush Dogs wrote a letter asking to pass immunity for telecom companies. Those Bush Dogs create a pro-immunity majority, which gave pro-immunity Rockefeller all the leverage in House-Senate negotiations.
The Republican House secret session nonsense, combined with the amazing organizing by the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler and Christie Hardin Smith and good leadership by Pelosi, Conyers, and Hoyer, and some bravery by House freshman Nancy Boyda, brought the Bush Dogs away from their position. An intelligent compromise – that phone companies would be allowed to submit evidence in court despite state secret arguments from the President rather than getting blanket immunity – allowed the Bush Dogs to vote for national security instead of the telecoms.
Here are the Bush Dogs that voted correctly on the FISA bill today (h/t Marcy Wheeler).
Congressman Joe Baca (D-California) http://www.house.gov/baca/
Congressman John Barrow (D-Georgia) http://barrow.house.gov/ Congresswoman Melissa Bean (D-Illinois) http://www.house.gov/bean/
Congressman Marion Berry (D-Arkansas) http://www.house.gov/berry/
Congressman Leonard L. Boswell (D-Iowa) http://boswell.house.gov/ Congressman Allen Boyd (D-Florida) http://www.house.gov/boyd/
Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D-Indiana) http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/ Congressman Jim Matheson, (D-Utah) http://www.house.gov/matheson/
Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-Louisiana) http://www.melancon.house.gov/ Congressman Dennis Moore (D-Kansas) http://www.moore.house.gov/ Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota) http://www.pomeroy.house.gov/ Congressman Mike Ross (D-Arkansas) http://ross.house.gov/ Congressman Zack Space (D-Ohio) http://space.house.gov/ Congressman John Tanner (D-Tennessee) http://www.house.gov/tanner/
Heath Shuler and Chris Carney did their usual Bush enabling. I will have more soon on the amazing victory this vote represents. Democrats do not and have not stood up to Bush and the right-wing on national security, ever. Only this time, they did. And it looks like it might just become a habit. Immediately after the vote, a slew of Democrats running for office issued statements on the vote and at least one referenced Bill Foster’s victory. There’s nothing stronger in politics than running on an issue, and that’s what is happening right now.
Congratulations to all involved. And to the 400 people who gave some cash to Bill Foster, and to the many others who volunteered to get him elected, kudos to you. Elections have consequences.
A thistle to U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell for sending a campaign brochure to residents of the 3rd District and billing taxpayers for the expense. The slick mailer complete with full-color pictures crows about Boswell’s accomplishments in big type, but you have to read the fine print to learn that the mailing “was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.” There is a fine line between using the congressional franking privilege for legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning. This one crashes across that line, coming as it does as Boswell faces a serious opponent in the Democratic primary this year.
Apparently that’s what Boswell uses taxpayer dollars for. He certainly doesn’t use his position to pass legislation. I just received this Democracy for America press release over email.
Since first being elected to Congress in 1996, Boswell has only managed to get 2 bills out of committee and enacted into law. 2 bills in 12 years; the change Iowa need in Washington is not going to happen with Leonard Boswell…
While Rep. Boswell has not been introducing legislation, he has been voting for a host of unsound and unpopular Bush policies. He voted for the War in Iraq and has voted for each and every one of the President’s bills to fund it. He voted for the Patriot Act and has been a champion of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s program of warrantless wiretapping.
And, he has done this while collecting boatloads of cash from Washington PACs and lobbyists. In fact, 74% of his campaign contributions have come from the political action committees of companies like AT&T; and Wal-Mart.
Bowell is one of 21 Bush Dog Democrats to sign the letter pushing for retroactive immunity to the telecoms after accepting money from telecom PACs, though he apparently believes that his can be obviated by his cosponsorship of a resolution to impeach Dick Cheney (it didn’t work for Al Wynn). Boswell is a recipient of money from the American Bankers Association, the group spearheading the fight against mortgage relief. And he is defending his vote for the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005.
I’ve spent some time watching Boswell on TV and reading through his site, and he reminds me of most reactionary incumbents I’ve seen: mean and entitled.
The plan of the House leadership is to pass this specific bill in the House, send it to the Senate (where telecom immunity will be added in by the same bipartisan Senate faction that already voted for immunity), have it go back to the House for an up-or-down-vote on the House-bill-plus-telecom-immunity (which will pass with the support of the Blue Dogs), and then compliantly sent on to a happy and satisfied President, who will sign the bill that he demanded.
So that’s the plan for now. I’m pleased that both Obama and Clinton have chosen to make their case for President based on stupid identity politics instead of fighting on core Constitutional issues like this.
A major mortgage relief measure before Congress just went down to defeat in the Senate.
The banking industry and President Bush opposed the bill, which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduce a filer’s mortgage debt to the home’s current market value.
At least a dozen industry associations have banded together to fight the proposed legislation. They include the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association and the Mortgage Bankers Association. These groups and others have signed joint letters to lawmakers on the issue.
Let’s just take the American Bankers Association and their contributions this year, and you’ll see a pretty even split in terms of parties. Sure, lots of Republicans are on there, and yes, it’s Republicans in the Senate who are killing the measure. But legislation is chess, and there are lots of ways to make changes that aren’t in the public eye. The ABA also gives to lots of Democrats, but mostly it’s leadership and, of course, Bush Dogs, including Melissa Bean, Leonard Boswell, Alan Boyd, Heath Shuler, the Indiana boys, etc. You’ll also see Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and James Clyburn on there.
It’s fascinating how there are so few progressive members on the list of ABA cash recipients. Weird. The House is likely to make noises about fighting for mortgage relief, but it’s not clear that it will be anything more than a half-hearted attempt.
Let’s note this going forward. And yes, Ed Fallon should start making noise about the $10K Boswell has already received from these very bad people.
Here’s Leonard Boswell, conservative Democrat in Iowa, criticizing his liberal primary challenger, Ed Fallon.
Fallon has said that while Boswell has performed admirably at times, he has sided too much with Bush, a Republican, and has no absolute right to his seat. Asked about this, Boswell said Fallon was unpopular among state lawmakers and at times a lone “no” vote among Democrats on issues. Boswell aides said the congressman has sided with the Democratic Party line 90 percent of the time, often opposing Bush.
You periodically get hints of what is really motivating our political leadership. A lot of people think it’s just money or greed, and there’s some truth in that, as money and greed influence everyone (not just politicians). But we shouldn’t ignore the culture of politics, the fact that politicians go to an office every day, have cliques, and like and dislike each other. None of this really matters to voters, but politicians who are out of touch think that it does.
And so Boswell is saying that Fallon wasn’t well-liked and often was a lonely ‘no’ vote. That could be criticism or praise, depending on whether voters like the political system at the moment. But to Boswell, this is damning. Fallon is willing to rock the boat and annoy lots of other political figures, and that’s apparently quite damning.
I’d like to point out that, though I feel very strongly that Bush dogs should face primary challenges, and though I am extremely pleased that Ed Fallon is challenging Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third district, we must go into these races with our eyes open. And with that in mind, there are real risks in supporting someone like Fallon against Boswell. Boswell is a weak candidate that is not in step with his district, and there are good reasons to want him challenged. Al Wynn was a wake-up call to the CBC, but the Blue Dog caucus needs to be held accountable as well somehow for their willingness to do whatever Bush wants them to.
That said, we have already seen what happens with Mark Pera, and we don’t want to go through that again. Fallon is not Pera, obviously, but there are points of worry that I want to address before jumping into this whole hog. Obviously, we should work against Boswell, but whether to get behind Fallon is a related though different question.
There’s More…
:: (13
Comments, 441 words in story)
digg it
Here’s Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third district. Boswell is in a Blue-ing district and has signed a letter supporting retroactive immunity for the telecom companies for breaking the law. Fallon has this to say.
I am opposed to giving immunity to the telecom companies. This is an area where Boswell has repeatedly sided with Bush and against his fellow House Democrats, as when he voted for the Protect America Act and the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I am critical of his record because I believe such legislation is too sweeping in granting new police powers to the government and, as a result, infringes on the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
Out of Boswell’s $700k war chest, at least $5000 comes from AT&T; directly.
Last Tuesday, our Primaries Matter campaign delivered results and helped lead Donna Edwards to a resounding 24-point victory over Bush-Democrat Al Wynn in MD-04. Ed Fallon is the next DFA-List endorsement and he’s taking on Bush-Democrat, Rep. Leonard Boswell in IA-03.Contribute $20.08 right now and support a Democrat with the backbone to stand up for progressive values.
Ed Fallon is a true progressive and he has a record of beating out-of-touch Democrats in Iowa. In 1992, he beat 10-year incumbent Gary Sherzan with 63% of the vote and became a State Representative. When the conservative party establishment tried to primary Ed out of the state legislature, Ed won again with 68% of the vote.
Now, with your help, Ed will beat Bush-Democrat Leonard Boswell. Here’s a breakdown of some of the important differences between them.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 188 words in story)
digg it
I realize that I need to provide a lot more context to the pessimism of my previous post. So, in the extended entry, I provide a quick timeline of recent major political events since the Democratic takeover of Congress, and explain how the progressive movement is in serious jeopardy in 2008 unless we can reverse the current trends of the debate on the Iraq war:
There’s More…
:: (50
Comments, 1264 words in story)
digg it
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.
Gutierrez’s rationale for dumping Lipinski apparently centers around immigrant’s rights, and as such dovetails nicely with Mark Pera’s recent endorsement from Immigrant’s List:
Pera is a pro-immigration reform candidate running against an incumbent Democrat that has voted with Sensenbrenner and Tancredo on immigration.
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 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.
