CanadianKid
New member
Netroots take aim at incumbent Democrats in February primaries
By Walter Alarkon
Posted: 01/29/08 12:01 AM [ET]
Taking a page from their 2006 effort against Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), left-wing bloggers are setting their sights on two House Democrats they view as too cozy with Republicans: Albert Wynn (Md.) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.).
Both are facing primary opponents backed by substantial netroots support from the left, amid charges by Matt Stoller and other netroots bloggers that they are not liberal enough. A year and a half ago, those bloggers helped Ned Lamont defeat Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate Democratic primary.
Stoller said that heavily blue districts, like Wynn’s and Lipinski’s, deserve congressmen who are closer to the Democratic base on issues like withdrawing from Iraq. And he takes umbrage that Democratic leaders, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have endorsed Wynn and other centrist Democrats.
“It is unbelievably pathetic that a sensible progressive in Congress will not actually challenge the people blocking their legislation,” Stoller told The Hill. “It’s just remarkable and sad.”
To that end, Stoller’s Open Left, the Swing State Project and DailyKos have put up their own slate of Democratic candidates, which they call Blue Majority. They have urged their readers to donate to them on ActBlue.com, which accepts online donations for candidates.
Mark Pera and Donna Edwards are the two BlueMajority candidates challenging incumbents from their own party. Pera, who will face Lipinski on Feb. 5, charges that Lipinski is too conservative.
“On many issues, he’s voted with George Bush and the Republicans,” he said. “This is a very Democratic district. It deserves someone who reflects their views.”
Like many of his netroots supporters, Pera does not believe there is any bipartisan consensus to end the Iraq war — not “when John McCain is running around saying we’re going to be in Iraq for 100 years.”
He has also gone after Lipinski for his opposition to federal funding for stem cell research; his support for a bill last summer that granted the government sweeping powers over warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.; and his anti-abortion rights positions. He also feels that Lipinski has relied too much on lobbyists, just like his father, Bill, who held the seat before him.
“We’re not arguing over nuance,” said Pera, a former assistant county attorney. “We’re arguing over core issues that are important to Democrats.”
Lipinski’s campaign has dismissed those concerns and says that he is focused on issues that affect voters.
“He’s an economic populist who has fought for middle-class families,” said Matthew Mayer, a Lipinski spokesman.
Voters in his southwest Chicago district care about alleviating traffic congestion and economic issues more than they do about “insider stuff” like the influence of lobbyists, Mayer said.
Meanwhile, in Maryland’s 4th district, Edwards is challenging Wynn on Feb. 12 for the second straight cycle. As in 2006, she has criticized Wynn for siding with Republicans on key issues, including the 2002 Iraq war authorization vote and President Bush’s attempt to repeal the estate tax. She has credited her populist message with drawing support from Democratic backers via the Internet.
“What has energized them is the fact that I care about public interests and fought for the public interest my entire career, and fought against [GOP-friendly] industries,” said Edwards, an attorney and executive director for nonprofit groups working to end domestic abuse, enact campaign finance reform and support living-wage bills.
Her campaign points out that of the $233,265 raised, all but $2,100 has come from individual donations. Wynn has raised $592,602, nearly half from political action committees (PACs). Edwards has noted that energy firms’ PACs have given Wynn $99,500, something that she says is a function of his membership on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Wynn’s campaign, however, said his record has been mischaracterized on blogs. Wynn supported portions of the 2005 energy bill, which was panned by Edwards and many Democrats, because it included more than $5 billion to help low-income households cope with rising energy costs, said Lori Sherwood, Wynn’s campaign manager.
Wynn has also repudiated his vote for the Iraq war, supported efforts to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney and maintained 100 percent ratings from pro-abortion rights groups, added Sherwood.
Sherwood challenged a report claiming that the congressman changed his tune on Iraq because of Edwards’s challenge two years ago. In fact, she said, Wynn apologized for his war vote in 2004 and joined the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House in 2005.
“It’s a misnomer to say he’s not Democratic enough,” she said.
To be sure, Lipinski and Wynn are not the only Democrats who have voted for the war, worked with Republicans or taken PAC money. Wynn’s PAC haul pales in comparison to that of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who has received $1.2 million from PACs, including thousands from the financial, healthcare and energy industries.
When asked why the netroots do not go after every moderate or conservative Blue Dog Democrat, Stoller said that the movement is candidate-driven, and that “we support good candidates who emerge to challenge incumbents.”
But for the netroots’ strategy to work, their candidates must win, said Laura Clawson, DailyKos contributing editor. To the disappointment of Clawson and bloggers, Lamont could not defeat Lieberman in a general election — and upon reelection, the senator has continued voting for continued military involvement in Iraq.
“If you don’t win, some of the people stop getting scared and don’t change how they act,” she said.
By Walter Alarkon
Posted: 01/29/08 12:01 AM [ET]
Taking a page from their 2006 effort against Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), left-wing bloggers are setting their sights on two House Democrats they view as too cozy with Republicans: Albert Wynn (Md.) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.).
Both are facing primary opponents backed by substantial netroots support from the left, amid charges by Matt Stoller and other netroots bloggers that they are not liberal enough. A year and a half ago, those bloggers helped Ned Lamont defeat Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate Democratic primary.
Stoller said that heavily blue districts, like Wynn’s and Lipinski’s, deserve congressmen who are closer to the Democratic base on issues like withdrawing from Iraq. And he takes umbrage that Democratic leaders, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have endorsed Wynn and other centrist Democrats.
“It is unbelievably pathetic that a sensible progressive in Congress will not actually challenge the people blocking their legislation,” Stoller told The Hill. “It’s just remarkable and sad.”
To that end, Stoller’s Open Left, the Swing State Project and DailyKos have put up their own slate of Democratic candidates, which they call Blue Majority. They have urged their readers to donate to them on ActBlue.com, which accepts online donations for candidates.
Mark Pera and Donna Edwards are the two BlueMajority candidates challenging incumbents from their own party. Pera, who will face Lipinski on Feb. 5, charges that Lipinski is too conservative.
“On many issues, he’s voted with George Bush and the Republicans,” he said. “This is a very Democratic district. It deserves someone who reflects their views.”
Like many of his netroots supporters, Pera does not believe there is any bipartisan consensus to end the Iraq war — not “when John McCain is running around saying we’re going to be in Iraq for 100 years.”
He has also gone after Lipinski for his opposition to federal funding for stem cell research; his support for a bill last summer that granted the government sweeping powers over warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.; and his anti-abortion rights positions. He also feels that Lipinski has relied too much on lobbyists, just like his father, Bill, who held the seat before him.
“We’re not arguing over nuance,” said Pera, a former assistant county attorney. “We’re arguing over core issues that are important to Democrats.”
Lipinski’s campaign has dismissed those concerns and says that he is focused on issues that affect voters.
“He’s an economic populist who has fought for middle-class families,” said Matthew Mayer, a Lipinski spokesman.
Voters in his southwest Chicago district care about alleviating traffic congestion and economic issues more than they do about “insider stuff” like the influence of lobbyists, Mayer said.
Meanwhile, in Maryland’s 4th district, Edwards is challenging Wynn on Feb. 12 for the second straight cycle. As in 2006, she has criticized Wynn for siding with Republicans on key issues, including the 2002 Iraq war authorization vote and President Bush’s attempt to repeal the estate tax. She has credited her populist message with drawing support from Democratic backers via the Internet.
“What has energized them is the fact that I care about public interests and fought for the public interest my entire career, and fought against [GOP-friendly] industries,” said Edwards, an attorney and executive director for nonprofit groups working to end domestic abuse, enact campaign finance reform and support living-wage bills.
Her campaign points out that of the $233,265 raised, all but $2,100 has come from individual donations. Wynn has raised $592,602, nearly half from political action committees (PACs). Edwards has noted that energy firms’ PACs have given Wynn $99,500, something that she says is a function of his membership on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Wynn’s campaign, however, said his record has been mischaracterized on blogs. Wynn supported portions of the 2005 energy bill, which was panned by Edwards and many Democrats, because it included more than $5 billion to help low-income households cope with rising energy costs, said Lori Sherwood, Wynn’s campaign manager.
Wynn has also repudiated his vote for the Iraq war, supported efforts to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney and maintained 100 percent ratings from pro-abortion rights groups, added Sherwood.
Sherwood challenged a report claiming that the congressman changed his tune on Iraq because of Edwards’s challenge two years ago. In fact, she said, Wynn apologized for his war vote in 2004 and joined the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House in 2005.
“It’s a misnomer to say he’s not Democratic enough,” she said.
To be sure, Lipinski and Wynn are not the only Democrats who have voted for the war, worked with Republicans or taken PAC money. Wynn’s PAC haul pales in comparison to that of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who has received $1.2 million from PACs, including thousands from the financial, healthcare and energy industries.
When asked why the netroots do not go after every moderate or conservative Blue Dog Democrat, Stoller said that the movement is candidate-driven, and that “we support good candidates who emerge to challenge incumbents.”
But for the netroots’ strategy to work, their candidates must win, said Laura Clawson, DailyKos contributing editor. To the disappointment of Clawson and bloggers, Lamont could not defeat Lieberman in a general election — and upon reelection, the senator has continued voting for continued military involvement in Iraq.
“If you don’t win, some of the people stop getting scared and don’t change how they act,” she said.