In 2006, Democrats took back control of Congress because of public outrage at George Bush and the War in Iraq.  But we should remember it almost didn’t happen – until August, when Ned Lamont proved that Democrats can galvanize that energy to beat an incumbent Senator in a primary.  Tomorrow, Pennsylvania Democrats will be asked to dump ex-Republican Arlen Specter – and in Arkansas, conservative Senator Blanche Lincoln also faces a primary challenge.  And just like Joe Lieberman, the Party establishment is circling the wagons in both states – with President Obama shooting a radio ad that claims Lincoln “took on big insurance companies” to pass health care.  A new poll shows that voters prefer Democrats over Republicans, which suggests that 2010 may not be the nightmare everyone fears.  But it also showed that voters hate incumbents.  If Democrats want to avoid a bloodbath in November, Specter and Lincoln must be defeated.

In a development that Democrats are celebrating, last week’s Associated Press poll found that voters prefer a “generic Democrat” over a “generic Republican” for Congress by a 45-40 margin.  That’s almost a complete reversal from last month, but the poll also shows a dangerous trend – only one-third would re-elect their own Congressmember.  Far from just Teabaggers on the right who are waging a Stalinist purge of Republicans, there is disenchantment on the left that explains the malaise.  And so far, the Democratic leadership and Obama White House are refusing to recognize it.

If Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter survive the Democratic primary, it will only get worse.  There is no guarantee Specter or Lincoln would beat their Republican challengers in November – in fact, odds are against it.  In Arkansas, Republican John Boozeman beats Lincoln by 14 points.  In Pennsylvania, Specter quit the GOP because right-winger Pat Toomey would beat him in the primary.  If they face each other in the general, Specter loses byeight points.

Does this mean their progressive challengers – Bill Halter in Arkansas, and Joe Sestak in Pennyslvania – would win?  Not necessarily, but the odds are much greater.  Match-up polls show both Democrats doing better against the Republican in November, but a more important metric is the “favorable/unfavorable” numbers.  As incumbents, Lincoln and Specter have high name-recognition – and voters don’t like them.  You can’t convince someone who’s already made up their mind to change it.  With Halter and Sestak, the outcome is more fluid – because voters will be open to persuasion come November.

Democratic elites always lecture progressive activists about “electability” – how we must temper our idealism and support for liberal candidates for the “greater good” of defeating Republicans.  And yet, Organizing for America – the President’s “field team” that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton and John McCain – is urging supporters to help Lincoln and Specter win the primary.  While I’m sure many of us would support Lincoln and Specter (albeit grudgingly) if they win the primary, to do so now is sick and counterproductive.

Let’s review things for a minute.  As a moderate Republican, Arlen Specter co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007 – but balked in 2009 because of pressure from the right-wing of his party.  After becoming a Democrat in April 2009, he nevertheless remained opposed to EFCA and did not repudiate his prior support for a flat tax when I asked him directly.  He’s been a decent Democratic vote over the past year, but only after Sestak opted to challenge him.

Blanche Lincoln’s record is even worse.  As the White House pushed for health care reform, she vowed to filibuster any bill that included a “public option” – even when her Arkansas constituents supported it.  In other words, she was entering in cahoots with Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans to block any vote on President Obama’s highest legislative priority – one he took so seriously that everything else had to wait.  If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a spine, this would have been treated as an act of war.

Senators rarely lose re-election – not to mention a primary in their own party – which is why it’s so hard to hold them accountable with a serious candidate.  When Joe Lieberman lost in 2006, it was the first time that a Democratic Senator failed to get re-nominated in fourteen years.  The fact that two incumbents now stand to get primaried in the same year is remarkable, and should be a serious “wake-up call” to the Democratic Party leaders.

But the leadership is circling the wagons – because the Senate is a “club” (often known as the world’s most exclusive club), and incumbents are terrified that a primary challenge to Lincoln and Specter could mean they’re next.  San Francisco readers will recall how the State Senate rallied around Carole Migden (despite her liabilities as an incumbent), when Mark Leno ran against her in 2008.  What we see right now at the national level is not all that different.

Like we’ve seen before, the task for progressives now is to save the Democratic Party from itself.  We will not see the glaring “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Republicans shrink if Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter win the primary.  They will stand to lose to a cadre of right-wing challengers in November, which will only embolden the Sarah Palin crowd to bring back the Bush Administration.  That’s why it’s so crucial to help Halter and Sestak.

Fortunately, you don’t have to be in Arkansas or Pennsylvania to help out.  MoveOn can help you call its Arkansas members, and recruit them to volunteer for Bill Halter.  Joe Sestak’s campaign website enables you to make virtual calls to Pennsylvania.  It is these tools that elected Barack Obama, and now we’re using them to rescue his legacy.

Of course, everyone knows that Joe Lieberman was a sore loser after Ned Lamont won the primary, stayed in the race as an independent and – with active support from Karl Rove – won re-election.  But the same won’t happen this time.  In both Arkansas and Pennsylvania, the deadlines to file as an independent candidate have already lapsed.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done.  People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric.  Let’s just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.  

Unfortunately, just when we see Congress starting to pass bills promised during the last election, we get an unwelcomed glimpse of some of the ugliest parts of politics.  It disgusts and frightens me that not only were Members of Congress spat upon as they walked to the Capitol, but lunatics threatened to kill the family members of our elected officials.  I am disheartened by the actions of my fellow Americans in the last week but I am not without hope because despite all of these threats, they made real progress and that is something to celebrate.

Healthcare Reforms’ passage also clears the way for the Senate to take up climate and they are thankfully wasting no time.  According to E&E senior reporter Darren Samuelsohn, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is inserting himself into the energy and climate debate with a series of meetings [on Tuesday and Wednesday] with key players engaged in the closed-door negotiations.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is also doubling down on climate saying, “In the wake of health care’s passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight.  Climate legislation is the single best opportunity we have to create jobs, reduce pollution and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm.”

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the undecideds are starting to vocally call for Congress to consider a bill.  Earlier this week, Senator Tom Udall lead a group of 22 moderate Senators in calling on Senator Majority Leader Reid to bring up comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation for a vote. The letter is especially significant because most of these folks hadn’t been saying much about climate legislation before.  And if those in the middle remained silent, that would have deadened any momentum.  But they didn’t.  

Although none of this guarantees that we will get a bill and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that any bill that moves will be strong enough to address the problems, it represents significant progress.  Members of Congress have had a hard week so I hope that they go home over the Easter recess and take a few days to recuperate.  When they get back, there is much to do and a lot of momentum to build upon.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

From Boxer’s office:

The resolution that passed today did not reflect Senator Boxer’s belief that Senator Lieberman should remain in the Democratic caucus but not retain his full Committee Chairmanship- she voted accordingly.

Good vote by Boxer, you can find her online at Barbara Boxer dot com.

With word yesterday that President-Elect Obama wants Joe Lieberman to stay in the Democratic Caucus, the issue of his near-term future is a bit clearer. Wanting Lieberman to stay in the caucus of course is not at all the same thing as allowing him to keep his chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is the real question. But since the prospect remains of him retaining his chairmanship, it’s worth considering what the impact would be.

It’s maybe the second day of Group Psychology 101 that as soon as you start creating special rules for individuals, the entire system breaks apart. If Joe Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, what’s the functional message to everyone else in the caucus? If I’m a conservative, red-state, but generally well behaved Senator like Ben Nelson, I’m thinking to myself “I didn’t just spend two years with subpoena power over the Bush administration to campaign for the Republican presidential nominee and Senate candidates. I didn’t refuse to stamp down Obama-is-a-Muslim rumors. I don’t fear for the country if the party I want to caucus with gains power. I didn’t spend the past year undermining the Democratic nominee for President. I didn’t quit the party when it became personally inconvenient. If Lieberman gets to chair Homeland Security after all of that, what do I get?” And I won’t even start to delve into what traditional liberal lions like Sen. Boxer must or at least should be thinking about all this. Doing the right thing gets you where?

It would create an active dis-incentive to party loyalty over personal ambition. The problem child gets the special attention. Anyone who grew up with a sibling or simply attended school knows how this works. Which brings us to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ALl indications are that she’s in line to chair the Senate Intelligence Committee in the next Congress. Meanwhile, she’s laying claim to the CW’s inside track for California Governor in 2010. Combine those circumstances with the considerable number of Feinstein boosters who are convinced that there’s some sort of magical party-bucking ratio that makes a reasonable and moderate California Democrat (the only sort of Democrat who could possibly win the Governor’s race, natch) and Feinstein’s dicey record on FISA, on trainwreck Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and support for the nomination of homophobic and racially questionable Judge Leslie Southwick, and you’ve put Feinstein in quite a position.

If Lieberman is allowed to retain his committee, then the lesson that chairing a committee is secondary to personal priorities leaves Feinstein campaigning for Governor as chair of the Intelligence Committee. Specifically, if burnishing her middle-of-the-road credentials for the governor’s race collides with the interests of the Democratic Senate Caucus, the presidential agenda, or even the right thing, Senate Democrats would have signaled to her that her electoral ambitions come first. And in fact, that acting out is the best way to get special favors in DC, which would be good to have when it comes time for big name stumpers in 2010.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that the United States Senate operates on the same psychological level as a group of children. But the potential power-play aspects of this are clear and inescapable. Unless we rally to the Lieberman Must Go cause now, we risk a free for all that undermines the Senate and the Obama agenda and sets a clear example that personal ambition trumps Democratic functionality. And if bucking the system is how you get places, then bucking the system is what we’ll get more of. And I certainly don’t want to give Senator Feinstein more incentive to run to the right for the next two years.

full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign but write this independently

You have to be a complete fool to claim to be a Democrat and then package in your campaign trial balloon a prepared statement of praise from Joe Lieberman.  Anyone you has been paying any attention knows that is the kiss of death in Democratic politics, especially in a blue seat in a major blue geographic area effectively serviced by mass transit. I’m surprised we haven’t seen any quotes (yet) from Dan Gerstein.

I don’t have a problem with people who worked for Lieberman running for office, but there needs to be an apology right off the bat so voters recognize that the candidate has learned the errors of their ways and is willing to take responsibility all those who have suffered due to their support for Bush’s main man in the senate.

But that isn’t the route Yul Kwon (CA for Leiberman) is taking. Nope, he seems to think Lieberman praising him makes him look good (like Bush, or like Brownie during his confirmation). That just isn’t the case. Speier v Yee would have been a hard fought but fair campaign. Yet anyone running on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket in the Bay Area should expect far, far worse.

UPDATE: Even one of our friends at the California Majority Report agrees that, “being a former Lieberman staffer doesn’t really win one a lot of friends in the Democratic Party.”

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily

As further proof that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign does not deserve progressive support, the New York Senator announced yesterday that she has received another prominent endorsement – from Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek.  As chair of the New Democrat Coalition, Tauscher is a so-called “moderate” Democrat who supported the War in Iraq until recently, is a hawk on defense spending, and has routinely deserted progressives for business interests.  Last October, merely days before the mid-term elections, she publicly fretted that party activists were driving the Democratic Party “over the left cliff.”

Tauscher was first elected in 1996 by defeating a Republican Congressman, as she emphasized her centrist credentials in a district that was economically conservative but socially liberal.  But after the post-2000 re-districting gave her a much safer seat, she continued to act as if she represents a “swing” district.  Tauscher’s icy relationship with progressives have driven liberal bloggers to actively consider a primary challenge against her in 2008. 

Progressives despise Ellen Tauscher because, beyond her voting record, she uses her status as a Democrat to undermine opposition to Republicans.  In 1997, she joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group of conservative Democrats who frequently cut deals with the Republican Congress.  In 2006, after the Democrats re-gained a majority, President George Bush met with Tauscher and other moderate Democrats, in an obvious move to undercut the influence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In 2004, Tauscher’s candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination was Senator Joe Lieberman.  After his primary campaign went nowhere, she argued that it wasn’t about his support for the War in Iraq, but “more about satisfying the Democratic desire to have somebody who is going to go out and beat George Bush.”  So what does her endorsement mean for Hillary Clinton?

Send feedback to [email protected]

I want to follow up on Todd Beeton’s article on the fake John Edwards whine. Todd already took down the piece, but of course Carla Marinucchi went to the go-to wanker:

Democratic strategist Garry South, who advised Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman during his bid for the party’s 2004 nomination, said “there’s always a danger when you’re running for public office that a pattern of behavior starts to emerge. And it might be utterly unfair to draw conclusions when things add up to a pattern — but that’s what people do, and that’s what the media does.”

If you want a pattern, let’s talk about Garry South destroying the (all once-bright) futures of Gray Davis, Joe Lieberman, and Steve Westly. It is literally like he won’t hire a client without potential to be on the top 10 list of the biggest losers in the Democratic Party this millennium. There are plenty of reasons for the Open Letter to Garry South.

And can we finally retire the term of him as a “Democratic strategist” after all the evidence the Democratic Party rejects him everywhere he goes? He’s a “Connecticut for Lieberman” strategist and has the record to prove it.