White House can't stop left's revolt Last Updated: 5:15 AM, June 11, 2010 Posted: 11:36 PM, June 10, 2010
Kirsten Powers After Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln eked out a primary win over labor-backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter on Tuesday, an anonymous White House official snarked to Politico, "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise."
Oh, snap. Organized labor was not amused.
AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale fumed: "Is the lesson they are taking out of tonight that they can go after labor and anonymously trash us and we will put our tail in between our legs and slink home? That ain't happening."
Other leading liberals expressed outrage and a commitment to keep on flushing, results be damned.
EPA Meg Whitman MSNBC host Ed Schultz was raging about the White House comment Wednesday; Arianna Huffington came on his show to remark,"Unions and progressives are not going to support a candidate just because he or she has a 'D' behind their name."
Standing by your principles -- what a novel idea.
Pay attention, White House folks, you could learn something.
Huffington, a major player on the activist left, went on: "It's really important that Democrats do not just vote for the Democratic candidate. Remember the Club for Growth, on the right, did that by actually picking candidates that shared their views, on the free market and taxation, and they made a big difference in what other candidates espoused."
Uh-oh.
This is very bad for establishment Democrats. It's also very good for people who still believe that there are some ideas worth standing up for.
The establishment GOP has been facing down a similar animal on the right with the Tea Partiers and has largely embraced it, not mocked it as the White House political team has chosen to do to their formerly most loyal supporters.
The Tea Party movement is essentially demanding that candidates adhere to some basic conservative principles and follow through on their promises. Now we're seeing the same challenge to the establishment on the left -- and it's about time.
Wednesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- which supported Lincoln's challenger -- e-mailed its supporters: "Political insiders are gloating. They're proud that they beat thousands of people fighting for change." Ouch.
Establishment Democrats are insisting Lincoln was unfairly targeted for one bad vote against Labor's agenda (legislation euphemistically known as "card check"). But it was much more than that. Lincoln is emblematic of a bigger problem: Democrats who are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America.
Since she was elected, Lincoln has raised more money from oil and gas companies than any other US senator. Financial-services companies also top her list of donors, making her cozy with two industries that should be shunned. Which is why what the "anonymous" insider (hint: rhymes with "bomb") called a "pointless exercise" in Arkansas was anything but.
The progressive movement built power in this election, by almost taking out an incumbent with a challenger who entered the race late and 20 points down. By the end, he was within points of winning -- and his presence in the race had forced Lincoln to champion serious derivatives reform in the Senate.
The White House may be publicly scoffing at the challenge from the left, but you can be sure other incumbent Democrats aren't. Blanche Lincoln got the scare of a lifetime and the message was heard loud and clear in Capitol Hill's hallways: You will be held accountable for your votes.
No Democratic incumbent wants to face what Lincoln did. And Arkansas has the second-least-unionized state in the country. If labor money and progressive activists can influence a race there, what do you think they can do elsewhere?
I can't wait to see.kirstenpowers@aol.com
Read more: www.nypost.com/p/news/opi...uhjGgJKRSaL#ixzz0qYJ0N2V8
