On Arlen's Side

The President held a fundraiser for Arlen Specter yesterday. Which makes sense for him - Specter is favored, helping him overtly keeps him on the Administration's side, and considering all the attacks from Republicans, having a former one switch to your side probably feels pretty good.

And Specter has been a good soldier thus far, voting with his party over 90% of the time and supporting a public option in health care reform and even hammering out an agreement on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) on Tuesday told the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh that he has been working hard “for hours” on a deal with other key senators, such as Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), as well as labor leaders, on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

“We have pounded out an Employees Choice bill which will meet labor’s objectives,” Specter said. “I believe before the year is out, and I will join my colleague Sen. [Bob] Casey [Jr. (D-Pa.)] in predicting, that there will be passage of an Employees Free Choice Act which will be totally satisfactory to labor.”

The bill is one of the labor movement’s most important legislative priorities this Congress, one they believe is necessary to protect workers’ rights. Specter’s prediction was greeted by a prolonged standing ovation from the convention’s attendees, members of the nation’s largest union federation.

It looks to be a bill with real penalties for labor law violators, binding arbitration for a contract if a workplace gets unionized and no deal between labor and management could be reached, and no delays in union certification. Card check is probably not in the bill, I would guess, but that alone would represent a real achievement in labor law and an expansion of the potential for unionization.

So that's great. And Specter is being a good soldier. But he does not get anointed as a result. And indeed, much of his good work is being caused by the fact of a primary fight with Joe Sestak. Which could lead to a dramatic change in labor law.

Primaries work.

...Another example. Specter called for single-payer to be put on the table. The backstory here is that a single-payer bill is winding through the Pennsylvania legislature with a lot of support, and Specter wants a part of that.

We need to immediately move to primaries in every blue or purple state to put the heat on these Senators.

Making Her Blanche

I wrote over the weekend about how the road to tying down Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus ran through their individual states. Another "Democrat" who has been out front in slow-walking anything that deviates from the status quo, who is also up for re-election next year, is Blanche Lincoln. They have a racket in Arkansas where the two parties almost never challenge each other in general elections - and considering that both party stalwarts do the bidding of their corporate contributors, why should they? In addition to her changing statements on the public option, which drew a round of ads from Blue America, Lincoln thinks the climate change bill should be dumped.

The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.

“The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.”

I remarked to Digby last week that maybe we should rerun the Harry and Louise-type ads against Lincoln, only with two polar bears at the kitchen table instead of the couple.

Maybe that's something that Arkansas State Senate President Bob Johnson can use when he challenges Lincoln in a primary.

Arkansas Senate President Bob Johnson said Friday that he's considering challenging incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln in next year's primary.

Johnson told The Associated Press that's he's been encouraged to challenge Lincoln, who is seeking a third Senate term next year. Johnson said he doesn't have a timeline for deciding whether to challenge Lincoln.

"I'd be less than honest if I told you it hasn't surfaced in a number of circles," Johnson said. "I am weighing it very carefully."

Let's not harbor any illusions. Johnson is "running as a conservative Democrat" against Lincoln. He actually sounds like a scoundrel. But in a primary, someone will have to play to the base, where primary voters live. And that could help Lincoln get over her reticence on health care and climate change legislation.

In even better news, Howie Klein says that Jim Cooper's going to get a primary challenge, on the heels of his pathetic approval ratings on the health care issue.

There's enough anti-Washington sentiment in the country that a lot of lawmakers ought to be looking over their shoulders.

PA-Sen: Sestak Announces

Joe Sestak is officially a candidate for US Senate.

I can't tell you how energized I am after seeing all of those people come together, veterans and teachers, laborers and doctors, students and seniors. They all made the early morning trip out to Folsom, and were joined by thousands watching live online, because they know that we must work together to restore the promise of the American Dream.

The American Dream is a great compact between generations - a promise that we will all pass down a better world than the one we inherited. Now, it has been lost for the first time in our history, because too many of those sent to Washington to represent you, the people, have instead acted on behalf of the powerful and well-connected.

This campaign is not about me. It's about all of us, and we are going to need your help to win. We have an opportunity -- if we act with resolve - to put college back in reach for our children, to demand transparency and accountability from our financial system, and provide quality and affordable health care to everyone. We can be a world leader again, working toward peace or putting American ingenuity on the front line against global climate change.

I have no illusions about Joe Sestak's record, though the fact that he's attempting to catch a wave of grassroots energy will hopefully make him a bit more responsible to those same grassroots. And the very fact of Sestak's candidacy is doing wonders for keeping Arlen Specter a Democratic partisan. Aside from my belief that primaries are pretty much the essence of democracy, offering voters a choice, giving Specter pressure from the Democratic mainstream is important, especially going into the next several months of tough Senate votes.

Here's Joe Sestak's campaign page.

PA-Sen: A Real Race

While Joe Sestak may not have formally announced his campaign for US Senate, he's raising money at a clip that would be completely unnecessary for a House seat. He raised over a million dollars in the second quarter and has $4.2 million in the bank. By contrast, Arlen Specter raised $1.7 million but had a high burn rate, adding only $800,000 to his cash on hand. That war chest is impressive - $7.5 million dollars. But Sestak has enough to remain competitive. $4 million dollars can buy a lot of ads and build a substantial organization, and we're only just beginning.

The point is that, unlike past primary efforts, this is a real race, and given that Carolyn Maloney just pissed away her credibility up in New York, it's the race that progressives should focus on.

(I harbor no illusions that Sestak would hesitate from stabbing progressives in the back on health care himself, if he had to. But the mere threat of a primary by him is already doing the job of keeping conservative Dems in line, which is the point of these kinds of challenges.)

Senate Primary Challenges A Go-Go

With the second quarter fundraising out of the way, now is the perfect opportunity for candidates to jump in and announce their intentions to run. In Pennsylvania and New York, that's what we're seeing.

Joe Sestak's candidacy is the worst-kept secret in America, and he again vowed to run in an interview with the Wayne Independent.

A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.

In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.

“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter ... for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.

Sestak is a good campaigner and a smart politician and I expect him to do well. In fact, I predicted a victory last week.

Now there's another primary challenger, in New York State to go against Kirsten Gillibrand, the appointed replacement of Hillary Clinton. Carolyn Maloney will run.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney has decided to take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Democratic primary, refusing to bow to party leaders who want her to stay out, the Daily News has learned.

"She's definitely decided to run," said a senior Maloney adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity. "She's in it."

Previously, New York poohbahs like Chuck Schumer and the White House cleared aspirants out of the way. Maloney would not be moved. In general I think that's healthy. Gillibrand has a good voting record as a Senator, but I reject the appointment process as undemocratic and think that appointees should have to work for their position. With Ted Kaufman not running in Delaware, Roland Burris toast in Illinois, and this primary, 3 of the 4 appointees will either not run or have challenges next year, and Michael Bennet certainly ought to have one in Colorado.

They may be expensive, they can potentially be divisive, but they allow the voters a voice rather than having representatives anointed from on high. That's always a good thing.

FL-Sen: A Toehold For Dead-Enders?

I don't want to concern-troll the GOP, but the primary race in Florida between popular Governor Charlie Crist and right-wing former House Speaker Marco Rubio could be a defining moment for their party. Rubio starts out way behind the more well-known Crist, who has high approval ratings in the Sunshine State. But Crist's support for the stimulus package has led to a revolt among the hard right, with some GOP leaders, like Jim DeMint and Mike Huckabee, breaking for Rubio, straw polls among Republican activists trending his way, and the Club For Growth threatening to play in the primary:

"We recently interviewed Marco Rubio and were impressed," said Club president David Keating. "We are very concerned about the two major tax increases Charlie Crist recently signed and believe there's no excuse for his active support of the Obama big-government 'stimulus' spending bill. We are actively considering the race."

The Club had previously been planning on a different major project for the 2010 Senate primary season: former Rep. Pat Toomey's challenge to then-GOP Sen. Arlen Specter in the Republican primary. But now that Specter has become a Democrat in order to avoid that very same primary, Florida might now be the new Pennsylvania.

The latest poll from the race has Crist well in front, but among those who know both Crist and Rubio (who has a comparatively low name ID), it's a virtual tie. The Club for Growth could easily pull this one off. And while Rubio could win statewide, Florida Democrats have a far better chance beating him than Charlie Crist, who has bipartisan appeal. There's a reason the NRSC already endorsed Crist; they know they'd have to spend millions to keep the seat if he gets bumped in the primary.

NY-Sen: More White House Maneuverings To Stop Primaries

Carolyn Maloney represents most of the east side of Manhattan and Queens in Congress. She's been really good on women's issues and gay rights, but as a member of the Financial Services Committee and a Congresswoman from Manhattan, she gets lots of cash from Wall Street interests. Nonetheless, she has a decent record on the middle class and just shepherded through the landmark Credit Card Bill Of Rights reform. She's good but not great on labor rights or foreign policy. A good rundown on her record is here.

She wants to run for Senate to primary Kirsten Gillibrand. Both women could put their credentials before the voters and let them decide. But the White House doesn't want that, and they're trying to keep Maloney out of the race.

Vice President Biden this week sat down with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to urge her not to run for Senate.

Maloney has been making initial moves toward challenging Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the 2010 Democratic primary, hiring public relations strategists and fundraisers in both Washington and New York.

It would be a primary national Democrats had hoped to avoid. Earlier this week, Biden sat down with Maloney in New York City and urged her not to run, according to a senior White House official.

"We've made it clear we're behind Sen. Gillibrand," the official said.

I intuitively understand why national Democrats want to avoid a primary. Money is finite and why have a bruising primary, etc. But that's just not democracy. The Senate appointments process, which should be abolished, allows a constituency of one to make a decision affecting millions. Senators should have to face the voters and earn the votes. I don't know who I would support in such a race - Gillibrand has been pretty decent since coming to the Senate - but the voters ought to decide. In the long run, it would be better for whoever wins to have their candidacies affirmed by the base of the party.

As for the White House, surely they have more to do than to stop Democrats from choosing their legislative representatives.

...Carolyn McCarthy, who's from Long Island and who people often confuse with Maloney, isn't running. So Maloney-Gillibrand would look to be a one-on-one race.

Amazingly, People Want To Choose Their Own Representatives

A new poll from Susquehanna Research in Pennsylvania informs us that 63% of registered Democrats want to see Arlen Specter challenged in a primary. That doesn't even mean they want him beat. They want him to make a compelling argument why Democrats should choose him to represent them. That would be a little thing called democracy. And in general, people like it.

Establishmentarians like Ed Rendell would rather not let the rabble experience democracy. They'd rather protect their friends and colleagues - Rendell himself worked with Specter in the Philly DA's office years ago.

None of this necessarily means that Joe Sestak is a liberal champion. It means that primaries and accountability through them are really the main tools that voters have to hold lawmakers to their promises. If Arlen Specter faces a primary, he suddenly has a powerful reason to support a Democratic agenda. Actually, so does Joe Sestak. Primaries and re-elections hold politicians to account. That's why they're not elected for life, though sometimes it seems that way.

A Peek Into The Machine

I just came across an astonishing interview on The Ed Show with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell about the potential Specter-Sestak primary. It's a combination of a threat, Newspeak, muddled and often contradictory logic, and a depiction of how the spoils system works in government, particularly a machine state like Pennsylvania. It's really something, and it looks almost staged, like an infomercial designed to bash Sestak's chances in public. Here's a transcript.

Schultz: Do you think Joe's got a shot?

Rendell: I'm an admirer of Joe Sestak. I'm going to work hard to get him re-elected when he runs for Congress next year, not for the Senate. Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary, he'd get killed. And let me tell you why he'd get killed. Number one, Arlen Specter's been going around PA for three decades, as the Senator. He goes into every one of the 67 counties each and every year, and he holds town meetings, and he does constituent service, and he's never asked whether people are Republican or Democrat. Last three weeks or so, we've been having regional conferences with elected Democratic Party chairs, and elected Democratic officials, in every region of the state. It's unbelievable how many of them know Arlen personally, and admired him and supported him, even though he was a Republican in the past. You can't buy that, and you can't overcome that in one campaign. It's been thirty years. Number two, Arlen Specter will raise two, three, four times as much money as Joe Sestak. Number three, Arlen Specter has the support of the President and the Vice President, a President who's got a 90% approval rating among registered Democrats in Pennsylvania. Joe Sestak does not want to be one of the candidates who ran against Bob Casey in the Democratic primary, when the whole governmental establishment was for Bob Casey. He doesn't want to be marginalized, he doesn't want to get 15, 18%. Joe should run for Congress again, establish some seniority, his time will come. He's a terrific guy, his time will come, but it's not this year.

Schultz: Governor, you're very strong with that answer tonight. It almost sounds as if Joe Sestak would be making a fool of himself if he were to try this. Would you go that far?

Rendell: Well, I wouldn't say making a fool of himself, of course, Joe's a terrific guy, and he's got great credentials. But he's being talked into it by people on the extreme of the party, and they're good people, and they care about the right issues, but they don't represent the broad slice... this is a conservative state. I know people shake their heads when I say that, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is more Bob Casey's party than it is Ed Rendell's party. I won because I was a great regional candidate, Ed, and I won re-election because I think I did a good job. But this, our Democrats are middle-of-the-road Democrats, with the exception of the Southeast. And Arlen Specter appeals very much to them. And it's not so much who I support, or who Bob Casey supports, it's all these party chairmen and all these elected officials that Arlen's been taking care of for years. And most people think that Arlen's supported our constituencies, and he has, over the years.

Schultz: So the infrastructure of the party in PA, would, no matter what side it is, is going to be with Arlen Specter. So the question begs, is anybody willing to step up and tell Joe Sestak, don't do this? That we've got a good enough guy, that he's gonna be good on the issues? Because Mr. Sestak was on this program, and the point that he made, he didn't like the idea that there was someone in the party, including yourself, including the President and the Vice President, that were willing to anoint Arlen Specter because he'd been around for a long time.

Rendell: Well, we anointed Bob Casey because he was a good candidate and he had been around for a long time, even though he was a young age, he started very young. Ed, it's not a question of anointing. In the end, people decide, not me, not even the President. People decide. But when they hear from the President that we need Arlen Specter. When people understand that Arlen Specter single-handedly saved the stimulus program for this country and put his political rear end on the line, when they understand that ten billion dollars more for NIH, to help us do research on every incredible disease that we're facing as a human race. People understand, and they like Arlen Specter and they understand that he's who the President wants. Look, I'm the last person to tell Joe not to run, because people told me not to run when I decided to run for Governor, because no one from Philadelphia had been elected since 1914 as Governor. So I'm not about to say to someone don't run. But I think Joe should think about what Arlen has done, the things that, the alliances that he's made over the years, the constituent services operation that has that's second to none, and the fact that he does have the support of Democrats, particularly the President.

Schultz: Well, labor has told me that they're not going to sit this thing out. Now, would this competition make Arlen Specter a better Democrat when it comes to voting on Employee Free Choice Act, free trade issues, and also health care reform? What about those three?

Rendell: Well, it's interesting. Both Joe Sestak and Arlen Specter are trying to broker a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act, because they know they're aren't enough votes right now. There are at least, and you know this better than I do, Ed, how many Democratic Senators will not vote for the Employee Free Choice Act as is?

Schultz: Well, they're a little nervous about it, there's no question about that. But I think-

Rendell: Arlen and Joe are both trying to make some changes in the Act so that everyone can support it so they can have a broad base of support. So I think Arlen Specter has been for our constituents for the longest time. You know he's been called a RINO, a Republican in name only, and in fact there's a lot of truth to that. He's always been there for poor people, for working people. And he's been there for labor! He ran against a good Democratic Congressman, Joe Hoeffel in the 2004 election, and organized labor was for Specter. Arlen is going to do the right thing on the Employee Free Choice Act, just like he did on the stimulus. He's going to try and broker a compromise. Ironically, Joe's doing the same thing in the House. So, look, these guys are very much the same. Joe Sestak's not a liberal Democrat either.

Schultz: No, he's not. But he is better to labor, and he is, wants a public option on health care, and he is not the free trader that Arlen Specter has been. I think your analysis and your take is great, you know, I don't want to go against you on anything. I always want you on my team. You've got Pennsylvania down, there's no question. But from my instincts, I think Americans are tired of the good old boy network. And I love competition, and I think competition makes people better, that was my Op-Ed last night...

Rendell: And you're right about that, except, we will lose a terrific Congressman. Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he's out of the Congress, after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman, and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity. He's a guy who should be there for us. We don't have a deep bench among Democrats in Pennsylvania, we need Joe to stay in the Congress and do the work he's been doing.

So, Sestak would get killed because Arlen backslaps all the party chairs and everybody loves him, and he'll raise a lot more money (a veiled threat alluding to what Rendell will tell local donors) and the President wants him in. Then he says that the dirty hippies are pushing Sestak, but Pennsylvania Democrats are conservatives and Arlen Specter, a 30-year Republican, suits them fine, and Rendell (the noted hardcore lib) only snuck in on a technicality, but Arlen's a good guy because he invented the stimulus package himself and he's supported everything Democrats have supported forever, because he's the Dennis Kucinich of the Keystone State. And then Schultz asks why are you choosing for the voters, and Rendell disavows doing that at all - no telling somebody not to run from him - and proceeds to say that Specter's "who the President wants," even though it doesn't matter who the President wants because people decide.

Then Schultz asks whether the pressure is good or bad, and Rendell says that Sestak and Specter are exactly the same on Employee Free Choice, "same" being defined as the fact that one supported it and one said he wouldn't support it in the curent form. But it's all fine because a lot of Democrats don't want to pass the bill - including Specter - and Arlen will "do the right thing" on that because he loves poor people. Anyway, Joe Sestak and Specter are exactly the same - never mind the hippie morons - and when Schultz talks precisely about the areas where they differ and says that competition is healthy, Rendell makes the most open threat of the interview, warning that we'd lose Sestak's Congressional seat (a district Obama won 56-43), and Sestak will fade into oblivion (with a not-so-gentle push from Rendell, of course).

This pretty much is how things are run in Pennsylvania, as I understand it. Rendell recounts with pride how he cleared the field for Bob Casey in 2006. If Rick Santorum, sensing a loss, switched parties then, Eddie probably would have cleared the field for him, too.

Me, I support democracy. And if Ed Rendell wants Arlen Specter to beat Joe Sestak and stay in the Senate, he has a means to do that. He has a vote. We'll see how it turns out next year.

...C&L has the vid:

PA-12: More Primaries In The Keystone State

Speaking of Pennsylvania primary options, Democrat Ryan Bucchianeri will challenge Jack Murtha in PA-12. I have family in Murtha's district who love him, but frankly, he has become more of a liability at this point. His leadership against the Iraq War in 2005 was great, but he can't advocate publicly anymore now that he's embroiled in all kinds of public corruption scandals. CREW details these at a new site about Murtha.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is an 18th-term member of Congress, representing Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district. Rep. Murtha chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Murtha’s ethics violations stem from abuse of his position on the subcommittee to benefit the lobbying firm of a former long-term staffer and from threatening to block earmarks of other members for political purposes. Rep. Murtha was included as a member to watch in CREW’s 2006 and 2007 reports on congressional corruption.

Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense for 10 years. After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the most prominent Washington, D.C. defense lobbying firms. Since the second quarter of 2007 campaign cycle, the PMA Group and ten of the firm’s clients ranked in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made campaign contributions totaling $190,880. In the 2006, 2004 and 2002 cycles, PMA and its clients have given $274,649, $236,799, $279,074 in contributions respectively. In turn, many of PMA’s clients have benefitted significantly from Rep. Murtha’s earmarks. In the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill, Rep. Murtha helped steer at least $100.5 million to PMA clients–up from $95.1 million in the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill.

This has just snowballed in recent years, to the point where it's impossible for anyone, Republican or Democratic, to ignore. Bucchianeri, a graduate of the Naval Academy and the Kennedy School of Government (and a poor field-goal kicker), has an interesting set of experiences and a mainstream Democratic agenda. I want to know more, obviously, but I feel that Murtha has become very tarnished in recent years. I'm all for primaries to help keep politicians honest.

PA-Sen: Early Numbers Seem Fine For Sestak

The Philly Inquirer surveys the potential Sestak-Specter primary.

In an interview last night, Sestak said that he needs to consult with his wife, Susan, and their 8-year-old daughter, Alex, before launching what would be an all-consuming statewide campaign.

"Personally, I do intend to get in, but we make the decision as a family. This is a deployment," said Sestak, a retired Navy rear admiral. "We have not made a final decision. . . . I intend to try to do this in a thoughtful, deliberate way."

He added that, in preliminary conversations, his family had been "very supportive" of the idea.

Meanwhile, a preliminary poll shows what I think is good news for Sestak's candidacy. Specter's statewide approval rating is only 46%, and his lead in a hypothetical primary over Sestak is only 50-21. Considering Specter's name ID, the fact that he cannot break 50% is an excellent sign for the lesser-known Sestak. And despite not being known at all, Sestak beats Toomey in a head-to-head general election matchup. If I were the Admiral, I'd take those numbers as a baseline.

Obviously, the big hitters in the Party - Ed Rendell, not to mention the White House - may try to push Specter over the line. But I don't think Democratic primary voters can be that easily fooled, to line up with the guy who admitted he was joining the party only for political reasons and has a lifetime record of opposing many Democratic causes.

PA-Sen: Sestak's In

So says Brian Beutler:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

"He intends to get in the race," says Meg Infantino, the Congressman's sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. "In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision."

The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution.

This is spectacular. Nobody, least of all Arlen Specter, should have a free ride to the halls of power. My personal feeling is that Joe Sestak is superior to Specter in just about every way, but even if he were not, I would support this for just about any and every seat. Primaries are healthy. They keep politicians honest. They allow the people to make the key decisions on who to represent them, instead of having the options shoved down their throats.

FWIW, the Pennsylvania Democratic infrastructure looks to be supporting the incumbent. But if Sestak can raise enough money, I believe he can change enough minds. This is a really interesting development and it bears a lot of watching.

Obama Dumping On Primaries

The President of the United States is also the leader of a political party, so the notion that it's somehow scandalous for Barack Obama to "sway" the midterms elections is faintly ridiculous. I am concerned about his attempts to close off the Democratic primary process, however; I'm assuming plenty of Clinton loyalists tried to pressure him not to run, either.

The White House's willingness to engage emerged with a surprising bang. Democratic campaign operatives grumbled that Mr. Obama got involved in a special House election in upstate New York both late and grudgingly. But at the insistence of Sens. Menendez, Charles Schumer (D., N.Y) and Kirsten Gillibrand herself, Mr. Obama stepped in this month to head off a primary challenge from Rep. Steve Israel to Ms. Gillibrand's New York Senate race next year.

Israel's Chief of Staff has denied the report that Rahm Emanuel threatened to have the President campaign in black neighborhoods in New York for Kirsten Gillibrand if Israel ran against her, and that Israel would lose any ability to set policy in Congress. But the facts are that Obama's people wished to avoid a primary in New York, he made himself known, and at least one challenger demurred as a result. Now, I don't particularly like Steve Israel, but it's not my decision to make. We're seeing the same dynamic in Pennsylvania with Arlen Specter, as Democrats pressure Joe Sestak to stay out of the race:

When it comes to sorting out who gets to run for Senate, the chair of the DSCC -- currently New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez -- is the heavy. So it shouldn’t be taken lightly that the DSCC commissioned a poll pitting Specter against possible primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak. The lopsided result -- a Specter lead of 56 percent to Sestak's 16 percent -- sends a pretty loud signal to the congressman. Remember, nobody made the party release these results, and indeed, if you want to get technical about it, the DSCC didn't actually "release" them; they just became public somehow.

Of course, just a couple months ago, Sestak was the DSCC’s best hope of mounting a credible general election campaign against Specter. But as is often the rule in these situations, the party is going with the incumbent, who’s viewed as a likelier winner. Menendez could scarcely send a louder signal to Sestak, at least not without decapitating a horse and doing some nocturnal breaking-and-entering.

This is of course coordinated from the very top. And it's profoundly at odds with the small-d democratic model of the voters choosing their representatives. Primaries are the lifeblood of a political system, in my view. They breathe life into the stodgy old system of the status quo. When a politician gets out of line or out of touch, a primary opponent can hold them to it. When they fail to represent the expressed will of the constituency, a primary opponent can step in. This should not be suppressed but celebrated. Nobody should choose the options for the public. Not even the President.

CA-36: Winograd Announces By The Beach

Yesterday at the Venice Pier, Marcy Winograd announced her campaign for Congress in front of about 75-80 supporters and friends, and many leaders of the progressive activist community in Los Angeles. The campaign showed their thrift and commitment to recycling by using the old Winograd '06 campaign posters and skillfully pasting a "'10" sticker in the appropriate place. It's going to be that kind of campaign.

After a few speakers (I particularly enjoyed Julian Barger from the Harbor area of the district calling Jane Harman "Congresswoman Helmsley" for her double standard on civil liberties for her vs. civil liberties for all Americans), Marcy gave a short speech where she emphasized her no-holds-barred progressive values and offered a true contrast to her incumbent opponent. She called for a "new New Deal" to put America back to work, announced support for John Conyers' HR 676, questioned the continued bailout of the banks and the use of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, argued for rapid transit and renewable energy in the Los Angeles area, and said of her primary challenge, "this will reverberate throughout the country."



Winograd spoke to various concerns of families in the district, noting that areas of Torrance are experiencing skyrocketing foreclosure rates, and that business has declined over 20% in the port at San Pedro. This is an area where, with a longer campaign time frame than her quick run in 2006, Winograd can make headway in all areas of the district and throughout the South Bay, speaking to the economic concerns of the area and drawing contrast with Jane Harman's more conservative approach. Obviously, the greater concern about Harman more recently has been her defense of the Bush Administration's the warrantless wiretapping and her generally hawkish stance abroad. But there is an opening for a core economic argument, still the major preoccupation of voters, to be made.

Winograd's announcement got covered in LA Weekly and the CoCo Times. Mainstream news pieces about this primary challenge never fail to emphasize that the 36th is a "moderate" district and that Winograd will have to "broaden her appeal" to win over those voters. This assumes that Democratic primary voters, or virtually anyone, makes election choices based on firm ideological footing. Poll after poll has shown that on the issues, Americans portray a far more progressive belief system than their typical electoral choices. Maybe consultants and Democratic strategists need to "broaden their appeal" to potential candidates that can articulate a progressive agenda.

CA-36: Harman Primary Is Underway

So I'm quoted in this Politico article about potential primary challenges to Jane Harman. I've said clearly that she'll either face a primary or drop out, and now multiple challengers, including 2006 opponent Marcy Winograd, have stepped up. One thing that people don't totally remember about that 2006 challenge is that Marcy got in the race in February for a June primary. She ended up raising and spending about $380,000, but she did not have time for a national fundraising base or a netroots strategy. She basically just went ahead and ran, and she got 38% of the vote. Starting the primary a year out this time will simply yield better results.

The other part, which Alex Eisenstadt acknowledges, is that Harman was a target long before the recent revelation of wiretapped conservations between her and suspected Israeli agents offering vague quid pro quo deals on getting some AIPAC members out of legal trouble.

It’s true that Harman holds a firm grip on her comfortably Democratic district, having won 69 percent in the 2008 general election.

Still, her left flank remains exposed in large part because of her hawkish, pro-military reputation. After Sept. 11, 2001, Harman was an early advocate for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and she threw her support behind the American-led invasion of Iraq. She went so far as to criticize the FBI and the CIA for moving too slowly to respond to terrorist threats.

Those stances continue to rankle local progressives, and the recent controversy has only revived the frustrations that seemed to crest in 2006 with Winograd’s challenge. Last week, Winograd organized a protest outside Harman’s district headquarters, with activists calling on the California Democrat to resign. The environmental organization Greenpeace is coordinating a mailing in the district pressuring Harman, who has a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, on energy issues.

David Dayen, a California activist who writes for the liberal blog Calitics, said he expects progressive organizations to ramp up their efforts against Harman in the weeks ahead.

“I don’t get the sense that in May, the year before this primary is happening, there is going to be a lot of clamoring over Harman, but I do think you’re starting to see progressive groups get involved,” said Dayen.

I reject the theory later in the piece that CA-36 is a moderate district. The PVI is D+12, and the formerly conservative areas have moderated their views. Torrance, the supposed "Orange County of LA County," just elected two Democrats to its City Council. What's more, Harman votes substantially to the right of the district and has for years.

Winograd will be holding a campaign kickoff on Monday at the Venice Pier around 4:00pm, so she's obviously serious about making this run again. And she'll be taking questions in a liveblog session at Firedoglake today at 11am. John Amato of Crooks and Liars fame may also make a run at this seat.

Worst. Candidate Recruiters. Ever.

You would think that a former Governor, someone extremely competitive in the general election against an incumbent, would be an easy mark to recruit for the Senate. Unless the person in question is Tom Ridge, and the party in question the Republican Party. Here's his statement:

After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate.

I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.

It's clear from the statement that he didn't want to deal with the whackos of the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate either. Kos had numbers showing him losing to Pat Toomey in the primary.

Two things here: first, this is all the more reason to support a primary of Arlen Specter. With Ridge's departure, the probability that Pat Toomey will win the Republican nomination go up significantly. Sure, the party poohbahs will try to find someone not fated to lose, like Rep. Jim Gerlach from the Philly suburbs. But Toomey has the momentum. And he cannot win a general election. Democrats in Pennsylvania should know that they can put someone who shares their values in the race with every expectation that they can win the seat.

Second, this is an epic FAIL for the GOP recruitment team. Combine this with Mark Kirk's demurral to run for the Senate in Illinois, and you have two high-profile candidates begging off a run. Nobody wants anything to do with the Republican Party. And why would they? Consigned to a minority for the near future, unable to gain traction with the same old ideas, and in the face of a popular President, the Republicans have nothing to offer their candidates, let alone America.

Sestak Rising

Joe Sestak showed up on CNN yesterday, did a live chat on Firedoglake, and generally continued his PR push to prepare the ground for a Senate run. He comes closer with each televised appearance to saying that he's going to run. Sestak is not exactly a progressive champion, but I would gather that he's a Democrat, which puts him a step above Arlen Specter, who shows absolutely no indication of changing his ways or his votes. Sestak, at least, has pretty much the mainstream Democratic position on the issues where Specter is equivocating.

EFCA- Yes- co-sponsor of it.
Public Health Option- Yes, but best by public healthcare standards for every plan.
Budget- Yes and I voted for it. However, I believed reconciliation should have been done on a second budget resolution if necessary. The reason is that, while I would never sacrifice good policy at the altar of bipartisanship, I believe that per President Obama’s statement (that everyone should be around the table, at least at the beginning) the congregation should begin praying together and not have a schism before they even begin. At least some effort should have been made and, as necessary, pass the second budget resolution, which we could readily do with reconciliation.
Cramdowns- Yes. Voted for it.
Cap and trade- Yes. Cosponsor of it.

I disagree with his negotiating style on the budget (you keep the option on the table rather than having to bring it back), and the public option answer has a sneaky out. But overall, he has a far better profile than Specter. And this is why Andy Stern's meeting with him today.

All in all, it could be that the idea of a Sestak primary challenge means more than the actual challenge. Specter left the Republican Party because he feared a primary; he seemingly has no such fear of a Democratic primary. The extent to which he gains that fear will signal how much he can be pressured to vote with the majority of his fellow Democrats.

Campaign Update: CA-10, CA-03, CA-47, CA-50

The Internet moves at, well, Internet speed, so parts of my House race roundup were already out of date or incomplete by the time I published it. So here's an update on a few races.

• CA-10: John Garamendi announced a significant series of national labor endorsements for the upcoming CA-10 race, despite Mark DeSaulnier having locked up the Contra Costa County Central Labor Committee endorsement and the local Building Trades (which cover almost 100 local unions) and chairing the Senate Labor Committee. They include:

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CNA: California Nurses Association
CFT: California Federation of Teachers
UFCW: United Food & Commercial Workers
CSEA: California School Employees Association
Laborers International Union of North America
International Union of Operating Engineers
CWA: Communication Workers of America

Many of those can provide PAC money, resources and support to Garamendi, leveling the playing field in a race where DeSaulnier captured all the early endorsements.

• CA-03: I passed on the rumor about Phil Angelides and CA-03 in my roundup, but local blogger Randy Bayne dismisses that report and notes that Elk Grove City Councilman Gary Davis will likely run, having met with the DCCC and begun the process of putting a team together. I don't agree with Bayne that a contested primary (Dr. Amerish Bera has also announced) would impact negatively on the race. Especially when the candidates have low name ID, a primary can increase their public profile and show them to be a "winner" in front of the district, at the end. Momentum can build. Primaries don't necessarily have to be nasty and debilitating, and I fail to understand why anyone would reject them out of hand.

Incidentally, I never took much stock in the rumor about Angelides, I simply thought it would be a decent line of inquiry, given his name ID, fundraising ability and progressive profile.

CA-47: One potential challenge to a Democratic incumbent I overlooked yesterday was Van Tran's run against Loretta Sanchez, profiled in Politico.

On the heels of an election marked by a dismal performance among Asian voters, top Republicans are aggressively recruiting California Assemblyman Van Tran, a Vietnamese-American, to challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) next year.

If elected, Tran would be the second Vietnamese-American in Congress, after Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-La.), who won his seat in a 2008 election.

Tran has already been feted at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s March fundraising dinner as a guest of the committee’s recruitment chairman, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and he was encouraged to run by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor. He also made a trip to Washington after last November’s election to meet with officials from the NRCC.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has assisted in the recruitment process, meeting with Tran and offering support for any potential candidacy. Tran was an outspoken backer of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and helped him carry Orange County over Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

What the story fails to mention is that, not only does Tran not have full support among the Vietnamese community in the district, not only does Loretta Sanchez have experience easily defeating Vietnamese challengers, but Tran didn't even do that well in his own Assembly race last year, winning over 55% of the vote against Ken Arnold. If Tran is one of the Republicans' top recruits, they're in even bigger trouble than I thought. Incidentally, Sanchez' voting record has greatly improved over the past couple years.

• CA-50: I should have cited Francine Busby's Firedoglake chat from a couple weeks ago. I don't think I agree with her on this, though:

I’ve alway said that the Latino voters have to organize register and educate from within their own community. I see more activism and organizing going on than I did before. In fact, I will be attending a meeting on Monday of the reconstituted Latino American Democratic Club in Oceanside. We may have a strong Latina running for a state office who can rally the base. Also, Bilbray is their worst nightmare, so I expect that to motivate them to get out to vote. I reach out to leaders in the community as much as possible to maintain good communications and understanding.

Outreach consists of more than "hopefully they'll self-organize." You need to actually engage the Latino community instead of hoping some other local candidate can do it for you. Not a good sign.

CA-36: Jane Harman Will Have A Primary Challenge, Or She Will Leave Congress

Here's the latest on the Jane Harman/AIPAC story that I haven't previously discussed here. We know that she discussed the case against two AIPAC lobbyists with a suspected Israeli double agent, possibly Haim Saban, and made at least an implicit arrangement to push for the dropping of the case against the lobbyists in exchange for help getting appointed the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. It is unclear whether this actually represents a violation of the federal bribery statute (doing a favor in exchange for something of value), but according to the story by Jeff Stein at CQ Politics, the Justice Department felt they had Harman in a "completed crime." Nancy Pelosi was briefed that Harman had been picked up on a federal wiretap but was barred from disclosing it to her House colleague, and this could explain why Harman was not appointed to that Committee Chair. The reason that the DoJ failed to charge Harman was because Alberto Gonzales intervened on her behalf, because, among other things, he knew she would be helpful in the forthcoming battle over, amazingly enough, the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

A person who is familiar with Mr. Gonzales’s account of the events said that the former attorney general had acknowledged having raised with Mr. Goss the idea that Ms. Harman was playing a helpful role in dealing with The Times.

But Mr. Gonzales’s principal motive in delaying a briefing for Congressional leaders, the person said, was to keep Ms. Harman from learning of the investigation before she could be interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A spokesman for Ms. Harman said the congresswoman had never been interviewed by the bureau.

There's also the charge that then-NSA Director Michael Hayden provided talking points for a Harman discussion with NY Times Washington editor Philip Taubman BEFORE THE 2004 election, to get the paper to squash the warrantless wiretapping story. And today, Stein advances the story by noting that a whistleblower informed then-Speaker Dennis Hastert about the Bush Administration suppression of the wiretapped Harman call (it's a violation of standard procedure to withhold information involving national security and a member of Congress from either Democratic and Republican leaders in the House).

Needless to say, this is a tangled web of intrigue, and with more disclosures it's likely to get worse. This has led to speculation that Harman would either not run for another term, or face a primary challenge. I can confirm that Marcy Winograd is likely to run if Harman does seek re-election. Winograd, who took 38% of the vote in 2006, was not planning a run until the AIPAC/wiretap revelations. But she is uncomfortable with Harman not being held to account, and saw no other option on the horizon. She has a federal account and will take the pulse of the district before a formal announcement.

"I think she's clearly in trouble and I think she knows it and is doing whatever she can to turn the tables on the situation," Winograd said. "And now she is the spokesperson for the ACLU or the Bill of Rights Foundation. It would be comical, if the stakes weren't so high." [...]

One of Winograd's first steps is going to be "taking the pulse" of the district on issues like military spending and single-payer health care, among other issues. It's entirely possible that Harman might bow out and try to annoint a successor. Or that another establishment Dem might try to take advantage of her weakened position. Which is why I wanted to get the word out as quickly as possible that there's a really credible progressive alternative. Winograd has already run a primary once in the district. Activists there know who she is, and a lot of them have already worked for her in 2006. This would not be a net-based candidacy, but it will certainly help to have it be net-supported.

In addition, the name of blogger John Amato has surfaced as a possible challenger.

(Howie) Klein said a group of bloggers met earlier this year to discuss challenging Harman in a primary, weeks before the recent revelations. He said many in the blogging community would like a fellow blogger, John Amato, to challenge Harman and that Amato is considering it.

Winograd said that she would step aside for the right candidate, and that she’s taking up the mantle at least for now.

“I don’t know who else will answer the call, if not me,” she said. “People with great name recognition and track records in public office are not going to take her on.”

I think Marcy feels the duty to run. At the same time, she agreed that there needs to be one progressive alternative to Harman. But my sense from people in the district is that Harman is unlikely to try another re-election campaign. Even the above-mentioned NYT article refers to this.

While the two women do not display overt hostility, Ms. Harman seems to have never quite gotten over the slight. Colleagues say that since Ms. Pelosi, 69, thwarted her ambitions for a more prominent role on security issues, Ms. Harman, 63, has grown weary of Congress and has been eyeing a post in the Obama administration, perhaps as an ambassador.

This tracks with everything I've heard from locals. She wanted the Intelligence Committee chair, and failing that she wanted an Administration job, and failing that she wants out.

There would be a whole host of elected officials who would jump in if Harman retired. Ted Lieu, the Assemblyman in this district, could be enticed away from his Attorney General campaign. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn would take a look. And there would be others. But if Harman stays in, none of these electeds would run, avoiding what would be an expensive primary. Harman is the richest member of Congress and has no problem spending her own money to keep her seat.

Either way, there will be a contested race in CA-36 in June 2010. And I do believe that a primary would feature only one major challenger. The question is, who would that be?

PA-Sen: Toomey's In

Arlen Specter's Senatorial career ends today.

Pat Toomey, who as a little-known congressman nearly defeated Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2004 primary, announced Wednesday that he will mount another challenge when Specter seeks the Republican nomination for a sixth term next year.

Toomey, who stepped down Monday as president of the Washington-based Club for Growth, appealed to his conservative base in a statement released just before 8 a.m., while Toomey made a series of TV appearances in the Philadelphia area.

"Pennsylvanians deserve a voice in the U.S. Senate that will honor our values and fight for limited government, individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. I will be that voice," Toomey said.

The silliness of Toomey's claim to fiscal responsibility (do the names George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, all of whom raised the national debt to record levels, ring a bell?) notwithstanding, I don't see how he loses the primary. He lost 51-49 in 2004 and the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has since gotten much more conservative, as moderates left for the Democratic Party in droves. Specter's going to go relentlessly negative and paint Toomey as a Wall Street tool, but he's toast. Toomey will be the nominee, and hopefully we'll put the best Democrat possible against him, because whoever has the D next to his name will be heavily favored against that extremist.