Return of Pennsylvania ConservaDem Mark Critz... And Progressives Fight Back

-by LeftGeoff

When Mark Critz battled Blue Dog Jason Altmire in a member to member primary in 2012, progressives who didn't just walk away in disgust, chose to back Critz over Altmire. It was a bitter pill to swallow. Critz, who a few people viewed as not as bad and unfit for office as Altmire, still left much to be desired. Altmire, was a pro-business/anti-family conservative Democrat; Critz was a pro-labor conservative Democrat. Critz then lost the general election and has since taken employment as a... wait for it... you guessed it: lobbyist. When Critz's loss followed Tim Holden's, progressives in Pennsylvania thought that the anti-Obama, anti-LGBT, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-women Democrats in the House had been retired.

Fast forward 6 months, a progressive challenger emerged to challenge for Mark Critz’s old seat named Erin McClelland and Mark Critz sat on the fence. As time passed, Mark Critz still bided his time, even though the DCCC lobbied hard to get him to wage a rematch again Keith Rothfus. It came to a head when Erin’s fundraising started to lag, as Mark Critz debated what office he wanted to run for next. Just this past week, Mark Critz made his decision. Mark Critz would be a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

Typically, Democrats would think this would be a great place to shelter someone who spent 2 years in Congress sponsoring the Akin “Forcible Rape” Bill, voting against LGBT rights, supporting the Halliburton Loophole, taking cues from the NRA and voting time after time with Republicans on many of the votes that matter. But there has been a great change in the Pennsylvania Senate led by the Senate Democrats leadership and their Campaign Committee Chair Daylin Leach (an awesome candidate to replace Allyson Schwartz in the PA-13 congressional district). This past cycle, Pennsylvania replaced three Republicans with three progressive Democrats and the margin shrunk to 27-23. When Gov. Tom Corbett is defeated, a more progressive agenda will be pushed. There are a number of moderate Republicans in the State Senate, mostly focused in the southeastern part of the state that will vote against their party on certain environmental, LGBT, and womens issue votes. Do we really want Mark Critz to cast tie breaking votes? Judging by his past work, Mark Critz does not deserve this chance.

Amongst all of the important issues facing the battleground state of Pennsylvania, nothing is as important as the potential disaster that is the Marcellus Shale. Too many Democrats have sold themselves out to an industry with nothing more than pure profit in mind. In pockets of Pennsylvania, residents have become ill and even forced to leave their homesteads after generations of a good rural, peaceful life. Turning a blind eye to something that could be more disastrous than coal, timber or steel is not of the Democratic Party. Progressives need to stand up and fight for the environment, for our neighbors and for our future. We cannot stand for candidates and elected officials who benefit from these companies, whether directly or indirectly.

Mark Critz, is currently a lobbyist for EIS Solutions. EIS Solutions focuses on legislative affairs and government relations for gas companies and drillers. Our current Lt. Governor Jim Cawley chairs Governor Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Commission. When Corbett loses, IF Critz wins and if our new Governor decides to reconvene this Committee under it's current structure, a pro-fracking advocate will be in charge of the Committee who helps set policy and procedure. Do we really trust Mark Critz, who as a Congressman voted against the Clean Water Act and supported the Halliburton Loophole, who has since taken shelter in the gas lobby to be an honest and fair protector of our natural beauty and residents? Mark Critz does not deserve this chance.

Even more frightening would be a Governor Critz. If the newly elected Democratic Governor would be elevated to a Cabinet position or Vice President in 2016-17, Mark Critz could become Governor. Having an owned subsidiary of the NRA and Religious Right running Pennsylvania would cripple the state's progressive movement.

In Pennsylvania, our Lt. Governor candidates run separate of our gubernatorial candidates in the primary. This typically leads to mismatches and electing someone like Mark Critz with an actual progressive would be disastrous. As progressive candidate for Lt. Governor, Brad Koplinski said, “Pennsylvania needs a complete departure from the conservative Corbett Administration policies, not an extension.” We need to stop Mark Critz before he unravels the progress made in Pennsylvania.

Checking Chicken Bones In Pennsylvania... Sifting Through The Blue Dog Ashes

If you've been reading this blog lately you probably have come to the conclusion that we were more than a little obsessed with defeating corrupt Blue Dog Tim Holden in northeast Pennsylvania, where I used to live. Holden was gerrymandered into the district and a native, a progressive native, Matt Cartwright, beat him decisively on Tuesday night. Since then Holden has been out trying to find a lobbying job while he's still got a vote in Congress and the media has been trying to figure out what happened. How is it possible that some guy who never ran for anything and backs marriage equality, a pro-Choice position and is decidedly anti-corporate and anti-Austerity could beat the dean of the Pennsylvania delegation who was actively-- very, very actively-- backed by Steny Hoyer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Allyson Schwartz, Joe Crowley and most of the rest of the corrupt DC Democratic Establishment? Maybe they should glance up from Drudge once in a while and take a look at Digby's blog or even DWT.

A good deal of the coverage Wednesday emphasized that it was another Blue Dog Apocalypse, albeit a mini one. Across the state a Blue Dog even more conservative than Holden-- if not quite as corrupt-- was also beaten. That would be Jason Altmire. We paid that race almost no attention at all since there was virtually no difference between Altmire and his opponent, Mark Critz, who were thrown together by Republican gerrymandering in Harrisburg. Let me run three numbers by you-- the 2011-'12 crucial vote scores, tabulated by ProgressivePunch, of Holden, Altmire and Critz:

Critz: 36.36
Holden: 35.80
Altmire: 22.10 (meaning he votes with the GOP over three quarters of the time, worse than only 3 "Democrats," fellow Blue Dogs Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike Ross of Arkansas and Dan Boren of Oklahoma, the second two of whom are retiring).

Have no doubt... these are three of the worst Democrats in Congress and all three have been counted on by John Boehner and Eric Cantor to provide the votes on key legislation that allows them to go crying to the press that the Senate won't pass their wonderful "bipartisan" bills. Blue America would have been happy to join a battle to unseat Altmire or Critz-- just as we did to unseat Holden-- but not to replace one with the other. Neither has any saving grace... at least not for me.

But I talked with a friend of mine who serves with them in Congress. He had a different perspective. He was rooting for Altmire-- who has a lower score and is a member of the Blue Dog caucus. I was surprised, since my friend is one of the most progressive Members of Congress... in history. This is how he saw it:

"There is a temperamental difference. Altmire, like for instance Walt Minnick, felt that he was constrained to vote the way that he did because of his perception of the district. On any particular vote, though, you could have a meaningful conversation with Altmire. Critz, on the other hand, really is conservative."

That's how Holden excused his horrific voting record; he blamed it on the voters in the southern part of the state who are far more conservative than the Democrats up north, the new heart of the district-- and the area that sent Holden packing. He took over 80% of the vote in conservative Schuylkill County-- where he lives and was once sheriff-- but lost by nearly as big a margin in Lackawanna County... which has a lot more people. If you look at the dozen worst voting Democrats.

Let's look at the dozen worst Democrats in Congress, according to their propensity for voting with the Republicans and compare it to how Obama did in their districts in 2008. We'll go from bad to worse:

Bill Owens (NY)- 36.03... Obama: 52%
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- 35.80... Obama: 48%
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- 31.87... Obama: 43%
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 28.47... Obama: 56%
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)- 26.45... Obama: 54%
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- 24.36... Obama: 54%
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 23.88... Obama: 60%
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 22.63... Obama: 47%
Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- 22.10... Obama: 44%
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- 18.25... Obama: 39%
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- 16.36... Obama: 39%
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)- 14.02... Obama: 34%

And in Critz's old district, Obama and McCain essentially tied with McCain ahead by a nose. But I guess that comparing these numbers one could say that Owens, Cuellar, Donnelly (who the Democratic establishment picked to run for U.S. Senator this year), Barrow, and certainly Costa are not voting with the Republicans so consistently because they're forced to but despite the voters they represent being more progressive than they are.

You can also use this type of analysis to figure out which Republicans are voting to the right of their constituents. Let's take Wisconsin's 5 Republican-held districts for example.

WI-1- Paul Ryan ... Obama: 51%
WI-5- James Sensenbrenner (11.23)... Obama: 41%
WI-6- Tom Petri (13.41)... Obama: 50%
WI-7- Sean Duffy (4.36)... Obama: 56%
WI-8- Reid Ribble (4.44)... Obama: 54%

It certainly appears that Duffy and Ribble are challenging their constituents to do something about it. And Paul Ryan, at least by the numbers, is also skating on thin ice. Meanwhile, let me get back to the Inside the Beltway spin, always ideologically-phobic. Their interpretation of what happened last night-- he lesson learned: the Democrats need more Blue Dogs, more Democrats to vote like Republicans. The serious Paul Kane, hoping as always to be the next David Broder, has so many glaring errors that I was thinking of doing a contest to see who could find the most. In the first two paragraphs he makes the preposterous claim that the Blue Dogs were once "the most powerful voting bloc on Capitol Hill" and that Critz was "more liberal" than Altmire, both of which should have been caught by a fact checker... if the Post employs those any longer. And only a Broderite would call Altmire's and Holden's GOP-lite voting records "centrist" instead of extreme right wing. But instead of noting how far to the right the GOP has marched, he blunders into the kind of error not even rookies would make: the Democrats, basically a status quo, conservative party are now, "father to the left than any time in the last decade." I wonder if he wrote this while he was on drugs.

Just two years removed from being the most powerful voting bloc on Capitol Hill, Blue Dog Democrats are now trying to stave off political extinction.

On Tuesday Reps. Jason Altmire and Tim Holden, members of the moderate-to-conservative caucus of Democrats known as the Blue Dog

Coalition, lost their primary battles to more liberal opponents who painted their centrism as apostasies that could no longer be tolerated.

These were the latest blows delivered to the Blue Dogs, whose membership ranks have been decimated the last two years by a perfect political storm that has driven the House Democratic caucus farther to the left than at any time in the last decade.

It’s increasingly unclear whether Democrats can ever reclaim the House majority unless they pick up ground in the conservative-leaning terrain that the Blue Dogs once represented. In addition, with so few moderates left, there are fewer House members in the political center to
create the sort of bipartisan coalition that in the past has provided the bulwark of support for budget compromises.

...The group's long-term prospects are endangered on a few other political and demographic fronts. This moderate group has lost almost all of its female members, down to just Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), whose Orange County district often makes her more in line with the suburban New Democrat Coalition than the rural-tilting Blue Dogs.

[I hate to interrupt but Kane should lose his newspaper writer's license for peddling this completely made up nonsense, at best stuff he remembers when he was a child. Loretta Sanchez's district is in Orange County-- he did get that right-- but a completely Democratic part of the county. McCain only managed to get 38% of the vote there. And sooner or later the Democratic voters in the district will throw Sanchez out for being too conservative.]

...Interviews with a handful of current and former senior aides to Blue Dogs all focused on recruiting, with each strategist suggesting that finding the right candidates in these regions can be very painstaking but also very rewarding. When he served as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman in 2006, then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) found non-politicians such as Shuler-- a college football legend in the South who played a few years in the NFL-- and telegenic sheriff Brad Ellsworth in Evansville, Ind., to run in very conservative districts.

They both won and helped propel the Democrats into the majority for the first time in 12 years, giving Pelosi her historic speakership.

Privately, many Blue Dogs and their staff blame Pelosi’s liberal leadership. Her image was run countless times in 2010 against Shuler and Altmire, both of whom were rare survivors. Despite a coordinated recruiting effort by the DCCC this time around, few Blue Dogs who lost in 2010 have opted to run for their old seat. Shuler and Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), both co-chairmen of the coalition, decided to retire at the end of this year rather than run for re-election in new districts that tilted toward Republicans. Ellsworth lost a Senate race in 2010 by 15 percentage points, leaving behind a House seat that flipped to Republicans.

Shuler, who spent time Wednesday on a conference call trying to recruit Blue Dog candidates, said his coalition resonates with most voters in terms of its anti-deficit message but is struggling with translating that into seats in Congress. “The Blue Dogs represent 80 percent of America, but there are just 25 of us in the House,” he said.

Blue America Has Been Concentrating On Tim Holden For A Reason

There are two "Democrats" battling it out for Pennsylvania's 12th CD in the western part of the state, and both-- as hard as it is to imagine-- as actually more right-wing than Tim Holden. That would be Jason Altmire and Mark Critz, who were thrown into one district by the Republican gerrymander in the state legislature. In three weeks one will be headed back to a career of voting for corporate interests in Congress and the other will be headed to K Street to work as a lobbyist-- for the same corporate interests.

Altmire, Critz and Holden are three of the worst Members of Congress. According to ProgressivePunch, the 2011-12 session has seen Altmire voting with Boehner and Cantor against the Democrats (on crucial rollcalls) an astounding 87.41% of the time. Only fellow Blue Dogs Dan Boren (OK-retiring), Mike Ross (AR-retiring) and Jim Matheson (UT), have worse records. Critz's isn't that much better. He's adhered to the Boehner agenda on 62.83% of the roll calls, about the same as Holden (63.75%). All three are virulently anti-Choice, anti-gay and anti-health care and routinely support the Republicans on just about everything important. ProgressivePunch rated the three Pennsylvania homophobes on their lifetime votes on roll calls crucial to the LGBT community. Critz-- whose very first vote after being elected was to oppose including gays in Hate Crimes legislation, has a zero-- that's worse than many Republicans! Holden has voted the anti-gay line 85.71% of the time and Altmire voted anti-gay a flat 75% of the time.

As we've seen, Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dogs have come out strongly to try to save Holden's career. He's in a strongly blue district now and his deep red voting record doesn't fit. His opponent, progressive attorney Matt Cartwright, is giving him a run for his (corporate) money. If Cartwright wins, he'd quickly be embraced by the Democratic caucus with which is has far more in common that the reactionary Holden. The race out west is more nuanced-- since both congressmen are hopeless, ideologically speaking.

2 reactionary losers disguised as Democrats

According to Shira Toeplitz at Roll Call, most Democrats would rather see the widely hated Altmire defeated.

Most Democrats in the delegation emphasized their neutrality, at least publicly, ahead of the April 24 primary for the competitive district north of Pittsburgh.

“I’m Switzerland,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said last week. “I think the position of most of the delegation is we’re going to make sure whoever wins the primary wins the general election.”

But last week, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) broke ranks and backed Critz.

“I did give Mark Critz a financial contribution,” Brady told reporters. “I am endorsing him also.”

Pennsylvania Democrats view Brady as the unofficial dean of their delegation, and his endorsement carries symbolic weight. Even though he’s not the longest-serving House Democrat from Pennsylvania, aides argued that Brady’s support shows where many Democrats in the delegation stand on the race: More than two years after Murtha’s death, many Members are loyal to Critz, his longtime staffer.

“Most people are rooting for Mark,” one Pennsylvania Democratic staffer said. “There’s clearly a history. A lot of Members worked with Mark when he was a staffer. Mr. Murtha was beloved by the delegation, and I think that merits a certain loyalty.”

Critz worked on Murtha’s official staff beginning in 2001, including serving as his district director for three years. After Murtha died in 2010, Critz won a competitive special election for his seat.

“When I got through that special election, I was adopted by a lot of senior Members,” Critz said. “In the Pennsylvania corner, those guys really took me under their wing. Even though I was Jack Murtha’s guy, I was still a rookie.”

In addition to Brady, Critz remains close with a couple of Pennsylvania Democrats. He dines almost weekly in Washington with Doyle, Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.) and a cadre of other northeastern Democrats.

Meanwhile, Altmire staked out a distinctly different path in Congress.

An underdog and outsider in 2006, Altmire upset then-Rep. Melissa Hart (R) in a Republican-leaning district in suburban Pittsburgh. He’s successfully won re-election by compiling a moderate voting record and profile in Congress [translation: when Roll Call uses the word "moderate," it's code for far right-wing but usually not quite as far as, say, outright Nazism].

Most memorably, Altmire voted against Democrats’ health care overhaul, a vote that many Pennsylvania insiders say saved his 2010 re-election. But Altmire’s decision irked Democrats who felt he held them out to dry with his last-minute and closely held decision to vote “nay.”


These days, instead of hanging out in the Pennsylvania corner of the House floor, Altmire sits with fellow Blue Dog Democrats, such as Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.), during votes. And as of last week, Altmire said he hasn’t asked anyone in the delegation for support.

There is no good outcome in PA-12. Critz and Altmire are both putrid Members of Congress who tugs the Democratic congressional caucus ever rightward and into horribly anti-working family/pro-corporate positions. In PA-17, on the other hand, replacing Holden with Cartwright would be a godsend for ordinary Americans and for the Democratic caucus. Pennsylvania votes in three weeks. There's still time to ignore PA-12 entirely and support Cartwright in PA-17.

The DCCC Is On The March-- Hide Your Wallets

Former Blue Dog Steve Israel was appointed head of the DCCC by Nancy Pelosi, in her most boneheaded move since taking impeachment off the table. Israel is working hand-in-paw with Heath Shuler to recruit conservatives to run for open congressional seats, conservatives like all the Blue Dogs and quasi-Blue Dogs who lost in November because Democratic voters just do not want to vote for conservatives. If they did, they would be Republicans. Yesterday the DCCC blanked their mailing list recipients with a shameless letter begging progressives to sign a petition to protect women's choice. Signing a petition only means one thing-- since Boehner isn't interested in them, even if the DCCC actually ever entertained the notion of sending them to him. It means you are on the fundraising mailing list. But nowhere in that letter does it mention that 10 co-sponsors of the heinous legislation are exactly the kind of conservative Democrats the DCCC wastes virtually all it's (our) money on.

Rather than focus on creating jobs, House Republicans have begun a comprehensive and radical assault on a woman’s right to choose.

One bill would punish women and businesses with a massive tax increase for insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health care. Another would cut off federal dollars to women’s health care clinics that offer reproductive health services. Plus, Republicans are refusing to drop their attempt to redefine rape.

These measures could end up denying millions of Americans access to reproductive health care.

We can’t stand silent in the face of this Republican assault on women’s health and reproductive rights. Sign our petition denouncing House Republicans’ despicable attempts to restrict a woman’s right to choose.

There's a huge blue "CONTRIBUTE" button on the bottom of the page. It could just as well be red if what you care about is Choice. The DCCC is part of the problem; not the solution to the problem. Israel was bragging he's "Rahm Emanuel without the curse words." That means he'll be sabotaging progressives who try to get the Democratic nominations for House seats from sea to shining sea. It means he'll continue recruiting anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-union, anti-family conservatives and Big Business shills to run as Democrats... just the way Rahm did.

Pelosi is right to warn about the Republican jihad against women's rights. But until she grasps that it's a conservative jihad, not just a Republican jihad, she won't be able to fight it effectively. Greg Sargent:

Nancy Pelosi's extremely blunt assessments of the true motives of Republicans are why her supporters love her and her enemies hate her with equal passion, and on a conference call with bloggers just now, she unleashed a slashing attack on the House GOP's new anti-abortion push that may churn up emotions on both sides.

Pelosi-- who promised a huge fight against House Republicans over the issue in the days ahead-- didn't hold back one bit, claiming the new legislative push by Republicans "disrespects the judgment of American women."

"I don't know if they ever give that a thought," she added.

Pelosi described the GOP push as the "most radical assault" on women's reproductive rights "in our lifetimes." And she was equally blunt in her assessment of right-wing assaults on family planning.

"They are at a different philosophical place," she said, characterizing their view as: "all engagement has to result in a child." Pelosi noted that contraception and family planning is "not consistent with their belief that it's all about procreation."

House Republicans have begun work on two bills that would dramatically restrict financing of and access to abortions. They are also looking to zero out funding for Title X, a decades-old program providing federal funds to family planning and reproductive health, which would be a hard hit to Planned Parenthood.

Pelosi indicated that the House Dem Pro-Choice Caucus, which numbers more than 150, would fan out in their communities and argue that Republicans are pushing an extreme agenda that would decimate women's reproductive rights. She added that Dems would push the message that the GOP push-- which means small businesses could lose tax credits to buy health insurance for employees if they choose a plan that covers reproductive health care-- constitutes a "tax hike on women and small businesses."

Pelosi acknowledged that Dems could not stop Republicans from passing their anti-abortion agenda through the House. But she said it was crucial that pro-choice forces and Dems kick up enough noise to ensure that it dies in the Senate: "We have to make this issue too hot to handle."

Pelosi added that the unreconcilable philosophical differences between Republicans and Dems on abortion left Dems no choice but to adopt a scorched-earth approach to the war ahead. "We don't have a set of shared values," she said. "We have to fight this out in the public domain, so when we move to the Senate it has no popular support."

Pelosi added that this fight was a good way to drive home the reality of GOP extremism to women who were not energized last November, a key swing demographic.

At some point someone is going to ask Pelosi to address the fact that her own caucus harbors dozens of vehement anti-Choice fanatics and that the DCCC has spent millions of dollars recruiting, electing and re-electing these Democrats who vote with the GOP against women. Mark Critz, who replaced Jack Murtha in a special election-- was one of the Democrats' greatest hits. They literally spent millions of dollars to elect and reelect him. And his first substantive vote in Congress? He voted against Patrick Murphy's amendment to repeal DADT,

His first vote in Congress, to congratulate the University of Texas mens swimming and diving team for winning the NCAA Division I national championship, was a vote with his own party-- and it passed 405-0. And the Democrats have been able to count on Critz on votes like that. The important ones... not so much. His first vote on a contentious proposal was Patrick Murphy's amendment to the Defense Authorization Act which will lead to the repeal of DADT. Making clear to anyone who hadn't been paying attention that the DCCC had just wasted a fortune on electing another vicious bigot to Congress, Critz joined Boehner, all but 5 of the Republicans and a couple dozen homophobic Blue Dogs to oppose Murphy's legislation. He's also been voting with the GOP to recommit (kill) major legislation, like the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act and voted outright against the DISCLOSE Act last week, one of 36 Democrats who nearly tanked the bill that is meant to take some of the corrupt practices Critz-watchers knew he is so eager to immerse himself in, out of politics. As Boehner talked yesterday about taking away Choice from American women, you could almost see Mark Critz's image dancing in the orange glow around his forehead.

And, indeed, Critz signed on as a co-sponsor of the "Republican" legislation to dismantle women's right to Choice. Nancy? DCCC? Anything. Will you guys at least assure us that no more millions of grassroots donors money collected to protect Choice will go to anti-Choice fanatics like Mark Critz?

John Boehner Is The Only Kind Of Abortion Conservatives Like

Good news for anyone who'd like to see women pushed back into the servile social position Bronze Age patriarchs created for them through their brutal, self-serving mythology. Ohio Congressman John Boehner, having just led House conservatives in denying unemployment benefits to millions of Americans-- and probably to a politically expedient economic slowdown-- now plans an assault on women's right to Choice. And, as he noted, because the DCCC has been so spectacularly successful in destroying primary candidacies of pro-Choice progressives while pushing forward hopelessly conservative anti-Choice fanatics, Boehner may have the numbers he needs to deal the crippling blow to women the right has been attempting for years.

Saturday Boehner, whose aim is to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, delivered a fanatic rant at an annual anti-Choice convention in Pittsburgh and promised new legislation that would ban all federal funding for abortion. "The American people-- and a bipartisan majority in the House-- supported the Stupak amendment," brayed Boehner, "which would have prohibited taxpayer funding of abortion through the health care bill. [But] instead of heeding the will of the people and a bipartisan majority, [President Obama and Democratic leaders] crafted a disingenuous, last-minute executive order that they claimed eliminated the need for pro-life protections... I believe this must be the next objective for pro-life America.  It’s clear from the health care debate that the American people don’t want their tax dollars paying for abortion, and a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives agrees.  It’s the will of the people, and it ought to be the law of the land-- right now."

Last week Hoyer, the DNC, OFA, the DCCC and the whole Democratic Inside-the-Beltway Establishment stood firmly behind Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) as he struggled to retain the Democratic Party nomination for the November election. Last November, he was one of 64 Democrats voting with Boehner to pass the Stupak Amendment to the healthcare reform bill. No one talked about Mathson's vote because his default position on virtually every contentious issue is to follow Boehner's lead. He ran against a progressive pro-Choice woman with no funding whatsoever. No pro-choice congressional leaders came to her assistance; they were all on Matheson's side. This is something that has been playing itself out-- and continues to play itself out-- everywhere in the country. The DCCC and the Democratic Establishment just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect conservative, anti-Choice, anti-gay fanatic Mark Critz in Pennsylvania. He may be wearing the right color jersey but he's already proven himself a devoted Boehner Boy, crossing the aisle on every important vote since being sworn in on May 20.

His first vote in Congress, to congratulate the University of Texas mens swimming and diving team for winning the NCAA Division I national championship, was a vote with his own party-- and it passed 405-0. And the Democrats have been able to count on Critz on votes like that. The important ones... not so much. His first vote on a contentious proposal was Patrick Murphy's amendment to the Defense Authorization Act which will lead to the repeal of DADT. Making clear to anyone who hadn't been paying attention that the DCCC had just wasted a fortune on electing another vicious bigot to Congress, Critz joined Boehner, all but 5 of the Republicans and a couple dozen homophobic Blue Dogs to oppose Murphy's legislation. He's also been voting with the GOP to recommit (kill) major legislation, like the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act and voted outright against the DISCLOSE Act last week, one of 36 Democrats who nearly tanked the bill that is meant to take some of the corrupt practices Critz-watchers knew he is so eager to immerse himself in out of politics. As Boehner talked yesterday about taking away Choice from American women, you could almost see Mark Critz's image dancing in the orange glow around his forehead.

Like I mentioned above, even before the DCCC managed to slide Critz into the western Pennsylvania House seat, there were 64 hardcore anti-Choice Democratic votes (the miscreants who voted to pass Stupak). And, like in the case of Matheson, the DCCC and Obama are supporting each one of them who is getting a challenge from a grassroots progressive back home. (Well, the DCCC and Obama aren't supporting Parker Griffith; right after voting against Choice, he jumped the fence and changed into a red jersey.) Right now Blue America is trying to help raise money for three primary challengers running against the anti-Choicers Boehner is counting on to help him put another nail in the coffin of women's Choice. These are the races:

Regina Thomas vs John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Jim Wilson vs Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Mac D'Alessandro vs Stephen Lynch (MA)

Each of the Blue America candidates is a staunch supporter of Choice and each incumbent is an anti-Choice voter who John Boehner will be calling on to help the GOP bring back the bad old days of back-alley abortions. I wish this issue was as important to the progressive "movement" at large as it is to Digby, John and I. Is it important to you? Today (for the next 24 hours) everyone who donates to one of these 3 candidates at the page linked above gets entered in a drawing to win an autographed copy of the 2-disc deluxe concert film, Melissa Etheridge, Live... And Alone. Just contribute to one of the campaigns through the ActBlue pages in the links and you'll have a chance to win the DVD set. There's no minimum; any amount is fine and any amount will help put a progressive Democrat in the House instead of an anti-Choice Boehner-boy.

Regina Thomas, a former state legislator, first a House member then a Senator, representing Savannah, was sickened by Boehner's divisive call for anti-Choice legislation. This morning she told us it's "cowardly to pick on women and our choices. Do something meaningful and let the voters see that you are there for America and not just to get re-elected on non-issues." And, of course, she's running against someone who is one of the original Boehner-boys and who votes with Boehner against Democratic ideals and values every chance he gets-- especially against women.

It is hard to believe that these fanatics would address this issue (Women's' Choice) at a time when Congress needs to come together to fix the ills of our economy. Instead of addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to bring our troops home, or addressing the horrific "No Child Left Behind" and the unfunded mandate that has our educators and children thinking that they are inadequate and failing; instead of addressing the BP Oil spill and banning offshore oil drilling what do they do???? Attack women. Women we are under seige!

The 'so-called' "right" feels that it is better to attack us-- whom they consider the "Weaker Sex", than to address the real issues. This is a News Flash!!! Gentlemen-- we can take care of ourselves-- we can make our own decisions and choices-- we do not need your interference. I have a few suggestions if you do not have anything else to do: 1) Repeal the tax cuts that were given to so many BIG Industries; 2) Put the public option back in the Health Care Bill; 3) Take care of our environment with clean energy solutions and not delusional attempts; 4) Make Social Security Solvent again and stop borrowing from it; 5) Help Homeowners keep their homes by passing real restrictions on Financial Institutions and stop the extraordinary high interest rates; 6) Take care of our Military men, women and their families and bring our troops home; 7) Stop campaigning on DADT because it is an election year and do what is right; 8) Pass a Hate Crimes bill that has some teeth in it.