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.

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.

Nancy Jacobson-- One Of DC's Many Faces Of Pure Evil Working Against America

As bad as any Republican-- and more dishonest

A couple off days ago, a fine progressive candidate for Congress was making her pitch as to why Blue America should endorse her and mentioned, proudly, that she had been endorsed by EMILY’s List. I couldn’t resist asking her to read these posts that delve into the heart and soul of EMILY’s List. We don’t hold it against anyone because they’re endorsed by EMILY’s List-- after all, they don’t force candidates to take any abhorrent policy pledges the way the New Dems do-- but an endorsement from EMILY’s List isn’t a plus either. Sam with the so-called End Citizens United PAC, which has nothing to die with ending Citizens United, only draining grassroots contributions towards DCCC and DSCC candidates. Nor do we hold it against candidates who accept the endorsement of the DCCC, although, candidates who do so in the midst of a primary, are doing something fucked up and problematic and ought to not join the DC corruption even before they’re elected. Now, No Labels, fits in as another Blue Dogs or New Dems and an endorsement from that group, would make it impossible for Blue America to raise money for a candidate.

We first became aware of their electoral work in 2016 when they attacked progressive rivals Dena Grayson and Susannah Randolph in Orlando on behalf of conservative NRA-ally Darren Soto.

Friday, writing for The Intercept, Zaid Jilani and Ryan Grim, went a long way towards explaining why, noting how they had backed Lipinski because progressive challenger, Marie Newman, is a Bernie supporter. And they found the proof.

Noting that Lipinksi is among “the most conservative Democrats in the House, with his opposition to legal abortion and hostility toward marriage equality and immigration rights,” he had gained a lot of valuable ($1 million worth of) support from No Labels, a group largely financed by a handful of wealthy conservatives-- “Jerry Reinsdorf, the chair of the Chicago White Sox and Bulls, and a longtime friend of Lipinski’s father; Daniel Tierney of Wicklow Capital; Bud Selig, the former Major League Baseball Commissioner; and New Yorker Michael Sonnenfeldt of TIGER 21.” This is one of the false, ugly, distorted attack ads that No Labels, led by right-wing troll Nancy Jacobson, one of the most vile and destructive political operatives in Washington, blanketed the district with in the weeks before the election on behalf of Lipinski:

By spending so heavily to back the anti-LGBT Lipinski, No Labels crossed the line with some Democrats who were otherwise inclined to support the group, according to emails between the group’s founder and CEO Nancy Jacobson and two separate members of the group’s email distribution list. The list members wrote in their objections to Jacobson, who explained her rationale in exchanges that were subsequently obtained by The Intercept. (Asked to comment on one of the email exchanges, Jacobson told The Intercept, “This was a private email exchange with someone who is not a no labels supporter/backer-- fortunately there are tens of millions of people across this country who are and understand the importance of our work.” A spokesperson for No Labels declined to comment on the rest of the exchanges reported on for this story.)

“Nancy,” wrote one critic to Jacobson, “I have admired what you were trying to do with NoLabels, but I think you made a big mistake in supporting Dan Lipinski.  Either you don’t fully appreciate how bad Dan is or you have decided to compromise too many Democratic values in the interest of compromise. I am fiscally responsible and socially liberal but I refuse to compromise on civil rights.”

A second No Labels list member wrote to Jacobson with a similar criticism. “Rather than pushing the Democratic party to appeal to a larger slice of America, you are in essence trying to create your own political party that includes people who don’t support [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that shielded 800,000 immigrants from deportation], don’t support [the Affordable Care Act], don’t support a woman’s right to choose and don’t value LGBTQ rights,” the No Labels critic wrote to Jacobson. “One would wonder is there any issue too offensive that you would not welcome someone in your big tent? Would you welcome Jeanne Ives to your tent? What boundary do you draw that says someone is not a ‘problem solver’?” (Ives nearly won the GOP nomination for the 2018 Illinois governor’s race on a platform of extreme opposition to legal abortion.)

Jacobson replied with her reasoning for the group’s intervention, explaining that part of the opposition to Newman was related to her endorsement by Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. “I see a whole new crop of Democratic challengers-- like Marie Newman-- who see Bernie-- WHO IS NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT-- as a model worthy of emulation,” Jacobson wrote, all-caps in the original, denigrating Sanders for not labeling himself a Democrat. “But I don’t think we need more people in Congress on either side who rile up their bases and then actually achieve nothing.”

…While the primary showed No Labels’s ability to raise funds, however, the scathing criticisms revealed that there was a cost to be paid for stepping on some Democrats’ third rails-- and that the arguments the group uses to gloss over its candidates’ anti-LGBT and anti-choice views might not pass muster with even centrist liberals.

In her emails, Jacobson argued that Lipinski’s “private beliefs” on social issues should be set aside in pursuit of a more important consensus around opposition to Sanders on the one side and the tea party on the other:

I am very saddened that you feel this way about No Labels’ work in this race. I understand and respect your passion on LGBT issues. And I don’t happen to have the same view as Rep. Lipinski on LGBT or other social issues. But I don’t believe the greatest threat facing America is Dan Lipinski’s private beliefs on social issues-- even if you or I might find those issues very important. I believe the greatest threat to our country is the growing intolerance in each of our parties, and the belief that our political opponents are not just wrong, but evil and treasonous. This is the brand of politics being espoused by Dan Lipinski’s opponent, Marie Newman, who was just endorsed by Bernie Sanders. I know people on the left see Bernie as a hero. But what I see is someone who has been in the House and Senate for almost 30 years and has almost no legislative record whatsoever because he has no interest at all in doing the hard work of governing.

(Between 1995 and 2007, when House Republicans controlled Congress, then-congressional representative Sanders passed more roll call amendments than any other member of Congress.)

Jacobson said she worried that a Lipinski loss could set off a domino effect that could lead to other incumbents being knocked out as well. “If Dan Lipinski loses, I am certain it will embolden the far left to try to knock out every last moderate and independent thinking Democrat left in Congress,” she wrote. “They are in effect, trying to do what the Tea Party has done to the Republicans over several elections. I think this would be a disaster.”

As former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau pointed out on Twitter, the incumbent congressional representative’s right-wing positions are not necessarily “far left,” but rather at odds with the values cherished by the modern-day Democratic Party, and he champions them in a solidly Democratic district:

Jacobson, though, sees politics through a very different lens. A creature of the centrist upsurge within the Democratic Party in the 1980s and 1990s, she was introduced by former Senator and Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh to her now-husband, Democratic pollster Mark Penn, at a Democratic Leadership Council event. The DLC effectively acted as a counterweight to the progressive wing of the party, which centrists blamed for losses in the 1980s.

In response to the critic who argued that the Democratic Party should “appeal to a larger slice of America,” Jacobson reached back 30 years to make the case for her more conservative political approach. “Those of us that launched Bill Clintons first campaign will have to eventually find another big tent dem to ultimately save the party like we did in the early 90’s,” she wrote.

But dialogue, apparently, can only go so far. Jacobson solved her own problem with her disgruntled interlocutors by booting them from the No Labels email list. “The center must survive and to do so it needs a big tent,” she wrote to one. “It must be time to remove you from our list as we must diverge at this point.”

Up To Bat In March-- Progressives In Texas And Illinois

The first two states with 2018 primaries are Texas-- March 6-- and Illinois-- March 20. The thing is about the Texas primaries is that they're going to, in most cases, lead to primary runoffs on May 22. So we're going to be waiting for another couple of months before we know who the candidates we have going up against Republicans for blue-trending seats in Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas, all of which are likely to deny any candidates 50% on March 6. It's a wide open race in west Houston, where award-winning cancer researcher and doctor, Jason Westin, has a bunch of establishment candidates he's competing with, as well as another progressive. He can use some help. Our candidate in Austin/San Antonio, Derrick Crowe, one of the best candidates anywhere in America, is likely to be forced into a runoff with a multimillionaire Republican, Joseph Kopser, pretending-- although not well-- to be a Democrat. Same in Dallas, where our candidate, Lillian Salerno, Obama's deputy undersecretary of rural development for the Department of Agriculture, is facing off against two pretty garden variety establishment big money careerists.

And speaking of Lillian Salerno, tough primary, it's important to remember this is a woman with cutting edge ideas up against careerist hacks whose vision basically sees themselves as seat-holders. Lillian sees sees the ability of government to shake things top-- in a good way. "We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy," she wrote. "We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books."

When it comes to animals, we protect those on the brink or likely to be on the brink of extinction. We do this because history has taught us that regulations must be enforced and immediately kick into place to protect species whose survival is threatened. Habitat is preserved, illegal activities like poaching are prosecuted, and the public rallies for the survival of the species. Just look at the American Bald Eagle: in the 1960’s there were less than 500 nesting bald eagles. Today, there are over 14,000 breeding pairs. It all started when the government banned DDT in the 1970’s. We allowed and demanded the regulators do their job and the bald eagle was saved. That’s why we need a strong antitrust policy-- to save small businesses, family farmers, and independent manufacturers-- to bring them back from the brink of extinction.

I knew first hand as a small business owner and manufacturer that I was an endangered species. After speaking to literally hundreds of rural small businesses in my role as the lead small business official at USDA, I also knew that these folks were an endangered species. You might say, "Lillian, come on, there’s hundreds of thousands of small businesses every day. There’s hundreds of thousands of small farms too." Yet, it’s all about the numbers. You can name almost any sector of the economy and there are almost grotesque concentrations of market power. Here’s a few statistics just in the Agriculture sector:

• 2 Companies control almost the entire market for milk;
• One company dominates the sale of corn and soy seeds and pesticides;
• 90 percent of all farms are classified as small. Yet, 3 percent of the farms-- the largest farms-- account for almost half of all food production.

When it comes to selling their products; Family farms, small businesses, and independent manufacturers face obstacles every step of the way to market. The massive corporate monopolists have set up an unforgiving obstacle course filled of anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation.

What is so strange is that we all know this exists. At USDA we tried to help. We encouraged the growth of the small, local family farm. We invested in farmer’s markets and food hubs. We tried to grow the marketplace, preserve the habitat, and ward off the poachers. USDA might be seen as a friend of big agriculture, but the last eight years also saw the rise of the local food movement-- and I am proud to say that we at USDA played a small part in the movement to create more opportunities for the small farmer. But it is not enough.

We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy. As great as the growth of the local food movement has been, it’s really like throwing sand in the wind. We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books. We can’t take much more.

As a business person and as a USDA official anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation all of these things diminish our potential and cause real hurt and real pain for Americans.

The Illinois primaries later in the month have a more crucial sense of permanence. The candidate with the most votes will face off against the Republican. The race that's gotten the most attention is in IL-03, the Chicagoland district that starts in the southwest part of the city around Bridgeport and the Stockyards, snakes down through though Marquette Manor to Midway, through Palos Hills and to Orland Park, Homer Glen and Lockport just north of Joliet. It's one of those rare races where an excruciatingly bad entrenched incumbent, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is being held accountable for the first time. Progressives in the district, in the state and across America have backed Marie Newman, who would make a much-needed and excellent addition to the Illinois congressional delegation.

The Republican in the race, Arthur Jones, an admitted anti-Semite is the former leader of the American Nazi Party. No, not every Republican is a Nazi... but it's funny how they always find a home with the GOP isn't it? Remember Boehner's Nazi buddy in Ohio, Rich Iott? Anyway, whoever wins the March 20 primary-- the Blue Dog Lipinski or progressive Marie Newman-- will be sworn in next January because IL-03 isn't about to elect a Nazi to Congress. The district didn't even vote for Trump. He couldn't even muster 40% against Hillary, who had been defeated in the district primary by Bernie. Polling shows an extremely tight race and it's going to be Marie's field operation that wins this one and sends the DCCC and the Democratic old guard a message that voters are watching what they do and holding the, accountable.

The only other candidate endorsed by Blue America in Illinois is Dr. David Gill in IL-13, a sprawling central Illinois district that meanders southwest from Champaign, Normal and Bloomington down through Decatur and Springfield to suburbs north and east of St. Louis. This was Bernie-country in 2016 and he beat Hillary in the district. And Gill is the candidate who has been working on Bernie issues for as long as Bernie has. He has three big-money establishment primary opponents who will probably split the establishment vote and allow Gill to face off against Davis in November. He definitely needs financial help for his field operation that will be in full swing in the next couple of weeks. Remember, the last time Gill faced off against Republican Rodney Davis, Davis won by just a handful of votes-- 136,596 to 135,309, and that was because left-wing spoiler John Hartman, took 21,319 votes, throwing the election to a crackpot conservative.

"My campaign team and I," David told us, "have worked hard to position myself to succeed in the primary on March 20. Voters here have been very excited about my message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education and trade schools

"We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago.

"But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift."

This week, we want to ask you to consider helping our Texas and Illinois candidates and leave the others for another time-- just this week. Let's make sure the progressives get into the Texas runoffs and into the Illinois general election.

Let's Watch 2 Friday Night Videos

The first video is the first TV ad for the Chicagoland district (IL-03) by progressive reformer Marie Newman, the Democrat working to unseat Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, one of the most pro-Trump Democrats in Congress. It's pretty self evident what Marie is doing to create a plausible narrative to replace Lipinski. Recent polling shows that if the messaging in the video gets out to voters in the district, Lipinski will be defeated. Blue America endorsed Newman over a year ago and we have been imploring progressives to contribute to her campaign. See that thermometer a couple of paragraphs down? You can use that to contribute to her campaign. Meanwhile Lipinski's labor support is finally starting to crumble. The SEIU dumped him today and the teachers unions and nurses unions will be likely to be next. In the end he'll probably wind up with nothing but the Republican-oriented building trades unions.

The second video (down the page) isn't an ad. It's a live video shot by an independent group, Save Our Healthcare. Cathy McMorris Rodgers is a big deal in Washington-- perhaps these days, less so in Eastern Washington, which is preparing to defeat her and replace her with Lisa Brown, the former majority leader of the state Senate and end-Chancellor of Washington State University. As Joel Connelly explained on Wednesday for Seatle PI readers, this district, usually just ceded two the gOP without a fight, is going to be one of those ground-zero congressional districts in November-- even if no one has alerted Pelosi and her DCCC yet. "'Follow the money!' is a rule of American politics, wrote Connelly, "and in 2018 the path of political dollars is leading to the Inland Empire-- Spokane and Eastern Washington. The latest Federal Election Commission campaign money filings show a donnybrook shaping up between Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), a Trump backer and member of the House Republican leadership, and her Democratic challenger Lisa Brown. The advantage belongs to the incumbent. At year's end, McMorris Rodgers had $1.069 million in the bank, compared to $450,933 for Brown. McMorris Rodgers took in $587,542 in the last quarter of 2017, while Brown raised $383,871."

In a "normal" year Connelly would be correct. The advantage would be McMorris Rodger's, but this isn't a "normal" year. We're going into a wave election-- an anti-Trump, anti-Republican wave election. Being member of Paul Ryan's inner circle is toxic this year. But more important is some research I've done into wave elections. It shows in both Democratic weaves (like 2006) and Republican waves (like 2010), money doesn't determine who has the advantage, Incumbents as whose part the wave is aimed at, can spent five times more than the challengers are still lose. The challenger does need to have enough money to get her message out effectively-- and Brown is certainly doing that. Outspending her isn't going to save McMorris Rodgers. Base enthusiasm means more than dollars and cents this cycle. And Brown has it; McMorris doesn't.

The 5th Congressional District of Eastern Washington hasn't had a Democratic member of Congress since House Speaker Tom Foley was narrowly upset in 1994. Donald Trump carried the district in 2016, while McMorris Rodger was reelected by a 60-40 margin.

But the Democratic Party is coming back to life, witness turnout of 459 people at a Spokane training session for Brown earlier this month.

The reason is Donald Trump. McMorris Rodgers endorsed him during a May, 2016, stopover in Spokane, and has since welcomed him at appearances before Republican colleagues in Washington, D.C.

The first hint of opposition came at a 2017 Martin Luther King Day ceremony in Spokane, where McMorris Rodgers was greeted with chants of "Save Our Health Care."



Of the $383,871 raised by Brown, $348,786 or 90 percent came from 2, 389 individual donors, three quarters of them from Eastern Washington. (Brown had a fundraiser in Seattle earlier this month, with another scheduled for a Belltown condo this weekend.)

By contrast, of the $587,542 raised by McMorris Rodgers, $264,616 or 45 percent came from individuals, while political committees (PACs) gave $199,500 to the incumbent. Transfers from authorized accounts made up the balance.

The McMorris Rodgers campaign dispersed $250,622 during the last quarter of 2017, although the election is not until November of 2018.

Brown is an educator, former majority leader in the Washington State Senate and until recently was chancellor of Washington State University-Spokane. She is also spending money, with $130,00 dispersed in the last quarter.

What do all these numbers mean?

A formerly safe Republican congressional district has become competitive, at least according to a recent grading by the authoritative Cook Political Report.

The political action committee of House Speaker Paul Ryan has opened an office in Spokane, to defend McMorris Rodgers. She is chairman of the House Republican Conference, a down-the-line advocate of repealing Obamacare and the Republicans' tax plan.

Major Political Explosion In Chicago!

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has a great voting record-- pretty much as good as it comes. ProgressivePunch rates her record a strong "A" and she's one of only 6 members of Congress this cycle with 100% scores (along with people like Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern and Jamie Raskin). When it comes to politics, though... she's on a different path, more often than not backing crappy DCCC/EMILY's List candidates who aren't nearly as good as she is on issues. One of the best grassroots activists in Illinois described her to me like this yesterday: "Schakowsky is a progressive on policy and establishment politically" and when I asked him why, he said "She is part of the good ol boy network... Pork for the district, her legislation moves forward, etc. All of these clowns are there for their own survival." Example: in IL-14, Randy Hultgren's Chicagoland seat primarily in McHenry, Kane and Lake counties she-- along with New Dem Bill Foster-- endorsed Matt Browley, a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He's the establishment pick running against the grassroots progressive in the race, Jim Walz.

But how about an opposite example-- one that shows Schakowsky as the most amazing progressive fighter in Congress? This week, she and Luis Gutiérrez (who is retiring) did something no one ever does in Congress-- they endorsed a challenger and reformer against one of their own colleagues in a primary. No one does that. Pelosi and Hoyer come down on anyone who even thinks of doing that like 2 tons of bricks. But Schakowsky and Gutiérrez both announced they are backing progressive reformer Marie Newman in her tight primary race against reactionary and bigoted Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski.

In Marie's own words: "It’s hard to overstate how big a deal this is. These two leaders know Dan Lipinski better than anyone, and they’re tired of seeing one of their fellow Democrats vote with President Trump and against the values of the Third District’s voters. They’re saying Marie Newman can do better. And they’re saying she can win.

Just look at the fight playing out on Capitol Hill right now. The vast majority of Democrats are banding together to stand with Dreamers, innocent young people who were brought to this country as children—many of whom know no other home.

This fall, President Trump announced he would end DACA, which President Obama put in place to protect Dreamers from deportation. Just this weekend, he rejected a bipartisan deal that writes these protections into the law.

We can’t count on Dan Lipinski to do what's right for Dreamers. After all, he voted against the DREAM Act and holds positions on immigration that look a lot like Trump’s.

This is why Reps. Schakowsky and Gutiérrez are eager for a new voice-- someone who will stand up for Dreamers and fight discrimination of all kinds.

Voters in IL-03 want change, not more status quo politics. In the presidential primary they backed Bernie who beat Hillary." Chicago's most credible political journalist, Lynn Sweet, wrote in Wednesday's Sun-Times that the move by Schakowsky and Gutiérrez "a rare break from the usual tradition of House incumbents either backing each other or staying neutral in a primary." Gutiérrez pointed out that "It’s not easy to endorse a challenger over a colleague in the House of Representatives, especially when that colleague is a member of your party... “Primaries are about definition of a party. I want to define myself with Marie Newman, and I hope the Democratic Party does too."

Schakowsky made it clear the move wasn't personal but about issues. Lipinski has been wrong on almost everything important to Democrats and has been especially egregious on Choice, health care, immigration and LGBT issues, where he virtually always votes with the Republicans.

The DCCC and its corrupt conservative allies, like the Blue Dogs, New Dems, EMILY's List and the corrupt segments of the labor movement, will move with speed to counter Schakowsky and Gutiérrez and do what they can to prevent any kind of groundswell to develop for Newman. If you'd like to help Marie replace one of the absolute worst fake-Democrats in Congress, please consider clicking on the Blue America Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right and contributing what you can. When Blue America endorsed Marie 7 months ago, she explained in a guest post why she's running and what her priorities will be in Congress.

First, we must fight to protect and extend health care for all Americans. I believe the best way to do that is through phased-in approach to include some of the key proposals out there currently such as the Medicare for All initiative, introduced by Congressman Conyers and Senator Sanders. Until we have a President and Congress that will pass such a measure, we must fight to protect the Affordable Care Act from repeal. This includes retaining the elements of that law focused on women’s healthcare and reproductive rights, protecting Planned Parenthood and the millions of women it serves, and requiring insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Not only is my opponent the only Democrat from Illinois to vote against establishing the Affordable Care Act; he has voted repeatedly with the Republican majority to defund Planned Parenthood. This is an unacceptable assault on the rights and health needs of millions of women across our country.

Second, we need to put the needs and concerns of small businesses ahead of the big corporations who use their campaign money and lobbyists to turn the tax code to their advantage. It is our small businesses that create most of the new jobs in our country and that make up the majority of the businesses in the 3rd Congressional District.

In any restructuring of our tax code, we need to close the loopholes and special privileges that enable the wealthiest corporations to avoid their fair share of the tax burden and use some of those resources to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. We must also reverse the Citizens United decision, which has given a handful of right-wing billionaires a hugely disproportionate role in our elections and government. I believe every person’s voice and vote should matter the same.

My opponent takes three-quarters of his campaign money from Washington PACs and lobbyists, which is why he’s ignored the needs of small businesses without that kind of political clout. As a Member of Congress, I’ll reverse those misguided priorities and focus on promoting small business growth.

Third, too many students in our country are leaving college with huge debt but without employable skills. We should encourage the development of high school and college curriculums that actually lead to real jobs. For example, creating more cost-effective entry to community colleges and to create one and two year certifications with designated paths to well-paying jobs that will promote both job and community growth. This should apply to federally supported job retraining and career redirection programs, as well-- many of which could be administered through our community college system.

Last night, Natasha Korecki did some further reporting on this for Politico. Other than her refrying to the right-wing conservative Lipinski as "a centrist," there's some worthwhile info in her report, especially about how Lipinski is trying to defend himself.

Gutierrez framed the public shunning as a necessary response in the Donald Trump era: Democrats needed to unite against the president, and Lipinski couldn't be counted on to vote reliably with Democrats.

And yet there’s more to it than that. The act of throwing Lipinski under the bus was an exercise in bare-knuckled Chicago politics, and it was also a tale of a party that is an increasingly awkward fit for centrists like Lipinski.

"There’s an effort that is very detrimental to the Democratic Party, in that there’s the Tea Party of the Left that some people said they wanted to create. That’s bad for the party. That’s not going to be helpful in growing our numbers,” said Lipinski, who noted that the Tea Party movement was responsible for Trump’s ascendance. “I think we have to acknowledge that the way to get back into the majority into the Congress and pick up seats is to make sure we are a big-tent party and reaching out to people are moderate and not just push to the left."

Asked if he felt betrayed by his colleagues, Lipinski said he wasn’t surprised at all.

“Jan has worked against me in the past. She’s never come out formally against me. Her husband has been straight about working against me,” Lipinski told Politico. “It certainly does not surprise me. Even though I have supported her when she ran for vice chair of the caucus … I’ve been back and forth with Luis. He’s been with me, he’s not been with me. I’m not sure what his future is.”

To progressive groups angling to oust Lipinski, the seven-term Democrat is finally getting his comeuppance after years of votes against their interests. He was the only Illinois Democrat to vote against the Affordable Care Act, and the only Democrat in the House not to sign onto the Equality Act, which expands protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He also voted against the Dream Act, angering Chicago-area Hispanics.

Then there is Lipinski’s position on abortion, a sticking point in a party that has few remaining opponents of abortion rights.

Gutierrez and Schakowsky both cited Lipinski’s opposition to abortion as out of step with his district.

“I assure you that this district is overwhelmingly pro-choice,” said Schakowsky.

By endorsing Marie Newman, a businesswoman and former marketing consultant, Schakowsky and Gutierrez joined powerful national groups that have already coalesced behind the challenger, including NARAL, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Human Rights Campaign. Those groups expect a surge in progressive votes in the primary, providing the opportunity to oust one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.

Still, Newman will need all the help-- and money-- she can get against Lipinski, whose family has held a seat in the district for decades.

"I am hoping it will encourage some donors to decide that they would support Marie,” Schakowsky said of her endorsement.

Privately, some Democrats question whether Gutierrez was settling a score with the powerful state party chairman Mike Madigan, a longtime ally of the Lipinski family. Gutierrez, who plans to retire at the end of this term, brought up in the news conference that during the last round of redistricting his district was redrawn to include a portion of Lipinski’s constituents.

“He jettisoned, 50-60,000 voters ... all of a sudden I have the zoo. Brookfield Zoo … Just think about it. Pilsen, Little Village, Humboldt Park, Back of the Yards,” he said, referring to Chicago neighborhoods heavily populated by Latino residents. He then added the punchline: “And I got Brookfield Zoo, thanks to [Dan] Lipinski. But he didn’t do it so I have the zoo in my congressional district. He did it because he was running away from progressive Democrats.”

Gutierrez later told Politico his remarks had "nothing to do" with Madigan or the redistricting process the state Democratic party controls. Rather, he said, they were a commentary that Lipinski had exported a part of his district, around a trademark Chicago-area zoo, that was growing more liberal.

Gutierrez said moving a portion of Lipinski's district into his own was a sign Lipinski and his clout-heavy Democratic backers knew he'd grown too conservative for his district. Lipinski insists he remains in line with his district, which includes Chicago and nearby suburbs, pointing to the endorsements of 30 mayors and village presidents just this week.

Wednesday’s move by Schakowsky and Gutierrez put them at odds with a more pragmatic [better word would be corrupt] faction of Chicago Democrats-- old guard Democrats who remain loyal to Lipinski’s father, former Congressman Bill Lipinski, and would prefer to leave his son be.

Sure, they argue, Lipinski takes some conservative votes and may even be out of step with his district, but “he has a hell of a name,” said one Democratic operative.

In other words: why is the party spending precious resources to oust an incumbent from a safe Democratic seat? Especially when Democrats are busy trying to oust a Republican governor from office and nearby GOP congressmen from their seats?

The party, unfortunately, isn't "spending precious resources to oust " Lipinski. Instead, they will spend precious resources to hold a Republican-supprting reactionary in a safe Democratic seat. Just Wednesday, for example, the Republicans passed a resolution top move forward on one of their crackpot anti-choice bills, HR 4712, and every Democrat opposed it except two, one of those two being Lipinski, of course.

Blue Dogs Flipping Out As Marie Newman Gathers Momentum In Her Battle Against Conservative Dan Lipinski

When Kirsten Gillibrand first ran for Congress, I used to talk with her frequently. She had me fooled that she was a progressive and Blue America helped her raise money and even got Rickie Lee Jones and the Squirrel Nut Zippers to help us make an ad for her campaign. Once she got into Congress she joined the Blue Dog Coalition, started voting with the Republicans, exhibited ZERO backbone, became a poster child for the NRA and an outspoken campaigner against immigrants rights. Blecchhhhh. And then Hillary Clinton picked her as her replacement for the Senate when she abandoned her seat to become Secretary of State. Gillibrand dumped her Blue Dog outfit and reinvented herself as a Wall Street-loving liberal. No one-- NO ONE-- knows what the hell she really is other than a political opportunist.

A couple weeks ago she endorsed solid progressive Chicago congressional candidate Marie Newman against sleazy Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. But was that because Newman is a progressive and Lipinksi is a right-wing Democrat? Or was it for something less ideological-- that Newman is a woman and Lipinski is a man?

One of the worst of the Blue Dogs, Oregon conservative Kurt Schrader, came to Lipinski's defense and denounced Gillibrand. "It’s bullshit," snarled Schrader about Gillibrand's endorsement. "She used to be a Blue Dog, and then miraculously turns around? C’mon, man."

To Schrader, the endorsement smacked of political opportunism-- especially given that Gillibrand, while a representative of a moderate upstate New York district, was once a Blue Dog herself.

Meanwhile, this week, a quartet of progressive organizations-- NARAL, MoveOn, DFA and the PCCC-- jointly announced that they will help Newman defeat Lipinski. (Note: Lipinski is virulently homophobic and consistently votes with the GOP against LGBT equality, prompting a centrist gay group, HRC, which has no interest in progressivism, to also announce they would help defeat the Chicagoland congressman.)

Lipinski, who won his seat after his father stepped down in 2004, has made no secret of his anti-choice views, though they break from the Democratic Party’s plank on abortion rights. He co-chairs the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus and sits on the federal advisory board of anti-choice group Democrats for Life of America.

“For too long, Dan Lipinski has ignored the needs of working families across Illinois, by pushing his fringe ideological agenda at the expense of women and families across the state,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a Tuesday statement. “Congressman Lipinski is way out of step with his constituents and with Democratic party principles when it comes to women’s rights, LGBT equality, and the basic freedoms that Americans hold dear.”

Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, said in a statement that his organization was supporting Newman “because Illinois voters deserve a Democratic congressional delegation that is as unflinchingly committed to fighting for abortion rights and LGBT equality as they are to standing up to any other racial and economic injustice.”

Lipinski is one of only two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to sign on to a GOP-backed measure this year to restrict abortion beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the false claim that a fetus can feel pain at this point in a pregnancy. He has co-sponsored other anti-choice measures such as a permanent ban on federal abortion funding, voted to defund Planned Parenthood, and has questioned evidence-based guidelines for medication abortion.

Newman in April announced her intent to challenge Lipinski. Already, Lipinski’s views on reproductive health care have been a contentious issue in the primary race.

Her campaign platform includes calls to expand access to health care through “Healthcare-For-All solutions” and criticizes Lipinski’s opposition to reproductive rights. “Consistent with the Roe v. Wade decision, I believe that reproductive decisions belong with women and her right to choose, not with government or politicians,” her campaign site says, noting that Lipinski “has voted consistently to defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate a woman’s right to choose.”

Lipinski’s district is rated as “Solid Democrat” by the Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales/Roll Call ratings, meaning the seat is likely to remain in the hands of Democrats no matter who wins the March 20 primary in 2018.

How horrible is Lipinski? Back in April, Lipinski endorsed and campaigned for grotesquely corrupt Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar in his re-election bid after Claar endorsed and started fundraising for Trump. With Lipinski's help the Trump candidate won 6,425 to 6,274 against an actual Democrat, Will County Board member Jackie Traynere.

When Blue America endorsed Marie 7 months ago, she explained in a guest post why she's running and what her priorities will be in Congress.

First, we must fight to protect and extend health care for all Americans. I believe the best way to do that is through phased-in approach to include some of the key proposals out there currently such as the Medicare for All initiative, introduced by Congressman Conyers and Senator Sanders. Until we have a President and Congress that will pass such a measure, we must fight to protect the Affordable Care Act from repeal. This includes retaining the elements of that law focused on women’s healthcare and reproductive rights, protecting Planned Parenthood and the millions of women it serves, and requiring insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Not only is my opponent the only Democrat from Illinois to vote against establishing the Affordable Care Act; he has voted repeatedly with the Republican majority to defund Planned Parenthood. This is an unacceptable assault on the rights and health needs of millions of women across our country.

Second, we need to put the needs and concerns of small businesses ahead of the big corporations who use their campaign money and lobbyists to turn the tax code to their advantage. It is our small businesses that create most of the new jobs in our country and that make up the majority of the businesses in the 3rd Congressional District.

In any restructuring of our tax code, we need to close the loopholes and special privileges that enable the wealthiest corporations to avoid their fair share of the tax burden and use some of those resources to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. We must also reverse the Citizens United decision, which has given a handful of right-wing billionaires a hugely disproportionate role in our elections and government. I believe every person’s voice and vote should matter the same.

My opponent takes three-quarters of his campaign money from Washington PACs and lobbyists, which is why he’s ignored the needs of small businesses without that kind of political clout. As a Member of Congress, I’ll reverse those misguided priorities and focus on promoting small business growth.

Third, too many students in our country are leaving college with huge debt but without employable skills. We should encourage the development of high school and college curriculums that actually lead to real jobs. For example, creating more cost-effective entry to community colleges and to create one and two year certifications with designated paths to well-paying jobs that will promote both job and community growth. This should apply to federally supported job retraining and career redirection programs, as well-- many of which could be administered through our community college system.

Finally, I’m eager to fight against discrimination due to race, religion, gender or sexuality-- because respect, appreciation and equal rights are American values that we hold dear. My opponent has voted consistently against gay marriage and has sponsored legislation that would enable businesses to discriminate against the LGBTQI community on “religious” grounds. And he shares Donald Trump’s aggression toward immigrants-- even though first- and second-generation immigrant families make up much of the 3rd District. We must rededicate ourselves to the basic, American principles of welcoming refugees and promoting a welcome environment for all.

I am excited by the grassroots energy and commitment of thousands of people across the 3rd District who believe with all their heart that it’s time to take a stand for our values and our future. I know that defeating an incumbent whose family has held this seat for 30 years is a very difficult assignment. But I also know the power of everyday people when they join together in a common cause because I’ve been a part of it many times before.

A Stronger And More progressive Democratic Party In Rahm's Chicago? Sure, Why Not?

One of the hardest and most thankless tasks in electoral politics is primarying an entrenched incumbent of one's own party. No matter how corrupt and awful the incumbent, the party establishment always rallies round the colleague and heaps abuse on the challenger. When they overcome the odds and win, these challengers are among the most courageous and heroic members of Congress, as Matt Cartwright (PA), Hilda Solis (CA) and Donna Edwards (MD) have been after they challenged and beat corrupt conservative Democrats who had gone bad.

Today there's a race like that shaping up in a blue Chicagoland district (IL-03)-- Hillary beat Trump there 55.2% to 39.9%-- between execrable far right Blue Dog Dan Lipinski and a constituent who has had enough of him, Marie Newman.

Lipinski, who inherited his seat from his father without most voters even knowing his father had retired, is an anti-Choice fanatic who voted against the Afforable Care Act and has been one of the only "Democrats" in Congress to consistently support Ryan's toxic agenda. Medicare-For-All? Dan Lipinski is one of the Blue Dogs standing in the way of it becoming Democratic Party policy. Marie is running on a platform that emphasizes it. "Health care is a right and shouldn't be dependent on how much money you make," she told us when we talked to her about her campaign."I support Medicare-for-All because every American deserves high-quality health care. As Republicans work to dismantle the little progress we've made towards health care for all, my opponent sits silent... in fact, voting against the ACA. We should be moving forward, not backwards when it comes to health care for all Americans."

In 12 years as a Chicagoland congressman, Lipinski is still a Tennessean at heart and has been completely detached from his constituency. Once every two years, he claims to be there for working class voters, but his voting record shows he's done nothing for them and has no understanding of who they are and what they need. He's the ultimate careerist and for him, politics is all about what he can get, not what he can do for his district's residents.

Marie told us that "Working families must be Congress's number one priority. It's time for a set of common-sense policy solutions to ease the burden on middle-class families. That means increasing the minimum wage to a livable wage, making child care more affordable, and improving the quality of education-- from Pre-K to community college... Small business, not big corporations, must once again become the focus of Congress. 80% of the economy in my district is small business, and those small business owners deserve an advocate in Congress. I'm ready to fight for policies like closing tax loopholes exploited by big business, improve access to capital for entrepreneurs-- especially women and minorities. By enabling local institutions like community banks and enhancing entrepreneurship programs in community colleges and training centers, we can empower the next generation of small business owners."

Lipinski is part of an antediluvian machine and seeks only to please his donors. Marie comes from a very different place. "We all know money in politics has gotten out of control, and I've had the opportunity to witness is firsthand: my opponent gets 70% of his donations from special interests. It's time to reverse the corrosive effects Citizens United has had on our political system and limit the power of corporations in influencing our elections. To practice what I preach, I'm refusing to take any money from corporations."

Last week, Lipinski sat down for an interview with Ted Slowik, a respected local journalist with the Daily Southtown. Although Slowik pointed out that the vast majority of Americans-- 89%, in a recent Gallup poll-- consider using birth control to be morally acceptable, Lipinski is so out of touch, that he believes birth control is "intrsincally evil." He's entitled to believe whatever he wants, of course, but the problems is that his ghastly voting record reflects those beliefs. Isn't it about time Democrats in the third district elect someone who represents them? This guy is a DINO in two ways: a Democrat in name only and a real dinosaur! Please join Blue America in supporting Marie Newman's campaign by tapping on the Blue America "Primary A Blue Dog" thermometer on the right.