Democratic Primary Challenges

Bush Democrats

admin — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:52:46 -0400

While Democrats control the House of Representatives by 231-202, they cannot pass progressive bills on health care, the environment, jobs, justice, and impeachment - or even stop horrendous Republican bills on Iraq, torture, and warrantless wiretapping - because a few dozen "Bush Democrats" usually vote with George Bush.

One solution is to elect more Democrats to increase our majority so "Bush Democrats" matter less, and many netroots groups like Moveon.org, DailyKos.com, and Blue America are doing this brilliantly.

The other solution is to support progressive Democrats in primaries against "Bush Democrats," and that's why we launched this effort, drawing heavily on the excellent advice of Blue America's Howie Klein.

The main reason progressives have avoided primaries against Democratic incumbents is the fear that a divisive primary might help turn a "Bush Democratic" seat into a Republican seat. Realistically, there may be a few "Bush Democrats" who are uniquely able to win in Republican districts and therefore should not be challenged in a Democratic primary. But those are the exceptions, not the rule - especially in an election like 2008 where Democrats have a large lead due to widespread disgust with Bush and the entire Republican Party. We will not target incumbents who are truly exceptional.

While we focus on replacing incumbent Bush Democrats, there are two other situations in which progressive Democrats face Bush Democrats:

Open seats where progressive Democrats are running against Bush Democrats
Progressive Democratic incumbents who are being challenged by Bush Democrats

You can help all of our progressive Democratic candidates through our Actblue page:
http://www.actblue.com/page/bushdemocrats

1. Incumbent Bush Democrats who deserve primary challenges

Below is a list of Democrats who voted wrong on one or more crucial votes. Some are hard-core "Bush Democrats" while others simply join them from time to time.


Steny Hoyer

By publishing this list, we hope to accomplish several goals:

Persuade these Democrats to stop voting with Bush so we don't have to challenge them in a primary. Democrats who reverse their bad votes and genuinely embrace progressive positions will be ~~crossed off our list~~
Encourage progressive Democrats to run primaries against those who keep voting with Bush

This list began after 59 Bush Democrats voted against the McGovern Amendment on 5/10/2007 on the first key vote to end the war. Those 59 Bush Democrats voted for an endless occupation of Iraq despite overwhelming opposition from Democrats, Independents, and even many Republicans. The list has been modified since then to take account of other key votes since the original Iraq War vote on 10/10/02.

Key to Column Headings:

"B/R" ranks each district on a "Blue/Red" scale where 1=Strong Blue, 2=Leans Blue, 3=Tossup, 4=Leans Red, 5=Solid Red. In theory there is less "risk" in challenging an incumbent in a Blue district than a Red one, because the seat should stay Democratic regardless of who wins the primary. But each district and each race is unique, so that general theory may or may not apply.

"Incumbent" links to a page for each incumbent where you can discuss progressive Democrats who could challenge them in a primary, and other topics related to local political organizing.

"B/N" identifies Members who join the "Bluedog" (B) or "New Democrat/DLC" (N) caucuses. "Bluedogs" claim to support "fiscal responsibility," but these Bluedogs support a war that has already wasted an incredible $434 billion and driven budget deficits to record levels. "New Democrats/DLC" claim to support "national security" but the Iraq War has severely damaged our armed forces, undermined military recruitment, increased global terrorism, and alienated our allies. Those who play a leadership role with either group earn an asterisk (*).

"BDI" is the "Bush Democrat Index" which ranks all Democrats on their overall voting support for George Bush and the Republicans. It is the reverse of the Progressive Punch Index.

"Votes" identifies key votes where these Members voted wrong:

?: (Not in office when vote occurred)
A: Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq on 10/10/02 (bad=support)
B: Bankruptcy Bill on 5/14/05 (bad=support)
M: Military Commissions Act on 9/27/06 (bad=support)
I: Iraq Supplemental McGovern Amendment to end the war by 4/08 on 5/10/07 (bad=oppose)
R: Andrews Amendment to block Iraq/Afghan funds for military strike on Iran on 5/16/07 (bad=oppose)
X: Iraq Supplemental with unenforceable timetable on 7/12/07 (bad=oppose any timetable)
W: Warantless Wiretapping on 8/4/07 (bad=support)
C: Bi-Partisan Compact on Iraq to oppose any funding cuts 9/26/07 (bad=support)
P: "Protect America Act" letter co-signer 2/08 (P voted against Democratic alternative 3/14/08)
Q: Iraq $163B on 6/19/08
F: FISA wiretapping immunity on 6/20/08

"Primary Nominees" lists people whose names have been mentioned. If they are running and have a web site we link to their site. If we consider them priority candidates (whether or not they are running) we make them bold.

Dist	B/R	Incumbent	B/N	BDI	Votes	Primary Nominees
AL05	4	Bud Cramer	B	2	ABMIRWCPQF	retiring in 08
AL07		Artur Davis			MWBPKQF
AR01		Marion Berry	B		ABCKQF
AR02	1	Vic Snyder	N	49	IXWQF
AR04	1	Mike Ross	B*	26	ABMIWCPQF
AZ05	4	Harry Mitchell	b	59	?IRWQF
AZ08	3	Gabrielle Giffords	B	79	?IQF	Jeff Latas
CA18	3	Dennis Cardoza	B	46	?BIF
CA20	2	Jim Costa	B	50	?BIWCQF
CA28	1	Howard Berman		117	AIQF	Rep. Cindy Montanez Rep. Lloyd Levine Mike Stettler
CO02	1	Mark Udall		109	IQF	running for US Senate
CO03	4	John Salazar	B	56	?BMIRWQF
FL02	4	Allen Boyd	B*	6	ABMIRWCPQF	Rep. Al Lawson
FL03		Corrine Brown			KQF
FL16	4	Tim Mahoney	B	63	?IRQF
GA02	1	Sanford Bishop	B	27	ABMIRQF
GA08	5	Jim Marshall	B	9	?MIRXWQF	Robert Nowak Jack Ellis George Carswell
GA012	1	John Barrow	BN	12	?MIRXWPQF	Regina Thomas 7/15
GA013	1	David Scott	BN	52	?BMIRQF
IA03	3	Leonard Boswell	B	20	ABMIWPF	~~Ed Fallon~~ [Likely to retire after IA loses seat in 2010]
IL03	1	Daniel Lipinski		76	IWQF	~~Mark Pera~~
IL05		Rahm Emanuel	*		KQF
IL08	4	Melissa Bean	BN	37	?BMIRWPQF	~~Randi Scheuer~~
IN02	3	Joe Donnelly	B	29	?IRWQF
IN08	4	Brad Ellsworth	B	30	?IXWPQF
IN09	4	Baron Hill	B	32	A?IWQ	Gretchen Clearwater 5/6
KS02	4	Nancy Boyda	b	88	?IQF
KS03	3	Dennis Moore	BN*	47	ABMICPQF
KY06	3	Ben Chandler	BN	55	?BMIWQF	Sen. Ernesto Scorsone
LA03	3	Charlie Melancon	BN	15	?BMIRWPQF
LA06		Don Cazayoux			?QF
MD02	1	Dutch Ruppersberger		68	?BIQF
MD04	1	~~Al Wynn~~		94	AB	Donna Edwards
MD05	1	Steny Hoyer	*	83	ABIQF	Paul Pinsky
MN07	4	Collin Peterson	B	3	ABMIWQF
MO04	5	Ike Skelton		5	ABIQF
MS01		Travis Childers			?QF
MS04	5	Gene Taylor	B	1	ABMIXWCQF
NC02	2	Bob Etheridge	N	48	ABMIWQF
NC07	3	Mike McIntyre	BN	7	ABMIWQF
NC011	3	Heath Shuler	B	23	?IRWPQF	Sen. Martin Luther Nesbitt Rep. Susan C Fisher Rep. Ray Rapp
ND00	4	Earl Pomeroy	B	33	ABMIWPQF
NV01	1	Shelley Berkley	N	67	AIRQF
NY20		Kirsten Gillibrand	B		?QF
OH06	3	Charles Wilson	B	140	?IWQF
OH18	4	Zack Space	B	57	?IRWPQF
OK02	4	Dan Boren	B	4	?BMIRXWCPQF
PA04	3	Jason Altmire		25	?IRWQF
PA07		Joe Sestak			?KQF
PA10	5	Chris Carney	B	43	?IRXWPQF
PA11		Paul Kanjorski			AQF
PA12		John Murtha			AHRBKQF
PA13	1	Allyson Schwartz	N	145	?BIRQ	Chuck Pennacchio
PA17	5	Tim Holden	B	11	ABMIRXPQF	Sen. Michael O'Pake
SC05		John Spratt			AMBPKQF
SC06		Jim Clyburn	*		KQF
SD00	4	Stephanie Herseth Sandlin	BN*	36	?BMIRWCQF
TN04	3	Lincoln Davis	B	13	?BMIWCPQF
TN05	1	Jim Cooper	B	24	?BIWPQF
TN06	4	Bart Gordon	B	18	ABMIWQF
TN08	1	John Tanner	B	8	ABMIRWCPQF
TX09	1	Al Green		167	?BIF	Rep. Alma Allen Rep. Hubert Vo
TX15		Ruben Hinojosa			KQF
TX16		Silvestre Reyes			KQF
TX17	5	Chet Edwards		17	ABMIWQF
TX22	5	Nick Lampson	B	34	A?IRWCQF
TX23	3	Ciro Rodriguez		75	?IWQF
TX27	2	Solomon Ortiz		14	BIQF	Juan Garcia
TX28	1	Henry Cuellar	bN	19	?BMIRWQF
TX29	1	Gene Green		43	AIQF	Sen. Mario V. Gallegos
UT02	5	Jim Matheson	B	10	ABMIXWCPQF	Mayor Rocky Anderson
VA09	5	Rick Boucher		38	ABIQF
WA03		Brian Baird			CKQF	Cheryl Crist
WA06		Norm Dicks			AQF	Paul Richmond
WI03	2	Ron Kind	N*	66	ABIQF

2. Republican districts and open seats where progressive Democrats are running against Bush Democrats

3. Progressive Democratic incumbents who are being challenged by Bush Democrats

Dist	B/R	Progressive	Bush Democrat	Notes
TN-09	1	Steve Cohen	Nikki Tinker	Cohen is an outstanding progressive Freshman who won Harold Ford Jr.'s open seat in 2006 by beating cousin Joe Ford Jr. in the Democratic primary and brother Jake Ford in the general election. Religious right ministers want to defeat Cohen because he supported the Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 1592 and they are likely to support Nikki Tinker, Harold Ford Jr.'s former campaign manager, who came in 2nd to Cohen in the 2006 Democratic primary.

2008 Primary Challengers Wanted

admin — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:05:05 -0400

Help us recruit Democratic primary challengers! Use our map or list

In 2006, we elected Democratic majorities to the Senate and House for one overriding reason: to end the Iraq War.

In May 2007, both the Senate and the House voted on amendments to end the Iraq War by setting a March 2008 deadline for removing combat troops. Those amendments would have passed if all Democrats had voted to end the Iraq War - but some pro-war "Bush Democrats" voted to continue the Iraq War forever.

As Democrats, we have every right to expect our Democratic Senators and Representatives to vote with us on the issues we care about deeply. And if they do not, we have every right to support candidates who agree with us in Democratic primaries against them.

There are two good reasons to support primary challengers. If we win, we get a better Member of Congress. But even if we lose, a competitive race often persuades the incumbent to change positions on the issue that fueled the primary. In 2006, two key anti-war challengers brought dramatic changes: both Jane Harman (CA-36) and Al Wynn (MD-4) voted for the war in 2002, but voted against the war in 2007 as a direct result of anti-war primary challenges by Marcy Winograd and Donna Edwards.

Of course, challenging an incumbent Senator or Representative is a huge effort. To run a competitive race requires finding an excellent candidate and a building a strong grassroots organization. Happily, the Internet lets us do both.

Use our map or list of Representatives who voted to fund the Iraq War forever. If you are represented by one of these "Bush Democrats," click on their dot and help us find a candidate to challenge them in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Together we can take back the Democratic Party from the "Bush Democrats" and end the war!

Update 1: Our benchmark votes are the Feingold-Reid Amendment (Senate 5/16/07) and the McGovern Amendment (House 5/10/07) because these are the "cleanest" votes on setting a deadline for Iraq. The later votes on the Supplemental (5/24) were more complicated and harder to use as a benchmark.

Tea Party vs. Two Party

mfinbh — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:10:29 -0500

The American two-party system is fracturing, as both sides are struggling with immense war debt, a crippled manufacturing base, and a Federal Reserve that is devaluating the currency in order to prop up financial institutions that gambled trillions and lost; their bets became our losses as they were “covered by the house”. Progressives have been decrying the centrist wishy-washiness of so many Democrats for years, and there was an outspoken expectation that once the Democrats were in power, new, more liberal parties could emerge to challenge the old-guard Democrats to veer left or be shown the door. The surprise is that the right beat them to it (and here's why that's fine...)

The Republican Party is imploding: many laughed as ½ term Gov. Sarah Palin walked away from her job in Alaska because she felt she could be more effective from outside government. Crazy? Foxy? Blithering idiot? None – and all – of the above; because La Palin has become the camera-ready face of the far right, and in the shallow world of contemporary media politics, that is about all it takes to grab attention (substance be damned).

Thus, the off-year special election in the 23rd congressional district of New York has given us a glimpse of the breakup of the Republican Party, as many of that party’s stalwarts have defected – following the Twittering Palin – to the Conservative Party, which has abandoned its longstanding tradition of simply endorsing the Republican, instead pushing a fairly conventional Republican out of the race. These conservatives mean business, and although they narrowly lost this race, don’t think for a minute that they won’t continue to pursue and fine-tune this method, forcing an ever purer version of the right’s hardcore ideology, previously reserved not for government, but for am talk radio.

Democrats should take no glee in the mess on the right, unless they play it right. It should be seen as a warning bell, because mainstream Democrats will be facing an enormous primary season push to the left in the coming month (with eleven months to go before the midterm elections). This week, MoveOn raised $2 million in pledges in one day to force the hand of the Democratic Party:

(from MoveOn solicitation letter 11/03/09)
"You tell us how much you'd give. Then, we make sure the media, Senate leadership, and conservative Democrats know just how many of us are willing to support a challenge against anyone who blocks reform. Hopefully, none of them actually do it, and health care gets an up-or-down vote.

But if the nightmare scenario happens, we'll encourage viable primary challengers to come forward, and if they do, make sure all of us who've pledged have a chance to support them. In other words, potential primary challengers will know there's a huge group of Americans who are ready to help. And conservative members of the Democratic Caucus will too."

This is an important move for the left, because there is an expressed intent to actively work within the Democratic Party, and that’s the key here. The effect of this effort won’t be the same in every district, and the Democratic Party could begin to rupture just as the Republicans have begun to do.

Where does it lead? Of course both sides would like to inject more ideological purity into their representation, but when there are four or six competing parties or factions, history has shown us that too often the worst hard-liners will win out.

Our currency is being devalued by a Federal Reserve using its power to prop up only the wealthiest investors (most of whom have moved their wealth out of this nation’s currency into high risk international trades), while millions more are going bankrupt and being put out of their homes and their jobs by the very institutions that were saved by the government (homes lost to foreclosure, jobs by the seized flow of credit that is killing small and mid-size companies). Many of the homeless and jobless now marching to the beat of Palin and her media tea party brigade find comfort in hate and scapegoating, worshiping a message of racial, ideological or even sexual purity.

We must heed history’s warnings. Millions of angry unemployed and displaced conservatives, given the direction of a charismatic leader (in today’s environment, probably from the media world), well-armed and hungry for power, can start a civil war. The contemporary American version would take the form of civil unrest and massive, coordinated riots, straining the resources of government authority.

There is activism and there is anarchy. Activism is the only civil approach. Let the Republicans fracture into two parties, but it is critical that liberals fix – and maintain – the Democratic Party, and thus retain a majority that can advance a progressive agenda. We must not allow a party schism to occur in the Democratic Party.

Please Join the conversation at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24771

Obama is Cutting Sen. Specter Too Much Slack

dlindorff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:41:22 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

President Barack Obama was so obviously pleased to have five-term
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announce that he was
switching party affiliation and joining the Democratic Party that the
president missed an opportunity to make sure that his new BFF in the
Senate was also a backer of the issues that Obama ran on in the
presidential campaign.

Indeed, while President Obama was quick to offer Sen. Specter his
backing and even to offer to help him with fund-raising in his quest
for re-election in 2010, he said nothing at all about any quid-pro-quo.

This is not only unfortunate. It is irresponsible.

Sen. Specter, for all his claims to be an independent thinker, has
over the years voted at lease 65% of the time with his Republican
colleagues in the Senate—a support level for Republican positions that
exceeds that of two of his Republican colleagues from Maine, Sen.
Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins.

Sen. Specter, notably, had actually reversed himself in recent
months, on the issue of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill, which
would make it easier for workers to establish labor unions in their
workplaces, and to win a first contract with management. At one time,
Sen. Specter had voted in favor of letting such a bill go to a vote in
the Senate, but lately, as he was contemplating a tough primary battle
against a conservative challenger, he had changed his tune, saying that
he would not vote to block a planned Republican filibuster of this
legislation.

The EFCA is a key legislative goal of the US labor movement, which
has seen its ranks dwindle over 50 years of successful corporate
lobbying efforts to whittle away labor law protections for the right to
organize. Where once nearly a third of all workers were in labor unions
back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, today, fewer than 9 percent of
workers in the private sector belong to unions, a figure that only
rises to about 12.5 percent when public employees are added in. This
despite the fact that 58 percent of Americans say that they would like
to have a union if they could get one.

Today, labor laws are violated with impunity to the point that one
lawyer from a prominent labor-busting law firm, faced with a unfair
labor practices filing and hearing by a union currently in its 10th
month of trying to negotiate a new contract with management, said to
union leaders, “Why are you bothering to file a ULP? You know there are
no real penalties for violating labor laws.”

The problem is that the National Labor Relations Act is so weak,
with no real penalties for management violations, and the Labor
Relations Boards that hear and rule on labor law violations are so
infested with pro-management members, that it is nearly impossible to
unionize new workplaces today. Corporate managements know that they can
fire union organizers at will with little consequence, that they can
stall off union elections for years and use the intervening time to
intimidate or replace pro-union employees, and that even if workers
ultimately get to hold a union election and do vote in favor of
unionization, they can safely stonewall negotiations for a first
contract.

The EFCA would address this problem in two ways. Firstly, it would
eliminate the cumbersome and easily delayed requirement for a secret
ballot election to establish a union. All union organizers would have
to do would be to collect cards of support for a union from a majority
of the workers at a workplace, and once those signatures were verified,
the company would have to recognize the union. Then the union and
management would get 90 days to negotiate an initial contract. If they
failed to reach an agreement, an initial contract would be established
through arbitration.

The House last year, under Democratic control, passed the EFCA,
only to have the bill die in the Senate, where Democrats held only a
one-vote edge. Republicans managed to prevent the measure from even
coming to a vote.

Last fall, the vast majority of Democrats running for reelection
said they backed EFCA, as did Barack Obama on the campaign trail. But
now that the new Congress is in session, support for the measure is
softening, under the pressure of a massive multi-million-dollar
lobbying campaign by such organizations as the US Chamber of Commerce
and the National Association of Manufacturers. A key player in the
campaign against EFCA has been Wal-Mart.

Sen. Specter, as a Republican facing a conservative challenger,
clearly felt he needed to oppose EFCA. But now Specter is claiming to
be a Democrat, in a state with significant union representation. Even
so, union activists report that when they went to his main office in
Pennsylvania to deliver tens of thousands of petitions calling on him
to support the reform measure, they were told by a staffer that their
hard work would just “go in the trash” when they left the office.

Specter’s continued opposition to EFCA stands as an insult and an
affront to all the workers in his home state, and the local labor
movement should withhold any support from him until he comes out
strongly and unambiguously for passage of EFCA.

President Obama too should be demanding that Specter promise to
support EFCA passage before he commits himself to backing the senator’s
re-election bid.

The same should be said for health reform. It’s not clear at this
point whether Specter even backs Obama’s health reform plan. In truth
though, particularly given the number of uninsured people living in
Pennsylvania, Specter should be pressed to back the single-payer bill
being put forward in the Senate by his colleague Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT). Specter, after all, just went through a tough battle with
cancer, which he seems to have beaten thanks to his extraordinarily
generous Congressionally offered and taxpayer funded health insurance
plan, and his access to the finest doctors and hospitals the country
has to offer. He is not in any position, ethically, at this point to
oppose making healthcare available to and affordable for every resident
of his state.

Right now, Specter is at his most vulnerable. Many of his long-time
Republican and independent backers are angry at him for quitting the
party, and at the same time, many Democrats, who have voted against him
for years as a Republican, are skeptical about his sudden change of
party registration.

Now is the time that President Obama should be demanding that
Specter back the key elements of his program. Now is also the time that
progressives and labor activists in Pennsylvania should be letting Sen.
Specter know that if he wants their support in 2010, he will have to
support our issues. That means full-throated backing for EFCA, and for
a single-payer health plan for America.

If Specter weasels on these key issues, progressives and labor
should withhold their backing and throw themselves behind a more
progressive candidate, should one choose to run against him for the
Democratic nomination next spring.
____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is
“The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Democrats.com Endorses Steve Harrison in NY13

Bob Fertik — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:06:45 -0400

Our first endorsed candidate of 2008, State Senator Regina Thomas (GA-12), gave incumbent Bush Democrat John Barrow a good scare in July's primary. Despite being outspent 40:1, Thomas won 24% of the vote. Better yet, Thomas promised to primary Barrow again in 2010, which might scare him into voting with Democrats instead of Republicans. You contributed over $25,000 to Thomas, and that money was very well spent!

Today we are endorsing our second candidate, Steve Harrison (NY-13). Why Harrison?

Steve Harrison is an "aggressive progressive" who supports all the issues we care about: immediate withdrawal from Iraq, no war with Iran, single-payer health care, stopping global warming, and protecting abortion rights. Compare Harrison and McMahon on the issues. Watch Harrison discuss these issues with voters.

Harrison is endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for NYC, Down With Tyranny, Stonewall Democrats, the National Organization for Women, and Gloria Steinem. Harrison earned the right to be the Democratic candidate in his 2006 campaign, when he won 43% against Republican incumbent Vito Fossella, the best showing ever for a Democrat in the district.

Unfortunately BushDemocrats like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel are supporting Harrison's opponent, Mike McMahon, because he will be another BushDemocrat. McMahon supported the invasion of Iraq and is so conservative that he ran on the Conservative Party line in past elections.

Also this race is a great opportunity to turn a red district blue. NY13, which covers Staten Island and part of Brooklyn, is the last red seat in blue New York City. The seat is open because Fossella was caught driving drunk to his second family in Virginia, much to the horror of his first family in Staten Island. Republicans couldn't find a decent candidate and got stuck with someone they hate. According to experts, this is the 3rd most likely district to go from red to blue.

The primary is just 15 days away, so we're trying to raise enough money for Harrison to mail his message to every primary voter in the district. He needs $16,000 today and we can reach that goal if 640 of you contribute $25 each. Can you help?
http://www.actblue.com/page/bushdemocrats

Adam Sullivan Endorses Steve Harrison for Congress

Bob Fertik — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:35:18 -0400

Impeachment supporter Adam Sullivan challenged Jerrold Nadler in the Democratic primary in NY08, but was thrown off the ballot on a technicality. Today he endorsed Steve Harrison for Congress in NY13 over Mike McMahon, Rahm Emanuel's chosen candidate.

Entrenched, well-financed (DLC-type) Democrats say they believe that moderate or right-leaning Democrats are the best option for winning an expanded Democratic majority in congress. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. National polling shows that the People are far to the left of Congress on nearly every issue, in every state, almost without exception. Run a centrist, you get tepid turn-out at the polls. Combine that with GOP attack ads, and you get Harold Ford losing in Tennessee. Why is the Democratic party afraid to back progressive candidates?

In other words: Why is Jerrold Nadler backing McMahon, instead of Steve Harrison, for the Democratic party nomination in the 13th CD of New York?

I found myself talking about Harrison's primary challenge, and getting angrier and angrier. The problem with Congress is not that they won't impeach. The problem with Congress is damned near everything! McMahon is on the record as being pro-Iraq war and anti-choice. This is the guy the NY Dems want to run to capture a long-held GOP congressional seat? I know it's a fairly conservative district, but try polling them on what they think of McMahon's stance on the war. I doubt they'll be sympathetic. But because the Dems want someone in the seat who'll help them consolidate their power for some invisible long-term goal that helps the Party and not the people, they'll run a candidate who has little name recognition and dubious Democratic credentials. Even if he wins, what have progressives gained?

Why would Nadler endorse McMahon? Because he'll play ball, and because he seems to be able to raise money. Old-style, ugly politics-as-usual. Thanks, Jerry. Thanks a lot. What a progressive you are.

When I went to a Harrison fundraiser in June, I heard him speak about his commitment to working for people instead of for institutions. (Institutions like the Democratic Party, for instance!) It struck me that that was what we were doing, with our campaign. The people want this president held accountable, but the institutions which hold and consolidate power--corporations, political parties, etc.--feel that the cost was too high. The cost to THEM, mind you. The cost to the people and to the principles on which our nation was founded are not considered.

We need Harrison in Congress, and more like him. If the House and Senate are to do the People's business, then the seats must be occupied by true representatives and statesmen. If you feel that you have time and energy to work on a primary campaign this year, I would suggest this one. I have met Steve: he is intelligent, well-spoken, quick-witted and generous, in the broadest sense. Plus he is committed enough to be running for the second time: in 2006 he received 43% in the general. Against a then-very-popular incumbent, Vito Fosella, this is no small potatoes.

Some of you will prefer to pick other battles, I'm sure. Harrison's is not an impeachment fight like ours was. But as we take small steps toward a real and lasting progressive democracy, we will be aided by having true progressives in Washington, and representing New York. Also, this is one more way to show Jerry that he cannot take his constituents for granted. If McMahon loses in the primary, it will be largely because of New Yorkers in districts like Nadler's and Moloney's.

Food for thought, anyway. Feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree, and also what else you plan to do in these next crucial months. Frankly, I miss working more closely with all of you, and look forward to hearing about what you're doing.

Power to the People,
Adam

AK00: Diane Benson Takes On Corrupt Republicans and Democrats

Bob Fertik — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:54:57 -0400

Guest blogged by Phil Munger:

In Alaska, the state tied most closely to corruption, two credible candidates have emerged to challenge the structural problems that led to so much unbridled fraud and naked venality. On the Right, current Governor Sarah Palin emerged two years ago, to challenge big oil's longtime dominance of the state's executive branch. On the Left, Diane Benson emerged around the same time to challenge both Alaska GOP Rep. Don Young for his seat in the U.S. Congress, and her own party, the Alaska Democrats.

Shortly after her U.S. Army Ranger son was grievously injured outside Baghdad in late 2005, Diane Benson discovered that the Alaska Democrats didn't contemplate putting up a credible challenge to Alaska Rep. Don Young in the 2006 race. After watching her son's recovery at or near Walter Reed Army Medical Center, near Young's DC office, seeing the neglect suffered by our wounded warriors, and experiencing Young's indifference to Alaska's wounded, Benson entered the race.

Defeating Alaska's most notable muckraker, Ray Metcalfe, in the 2006 primary, Benson crafted a grassroots general campaign that forced Young to make more public campaign appearances than any year since 1992. Benson attacked Young fearlessly, bringing to light Young's many contacts with and favors to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. She forced Young into more debates than he had ever done before. Outspent almost ten to one by Young, Benson garnered about 41% of the 2006 vote. All this before many of the more recent revelations about Young came to light. It was by far the closest threat Young had endured since 1992.

Alaska's Democratic Party gave Benson's 2006 campaign the least help possible, selling her outdated voter information at a high price, and only giving her about $10,000 so late in the campaign it made little or no difference. The closeness of her run to Young was a wake-up call to political opportunists, though.

The Chairman of the Alaska Democrats in 2006, Jake Metcalfe, who had deferred to DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel's advice then not to support Benson, resigned his chair in early August 2006, and filed for the House seat from Washington, DC, the next day. Benson had already filed for the 2008 race in late spring. In late fall, ex-Alaska state legislator, Ethan Berkowitz, filed for the seat.

Jake Metcalfe's campaign spun out in early May. Ethan Berkowitz's campaign has been very well funded, especially by a long list of DINOs, lobbyists, and such. Diane Benson's campaign has attracted the support of progressive organizations like the National Women's Political Caucus (and its Alaska chapter), the National Organization of Women, 21st Century Democrats, former Senator Max Cleland, and Emily's List. Why?

Diane Benson's platform is the most progressive of any major candidate in Alaska history. She seeks a comprehensive solution to the medical care crisis that would mandate care for everyone, as it strives toward a single payer model. Her campaign platform is the only one in Alaska to address the issue of poverty, a serious problem in parts of the state, both urban and rural.

Her approach toward education not only directly seeks to immediately dismantle No Child Left Behind, but hopes to revolutionize rural education and vocational education, and calls for long-term partnerships on educating comprehensively in the realm of renewable energy technologies, research and resources. She has stated that "Alaska could be Iceland on steroids!"

On Veterans' issues, on the wars, and on American foreign affairs and diplomacy, Diane Benson is not only quite progressive, her plans and platform are detailed, rational. She wants a safe, quickly staged withdrawal from Iraq, a sane effort in Afghanistan, and a far less confrontational American military stance, but one based upon real strength.

On women's issues, Diane Benson is one of the most dynamic candidates running for the U.S. House in the country. Her speech to the 2008 Alaska Democratic Party Convention was one of the most important speeches on women's issues in Alaska history. Her appearances at several candidate forums alongside the other primary challenger, Ethan Berkowitz, have shown her to be formidable, sometimes easily overshadowing Ethan Berkowitz in her knowledge and pragmatic solutions on issues and to problems. As the list of questionable contributors to Berkowitz's campaign seems to grow daily (see companion piece at DownWithTyranny), and as more GOP-tied crooks are indicted almost daily in Alaska, Diane Benson's strong commitment to campaign finance reform is gaining traction.

Here are some hallmarks of her 2006 and 2008 campaigns:

Diane Benson was the first to publicly detail the depth and breadth of Don Young's ties to Jack Abramoff.
Diane Benson was the first to publicly demand an investigation into Rep. Don Young's unconstitutional changes to the 2005 Omnibus Transportation Bill (Coconut Road).
Diane Benson was the first candidate in the USA to address the disparity in VA care between rural Native Americans and other rural Veterans.
Diane Benson, after publication of an article in the Anchorage Daily News, detailing Benson's long-time advocacy for and volunteer work with victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, turned the disclosure around, giving her campaign another area upon which to focus. Alaska's sexual violence against women is by far the worst in the USA, against Native Alaskan women, even worse. And it isn't getting better, but worse. Benson wants to fight for these women.
Diane Benson was the first 2008 Alaska candidate to openly endorse the Alaskans for Clean Elections ballot initiative.
Diane Benson has refused contributions from lobbyists and PACs which include lobbyists. As Howie Klein writes, they've found another candidate - Ethan Berkowitz - more than willing to take every dime they'll send him.
Diane Benson, time and time again, has held developers and potential developers to a high standard of accountability, questioning some proposals in greater detail than even the state's government itself.
Diane Benson, in her fight against the corrupt paradigm represented by Don Young, and in her present struggle against the old school DINO establishment, has shown herself to be one of the most noteworthy candidates in the United States. Just last week, The Nation's editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, recognized this in a detailed profile of the candidate.

Please join us in supporting Diane Benson here. The Alaska Democratic Party Primary is Tuesday, August 26.

DCCC Opposes Progressives in Upcoming Primaries

Bob Fertik — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:25:50 -0400

In the next few weeks, we'll have the final round of Democcratic primaries for Congress. And Howie Klein is rightfully outraged that the DCCC is endorsing rank mediocrities instead of talented progressives, all of whom we endorsed on our Replace Bush Democrats Actblue page.

AK00: Ethan Berkowitz over Diane Benson
AZ01: Ann Kirkpatrick over Howard Shanker
FL24: Suzanne Kosmas over Clint Curtis
NY13: Michael McMahon over Steve Harrison

[When] Chris Van Hollen first took over the chair of the DCCC from Stalinist Rahm Emanuel he promised-- in accord with democratic norms and Party rules-- to allow hotly contested primaries to play themselves out and not take sides the way Emanuel had done. Emanuel, you may recall, backed reactionary Establishment candidates in tough primaries against dozens of progressive and grassroots Democrats. In some cases his shills won and we wound up with pseudo-Democrats who vote with the GOP, like Tim Mahoney in Florida, or with a victorious Republican, like Vern Buchanan, who was able to beat a weak, vacillating me-too-Democratic who stood for nothing. In other cases the grassroots beat back Emanuel's anti-democratic strategy and that is why we now have progressives in Congress like John Hall (D-NY), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), and Jerry McNerney (D-CA). Van Hollen promised to not follow the Stalinist path Emanuel had lain out. But he has.

4 of the 5 endorsed candidates still contesting primaries [see list above] are conservative, Establishment hacks fighting progressives. The DCCC's strategy of funneling money and the sense of inevitability into the candidacies of the conservatives makes it extremely difficult for the grassroots candidates to tap into traditional sources of Democratic funding. Even unions-- and not just notorious Democratic Party lap dogs like AFSCME-- often succumb to DCCC pressure to support candidates whose election is not in the best interest of progressive goals.

Recently I saw Ann Kirkpatrick speak at a Red to Blue event. My heart sank. With an outstanding, brilliant and articulate candidate like Howard Shanker in the race, the DCCC is backing a card board cutout of a candidate who stands for nothing whatsoever and is as inspiring as a potato. Better than the neo-fascist Republican running in AZ-01 (Sydney Hay)? Yes, but a C is always better than an F. What about going for an A+? Standing in front of an audience of Democrats Kirkpatrick was unable to make the case of why anyone should even bother to go out and vote. The Republican brand is so damaged in AZ-01, after the indictment of Congressman Rick Renzi, that it will be hard for the Democrats to lose the election. But if anyone can do it, it is Ann Kirkpatrick. The primary is on September 2.

Michael McMahon is so reactionary that his races for New York City Council have been endorsed by the Conservative Party-- which is to the right of the Republican Party. The Staten Island Conservative Party was about to endorse him for Congress-- they love his pro-war approach to Iraq-- when the state party jumped in and forced them to toe the line and endorse whichever Republican was the nominee that particular week. Steve Harrison is a far better choice and an actual progressive. It is unconscionable for the DCCC to try to swing the primary to someone who, of he is elected, will oppose Democratic Party positions for as long as he's in Congress. The primary is on September 9.

Similarly, In Florida's 24th CD Clint Curtis is the grassroots candidate and the DCCC shill, Suzanne Kosmas, is just some rich person who promises to be easily led around by the nose. In Alaska Ethan Berkowitz is the Rahm Emanuel establishment candidate who is running against a grassroots independent-minded progressive, Diane Benson.

If you're outraged that the DCCC is trying to keep progressives out of Congress, please support the progressives on our Replace Bush Democrats Actblue page.

Primary Challenge Scares Nadler into Considering Impeachment

Bob Fertik — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:08:13 -0400

At Friday's impeachment hearing, Rep. Jerrold Nadler took impeachment a lot more seriously than he has until now. And there's a good reason - he escaped a primary challenge by the skin of his teeth.

Because of New York's strict ballot access laws, Nadler's pro-impeachment constituents had to organize a massive petition-gathering effort. Unfortunately candidate Adam Sullivan was tripped up by those strict laws, but Nadler seems to have gotten the message!

Sullivan Ends Primary Bid Against Nadler, Vows to Fight on Over Impeachment

Adam Sullivan announced Tuesday that he will no longer actively seek to unseat Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) in the September Democratic primary, but he will continue his fight to persuade Nadler and the Congress to initiate impeachment hearings against the Bush Administration.

In a press conference held outside the U.S. Post Office in Manhattan, Sullivan explained that he did not mention to his campaign staff that he had changed his enrollment from unaffiliated to Democrat at the start of the campaign, incorrectly assuming that his change of enrollment would be current at the time his petitions were filed. Members of his campaign assumed that he was a properly enrolled Democrat. According to New York state election law, Sullivan would have had to have changed his enrollment by October 12, 2007 to run in this year’s primary. “I regret if I have let down my supporters but given the rules I cannot in good faith continue this campaign through to the primary,” Sullivan said.

At the same time, Sullivan vowed to fight on over the issue that prompted him to run—impeachment. Of Nadler, he said, “His outright contempt for the process of impeachment makes him unfit to serve as Chairman of the [House Judiciary Committee] Subcommittee on the Constitution. His abandonment of the Constitution in its hour of greatest need—when he has sworn an Oath of Office eight times to protect and defend it, when he could use his Chairmanship to draw his district’s and perhaps the nation’s attention to impeachment proceedings . . . makes Representative Nadler complicit in our nation’s current suffering and the assaults on our freedoms.”

As for next steps, Sullivan stated “I will continue to seek other avenues, other ways to press my congressman on this issue. I will continue to support those in government who are truly progressive, who are committed to preserving the living Constitution, and who truly represent their constituents. With this in mind, I and others are making arrangements to travel to the nation’s capital on Friday, where we will assemble to show our support for Congressman Kucinich as he and others testify before the full House Judiciary Committee on the matter of the illegal war in Iraq and other related abuses of Executive Power.”

Read Adam Sullivan's July 22 Statement to the Press

Read a Chronology of Nadler's Constituents Urging Him to Initiate Impeachment Hearings

Congratulations to everyone who helped Adam Sullivan and keep up the great work!

OK District 1 Congressional Race - www.ManleyforCongress.com

LeftDemocrat — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:54:47 -0400

Mark has a master list of Dems who vote in primaries, for his
district, from Democratic HQ: this will target our efforts and make
sure we're not wasting our time, as we pound the pavement on behalf of
our progressive candidate for U.S. Congress, in our canvassing efforts
this week.

This is a grassroots campaign and we need you to step up. Call the
candidate 437-0129 or 406-9514 to volunteer your time and enthusiasm.

A radio interview online for Mark is also scheduled for Wednesday afternoon

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/epradio

There's a call in segment of the 30-minute programme (2:30 to 3:30
PM). The call in number will be 718-508-9410 on Wednesday afternoon.

Feel free to call in on the Wed aft and ask Mark some questions live on radio!

P.S Please forward this message to anyone you know who may be interested in supporting Manley for Congress.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Pre-Primary Call for Volunteers

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:42:57 -0700 (PDT)

From: Mark Manley <mwmanle1>

The election primary vote is coming up in only a few days. I had a
nice chat with Randy Kriebel from the Tulsa World this morning and I
think we will see a nice article from that corner in a few days.

We have been seeing a bit more activity from the opposition so to
counter I have ordered 100 more yard signs and come up ( thank you
Judy!) with a nice new bright-yellow flier on card stock. We very much
need help to distribute these! We have around 150 yard signs out but
there are few to be seen in the commute around Tulsa. We need to put
more up along the roadsides. The fliers could go under car windshields
in almost any parking lot. We also have walking lists of Democrats who
always vote in the primaries if anyone wants to pair up and knock on
doors with fliers. I will have the extra signs Tuesday ( tomorrow)
early afternoon. Fliers are ready now. Please respond to this email or
call at 437-0129 or 406-9514 if you can spend a bit of time in the next
week getting our campaign message out!

Thanks for all your help!!!

Mark Manley

http://www.manleyforcongress.com

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke