Old Corporate Democrats Never Die

They just go to K Street.

Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) is expected to announce Thursday afternoon that he will leave the House in June to join a Washington, D.C., law firm, according to Democratic sources.

Wynn was defeated in February in his bid for a ninth term when he lost the Democratic primary to challenger Donna Edwards.

They can all go to K Street for all I care, and spend their time lobbying actual Democrats who beat them out for their seats. People like Donna Edwards.

A Nice Birthday Present?

Voters in Maryland appear to be rejecting a corporate Bush Dog Democrat:

Update--Huge night for progressive movement: With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for (Donna) Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age.

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the whole gang fought hard to keep Al Wynn in power. Donna Edwards had nobody but the people. And the people were enough.

Barack Obama's going to wake up one day and figure out that the movement he's inspired is a whole lot more progressive than he is, and if he wants to stay out in front of it he had better implement a progressive agenda.

This is a small step, ultimately, but the Donna Edwards victory, if it happens, would be a powerful reminder that the progressive movement is present, growing, and ready. I hope we can pull it off.

UPDATE: It's official. What a great victory. Edwards will not only be a Congresswoman whose vote we can count on, but a real progressive leader in the House. And Al Wynn will be just another lobbyist.

Don't mess with the progressive movement.

MD-04: One Day For A Better Democrat

The Washington Post actually endorsed Donna Edwards this weekend, and it's a good article:

For her part, though, Ms. Edwards, a lawyer and foundation executive, has been an effective, energetic advocate for a range of liberal causes -- the environment, higher minimum wages, stemming domestic violence, campaign finance reform. As a community organizer, she has been an unstinting voice for improving mass-transit options, although sometimes at the expense of building roads that the 4th District badly needs. Even in cases where she clashed with local developers, however, she won their respect as a sensible and no-nonsense adversary. Poised, persistent and principled, she would make a fine representative for the 4th District.

Mr. Wynn has long touted what he regards as a pragmatic ability to work across partisan lines. We're all for bipartisanship, but in Mr. Wynn's case, too often his stances have been unthinking and out of step with his district's interests. His vote to scrap the estate tax suggested he was indifferent to his own middle-class constituents. By flip-flopping on fuel-efficiency standards and opposing campaign finance reforms, he showed his contempt for clean air and clean government. And he seems scarcely aware of the import of his votes to permit federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case and to support a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning: granting federal courts a license to meddle in private affairs and cramping free speech.

These may be the votes that pissed me off more than any in the Bush era: the estate tax, the energy bill, the Schiavo vote, flag-burning, and you can add the Iraq war and the bankruptcy bill. Wynn is a horrible Democrat, particularly in a district which is so reliably liberal. He relies on low-information voters, and tomorrow he's relying on a bunch of new Obama voters that know nothing about him and will just pull the lever for the incumbent. Also, there are a lot of other candidates in the race to splinter the vote and keep Wynn going.

Edwards almost beat Wynn two years ago. I really hope she can pull it off.

QOTD

Matt Stoller:

Hoyer had signs up outside, and he loves the Maryland flag, though it made him look a bit like the Congressman from Medieval Times.

Get that man a writing job!

The context of this is the Donna Edwards-Al Wynn race in MD-04, which we can win. I know Mark Pera got trounced last night, and it turns out that John Laesch narrowly lost to Bill Foster, although provisional and overseas ballots could change that. But Donna Edwards, who came close last time, is the best opportunity for a progressive to beat an incumbent Bush Dog Democrat.

Primary Watch: Donna Edwards, Mark Pera

The IL-03 election is just a day away, and Dan Lipinski has decided to tag Mark Pera supporters as a bunch of far-left socialists. They papered the Southwest Side of Chicago with these flyers calling Pera supporters "left-wing extremists" from "San Francisco and Hollywood" (guilty, but I've also lived in Chicago), who are "political punks" that snicker at the military and old people. No, really:



This is a Democratic primary, mind you.

Meanwhile, Donna Edwards outraised Al Wynn in the 4th quarter of 2007, and has more cash on hand as well as support from independent groups like SEIU and the League of Conservation Voters.

If we get just one of these two races, it'll be a political shock to the system. I think we can get both, because progressives and Democrats are so disappointed in this Congress and these incumbents.

Go Mark and Donna!

The Opportunity Of The February Primaries

It's actually in two Democratic primaries against incumbents, in Illinois and Maryland. I've been talking a lot about them, but that's because it's the area in which the progressive movement has the most ability to succeed and really change direction in Washington.

In IL-03, removing Dan Lipinski and replacing him with progressive Mark Pera is quite important.

But how do you send a signal when the other side is even worse? You take out some of the worst of your own party in the primaries. Dan Lipinski came to his office through an act of fraud when the elder Lipinski withdrew and made sure there’d be no competition by sticking a plant on the Republican side of the ballot. He remains in that seat with the blessing of the supposedly tough on corruption Chicago Tribune that dismisses the rank corruption that got him in office and has kept him in office as a number of interlocking State and Federal PACs and Campaign Committees throw money around to keep control of the 23rd Ward and the 3rd Congressional District. Federal employees work for these State PACs and Campaign committees while earning a good living on the tax payer dime. State PACs run by a registered lobbyist.

Oh, and he’s horrible on gay rights, immigrant rights, contraception and abortion, and civil rights.

And he’s in a safe Democratic seat where the primary will determine the ultimate victor. He’s the perfect target: corrupt and conservative.

Mark Pera, on the other hand, got in a race that looked nearly impossible and is oh so close to pulling it off. Help him do it.

Here's Mark Pera on breaking the special interest vice grip.



Donate here.

In MD-04, Donna Edwards is a real deal progressive with excellent policy credentials going against blowhard Al Wynn, who's base appears to be telecom and energy lobbyists. He's now whining that his opponent is doing too well with fundraising, a clear tactic to muddy the waters and create controversy where none exists in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

The campaign manager for Rep. Albert R. Wynn has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission alleging fundraising improprieties by Donna Edwards, his chief rival in next month's Democratic primary.

The Wynn campaign gave reporters copies of a 34-count complaint today alleging illegal collaboration between Edwards and several of the organizations supporting her in the Fourth District contest.

"There seems to be a vast, dare I say, left-wing conspiracy designed to circumvent campaign finance laws," Wynn told reporters during a conference call. "Within this scheme, her supporters are coordinating efforts to exceed fundraising limits and engaging in illegal campaign activities." [...]

An attorney with the independent Campaign Legal Center in Washington who was asked by The Sun to review the complaint said it didn't appear to contain any facts that would constitute illegal collaboration.

"Interestingly, and unlike most complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission, there's not a single provision of federal campaign finance law directly cited in the complaint," attorney Paul Ryan said. "Several of the allegations, in my view, make clear the complainant doesn't really have a clear understanding of what constitutes coordination under federal law."

You can help Donna Edwards here.

This is the opportunity. This is where we must focus our energies.

More And Better Democrats

Two very big Congressional primaries on the Democratic side are happening in the next few weeks, and the progressive movement should arguably be more concerned with them than the Presidential primary. The leverage that progressives can have in setting the national agenda is directly tied to their ability to punish those wayward Democrats who undermine core values and principles through their votes and their behavior.

In MD-04, Rep. Al Wynn is holding one corporate fundraiser after another in an effort to keep his seat against grassroots progressive Donna Edwards. The latest includes practically every telecom and cable interest in America, at a time when they're all trying to get amnesty for breaking the law and spying on American citizens. Earlier he held one for energy lobbyists. Wynn's constituency is clearly the kind of powerful interests that have attempted to buy government over the last couple decades. Donna Edwards represents a step back from the brink.

In IL-03, Mark Pera is challenging Bush Dog Dan Lipinski, and Pera schooled Lipinski in a recent debate.

Speaking on the issue of energy and the environment, Pera said he would never have voted for the 2005 Bush energy bills, which gave big oil and energy companies $22 billion in tax breaks and allowed for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary Lipinski said he voted against drilling in ANWR and has resisted pressure from the Bush Administration to pass legislation that included tax breaks for big oil.

Pera said Lipinski had misrepresented his record to the voting public.

"I can't believe what I am hearing," Pera said. "Congressman Lipinski voted to open up [ANWR] for drilling. Congressman Lipinski voted for $8 billion in tax cuts for big oil. Now that he has a challenger like me, he's having an election year conversion."

Lipinski later admitted to voting twice in 2005 for the Bush energy bill (HR 6) in 2005, calling both votes a "tough choice."

The Pera-Lipinski primary is February 5. The Wynn-Edwards race is February 12. Both are crucial to the furthering of the progressive movement. You can donate to both of them at Blue America.

Ending The Bush Dog Majority

DiFi's paean to the guy who won't say waterboarding is torture is one of the more depressing things I have read as a Democrat. The worst part is clearly this dross:

I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White House to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress.

How could oversight consisting of rubber-stamping a nominee because he's "not as bad as Alberto Gonzales," which is like saying "he's not as bad an actor as Mr. T," be construed in ANY way as effective? Who cares if there's a confirmation hearing if the revelations that come out of them are dismissed?

Feinstein then says that waterboarding is already banned by the military under the Army Field Manual, and the Congress should quickly pass a bill putting non-military interrogation under the Field Manual too, and then that will be that. First of all, waterboarding already violates international law and at least three domestic laws, no matter what agency is carrying it out. And of course, Feinstein has no understanding of basic Constitutional measures like the veto, nor any hope of internalizing basic political strategy. (The excerpt below refers to a Fred Hiatt editorial that advocates the same thing as DiFi. In fact, I'm not convinced that Fred Hiatt and DiFi aren't the same person.)

That's not to say it would not also be a good thing to enact the Biden bill, which would specifically require all United States personnel, including the CIA, to use only interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual. That would be yet another step that would help prevent the Bush Administration from violating the current bans on torture by doing things such as implausibly characterizing its torture as "not torture."

HOWEVER . . .

1. Whether or not the Biden bill ever becomes law, it remains the case that the torture is, in fact, unlawful -- and that the Senate and the Congress have voted repeatedly for actual laws and treaties (the supreme Law of the Land) that say so.

and,

2. Just in case the Washington Post has forgotten about yet another legal text, it's worth reminding Fred Hiatt that although the Senate's vote to confirm Judge Mukasey would effectively make him the Attorney General, the Senate does not have the power to "pass" the Biden bill. That would require President Bush's signature, as well (or supermajority votes of both chambers) -- and President Bush won't sign such a bill, precisely because he wants to be able to keep violating the longstanding legal prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment.

What the Post might have written that might have made some sense: "Because Judge Mukasey and the Bush Administration do not seem to understand that the techniques they refuse to disclaim are torture and cruel treatment that are already unlawful several times over, the Senate should tell President Bush that it will confirm Judge Mukasey if and only if -- and after -- the President signs the Biden bill."

It's called leverage, and it doesn't take a wizard to see its possibilities. But far too many Democrats are so consumed by fear that the part of their brain that thinks strategically has shut down. Well, that's partly true. It's either that or they really aren't interested in Democratic Party principles, just in using the voter lists. This has been made clear by Bush Dogs' unwillingness to pay their DCCC dues because one Democrat, who holds no official position within the party leadership, had the temerity to suggest that they maybe should be primaried if they hold no respect for their constituents or the party message. This is what's killing the party right now, although not nearly in the same numbers as it has the Republicans. We need a party willing to fight special interests and understand their role in opposing the President, not one that gets fat off special interest money and overrides Congressional rules to stab progressives in the back.

Former Colorado parks director Lyle Laverty's confirmation to a top post in the U.S. Interior Department was pushed through the Senate on Monday while a member blocking the vote was home tending to his wife and newborn twins.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., for seven months had opposed Laverty's confirmation as assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, demanding that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne address ethical lapses within the department.

On Friday, Wyden's wife gave birth to twins, and the senator was in Oregon on paternity leave Monday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scheduled the vote.

"I am fuming," said Scott Silver, co-founder of Wild Wilderness, an Oregon forest advocacy group. "If an effort was made to go around Wyden, knowing that he was with his wife in the hospital just becoming a father of twins, that is truly shameful."

Right now progressives are either shut out or outvoted in the leadership, and are undermined in the rank and file by Bush Dogs and nervous Nellies. We need aggressive challenges to those who refuse to stand up for Democratic values or oppose Bush. We also need respected progressives to step up and join the fray; I'm glad to see Tom Udall reconsidering the Senate race in New Mexico, with the blessing of the DSCC. But those opportunities are rare. What's more common is Bush Dogs in reliably Democratic seats where proud progressives like Donna Edwards should be sitting. Nancy Pelosi actually held a fundraiser for her opponent in MD-04, corrupt incumbent Al Wynn. But the "counter-fundraiser" online raised as much money. And EMILY'S List endorsed Edwards, along with Progressive Maryland, a great state-based grassroots organization. The only way to rescue me from my despair over these sniveling cowards that pass for our Democratic majority is the hope that people like Donna Edwards can start chipping away at them, and in some way restore the party inch by inch. It's going to be a long road.

Breaking The Establishment Grip

This week, we learned that the Democratic leadership considers their strongest base of supporters nothing more than pests.

Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.

"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

In other words, don't question your leaders.

The leaders also ran to the New York Times to plead their case, which they happily lapped up as it plays into a narrative of Dems divided that the other side has been pushing since approximately 1856. They call Pelosi's style "responsible leadership." There's nothing responsible with giving the President a blank check for war and carte blanche to spy on Americans.

I've actually been more forgiving than most bloggers about what the Congress has done, there's actually an impressive list of accomplishments on lobbying reform, education, the minimum wage, and instituting the 9/11 Commission recommendations. But the tone, the whole "shut up and respect your elders" as a means to silence citizens who the Congress is supposed to be working for, is beyond the pale. And then there's this.

District 4 spans Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. U.S. Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Dist. 4) is running for his ninth term in the Feb. 12 primary and is also facing off against Fort Washington attorney Donna Edwards, who lost to Wynn by just three points last year [...]

Meanwhile, Wynn campaign manager Lori Sherwood said Wynn raised about $160,000 in the last quarter, and has $400,000 still on hand.

She said the campaign plans to bank over $1 million, and that a fundraiser scheduled next month in Montgomery County with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should help them rake in the dough. Sherwood said the details of that event are still being worked out.

Al Wynn has sold out this party over and over again, and in the last primary against Donna Edwards, his thugs beat up her supporters at a debate. Yet he's an incumbent, so powerful forces will stick together, I guess. Edwards is a true progressive that would actually help her further her goals. But as I said, incumbents stick together.

The establishment refuses to stay out of these primary battles which are good for democracy. Well, fine. We'll just outraise Nancy's little fundraiser and make the whole thing backfire. At some point this will turn around. But it's a long fight.