MoveOn.org Pressuring Democrats in Health Care Fight

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With House Democratic leaders ratcheting up their arm-twisting and whipping operations in advance of the high-stakes health care vote, pressure on vulnerable Members is also mounting from one of their own party’s most reliable attack dogs.

“Our members worked extremely hard to help get a Democratic majority elected,” said Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn.org’s director of political advocacy and communications. “Not to just get elected, but to pass legislation.”

On Monday, the liberal group backed that up with an e-mail to its members that threatens primaries for Members who vote against the bill and the release of a new six-figure national cable TV ad campaign that targets Democrats who are wavering on whether to support the controversial legislation.



Among the specific targets are Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.) and Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). The group is spending more than $61,000 in Altmire’s district, more than $36,000 in Murphy’s district and more than $49,000 in North Dakota.



Pomeroy voted for an earlier health care package passed by the House, while Murphy and Altmire voted “no.” All three are now wavering on how they will vote later this week.

“Tell Congressman Jason Altmire to listen to us, not the insurance companies,” an announcer says in the spot that is running in his district.



In 2006, MoveOn.org and its members spent almost $448,000 to help Altmire defeat then-Rep. Melissa Hart (R) in Pennsylvania. That was the second-largest investment the group made in any House or Senate race that cycle, according to MoveOn.org’s post-election report.

The group recently stepped up to reassert its influence and fundraising prowess am

ong liberal Democratic activists by helping Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter raise more than $1.2 million in the week after he announced a primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D).

According to Hogue, Lincoln “distinguished herself early in the health care fight as an obstructionist.”

MoveOn.org’s latest action rekindles the tension between its push for progressive purity and party strategists’ efforts to get incumbents re-elected in competitive districts.

“They’re the friend who comes and yells at you at your own dinner party,” said one Democratic strategist, who acknowledged that MoveOn.org has become a decidedly mixed bag for the party.

Part of the problem for Democrats is that they never quite know where the liberal group will aim the collective power of its 5.2 million members next.

“They live in a slightly different universe,” according to another veteran Democratic strategist. “They don’t look to fit their strategy in concert with everyone else.”

With Democrats in control of the White House, the House and the Senate for the first time in MoveOn.org’s dozen years of existence, Hogue acknowledged they are in uncharted waters.

“We’re taking less of a party approach and more of an individual approach,” she said about the group’s activities this cycle.

In an e-mail Monday, the group asked members to “pledge to support progressive primary challengers to House Democrats who side with Republicans to kill health care reform.”

But the candidate filing deadline has already passed Pennsylvania, as well as in North Carolina, where MoveOn.org invested $179,000 in 2008 to help elect now-Rep. Larry Kissell (D). Kissell also voted against the House health care reform bill.

The filing deadlines have passed in 15 other states as well, so it will be impossible to field progressive primary challengers there.

On one hand, votes for health care reform and the cap-and-trade bill are deemed political suicide, but Hogue argues that in the case of Arkansas, Lincoln’s favorable rating has fallen so far with the Democratic base because of her approach that she’ll have trouble turning out Democrats she needs to get re-elected.

The Democratic infighting is good news for Republicans, who have had their share of ideological spats showcased this cycle and who have been on the receiving end of MoveOn.org attacks in the past.

“Their focus isn’t on Republicans anymore,” quipped one House GOP operative about the group’s recent focus on progressive purity. In some ways, Republicans have moved on as well.

The National Republican Congressional Committee recently attacked South Carolina Democratic challenger Rob Miller for being a “darling” of MoveOn.org, but similar attacks appear to be tapering off as ACORN rises to the top of the list of Democratic bogeymen for the GOP.

This year won’t be the first time MoveOn.org has waded into Democratic primaries. They helped Donna Edwards defeat Rep. Albert Wynn in Maryland in 2008 and Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman in the Senate primary in Connecticut in 2006, even though Lieberman went on to win re-election as an Independent.

“They do have the ability to help Democrats with urgent resources,” according to the Democratic strategist.

MoveOn.org and its members infused state Attorney General Martha Coakley’s (D) campaign with more than $600,000 in the Massachusetts Senate special election and helped elect Rep. Bill Owens (D) in last year’s special election in New York’s 23rd district.

But the group has provoked its share of controversy.

It sponsored a contest in 2004 that resulted in someone uploading a commercial to its Web site that paralleled President George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler. MoveOn.org was also heavily criticized in September 2007 after the group ran a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?” According to multiple Democratic strategists, that was a low point for the organization.

Still, the group has certainly benefited the Democratic Party.

In the spring of 2006, MoveOn.org aired a series of “red-handed” television attack ads that helped soften up second- and third-tier Republican incumbents and ultimately helping Democrats win the majority. Overall, the group spent $4.4 million in contributions and independent expenditures in 33 targeted House and Senate races.



In 2008, MoveOn.org’s spending held steady at $4.6 million in 20 House and Senate races, but the group’s members gave $88 million and 20 million volunteer hours to help elect Barack Obama as president of the United States.

This story first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on March 16, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Plus 10 in the Senate? Republicans Certainly Not There Yet

By Stuart Rothenberg

Having seen victories by Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, the 1994 Republican and 2006 Democratic Congressional sweeps, and Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) recent Massachusetts victory, I’m not inclined to rule out unexpected outcomes — especially nine months before an event.

But the recent explosion of talk of Republicans gaining 10 seats in the Senate is simply premature. Right now, the GOP has an opportunity to net as many as eight Senate seats. That’s a huge number, especially considering that Democrats have 18 seats up this fall, but it is well short of control.

The new political landscape has resulted in an improved environment for the GOP, including the very real possibility that the party can retain all four of its most vulnerable open seats, in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and New Hampshire.

For the moment, let’s assume the GOP avoids losing any of its own seats.

Republicans have the advantage in four Democratic-held Senate seats — North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas and Nevada. In addition, they are no worse than even money in four others — Indiana, Illinois, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

So, any chance of gaining 10 seats would require Republican candidates to win at least two of the following four states: Connecticut, California, Wisconsin and Washington.

Early polling in Connecticut shows state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal ahead of both former Rep. Rob Simmons and businesswoman Linda McMahon, the two Republicans most likely to be the eventual nominee.

Simmons is a quirky ex-legislator who built a moderate record while representing eastern Connecticut in the House. McMahon is a wealthy, self-funding first-time candidate whose claim to fame and wealth, professional wrestling, is widely seen as crude and violent.

Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D) exit from the race hurt Simmons, whose main argument has been substance and electability. He is now an underdog for the GOP nomination. McMahon’s wealth (she has promised to spend tens of millions of dollars), outsider persona, poise and relatively conservative positioning makes her stronger than Simmons in a primary and potentially more of a threat to Blumenthal.

Still, both Republicans start far behind Blumenthal, in the polls and in handicapping. A four-term statewide officeholder, Blumenthal is a smart Democrat in a Democratic state. He’ll raise plenty of cash and begins with a clear advantage in the race.

In California, voters aren’t particularly enthusiastic about Sen. Barbara Boxer (D). She’s a polarizing political figure and running at or below 50 percent in ballot tests against either Assemblyman Chuck DeVore or businesswoman Carly Fiorina, two of the leading Republicans in the race.

Still, DeVore doesn’t have the breadth of appeal or money to defeat Boxer, while Fiorina has plenty of baggage.

Boxer’s prospects would take a hit, of course, if California Republicans were to nominate former Rep. Tom Campbell, a moderate who would have considerable statewide appeal — if he could accumulate the resources for an expensive statewide race. But Campbell’s past fundraising isn’t encouraging.

For now, Boxer’s weakness does not yet translate into a serious Republican opportunity.

In Wisconsin, some polling has shown Sen. Russ Feingold (D) having trouble in a race against former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R). The only problem is that Thompson isn’t now running for the Senate, though he is considering it. And Feingold, who voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is a savvy politician who has developed a reputation for independence.

The main Republican contender currently is Terrence Wall, a prosperous real estate developer who put $300,000 into his campaign but hasn’t paid state taxes in nine of the past 10 years. Democrats apparently have other tax ammunition to use against Wall.

When I interviewed Wall recently, he refused to give his date of birth. He only offered the year of his birth (and his age), apparently because he is concerned about identity theft. Wall, in other words, has a long way to go before he is a serious threat to Feingold, even in a bad year for Democrats.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is another smart politician, and while Republican insiders hope to recruit someone who can test the Senator, they don’t have a formidable challenger yet. Until they do, there isn’t any reason to see Washington as a GOP takeover opportunity.

Obviously, Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-Ind.) sudden announcement Monday that he will not seek re-election improves GOP prospects in that state and therefore nationally.

While some polling showed the Democrat at risk, a recent Research 2000 poll for the liberal Web site the Daily Kos showed him leading former Sen. Dan Coats by 20 points. Bayh’s political savvy, strong connection to Hoosier voters and $13 million bank account would have made him a formidable foe for any Republican challenger, so his exit automatically improves GOP prospects, especially given the overall landscape of the election cycle.

Bayh’s retirement puts an eighth Democratic seat at considerable risk, forcing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to be even more on the defensive than it was. But in another sense, it doesn’t change things fundamentally. For even after Bayh’s retirement, a Republican gain of 10 seats is more hype than reality.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on February 16, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.

New CT and ND Senate Ratings

Two Democratic retirements essentially cancel each other in terms of the outlook for the Senate.

Democratic prospects got significantly worse in North Dakota with Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D) departure. Gov. John Hoeven (R) was leading Dorgan in hypothetical match-ups and he would be a heavy favorite in an open seat if he chooses to run. The Democratic bench consists of only one person- At-Large Cong. Earl Pomeroy- but he looks to be initially unlikely to run.

Democratic prospects brightened in Connecticut now that Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is not running for reelection. Dodd appeared to be stuck at or below 40% in public polls and was in dire shape for another term. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) is going run in Dodd's place and is the favorite to keep the seat in Democratic hands.

We've also moved the Arkansas and Colorado races to Toss-Up, not because of breaking news, such as Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) retirement announcement, but because the national mood has changed and public polls consistently show the Democrats in those two states in a very vulnerable position.

Here are our latest Senate ratings.
#- Moved benefiting Democrats
*- Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (0 R, 2 D)

• ND Open (Dorgan, D) *
• DE Open (Kaufman, D)

Toss-Up (4 R, 5 D)

• KY Open (Bunning, R)
  
• MO Open (Bond, R)
• NH Open (Gregg, R)
• OH Open (Voinovich, R)
• IL Open (Burris, D)
• Bennet (D-CO) *
• Lincoln (D-AR) *
  
• Reid (D-NV)
• Specter (D-PA)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 0 D)

• Burr (R-NC)
• Vitter (R-LA)

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 1 D)

• Grassley (R-IA)
• FL Open (LeMieux, R)
• CT Open (Dodd, D) #
  

Currently Safe (10 R, 11 D)

• Bennett (R-UT)
• Coburn (R-OK)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Isakson (R-GA)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Thune (R-SD)
• KS Open (Brownback, R)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Wyden (D-OR)
• MA Open (Kirk, D)

For North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, the Time Is Now

By Stuart Rothenberg

North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad (D) is in the right place, at the right time. Or, depending how you look at it, he’s in precisely the wrong place, at precisely the wrong time.

Conrad, after all, chairs the Senate Budget Committee, making him a key player in President Barack Obama’s effort to pass a budget, and ultimately to move forward with expensive, expansive programs.

But it’s not just his chairmanship that makes North Dakota’s senior Senator a key player. It’s that Conrad begins with well-earned credibility as one of the Senate’s true deficit hawks that allows him to take on a president of his own party, both now and later.

Will Conrad continue to be a vocal critic of bigger deficits, even if it means fighting the president’s agenda on global warming, health care and the financial industry? Or will he simply talk about the danger of exploding deficits while allowing deficits totaling $9.3 trillion from 2010 to 2019 — a figure that the Congressional Budget Office calculated from the administration’s budget proposal?

Since the budget resolution is only a blueprint, Conrad will have many opportunities to take on the White House over spending and the deficit if he so chooses. And some Democrats’ willingness to consider using the reconciliation process (which requires only a bare majority, not 60 votes) to jam controversial health care and possibly global warming legislation through the Senate will give Conrad other opportunities to make a stand.

The North Dakota Democrat begins with some unique qualities and assets as a possible adversary for Obama, who has his own great abilities.

“Kent is a quiet, effective Member who becomes more important every day that he’s there,” former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) told me recently.

But Breaux didn’t stop there.

“Republicans don’t always agree with him. Democrats don’t always agree with him. But Senators from both parties will tell you that they are happy that he is there. They know that he’ll bring a sense of sanity to the [budgetary and legislative] process.”

Conrad is widely regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, hardest-working Senators on Capitol Hill, and he has, at least in part, moved into a role once played by Breaux: the legislative broker who tries to bring various interests together to produce a reasonable bill that can be enacted into law.

Conrad, who is the only person in history to hold both of a state’s Senate seats at the same time (however briefly), has been a deficit hawk since he was first sent to the Senate by North Dakota voters in 1986, when he knocked off incumbent Sen. Mark Andrews (R). He’s been an advocate of balanced budgets (and pay-as-you-go rules) whether the White House was held by a Republican or a Democrat.

One Republican Capitol Hill staffer who is very familiar with Conrad was nothing short of effusive in explaining the North Dakotan’s skills.

“Most Members will tell staff what they need and leave it to them to do the real work. Not Conrad. He sits through the negotiations. It’s almost as if he does staff work in addition to a Member’s work. He always has paper. He has information. He knows his stuff. And when the doors close, he cuts the deal,” said the staffer.

The question, of course, is whether everyone will like the deal.

Republicans, in particular, were quick to criticize Conrad’s version of the budget last week.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Obama’s budget “spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much” — the newest Republican refrain. But he also slammed Conrad when he complained that given “all the bipartisan praise that budget transparency received ... the Budget Committee voted to put most of the gimmicks and tricks back in.”

Conrad’s disagreement with the Obama budget’s bottom line doesn’t necessarily mean that the North Dakotan disagrees with what Obama wants to accomplish. He has only suggested that he is unhappy with the cost of some of the pieces of President Obama’s agenda.

However, Conrad has indicated that he isn’t ready to throw out procedural niceties, such as the filibuster, to accomplish big changes.

Given the president’s emphasis on bipartisan cooperation and changing the tone in Washington, D.C., as well as the likelihood that Republicans would go nuclear if Senate Democrats tried to use reconciliation to pass cap-and-trade legislation or even fundamental health care reform, Conrad could find himself facing off against his own party’s Senate leadership.

Serious and studious, Conrad doesn’t possess Barack Obama’s charisma or bully pulpit. But because of his reputation and skill as a negotiator, the North Dakota Democrat definitely is a man to watch in the coming months.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 30, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.