DCCC Plan To Destroy Progressive Campaigns Fails Miserably As Cheri Bustos' Favorite Blue Dog Goes Down To Defeat

On Tuesday, the primary in Illinois' third congressional showed the failure of Cheri Bustos' toxic plan to defeat progressive challenges to Blue Dog incumbents who are out of sync with their constituents. Anti-Choice, anti-healthcare, homophobic, anti-immigrant conservative Blue Dog/New Dem Dan Lipinski was beaten by progressive candidate Marie Newman. (Remember, the DCCC chose to undermine Newman's campaign even though Lipinski refused to endorse Obama's reelection in 2012mand is currently working with the GOP in demanding that the Supreme Court overturn Roe v Wade. Can you believe this sack of garbage is the Pelosi candidate?)

It isn't uncommon for it to take two cycles for a political newcomer to displace a long-time incumbent. Tuesday Newman, with considerable help from progressive organizations and with endorsements from Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Cory Booker, Ro Khanna, Julián Castro, Jan Schakowsky, Pramila Jayapal, Jay Inslee, Ayanna Pressley, and lots of other progressives-- both local and national-- overcame the DCCC + GOP operations to keep Lipinski in office.

As of the February 26 FEC reporting deadline, Lipinski had outspent Newman $1,348,228 to $1,193,371. But what was different from last year is that the flood of outside spending from Republican and other conservative groups on behalf of Lipinski failed to overcome progressive countermeasures. For example, the Blue Dog SuperPAC's $39,527, the National Association of Realtors' $50,686 and the slimy No Labels PAC's $80,092 was easily countered by NARAL alone ($211,468). The Republican Party's attempt tp help Lipinski through the Susan B. Anthony List this year, failed to move the needle the way it did in 2018. The Republican Party's Women Speak Out PAC spent around $20,000 to help Lipinski and hurt Neman in the midst of spending to bolster Trump and attack Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

Progressive unions like the SIEU and the Nurses spent independent money to help Newman, while conservative unions like the Plumbers and Pipefitters spent for Lipinski.

1,141 Blue America members contributed $14,912.56 on these five ActBlue pages + another $2,800 as the result of a Blue America contest.

• Blue America Better House 2020
• Primary A Blue Dog
• Medicare For All
• Congress Needs More Progressive Women
• Chicagoland

Marie couldn't have stood up to the DCCC and their conservative and GOP allies without grassroots help. So... thanks to everyone who gave and you otherwise helped Marie win. And... please consider contributing to the other candidates on those pages.

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova is running for a seat held by another Blue Dog, one even further to the right than Lipinski. Tom O'Halleran was a Republican state legislator whop pretended to be a Democrat because he got in a fight with Arizona's GOP. But he still votes with the Republicans more than almost anyone in Congress-- including Lipinski. Yesterday Eva told me that "Despite the efforts of the Democratic Party establishment to defeat Marie Newman in Illinois 3rd congressional district, she prevailed against reactionary, blue dog incumbent Dan Lipinski. This is a great victory for her, and an inspiration to me and other progressive challengers around the country. We know for a fact that voters support the progressive agenda that Newman ran on: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Get Money out of Politics, women's reproductive freedom, a complete, humane immigration reform etc. I am running on those issues as well, against a corporate-DCCC-funded incumbent. Marie's successful campaign is a harbinger of what the future holds in store for so-called 'moderate' status-quo Democrats when challenged by well-organized progressive challenger."

Shahid Buttar, the progressive primary winner in San Francisco who will face Pelosi in November, noted that "Conservative Democrats have held progressives politically hostage for the past three generations. But we are finally showing them the door. With all the might of the corporate Democratic party, Speaker Pelosi couldn't hold the seat of her Blue Dog friend, Dan Lipinski. Reproductive authoritarianism has no place in the Democratic Party, and it's disappointing that Speaker Pelosi would do so much to support it. Our campaign has brought the fight for the future to her door, as her first November challenger from within the Democratic Party in her 30 year career. I'm looking forward to joining Marie in expanding the Squad in the next congressional session."


Robin Wilt, the Monroe County progressive taking on useless New Dem Joe Morelle noted last night that in the early days after declaring her 2020 run for NY-25, she "was endorsed by NYC Public Advocate, Jumaane Williams. His was our campaign’s first major endorsement, and it came at a time when the establishment was busy tipping the designating scales in favor of my opponent-- a long time Party Boss and New Dem who represented a step backwards from the progressive leadership of NY-25’s departed former Representative, Louise Slaughter. Jumaane, in his endorsement of me, said, 'We need people in government who will stand up for the right causes and against the right people, in Rochester, throughout New York, and in our nation’s capital.' Jumaane’s sage words reflect the fight that we are waging within the Democratic Party to center the priorities of the people over those of corporate and party elites. Since Jumaane’s clarion call, there have been a cacophony of voices calling on progressives to 'vote blue no matter who.' But Marie Newman’s victory shows that members of the modern Democratic Party do not have to settle for half a loaf. In safe Democratic districts such as IL-03, where Lipinski won 73-26% in 2018, we have an opportunity to lead. It is not enough to merely resist the most deleterious policies of the GOP. Doing so enables the environment that produced Trump. It is only through the strength of a people-powered movement that we can turn the tide."

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) was an early endorser of Marie's campaign, despite DCCC hysteria and opprobrium. Yesterday she told me that she's "thrilled that Marie Newman, who ran a terrific grassroots campaign, won her primary last night! A strong supporter of Medicare for All, immigrant justice and combating climate change, Marie is passionate about serving everyone in her community. She will be a principled progressive in Congress, and I look forward to welcoming her into the Congressional Progressive Caucus and working with her to make bold change a reality. Marie’s victory shows what we have been saying for some time: Medicare for All is not just great policy, it is also great politics. In state after state, exit polls have proved that progressive policies like Medicare for All and College for All are widely popular. These are smart and popular policies-- and every single Democrat should be behind them."

I spoke with one of my DCCC contacts who told me that no one there cared one way or the other. "No one likes Lipinski anyway and most people here were rooting for Marie to beat him... Besides we won in Texas [meaning they protected Henry Cuellar against Jessica Cisenors] and... we'll beat all the other so-called progressives running against our incumbents, so [in a friendly way] f_ _k you." When I pressed about Bustos' and Pelosi's support for Lipinski, it was just how they had to do that so the Blue Dogs wouldn't all stop paying dues again and further undermine the party. When I reminded him that until she decided to run for leadership Bustos herself was a Blue Dog and that she still votes like one, I was told to "grow up." Call ended on that pleasant note.

Marie Newman-- Victorious Against Blue Dog Throwback Dan Lipinski

CNN's Chris Cillizza doesn't mention in this video that the Democrats are more likely to lose more seats than they pick up. Instead he says Republicans don't have enough money to win back a majority and that ether aren't enough opportunities. First off more Republicans have announced retirements (or are otherwise leaving) than Democrats-- 31 to 11. Open seats are usually the easiest to win, although many of the Republicans who are retiring are in deep red, gerrymandered districts. Here's the GOP House count with the PVIs (and the 2016 Trump presidential scores).

• George Holding, NC-02-- (PVI- re-districted), Clinton +24.4
• Mark Walker, NC-06-- (PVI- re-districted), Clinton +21.5
• Will Hurd, TX-23-- (PVI- R+1), Clinton +3.4
• Peter King, NY-02-- (PVI- R+3), Trump +6.1
• Sean Duffy, WI-07-- (PVI- R+8), Trump +20.4
• Susan Brooks, IN-05-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +11.8
• Paul Cook, CA-08-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +15.1
• Rob Woodall, GA-07-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +6.3
• Kenny Marchant, TX-24-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +6.2
• Ted Yoho, FL-03-- (PVI- R+9), Trump +16.0
• Pete Olson, TX-22-- (PVI- R+10), Trump +7.9
• Greg Gianforte, MT-AL-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +20.2
• Duncan Hunter, CA-50-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +14.8
• Greg Walden, OR-02-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +20.1
• Chris Collins, NY-27-- (PVI- R+11), Trump +24.5
• Bill Flores, TX-17-- (PVI- R+12), Trump +17.5
• Paul Mitchell, MI-10-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +32.2
• Jim Sensenbrenner, WI-05-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +20.1
• Bradley Byrne, AL-01-- (PVI- R+15), Trump +29.4
• Martha Roby, AL-02-- (PVI- R+16), Trump +31.9%
• John Shimkus, IL-15-- (PVI- R+21), Trump +46.2
• Francis Rooney, FL-19-- (PVI- R+13), Trump +22.1
• Mark Meadows, NC-11-- (PVI- R+14), Trump +17.3
• Ralph Abraham, LA-05-- (PVI- R+15), Trump +29.4
• Roger Marshall, KS-01-- (PVI- R+24), Trump +45.0
• Rob Bishop, UT-01-- (PVI- R+26), Trump +27.3
• Tom Graves, GA-14-- (PVI- R+27), Trump +52.9
• Phil Roe, TN-01-- (PVI- R+28), Trump +57.0
• Doug Collins, GA-09-- (PVI- R+31), Trump +58.5
• Mike Conaway, TX-11-- (PVI- R+32), Trump +58.7
• Mac Thornberry, TX-13-- (PVI- R+33), Trump +63.0

The only Democratic open seats that are competitive are IA-02, Dave Loebsack's which has a PVI of D+1 but was won by Trump by 4.1% and CA-25, Katie Hill's with an even PVI, won by Hillary by 6.7%. About half the open Republican seats are vaguely competitive, not counting the two redistricted seats in North Carolina, which are solid blue.

Before we even know who the nominees are in most districts, it's foolish to try to predict which seats will flip from red to blue or blue to red. But we'll keep watching. Today Oklahoma progressive Tom Guild, going up an even worse conservative Blue Dog than Lipinski is-- Kendra Horn-- told us that "Marie’s upset victory over Lipinski is a stunning win and an object lesson. When good progressive candidates have adequate funding and strong support from leaders of the progressive movement, they are able to unseat blue dogs and other assorted conservatives in the vice grip of ruling political elitists. In many cases these corporate conservatives are better fits with the Republican or Libertarian Parties. They often give the establishment two bites at the apple. If the Republicans loses, they can then turn to corporate Democrats, who are in all but name philosophically Republicans. It took Marie several attempts and she came very close to winning the seat two years ago. She had the determination and commitment it takes to focus on a daunting task and successfully achieve her objective. We have strong and principled progressive candidates, many endorsed by Blue America, who match Marie in that they have the guts needed to slay the dragon, but they may not have adequate campaign funds and/or the widespread support of the recognized leaders and organizations in our progressive movement. We are family. As our movement matures and expands its reach to give maximum support to many quality and hard-working progressive candidates, we will achieve many amazing and shocking victories across America. Many of us pray for God to grant us patience as we exhort Him to please hurry!"

Last night we were overjoyed to see IL-03 flip from purple to blue, as solid progressive Democrat Marie Newman beat Trump-friendly Blue Dog Dan Lipinski 48,677 (47.08%) to 36,677 (44.76%). As Tom said, it took Marie two cycles-- which is the normal way congressional districts are won. As of the February 26 FEC reporting deadline, Lipinski had spent $1,348,228 and Marie had spent $1,193,371. Thanks to everyone who chipped in through Blue America to make this fantastic win possible. Four more candidates on the verge-- who, like Marie, did well against conservative incumbents last time and look like they can win this time-- are J.D. Scholten (running against Steve King in Iowa), Mike Siegel (running against Michael McCaul in Texas), Audrey Denney (running against Doug LaMalfa in California) and Kara Eastman (running against Donald Bacon in Nebraska). They are all very much investing in-- for a better America-- and that's why the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer is on the right. Please click on it and contribute what you can to one of them or all of them-- or to Marie.

When Will Chicago Blue Dog Dan Lipinski Just Jump The Fence And Switch Parties?

Chicago's top political reporter, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, just blew up Blue Dog Dan Lipinski's reelection campaign by exposing an internal campaign document about how to appeal to Republican voters. The idea was to get Republicans to vote for him "by highlighting his vote against Obamacare while wooing independents by reminding them he opposed its repeal."

Other highlights from the strategy document suggesting messages to various voter demographics in the 3rd Congressional District:

• Hispanics were to be flagged about Lipinski’s “pro-Dreamer votes” while Republicans would be targeted with “pro border patrol” messaging.
• Lipinski is anti-abortion and that would be the emphasis for Republicans and Catholics, but not for outreach to other women, millennials, teachers, independents, union members and nurses.
• A drive to persuade Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary would include reaching out to GOP officeholders; getting letters from “GOP surrogates”; and through Facebook “ads targeting independents.”

Lipinski, from Western Springs, is in a three-way March contest against Marie Newman, from La Grange, who almost beat him in 2018, and Rush Darwish, from Palos Hills, who runs a radio and television production business. This is the biggest congressional Democratic primary in Illinois.

Details about Lipinski’s campaign strategy were contained in a Google document Lipinski’s political director Jerry Hurckes inadvertently sent to someone.

Screenshots of the Hurckes documents were shared with others, including Richard Rodriguez, a founding member of the Will County Progressives and a national board member of Our Revolution, spawned from Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Hurckes has long ties to Lipinski, first elected in 2004. He served as chief of staff to his father, Rep. Bill Lipinski, who represented the district for 22 years. Hurckes’ wife, MaryAnn, also works for the Lipinski campaign, according to federal campaign finance records.

Lipinski told the Sun-Times there are “serious ethical issues” for whoever circulated the Hurckes document.

“I have never seen this document until today,” Lipinski said last week, “...I am still not exactly sure who in my campaign may have put this together, but I had not, so this is not anything that I have approved.”

Lipinski said the strategies “are not necessarily my thoughts.”

The district is heavily Democrat. Republican Will County Board Member Mike Fricilone, from Homer Glen, is making a bid, but he’s raised little money to run a viable campaign. He only had $775 cash on hand as of Sept. 30. There will likely be a pool of persuadable crossover Republicans.

Newman and Darwish are progressives; Lipinski is a social conservative.

Rodriguez, who backs Newman, told the Sun-Times the different messages in the document shows Lipinski “is willing to play two different acts to hold his seat. I believe he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.”

Rodriguez said the document makes it “very clear to me there is strategy to target Republican voters. And that is a problem to me, that the DCCC is going to support an incumbent that is relying on Republicans to vote in a Democratic primary in a strongly Democratic district.”

Rodriguez has been outspoken in his criticism of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee “blacklist.”

The DCCC, under chair Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., officially backs incumbents. Bustos ordered the DCCC not to do business with vendors who work for Democratic challengers. Newman lost several consultants as a result of that blacklist.

It’s not unusual for candidates to evolve on issues or to seek crossover support. What is not common, however, is touting old and new positions at the same time, depending on the audience. Here’s some background.

In 2010, Lipinski voted against the Affordable Care Act, nicknamed Obamacare, because of his anti-abortion related concerns over some funding provisions in the bill. Since then, Lipinski has voted against Republican attempts to repeal the law.

In 2010, he also voted against the DREAM Act, to give legal protections to youths in the U.S. illegally through no fault of their own. Through the years he has joined other Democrats in backing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to protect “Dreamers,” nicknamed DACA.

The Lipinski campaign document included talking points to describe Lipinski and Newman.

Newman: “self absorbed”; “opportunist” and “Socialist.”

Lipinski: “vote conscience”; “labor unions;” “doesn’t check the wind”; “already on committees” and “character.”

Said Lipinski, “I think it’s a good summary, probably, of how I see myself, and I am not going to comment about Marie Newman.”

Newman campaign manager Ben Hardin said, “I think what is truly opportunistic is Congressman Lipinski’s willingness to mislead his constituents.”

Darwish communications director Andrew Patinkin said, “Lipinski is a Democrat in name only,” who “has to rely on Republican voters” while Darwish “represents the values and beliefs” of district residents.

After reading Lynn Sweet's piece, Marie Newman wrote that "The kind of cynicism displayed in the Lipinski campaign memo is why a lot of people are turned off from politics. Since he has not voted with the Democrats on critical issues, this memo suggests he is turning his attention to Republicans instead. This is why I am running-- because I believe this district needs a real Democrat who will fight for everyday issues and represent working people, lower health care costs, and fight for our Democratic values."

Newman continued that "We have a golden opportunity to make a change in our community this March. An opportunity to elect someone to Congress who will truly be an advocate for workers and working families. I am so honored to have the endorsement of Abe Matthew, and I know that with his help, we can make that change a reality."

Lipinski is one of the most reactionary of all the Republican-lite Blue Dogs in Congress often stands with the GOP against the Democratic agenda. ProgressivePunch has graded his voting record an "F." Progressive Marie Newman has been endorsed by presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand. Conservative Democrats who may back Lipinski-- namely Biden and Delaney-- haven't spoken openly about him and haven't endorsed him. Please consider contributing to Marie's campaign at the Chicagoland campaign thermometer on the right.

Members of Congress with the guts to stand up to Cheri Bustos and endorse Marie include Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ro Khanna (D-CA) and AOC (D-NY). Other progressive members are preparing to. Marie has also been endorsed by Blue America, Indivisible, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, DFA, NARAL, Justice Democrats, PCCC, PDA, the National Organization for Women, Our Revolution, Daily Kos, the American Postal Workers Union, and many other organizations, many of which do not normally endorse against Democratic incumbents.

Is The Democratic Party More Than Just A Vehicle For Careerist Politicians? AOC Endorses Marie Newman Against Lipinski

On Monday I asked my Twitter followers if it is enough for a candidate to just be a Democrat fighting a Republican. A slight plurality said no. Only 16% said "yes, for sure," and another 25% said they would vote for the garden variety Democrat but not contribute to their campaign. Comments including statement that there is no love for conservative Democrats who vote like Republicans, very much what I hope DWT readers will agree with. Last year, just before the Illinois congressional primary, NY Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns wrote that as the primary season was revving up, some Democrats were grappling with the question of what it means to be a Democrat. They began by looking at the tight primary between reactionary Blue Dog incumbent Dan Lipinski and progressive challenger Marie Newman, "When," they reported, "Representative Daniel Lipinski, a conservative-leaning Democrat and scion of Chicago’s political machine, agreed to one joint appearance last month with his liberal primary challenger, the divide in the Democratic Party was evident in the audience that showed up. Mr. Lipinski’s outnumbered supporters were the diminished lunch-pail Democrats that once dominated his Southside district. Those of his rival, Marie Newman, came from the party’s ascendant coalition-- young progressives and women like Elizabeth Layden, a Patagonia-clad teacher who explained her opposition to Mr. Lipinski in blunt terms.

“Because he’s a dinosaur, ’cause he’s a phony, ’cause he’s a Republican who claims to be a Democrat,” said Ms. Layden, 49, who has been making phone calls and knocking on doors to help unseat Mr. Lipinski, a seven-term House member, in the primary race this month. “Hello, women’s rights, and hello, my reproductive rights. Get out of my uterus.”

...[T]he backlash to President Trump’s divisive politics has also fueled a demand by the party’s progressive wing for ideological purity and more diverse representation, a tension that could reshape what it means to be a Democrat.

“This is part of the reason Donald Trump won,” Mr. Lipinski said in an interview, adding, “Democrats have chased people out of the party.”

Martin and Burns walked write into that with their establishment mindset that refers to "ideological purity" when talking about a Blue Dog who is vehemently anti-Choice-- not a little anti-Choice, but all the way, crazy insane, viciously, violently anti-Choice-- anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare. Dumping Lipinski isn't about ideological purity; it's about defeating a right-wing ideologue who consistently opposes core Democratic Party beliefs and values. Lipinski is very much the enemy, even if he still has a "D" next to his name. (On the ProgressivePunch website, he has an "F" next to his name.)

Lipinski was bequeathed his heavily Polish and Irish district in Chicago around Midway Airport and the South Side by his father, William Lipinski, a former ward boss and representative. The two Lipinskis have held the so-called Bungalow Belt seat for 35 unbroken years.

...Yet there are still elements of the fish-fry-Friday voters, the Catholic demographic that political veterans here still call “white ethnics.”

Wearing a Notre Dame hat and standing apart from the attendees at the candidate forum was Jack Nevin, an Illinois Department of Transportation employee who as a child attended the same parish as the Lipinski family and now lives in suburban Lemont.

“I’m a pro-life guy, born and raised Catholic,” said Mr. Nevin, by way of explaining why he was backing the incumbent. “Win or lose, he’s standing up for his beliefs.”

Ms. Newman used the forum to lash Mr. Lipinski for being out of step with the district, a drumbeat that prompted him to claim she was fomenting “a tea party of the left” that was pushing liberal “fantasies.”

But it is Mr. Lipinski who is testing just how much today’s voters in the Democratic primary contest are willing to accept in a safe seat. In addition to his deviation from orthodoxy on abortion and gay rights, he also opposed the Affordable Care Act and until recently did not support a $15 minimum wage or offering legal status to children brought to the country illegally.

“I am running with the district. I’m not voting against the district,” Ms. Newman said.

Her energetic campaign has drawn the support of a host of Washington-based progressive groups, some of which are funding attack ads and mailers against Mr. Lipinski. And she has lured Representatives Luis V. Gutiérrez and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois to oppose their colleague, a rebuke that has angered some moderate Democrats.

Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon, who leads the political arm of the centrist Blue Dog caucus, has complained to the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about the intervention of Ms. Schakowsky and said he would seek a rule change so that members like her who have formal positions on the committee cannot oppose incumbents. “That’s just wrong, and we’re going to change that,” he said.

The Oregon scumbag, Schrader, who now has a strong primary opponent of his own in Milwaukie mayor Mark Gamba, started the move to protect endangered right-wing incumbents that turned into the Cheri Bustos rule that has torn the DCCC apart. Bustos, another reprehensible Blue Dog at the time-- she's switched to being a just as putrid New Dei now-- decreed after taking over the DCCC that any consultant or vendor who works for a challenger to any Democratic incumbent would be blacklisted by the DCCC. (Her entire team has since been fired for racism and homophobia and the DCCC barely exists any longer other than as a contribution vacuum and as Bustos' private political machine. When dozens of caucus members demanded she be fired, she only escaped with her job by agreeing to seek psychiatric help to deal with her own racism, which the DCCC called "insensitivity."

"But," continued Martin and Burns, "the Washington contretemps are just a stand-in for a much weightier debate about the future of the party. Mr. Lipinski, who makes no apology for opposing the health law, has embraced donations from anti-abortion Republicans helping fund a super PAC in his favor and says it is Ms. Newman’s ardent support for abortion rights that is 'extreme' for the district. Ms. Newman is careful to focus on economic issues and inveigh against 'the Lipinski dynasty.' But what animates her campaign are matters of identity that are galvanizing Democrats in the Trump era well beyond Chicago... 'We need to have more diversity across people of color, gender and types of folks,' Ms. Newman said. 'We can’t have all millionaires, billionaires, businesspeople and doctors in Congress.'"

Yesterday, a year on, The Times didn't have the anti-progressive, pro-establishment Martin and Burns update the story but turned to reporter Carie Edmondson instead. The headline was very different too: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez To Back First 2020 Challenger To Sitting Democrat. The story ran early in the morning and before noon AOC had endorsed Marie Newman. "We live in times that demand courageous action," wrote AOC to her supporters, "and those times demand a Democratic Party that is willing to deliver the change that working Americans deserve. But to achieve those ends, we need the Congressmembers who represent deep blue districts to be pushing us towards progressive change, not advancing a Republican agenda... 14-year incumbent Dan Lipinski has enacted a corporate-funded vision of our party, one that has harmed our communities and discouraged working people from participating in politics. While sitting in a D+6 seat in a time of crisis for working families, Lipinski has opposed Medicare for All, and accepted thousands of dollars from lobbyists, large corporations, and the fossil fuel industry. That’s why I’m excited to endorse Marie Newman’s campaign for Congress, and help Chicagoland elect the progressive champion it deserves. Like me, Marie believes that health care is a human right and that families belong together. Together, we will pass a Green New Deal that repairs our infrastructure, revitalizes our workforce, and retrains our workers for a just transition to a post-carbon economy... Where Marie is a proud supporter of universal access to abortion and birth control, Dan Lipinski has a troubling record of curtailing women’s fundamental human rights, and has worked to defund hundreds of women’s medical clinics, all while raking in donations from anti-women’s rights fundraisers. Where Marie has stood with immigrant communities for years, Lipinski refused to vote for the DREAM Act until after her 2018 primary challenge. With the coming threat of climate change, we simply cannot allow for fossil-fuel-funded politicians and their corporate donors to dictate the future our children and their grandchildren will inherit-- especially in a deep blue Democratic district that Hillary Clinton won by 15 points in 2016. Marie Newman is the only candidate in the race refusing corporate PAC money, and the only one we can trust to put working people over profit. While Marie is the clear progressive choice, her race will be anything but easy. Dan Lipinski has a war chest of corporate money, given to him by wealthy donors who want to keep things just the way they are. His status as a 14-year incumbent gives him all types of advantages, like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s decision to blacklist anyone who works for Marie’s campaign... But we know that when big organizing goes up against big money, it’s the people who come out on top in the end. When we knock doors, make phone calls, and talk to our neighbors, we can elect representatives who really represent us, and we can build the world we want to live in. The future of the Democratic Party is in our hands. It starts by electing Marie Newman." She signed her letter "Pa'lante, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez."

Edmondson wrote that AOC's "high-profile support amounts to a powerful seal of approval, telegraphed to her legions of ardent liberal fans, on behalf of Ms. Newman, and a reflection of the zeal of the party’s progressive left to leverage its nascent power to continue targeting sitting Democrats... 'Marie Newman is a textbook example of one of the ways that we could be better as a party-- to come from a deep blue seat and to be championing all the issues we need to be championing,' Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview. Of Mr. Lipinski, she said: 'The fact that a deep blue seat is advocating for many parts of the Republican agenda is extremely problematic. We’re not talking about a swing state that is being forced to take tough votes.' [Lipinski] has repeatedly expressed his concerns that it is 'detrimental' for the party to push out conservative lawmakers."

“This campaign is about putting someone in place that is in alignment directly with the district on issues like affordability for the middle class and working families, the Green New Deal,” Ms. Newman said in an interview on Monday, adding that she and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez “share some very similar values.”

But the move also reflects a careful political calculus by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a Bronx Democrat. She came to Congress vowing to take down any Democrat she considered insufficiently progressive, but has, until now, refrained from taking on any of her fellow incumbents directly. In challenging Mr. Lipinski, she is targeting an incumbent Democrat, but one who has broken sharply with party orthodoxy, and has already lost the support of some of his other Democratic colleagues.

The House Democrats’ campaign arm in April formally broke committee business ties with political consultants and pollsters who sign on to work for primary challengers, infuriating progressive Democrats. The blacklist, Ms. Newman said, “was a very expensive issue for a while on my campaign.”

Progressive groups and lawmakers, however, have still flocked to support Ms. Newman. Representative Ro Khanna of California, and two Illinois lawmakers, Representative Jan Schakowsky and then-Representative Luis V. Gutiérrez, broke with party leadership in 2018 to endorse Ms. Newman, and Mr. Khanna renewed his endorsement this year. Representative Cheri Bustos of Illinois, the chairwoman of House Democrats’ campaign arm, canceled a fund-raiser in support of Mr. Lipinski in May after facing a backlash from the left.

Ms. Newman has also won the support of two candidates in the Democratic presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Ms. Warren last week announced twin endorsements of Justice Democrats candidates, backing both Ms. Newman and Jessica Cisneros, who is challenging Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas.

Ms. Cisneros, who was recruited to run against Mr. Cuellar by Justice Democrats and is described by some as the next Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, has yet to win the endorsement of any sitting House Democrat.

“We are so proud that Marie Newman is the first Justice Democrat of this cycle to receive an endorsement from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” said Alexandra Rojas, the executive director of Justice Democrats. “The momentum is growing in our movement to make the Democratic Party fight for solutions as big as the problems we face and create a party that fights for its voters, not corporate donors.”

Until this week, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had largely focused on helping incumbent freshmen lawmakers, like Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado, a well-liked freshman and member of Democratic leadership whom she will support at a fund-raiser in Boulder this week. In April, she rallied around some of her colleagues who flipped districts President Trump won in 2016, encouraging her Twitter followers to donate to their campaigns.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said that she would continue to assess whether she would weigh in on other primary challenges, but that she had no interest in intervening in competitive races that could tip the balance of power in the House.

“If we’re going to make these changes, they need to come from safe blue seats,” she said.

As of today, Blue America has endorsed 10 progressive candidates taking on reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems. You can contribute to any or all of their campaigns by clicking on the thermometer above, the same thermometer that helped raise campaign contributions for AOC and Rashida Tlaib in 2018. So far this cycle, there are the candidates we're trying to help-- and their opponents:

• AZ-01- Eva Putzova v Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog)
• CA-16- Kim Williams v Jim Costa (Blue Dog)
• GA-13- Michael Owens v David Scott (Blue Dog)
• IL-03- Marie Newman v Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog)
• IL-11- Rachel Ventura v Bill Foster (New Dem)
• MA-08- Brianna Wu v Stephen Lynch (New Dem)
• NY-05- Shaniyat Chowdhury v Gregory Meeks (New Dem)
• NY-16- Jamaal Bowman v Eliot Engel (New Dem)
• OR-05- Mark Gamba v Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog)
• TX-28- Jessica Cisneros v Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog)

Lipinski Finds Another Champion Besides Cheri Bustos-- The Editors Of The National Review

On Monday, Vox published a strong piece by Tara Golshan about the establishment Democrats' uncomfortable dilemma over Lipinski: The Democratic Party is protecting one of its last anti-abortion members in a safe blue district. "Lipinski," she reminded her readers, is "one of the last remaining anti-abortion Democrats in the House. He has voted to defund health clinics that offer abortion services, and to ban abortions at 20 weeks. He opposed the Affordable Care Act and its mandate that employers cover birth control. He speaks at the annual March for Life and attends fundraisers for anti-abortion groups."

Marie Newman's primary battle for the seat Lipinski holds is "one of the most competitive Democratic primaries in 2020. And already, Newman is encountering some roadblocks. Though the district leans heavily Democratic, the national party has erected rules to protect incumbents like Lipinski. Newman says she can’t find a pollster who will work for her. Four political consultants have left her campaign because of a policy, made public in April, that the official campaign arm for House Democrats won’t do business with political vendors-- like direct mail companies or political consultants-- that also work for candidates challenging incumbent Democrats. Party superstars like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez oppose the rule; she also managed to topple an incumbent in a primary challenge. But the DCCC isn’t budging. The DCCC says it’s committed to incumbents, a loyalty to dues-paying members, that it believes represent the party’s best chance of keeping control in the House. And the DCCC’s chair, Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, is a big proponent of “big tent” politics. Progressive lawmakers in Congress are still railing against what they see as a “divisive” policy that effectively “blacklists” groups and candidates. The Democratic Party may need ideological diversity to regain national power, but already, Lipinski’s side of the 'big tent' is looking sparse. Newman came within 2,200 votes of beating Lipinski in 2018. She’s running again, already picking up endorsements from progressive groups like Emily’s List and NARAL, as well as from 2020 presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gov. Jay Inslee. In a year when Democrats are newly energized around abortion rights, the Democratic apparatus protecting an anti-abortion candidate in friendly territory is raising eyebrows."

It's not just Bernie and Jay Inslee. Even a relatively conservative senator like Kirsten Gillibrand, once a dues-paying member of Lipinski's right-wing Blue Dog Coalition, has endorsed Newman. If you'd like to help Marie replace Lipinski, please click on the Blue America Primary A Blue Dog thermometer above.

Democrats have tolerated some anti-abortion lawmakers in their coalition, but the numbers are dwindling in a party that’s adopted a pro-woman mantle. Only three sitting House Democrats regularly vote against abortion rights; Lipinski; Rep. Collin Peterson, who represents a conservative Minnesota district; and Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar. Everyone else has moved on the issue or left. Even Joe Biden, the current frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, recently revised his position, saying the ban on using federal funds for abortions, which he used to support, should be overturned.

The issue has taken on new urgency in the 2020 primaries as Republican state legislatures pass stricter abortion laws explicitly designed to be brought before an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and unravel Roe v. Wade. Bustos was pressured into canceling her fundraiser for Lipinski in light of the Alabama state law banning abortions at six weeks, without exceptions for rape and incest.

But in the liberal stronghold of Illinois’s Third Congressional District, the anti-abortion Lipinski family has been in power for nearly 40 years-- first Lipinski’s father, William, held the seat before passing it on to Dan-- and they’re fighting against the current.

Once known for its conservative pockets, the area-- surrounding Midway Airport, which spans parts of Cook and Will counties-- is more diverse both socioeconomically and politically than it once was. It’s younger and middle class; the median age is 37, with a $65,000 household income, according to the most recent census estimates. There’s a growing Latinx population. Sanders beat Hillary Clinton here in 2016 by 8 points. Clinton went on to beat Donald Trump by an even bigger margin. Interestingly, Lipinski, who was a superdelegate in the 2016 elections, pledged his vote to Sanders.

But between Newman and Lipinski, only one has adopted Sanders’s worldview.

“I’m a real Democrat,” Newman likes to tell voters. “To be a real Democrat, you have to believe in the platform,” she said to Vox. She, like Sanders, identifies income inequality as the root cause of American suffering. At a Saturday morning Pet Parade in Chicago’s Garfield Ridge neighborhood, Newman led a procession of staffers and volunteers-- and their dogs-- with signs supporting Medicare-for-all, a $15 minimum wage, and a Green New Deal. Newman supports abortion rights, the Equality Act, and free college and thinks Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be “repealed and replaced.”

...Even Lipinski’s most loyal supporters are beginning to see him as an outsider.

“He had a really close election last time, so what he has to do is find out what the constituents want and sort of modify those positions,” Albert Reiff, a 71-year-old Vietnam War veteran, said. “Like with the women and stuff like that. You’ve got to understand society is more [supportive of] equal wages for equal work, more open-minded with who you can love and stuff like that. He could do it, though. He’s not like Lindsey Graham. He is a moderate.”

At a senior fair in Summit, Illinois, Lipinski was in his element. A group of older constituents, mostly white, many veterans, lined up to share their gripes: Their grandkids were having trouble covering health care bills, the music festival at the local park was too damn loud, the DMV was too confusing. In this community, Lipinski is known for this kind of affair; he regularly holds events for seniors and veterans. His district office is known for getting their concerns taken care of. Reiff said Lipinski’s staff organized his paperwork for the Veterans Affairs hospital and got his Vietnam War medals mailed to his home.

As far as Reiff was concerned, Newman’s insurgency is a “reflection of the millenniums”-- referring to the progressive millennial energy that has boosted candidates like Sanders. Lipinski operates in a different world.

Talking Trump, Lipinski chose his words carefully. According to exit polling, 18 percent of his primary support in 2018 came from Trump supporters. He treaded lightly on impeachment, saying the election was the better way to oust the president, but was undecided in the 2020 presidential primary. He wouldn’t say whether he sees the national outrage around abortion rights playing inside his district.

Like Lipinski, the editors of the National Review never use "anti-Choice" to describe the fanatics who oppose women's Choice. Like Lipinski, they always use "pro-Life." And in their sympathetic response to Vox yesterday, Dan Lipinski: The Last Pro-Life Liberal Democrat they also referred to the ardently conservative Lipinski as a "true liberal." ProgressivePunch rates him a solid "F" and his crucial vote score-- even though fear of Newman has seen him vote somewhat differently in the past 2 years-- is still a repulsive (to liberals) 58.05%. The National Review appears to be dubbing him a "true liberal" because, unlike the two other anti-Choice Dems still left-- Henry Cuellar and Collin Peterson-- he doesn't have an "A" from the NRA like they do.

The eight-term congressman faced his first serious assault from the left in a 2018 primary, when challenger Marie Newman and the energized progressive base came within two percentage points of defeating him. Newman is running again to finish the job in 2020. Taking out Lipinski makes perfect sense to pro-abortion activists: Democrats have no fear of losing a general election in Lipinski’s district, which Hillary Clinton carried by 15 points in 2016 and Barack Obama carried by 13 points in 2012. Yet the anti-Lipinski effort does carry risks for the Democratic party. No single seat in the House is worth very much in terms of political power. The odds are very low that a crucial piece of legislation will advance by a single vote in the House. Purging Lipinski is more about sending a message than it is about gaining one more vote.

The message that the anti-Lipinski campaign is sending is that dissent will not be tolerated and pro-lifers and even those with moderate views on abortion are unwelcome in the Democratic party. Newman’s last campaign even carried a whiff of anti-Catholicism to it. She attacked Lipinski, a practicing Catholic, for believing contraception is morally wrong. Newman falsely suggested Lipinski wanted to ban contraception, when he has in fact voted for federal funding for it but also supports religious-liberty protections.

It says something about the leftward lurch of the Democratic party that it has fallen to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat from San Francisco, to explain to her colleagues the political peril of purging pro-lifers from the party. “You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States-- the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage-equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president,” Pelosi told the Washington Post in 2017. “Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively, by that.”

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” Pelosi told The Post. “Most of those people-- my family, extended family-- are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic party?”

Pelosi may not want to kick them out of the Democratic party for nakedly partisan reasons. All pro-lifers should hope on principle that Lipinski prevails against the campaign to purge the last Democrats who are willing to defend the right to life.

That was a slick trick Pelosi pulled-- conflating officials of the Democratic Party who can vote in Congress to take away health care from women-- as Lipinski has at every opportunity-- and ordinary voters who are certainly free to call themselves Democrats even if the party is pro-Choice. No one asked Pelosi to kick a bunch of Italian-American voters out of the party. Lipinski-- along with Cuellar and Peterson-- well, that's a different matter.

I asked Marie Newman what she thought of the National Review asserting that Dan Lipinski is somehow "a true liberal." She probably recalled the thousands of texts the Lipinski campaign sent out, in desperation at the end of the 2018 campaign, claiming she wants to "jail nuns." Pretty insane, right? Marie told us that this whole National Review nonsense makes her scratch her head "in disbelief. As a Catholic, I am a true liberal because I am pro-immigrant rights, pro-economic rights and pro-healthcare rights, so clearly, with Dan Lipinksi’s record of voting against immigrants’ rights, voting against Obamacare and recently voting to take away Obamacare from workers (last month’s Republican bill to stop workers who work under 30 hours from receiving Obamacare (HR 2782). Dan is not a true Liberal. Further, I never said Dan Lipinski wanted to ban contraception, I merely repeated what he has said many times. [Lipinski has stated several times in front of large groups, he voted against Obamacare because it had contraception in the bill.] To be clear, I am running with the district to fight for Everybody’s Everyday: 1. Healthcare for all, 2. Fighting Income Inequality and 3. Addressing the Climate Crisis. Dan is running against those issues. Finally to suggest I am anti-Catholic is beyond disrespectful to my family and specifically, to those members of my family who are Catholic faith leaders."

Does The Democratic Party Need A Republican Wing?

Alabama has a Republican House and a Republican Senate and a Republican governor. When the state government of Alabama decided women in their state can no longer have abortions, it was horrible enough. But two weeks later, the Democratic governor of Louisiana signed another of the extreme anti-abortion bills that Republicans are using to deny women's Choice. And it isn't just happening in the Deep South. Ohio and Missouri have done the same thing. But there's something about Louisiana that irks the most-- a Democratic governor unwilling to stand up for women, to stand up, especially for poor women? Maybe the tent really is too big. If it's big enough for John Bel Edwards to be stinking it up from the inside, why would a normal Democrat even want to be inside it?

Yesterday, speaking before the California Democratic Convention in San Francisco, Elizabeth Warren began her remarks by reminding the enthusiastic delegates that "we have a job to do: Beat Donald Trump. But beating Trump is not enough. We need to win up and down the ticket everywhere. To do that, we need to show what it means to be a Democrat." YES! Do Democrats in Louisiana hear that and say to themselves, "We need to pass stricter anti-Choice laws?" This one doesn't include exceptions for raoe or incest. Will the next one take out the exception for the life of the mother? How long will the prison terms be for women and their doctors?



In the middle of all this, the chair of the DCCC, Cheri Bustos, a virulent conservative who claims to be pro-choice, decided to throw a big-money fundraiser for one of Congress' most anti-Choice members, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus. The pressure on Bustos grew so intense, so fast that she finally backed out of attending. But the DCCC will not back away from defending Lipinski, who isn't just anti-Choice but who has an ugly voting record that is anti-LGBTQ, anti-working class, anti-healthcare and pro-NRA. Does he even deserve party loyalty? He didn't demonstrate any in 2018 when he flatly refused to endorse Obama for reelection.

Why does the DCCC cling to these right-wing Democrats and dump millions of dollars into defending them? Many of them-- Lipinski, of course, but also Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Luis Correa (Blue Dog-CA), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX), Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL), Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI) and Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)-- are in deep blue seats that would as easily make a good home for a moderate or progressive instead of a reactionary.

Blue America has always looked for opponents for these Blue Dogs and we've had some real success in replacing some of them. This year we're continuing and so far we are supporting Marie Newman in her run against Lipinski, Eva Putzova in her run against Tom O'Halleran in Arizona and Michael Owens in his run against David Scott in the suburbs south nd west of Atlanta. There will be others; rest assured of that. We're in the process of vetting some now, to make certain that we will be electing members who will do the right thing in Congress.

Sometimes the tent really just is too damned big and the party stops having any meaning. When people ask what the Democratic Party stands for on questions like Choice for women or equality for the LGBTQ community, we are in deep trouble. This week, after John Bel Edwards signed the draconian bill banning abortion in Louisiana, Marie Newman told the media, that "This type of legislation is authoritarian and totalitarian. There’s no other way to describe it. Let’s be honest about what it is. It’s taking us back 100 years, and that’s not exaggerating."

Please consider helping these three candidates primarying Blue Dogs right now. Your contribution will send a message to Cheri Bustos and the DCCC that grassroots Democrats adhere to the values and principles that have built the party and-- before Bustos came along-- distinguished it from the Republicans. There are, after all, legitimate differences, whether Dan Lipinski will ever understand that or not. Please click on the Blue America Primary A Blue Dog thermometer above and help make a difference-- for a difference.

Cheri Bustos Announces Fund-Raising Efforts For Anti-Choice Fanatic Dan Lipinski Just As The Alabama GOP Declares War On Women

Yesterday the big news was that Alabama Republicans had passed a total, punitive-- and unconstitutional-- ban on all abortions in their state. The worst DCCC chair ever, the odious Blue Dog from northwest Illinois, Cheri Bustos, thought that would be a good day to announce that she's hosting a fundraiser for Congress' most anti-Choice Democrat, fellow Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski. That's the invitation above. Please do not call Jeff Larivee at 202-821-5203.

Lipinski is utterly out of step with the values and goals of the Democratic Party. He has a long ugly record opposing equality for the LGBTQ community, opposing Choice, opposing sane, common sense gun safety laws, opposing immigrants, opposing healthcare, opposing shoring up Social Security... and supporting a right-wing agenda dictated by the corporate PACs who have underwritten his political career. But none of that is stopping Bustos, another right-of-center Blue Dog, sitting in a safely blue, gerrymandered seat that she always falsely claims that only she could have won. She also claims-- falsely-- that the reason she has been trying to stop primaries is to protect a shaky Democratic majority. The majority is far from shaky and she has never been able to explain how protecting a fake Democrat like Lipinski-- in a district with a D+6 PVI, where Obama won both times and where even Hillary was able to beat Trump 55.2% to 39.9%. Legitimate Republicans don't even bother to run in IL-03. In 2018 the Republican Party had nothing to offer by an avowed Nazi, Arthur Jones. Any Democrat could have beaten him with both hands tied behind their back and Lipinski scored a 73.8% to 26.2% win. Maybe Bustos should be using her time and resources to help defend seats where Republicans actually could win. But, no, Lipinski is exactly her kind of candidate.

There are still politically involved Democrats-- liberals even-- who have been so brainwashed by the establishment that they actually believe the DCCC is their friend or ally or something. This is the stinking heap of garbage who DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos-- rapidly making herself into the next Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- is raising campaign cash for:



Last year, Marie Newman was about to beat him when Mark Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson, laundered nearly a million dollars from wealthy Republicans-- like the Murdoch family-- and other conservatives to fund a last minute smear campaign against Marie so they could save Lipinski's scrawny neck. Earlier this week Sean McElwee's Data For Progress explained another way how it was Republicans who delivered Lipinski his narrow win in 2018. "There's no party registration in Illinois, meaning that primaries are open to any registered voter. This often leads to strategic voting, where Republican partisans vote in Democratic primaries and vice versa. Despite having no party registration, we can still get a good sense of whether someone is a Republican based on their primary voting history... [T]here were about 5,000 frequent Republican primary voters in the 2018 Democratic primary, about 5 percent of the electorate... [which] would entirely account for Lipinski’s narrow win margin."

The DCCC, under the leadership of Cheri Bustos, has implemented a new blunt force policy to box out primary challengers. They’ve told every vendor who wants to work with them they if they’re involved in a primary challenge, they’ll get blacklisted by the DCCC and won’t be eligible for any contracts from the DCCC. In addition to the damage this may do to any primary challengers, it’s a threat that requires the DCCC to be less effective at the job they’re supposed to be doing if they ever want to act on it. If the DCCC opts to not use a vendor they otherwise would have used, they’re either paying their new vendor more or giving the contract to one they believe to be worse.

Our analysis of FEC records shows something disturbing: it appears the blacklist is designed specifically to protect Dan Lipinski.

2020 may seem like an odd time to roll out this tactic. In 2018, only two primary challengers beat an incumbent Democrat in Congress, which is a pretty normal level. In 2016 it was 3, in 2014 it was 1, and in 2012 it was 2. The answer may lie in not in either challenger who succeeded, but one who didn’t: Marie Newman. Newman’s race was the marquee incumbent challenge in early 2018 before Lipinski’s Republican-aided win.

In 2018, there were a handful of primary candidates. We’ve searched through their financial records, and we it’s clear that if this ban had been in place in 2018, it would have affected Newman the most. Outside of IL-03, the blacklist would have affected three polls and a couple thousand in travel arrangements. Newman, however, would have seen roughly $132,000 in campaign investments become endangered. She employed 270 Strategies, a digital media shop, The Sexton Group, a consulting firm, and Normington, Petts & Associates, her pollster. All three also worked for the DCCC, who obviously stands as a larger client with more work to send their way.

Marie Newman is running against Dan Lipinski again this cycle. Cheri Bustos, who made the decision, is one of only two Democrats to donate to Lipinski in 2018 (in 2018, the DCCC chose not to endorse Lipinski and several Democrats outright endorsed against him). The other Democrat to donate to her this year, Henry Cuellar, has been a vocal supporter of the policy. In the race for DCCC chair, Lipinski very actively backed Bustos as DCCC chair.

January and February of 2019 saw the entry of multiple incumbent challengers who could reasonably be using traditional vendors: Kai Kahele in HI-02, Rishi Kumar in CA-18, Cristina Duran in CO-01, and Mohammad Dar in MA-08. Marie Newman started taking steps towards running in March. Two weeks after she did, The DCCC Blacklist was announced. Since then, it’s been a serious body blow to Newman’s campaign. She’s already had four resignations out of fear of the DCCC, and more firms simply refuse to work with her.

Newman has refused to back down in the face of the policy. She’s gone to the press about her experiences as an enemy of the DCCC, and hasn’t let up on her criticisms of Lipinski’s ongoing anti-gay politics. Progressives have rallied behind her, donating. In the four days after she talked about how the blacklist had affected her campaign, she received $45 thousand in small dollar donations. The next week, a coalition of five pro-choice progressive groups endorsed her in unison: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, PCCC, EMILY’s List, and MoveOn.

A final note: one defense of the blacklist that keeps popping up is that it encourages members to pay their DCCC dues. Lipinski publicly refuses to pay dues.

The DCCC is blacklisting progressive vendors to protect an anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-ACA man who won re-election due to Republicans.

Lipinski isn't even the worst of the Blue Dogs. Henry Cuellar's primary opponent will soon announce. And Republican-turned-Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran (AZ) already has a stupendous opponent in progressive former Flagstaff City Councilwoman Eva Putzova.

Marie Newman Is Running For Congress To Help Her Neighbors, Not To Please Cheri Bustos

When Bustos and Pelosi formulated the excuse for the DCCC's vile new anti-progressive "no primaries" diktat, they claimed it was to protect freshmen in swing districts, but that was a typical Pelosi lie. If they wanted to protect endangered freshman, they could have formulated a rule to protect endangered freshmen. Instead their incumbent-protection racket is trying to protect conservative incumbents-- like what was once Joe Crowley-- from insurgent progressives like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. It's unaccountable status quo conservatives in solid blue districts, like Henry Cuellar (D+9), Steny Hoyer (D+16), Stephen Lynch (D+10) and Dan Lipinski (D+6)-- all of whom have primary challenges this cycle-- who Pelosi and Bustos are trying to protect. In fact... Pelosi also has a primary challenge in her super-safe D+37 seat.

Yesterday, Marie Newman, who nearly beat Lipinski last cycle, made it official: she's running again. Lynn Sweet: "The 3rd Congressional District race comes in what may well be a different political climate, with Newman’s progressive wing of the party gaining strength. At the same time, the House political operation, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, led by Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL) is committed to supporting incumbents, a policy some activist freshmen Democrats oppose. In 2018 Lipinski had the biggest fight for his political life, which began when his father, former Rep. Bill Lipinski (D-IL) maneuvered to hand his long-held seat to his son. In a release, Newman pointed out that Lipinski’s ultra conservative views are way out of step with his district.'"

In a district like IL-03, the winner of the Democratic primary is, in effect, the person who will represent the district in Congress. The last Republican who ran there, Nazi-Republican Arthur Jones only took 25.9% of the vote. Trump lost the district with 39.9%. These were the primary results in 2018, skewered at the last minute by hundreds of thousands of dollars from Republican donors-- through the No Labels web of corrupt super-PACs backing Lipinski-- by smearing Newman.

Last time a number of progressive members of Congress-- like Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutiérrez, not to mention Bernie, endorsed and campaigned for Newman. This time Pelosi has been making it clear that she will deal with anyone harshly who tries that again. She's becoming a real monster-on-wheels.

Yesterday, Marie's campaign e-mailed supporters that "After coming within 2,145 votes of toppling one of the last remaining Chicago political dynasties in 2018, Democrat Marie Newman today formally announced her campaign to again challenge conservative Dan Lipinski in the 2020 Democratic Primary."

“I’m running for everyone’s every day issues-- for everyone who struggles to pay for health care and pay their bills, for everyone who believes we’re made stronger by welcoming immigrants and for everyone who has seen their rights under assault by conservatives like Dan Lipinski and his Republican allies,” said Newman.

Newman noted that 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and her background of having worked her way through college and starting her own small business puts her more in touch with people than Lipinski, who has failed to support efforts to expand healthcare to working families, including the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

“Dan Lipinski’s original sin is having his father hand him this congressional seat with its taxpayer funded health care, then voting against Obamacare, making him the only Democrat from Illinois to say no to covering millions more Americans. He’s just not a real Democrat,” said Newman.

Newman also argued that Lipinski has sold out working families in Chicago and the suburbs and sided with Washington corporate PACs, not just with his vote against Obamacare but also with his refusal to support Paid Sick Leave and strengthening Social Security.

“My grandfathers were both proud union members-- one worked as a machinist at Midway Airport and the other was a carpenter. I worked my way through college scrubbing floors, worked at the Orland Square mall, and started my own successful small business. Like most people in this district, nothing was handed to me. Lipinski’s father handed Dan this seat and corporate PACs in Washington have spent millions to keep him there,” said Newman.

“This race is a choice between someone who remembers where she came from and someone who sells out Illinois working families in Washington,” added Newman.

As she did two years ago, Newman pointed out that Lipinski’s ultra conservative views are way out of step with his district.

“I trust women to make decisions about health care, but Dan Lipinski would outlaw abortion and even restrict access to birth control. I support the Equal Rights Amendment, Dan Lipinski doesn’t. I support equal rights for everyone, no matter who they love, but Dan Lipinski is the only Democrat in the entire U.S. House of Representatives who does not support the Equality Act and protections for LGBTQ Americans,” said Newman, whose daughter is a member of the LGBTQ community.

“It’s time for a real Democrat to represent us in Washington, not the conservative son of a ward boss. Those days are over,” concluded Newman, who noted that the landslide election of Lori Lightfoot as Chicago mayor and the recent losses of longtime aldermen and political bosses show Chicagoans are hungry for progressive change.

Blue America, hardly a group that worries about Pelosi's and Bustos' threats, has enthusiastically endorsed Newman. Please consider contributing to her campaign by clicking on the ActBlue 2020 congressional thermometer on the right. Remember this: the 3 most important bills working their way through Congress right now-- each of which Lipinski has pointedly refused to support-- Pramila Jayapal's new and improved Medicare-For-All Act (H.R. 1384), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Resolution (H.R. 109), and John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act (H.R. 860) are all bills that Newman has told me she would have been an original co-sponsor on had she beaten Lipinski in 2018. Let's take sure she beats him in 2020; she is looking forward to voting for each of them when she's in Congress, starting in January of 2021.