Tuesday's Primaries Were a Win for Progressives

Lt. Gov. Bill Halter leaves his polling place after voting in Arkansas' primary election Tuesday, 05/18/10. (photo: Danny Johnston/AP)

 

Reader Supported News | Perspective

he big headlines coming out of Tuesday were Rand Paul's victory and Arlen Specter's defeat. Those stories in the long run could be much less important than Progressive candidate Bill Halter taking incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln to a runoff. If Halter can get past Lincoln and get elected in November there will be one less Blue Dog in the Senate slowing down a Liberal or Progressive agenda.

Let's face it, there is a much bigger difference between Lincoln and Halter than there is between Rand Paul and Jim Bunning. And quite frankly if there is any of the father in Rand Paul, Progressives would much rather have him than a traditional Republican.

There is no question that the anti-war movement would rather see Rand Paul than the opponent that he trounced in the Republican primary. Paul, like his father Ron Paul, says invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and speaks about the need to scale back overseas commitments like the war effort in Afghanistan.

So while the Tea Party is claming victory in Kentucky, Democrats might be happier with Paul's victory than Republicans. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/05/rand_paul_tops_ron_paul_in_ken.html )

In Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, who had a surprisingly Liberal voting record after a 31-year career in the military, took down 30-year incumbent Arlen Specter. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/98571-specter-loses-to-sestak-in-pennsylvania-primary) Sestak voted for President Obama's health care bill and the energy bill that included a cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. He also established himself as pro-choice, with a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, pro-gun control, and pro-labor, sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act.

In a sharp blow to national Republicans who had invested millions of dollars in the contest, Democrat Mark Critz defeated Republican Tim Burns in the race for the Western Pennsylvania House seat formerly held by the late Rep. John Murtha. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/98575-dems-keep-murtha-seat)

That brings us back to Arkansas, where Lt. Gov. Bill Halter has forced incumbent Senator Blanch Lincoln into a runoff on June 8th. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jA3RK25168k9lJMBWEsmJL15qQ5gD9FPMCQ00)

Halter, a favorite of the net-roots who received support from progressive groups like MoveOn, has already pulled Lincoln to the left on issues like health care and banking reform. Even if Halter fails to win the nomination, Arkansas Democrats have clearly sent a message to Lincoln that they are not happy with her Blue Dog voting record. If she survives and retains her seat in November, she will likely make efforts to avoid a similar voter backlash in six years.

Should Halter win, it will embolden Progressives in other states that have Blue Dog Democrats.

Republicans are trying to spin the results as a rebuke of President Barack Obama. The key word is spin. How is the Democrats winning the special election in Pennsylvania a vote against Obama? How is an anti-war Republican winning in Kentucky a vote against Obama? Why does a more Liberal Democrat winning in Pennsylvania mean Pennsylvania Democrats are rebuking Obama? How do they spin a Progressive taking a Blue Dog to a run-off in Arkansas as a defeat for the President? They will try but they can't.

The clear winner last night was the Democrats.

Scott Galindez was formerly the co-founder of Truthout, and is now the Political Director of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.