Frustration Over Iraq Could Lead to Dem Primary Challenges

Anti-war forces, angered over Congressional failure to bring an end to the Iraq war, are gearing up to run primary challenges against Democratic incumbents who support the Bush administration.

Frustration with the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate reached new heights with the appearance of stories describing Democrats' growing willingness to compromise on Iraq legislation, including "Democrats Retreat On War End" in The Politico and "Democrats Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq" in the New York Times.

MoveOn, which spent a total of $28.1 million in the 2005-6 election cycle, sent out a survey to its 3.3 million members noting:

"Hundreds of thousands of us worked to get Democratic majorities elected. So why don't they have the votes? One reason is that there are a set of weak Democrats who side with the president--especially on Iraq. They're too scared to fight for what's right and what they were elected to fight for.

"This fall, we face a pivotal series of votes on Iraq--votes that, if we win, could spell the end of the Iraq war. MoveOn members have made phone calls. We've held town meetings. We've run ads and written letters to the editor. But now, given this big moment, we have an important decision to make together."

The email, signed by "Nita, Eli, Justin, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team," posed the following question:

"Should we support primary challengers against some Democrats?.... It's a tough question, and one we need everybody's input on." Members were given a link where they were asked not only whether they would support Democratic primary challengers, but whether they would be willing to give money to such a campaign, and how much

A House Democratic leadership aide told the Huffington Post, "We understand their frustration, but we need to elect more Democrats in order to affect real change on Iraq." Another top Democratic leadership aide said, "What in the world are they thinking? All this is going to do is increase the possibility of electing more Republicans. Instead of going after Democrats, they should be focusing their efforts on pressuring Republicans to break with the president.

Story continues below

advertisement

In private, many in the House and Senate leadership contend that if more liberal candidates defeat incumbent conservative and centrist Democrats in primaries, many of them representing Southern and Midwestern constituencies, the chances of a Republican victory in the general election sharply increase.

The MoveOn survey comes on the heels of the anti-"Bush Dog" campaign on the Open Left website created by Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and Mike Lux.

The "Bush Dogs" -- a play on the "Blue Dog" Democrats, a caucus of center-conservative Democrats -- is made up of the 39 House Democrats who voted on May 24 in favor of the Iraq emergency supplemental appropriation and on August 4 in favor of the "Protect America Act" expanding the administration's power to use warrantless wiretaps.

Stoller described the Bush Dogs as "Southern white dudes." He argued that "these members are not voting their districts, they are just conservatives....Bush Dog Democrats are dragging down the rest of the party. According to Zogby, 80% of Democrats disapprove of the job that Congress is doing."

Bowers suggested that Bush Dog Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) is an ideal candidate to target in a primary challenge.

Lipinski's district is overwhelmingly Democratic, with 59 percent support for John Kerry, "in absolutely no danger of falling into Republican hands;" Lipinski is "staunchly anti-choice;" and "he also is below average for a Democrat on immigration, gets a big fat zero from Progressive Punch on GLBT issues, and only a 50 percent score from the Drum Major Institute on progressive family issues. Basically, he sucks at just about everything."

An anti-war challenger strategy poses both risks and rewards.

Many members of Congress, including some adamantly opposed to the war, argue that primary challenges improve prospects for Republicans in the general election, and threaten defections from swing voters worried that liberal interest groups have excessive influence in the Democratic Party.

Conversely, proponents argue it could boost the energy and commitment of activists who helped produce the 2006 election successes; pressure Democratic incumbents to cast anti-war votes; and, in the long run, prove that a Democratic-led Congress can take on a Republican administration.

Comments

[Graywolf48]

If Progressive Democrats have to clean out the party to bring it back to center or even a little left of center, let it start now. This terror cry of "if you oppose conservative democrats you'll help elect more Republicans" is pure crap. When the only difference in two politicians ideology is whether a D or an R follows their name, who cares? We need to start running these imitation Republicans out of our Democratic party.

Truman knew and he said it clearly, if the American people are given the choice "a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, the people will vote for the real Republican all of the time." We need a choice in this nation between two political philosophies, that of the New Deal Democrats and the Screw Deal Republicans. If it means killing this current Democratic Party (who acts too much like the Republican party it's hard to tell the difference) and building a new party that embraces progressive Democratic ideals, then let it start now. We've waited far too long already. No more excuses!

[wmike100]

Getting rid of conservative Democrats sounds good to me. Kick out the jerks and get decent people into office that will do their job. We don't need the crappy leadership the Pelosi/Reid team has given us. Either that or a new party. Something. Anything.

[fullorage]

I voted in the moveon poll and I voted to challenge these scum republicans in democratic clothing. They need to be put out on their asses. No more capitulating to Mr.Preznit,I don't care who they are. Be they the leader of the House or the Senate or somewhere in between,if they drop to their knees to Bush on this they will blow him on anything. I don't believe they will be replaced by a Republican, basically that is what we have now. They will be replaced by a true progressive, someone who listens to their constituents,not "The Decider".If we allow these people to remain in office nothing will ever change,and change is what we need desperately now.

[JimLarkin]

Reid and Pelosi need to get both dem houses under the big tent and lay down the law.." you either fuckin stick to the party line or we do to you what the RNC did to Lieberman"... then again Reid and Pelosi need to get in line with MY policy to straighten this shit out.

[Soulsurfer]

The Dems are missing some serious opportunities to bring pressure to some moderate repugs on other issues, and to counter Bush's war related legislation. Immigration is one of them, as well as environmental, education, and energy concerns. The Dems just don't seem to be able to leverage the advantages they have, either they're not smart enough or don't have the cojones, or both. Its definitely time to challenge Dem incumbents who give in to Bush.

[osage]

After 4.5 years, there are no accepted or enforced rules of law in Iraq....there is no unified or reliable Iraqi police force or Army....there is no unified or reliable government, there is no personal safety as sectarian violence grows unabated....there is no electricity, water or oil flowing as Iraq's infrastructure is in shambles....over a million Iraqis have fled the country out of fear of being murdered or becoming collateral damage....hundreds of billions of American dollars have been squandered, while nearly 4000 American soldiers and an untold number of American mercenaries and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died for no legitimate reason....and Bush and his enabling ilk say that the "surge" is working? What would Americans say if these conditions existed in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles or Washington D.C? What Bush and his henchmen have done in Iraq is the greatest crime of the 21st century because they invaded and are occupying a country for "political" purposes only that have nothing to do with America's security. He "created" a phony war to hold on to and expand his "political" power in "America". He has forfeited our military preparedness and political influence throughout the world in a pursuit of personal "political" power. Our enemies couldn't have done more damage to America's interests, welfare and future than George W. Bush has. And yet there are still those who support this shamelessly incompetent and deceitful pretender who wants to continue making all the same destructive and deadly mistakes he has been making all along to save "political" face. The moral and ethical disconnect of these whores of partisanship and power isn't just contemptible, it's universally "wrong". There is no morality, rationality or good faith in defending the false motives, lies, hypocricies, sins and failures of George W. Bush. There is only the perpetuation of destruction, death and the "politics" of malevolent and incompetent men and women whose ambitions have perverted their integrity, patriotism and humanity. Our constitution was written to protect us from times like these. Justice and "righteousness" require impeachment!

[Canukistani]

There should be challenges aplenty. The only thing that seriously motivates any politician is the fear that they will not be re-elected. I think that's one of the main reasons that so many of them are jellyfish, willing to compromise on anything. That's often good for them but not often good for the country.

If you want them to do the right thing you need to tell them that compromising or waiting for a better time or trying to make a better deal will not do. They need to understand that if all they can do is find excuses to do nothing they're gone. They may not have the votes or they may have whatever they propose vetoed, but for God's sake they should be trying. Let them die with their boots on instead of weaseling out of trying to do anything at all.

Oh, and tell them not to bother trying to scare you with who might replace them. They aren't doing anything for you now, so what have you got to lose?

[scooperss]

They aren't doing anything for you now, so what have you got to lose?

I'm shocked at the number of people who DON'T ask this question. For some reason voters seem to believe that if you re-elect someone they will magically change and be what you expect them to be.

Face facts, if they aren't doing what you voted for them to do then you will be no worse off if you vote for someone else.

Frankly after the domestic spying went through with dem support I don't see any reason at all to vote dem. Funded the war and allowed spying on citizens.

We need people to represent we the people.

[leftLibertarian]

I'll vote for anyone who will remove US troops from Iraq immediately and who will then arrest Bush and Cheney!

I know NONE of the girlie men Democrat candidates will.

[Jason357]

It's the same sales job no matter which party. The party bosses chime in with, "you don't want the other party to win do you?" when the job is just not getting done. So, we end up with the South Park contest of Giant Douche versus the Turd Sandwich and both parties spouting off on the same issues they said they would improve upon 60 years ago, but still haven't.

This country needs more influence in government from ALL sides, not just those married to the democratic or republican party. Those two parties can not possibly represent 300 million people adequately, especially when they both are just corporate whores.

[partyofone]

Primary challenges for every incumbent -- Democrat or Republican -- is the only hope for THE PEOPLE to get the attention of a special-interest-owned, pork-stuffed, do-nothing Congress. The state parties have so gerrymandered Congressional districts that the vast majority of seats are "safe" for incumbents. Reform and progress might really begin if district voters replaced incumbents with reform-minded nonminees of the same party. If elected, these candidates could bring much needed fresh ideas, energy, independence and a strength in numbers that could challenge the archaic incumbent-serving senority system, the intrenched do-nothing leadership, and the corporate-special-interest-protecting status quo.

It is VERY encouraging to see the prospect of a trend in primary challenges for Congressional incumbents!!! The nation can only benefit from this.

[OfficialA]

General election challenges against the two outdated parties are necessary if you want to return power to the people. Primary challenges are better than nothing, but in the end the parties will hange the rules to protect the establishment.

A third party is a must.

If you doubt the viability of a third party, then ask yourself, "Who was the first Republican president?"

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

The fact that the only example you can point to was 147 years ago isn't encouraging.

[eddiestardust]

Finally someone moveon.orgg) has figured it out!

Politics is the art and science of compromise...
Not compromising real, true values human values...but compromising humanisitic idiot values that many have adhered to.

Let's face it , this war should have ended
yesterday but the truth is that no one( except
those who are not in office, wants to)

Let's call a spade a spade...

If human life is sacred, if we really value peace we can find a way to compromise with our fellow republican legislators...

If we can't..that means we....our democratic party legilators are hypocrites all.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Compromise to do what? For republicans compromise means 'do it our way anyway'.
What exactly is a compromise in this issue anyway? Keeping a 'residual' force in too small to do anything but be a target.

[Mariel]

In this house we think Biden is the best, but I also think Edwards is worthy. Richardson has lots of experience but he is unpredictable (which would be better than predictably bad). I think Wesley Clark would be a good VP or in the cabinet--his expertise should never be overlooked even if he has not whatever it takes to be Prez. There are some good candidates but they are not at the "top" so far.

[DatelessNerd]

Take another look at this article.

Democrats never talk about doing what's best for America. They only talk about doing what's best for their political careers.

There lies the problem.

[Qbear]

Out of Iraq
Out of Congress


pick one

[Qbear]

GONE in '08

should be the bumper sticker on EVERY car

[gro]

This is good for martial law scenarios, too!