Moveon Weighs Anti-War Primary Challenges

[babylonsister]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/moveon_weighs_antiwar_primary.html

Moveon Weighs Anti-War Primary Challenges
By David Nather | 5:59 AM; Sep. 10, 2007

It was probably just a matter of time. The GOP has its Club for Growth, which mounts conservative primary challenges against “Republicans In Name Only.” Now, the liberal group MoveOn.org is thinking of doing the same thing for — you guessed it — “Democrats In Name Only.”

Last week, the grass-roots activist group, which had long been haranguing Congress’ new Democratic majority for failing to engineer the prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, sent an e-mail survey to its members soliciting their advice on organizing prospective primary challenges against Democrats who “side with the president on Iraq.”

The e-mail doesn’t list any names of incumbents that MoveOn might go after, but one Democrat who would have reason to worry is Brian Baird , who represents the politically competitive southwestern corner of Washington; after a trip to Iraq in August, he decided the troop “surge” should be given more time to work. “His constituents, like most people, want a responsible end to the war pretty soon,” says Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn’s political action committee.

But Baird could have plenty of company: 59 House Democrats voted in May against a bill that would have required President Bush to withdraw all troops from Iraq within six months. Meanwhile, 41 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate endorsed last month’s expansion of the administration’s authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorism suspects — a move that “capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear over wiretapping,” in MoveOn’s view.

If the membership were to approve the strategy, MoveOn would keep a close eye on how Democrats voted this fall on the next efforts to end the war, while gauging their vulnerability in a primary challenge.

Baird says the prospect doesn’t strike fear into his heart. “If anyone makes their decisions on war and peace based on the next election, I don’t think they should be here,” he says. Other Democrats, though, say it’s a bad move. Jason Altmire , who took a suburban Pittsburgh seat away from the GOP last fall — and who was among those who voted against the troop withdrawal bill and for the surveillance measure — calls the idea “incredibly shortsighted.” He says primary challenges would only leave Democrats in seats like his badly weakened.

[Ken Burch]

1. There need to be primary challenges to ALL pro-war Dems!

If you still back the war, you can't possibly care about Democratic domestic issues, because you are going to ensure that enough money gets poured into the slaughter that it won't be possible to do anything progressive if we retake the White House. It would mean guaranteeing the next Democratic president would be TO THE RIGHT of Bill Clinton, which, I assume we'd all agree, would have to be worse than losing.

Don't make victory meaningless. Don't elect Democrats that aren't different from Republicans. We all know nothing good would have come of replacing Nixon with Scoop Jackson.

[calimary]

2. It has to at least be a realistic threat to them. They HAVE TO KNOW

that they WILL face consequences, problems, and complications if they side with bush - that there WILL be a price to pay for that. They've GOT to be made aware of that.

True, it may not result in replacing all of them with more progressive dems, but STILL: they HAVE to be FORCED to realize that if they do side with bush - it will be at a cost. Maybe a great cost.