CA-12: Speier To Challenge Lantos?

More (8.00 / 3)

and better Democrats.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 17:57:14 PM UTC

I like Speier (0.00 / 0)

but is there any problem with Lantos? Just wondering

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 18:31:10 PM UTC

Suppose it depends on perspective (8.00 / 2)

The district leans very far to the left and he doesn't (PP score is 87.78).  He's decidedly middle-of-the-road on foreign policy and defense issues. Often colored by his to-the-death support for Israel, but also just generally tends towards fixing international issues with the stick instead of the carrot.  Which is an issue when he's chairing the Foreign Affairs committee.

And as Dave notes via the Auschweitz/Guantanamo link, he has an increasing tendency to behave like an ass.  Not in that link is another example where over the summer he called Gerhard Schröder a political prostitute:

he would like to call Schröder "a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected."

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 18:52:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would Speier be more progressive? (8.00 / 2)

Tom Lantos has always been a problem -- he's an AIPAC war hawk who voted for the War in Iraq, although he's not nearly as bad as Joe Lieberman.

In 2004, Lantos got a challenge from the left by Ro Khanna - who ran against him because of the War.  But Khanna had no serious name recognition or stature, so besides the Bay Guardian endorsement (which is not well-read in that district - only a small part of SF is in D12) he never went far.

My question, though, and I hope others can answer -- is Jackie Speier significantly to the left of Tom Lantos?  If she can convince me that she'll run a spirited, insurgent progressive campaign, I could be persuaded it's a good thing.

Jackie has high name-recognition and raises a ton of money, so she could be a viable candidate.  But I've always been skeptical about where she gets her money from, which makes me question her progressive credentials.  Can someone please enlighten me on her politics?

---

by: paulhogarth @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 20:16:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other issues (0.00 / 0)

First, Jackie Speier is considered a Moderate Democrat and has always taken pride in that label. She is well thought of in her old Senate District and will be a strong candidate if she chooses to run. 

But of course there are other major factors that will be of varying importance to different members of this site, but should be part of the decisionmaking by anyone trying to decide who to support in this race.

One factor is that Tom Lantos has always used his background as a holocaust survivor to raise money for humanitarian progressive causes from upscale Jewish contributors who might not have given otherwise.

Groups like the farmworkers and organized labor have often relied on Lantos to gain financial backing for their efforts and he has always come through.  You may remember in the last Presidential election that George Bush made a big push to try and pick up organizational Jewish suppport.  Tom Lantos probably more than any other single individual was responsible for that not happening.  He also used his influence to garner support for Democrats throughout the country in tough congressional races.  His unique background makes him a voice of consciensce in many circles and would be a major loss to the national party. 

Lantos also has had the credibility to make many peace measures offered by Democrats credible.  You may remember the criticism that Nancy Pelosi got for her trip to Syria last year.  Can you imagine the flack she would have gotten if she hadn't had holocaust survivor Tom Lantos at her side saying that she was making an acceptable bid for peace.  For that matter, how much tougher would it be for the entire anti-war movement without someone like Lantos to challenge the Bush administration arguments that anti-war Democrats don't understand the consequences of their actions.  Tom Lantos makes that claim a lie by his background and losing him weakens the argument and possibly costs us votes and support in the November Presidential election.

You also have to wonder about what effect a Lantos loss would have on the other members of the House.  Right now many moderates complain because they think they are being pushed too hard.  Lantos has always had the moral gravitas to push them further and has done so on a whole host of issues, but if he loses, not only do you lose his influence, but leadership loses the whole trust that they now have in their ability to protect members who take tough votes.  Because the Speaker is expected to protect the members, fairly or unfairly, she will lose a tremendous amount of influence if a Tom Lantos who has always supported her unquestioningly, even when it involved politically tough decisions were to get defeated at the polls.  In much of the country, House leadership is trying to pull members to the left and they have had some success because Nancy Pelosi is viewed (fairly or unfairly) as a political wiz since Democrats have had tremendous success while she has been speaker.

But, let Lantos, a loyal ally of the Speakers who has made several tough votes to support her, lose a primary fight, a fight which would affect the fundraising of many incumbents in tight races across the country and in some of those races literally make incumbents vulnerable because they would no longer have an ally with Lantos pull in the Jewish community and those same incumbents will start to question every tough vote that leadership asks them to make and more and more follow their own paths for their general election campaigns which will wind up being more and more conservative. 

Jackie Speier was an effective legislator, but right now she is reading the polls which show Lantos lagging in popularity, primarily because of his age.  However, she is making a political judgement without considering the outstanding community service provided by Lantos operation which is among the best in the state or the long term good of the Democratic party which is clearly going to be weakened if she chooses to run.  It is too bad and I hope she changes her mind.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 21:50:44 PM UTC

That's what a primary is for (0.00 / 0)

Let's let them both make the case to voters in CA-12. Let's see if Lantos really is the most progressive person in the race, if voters believe he has done all he can do for our values and goals in the Congress - or if they believe Jackie Speier is a good progressive and would provide even better leadership than Lantos.

Primary battles aren't bad things in and of themselves. Incumbents should have to defend their record and a primary is one of the most effective methods of doing it.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 00:19:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Primary fight. (0.00 / 0)

There is nothing wrong with a primary fight if there are real issue differences (for example I posted a defense on this site of the anti war challenges to several incumbent Democrats in last years primary), but in this case, the differences would be nonexistant at worst or simply manufactured at best. 

Jackie Speier has always had the same basic view of the world as Tom Lantos and whatever differences she tries to highlight in this election will be about things that she has never highlighted in the past, because she and Lantos almost always stood on the same side in party fights. In fact she endorsed him two years ago in his reelection campaign and criticized his primary opponent for dividing the party.

Let's be honest.  The reason Jackie Speier is being urged to run for this seat by some of her friends is no secret.  Lantos is 80 and some of her supporters think he won't be up for a major campaign, especially with him being asked to take on the role of a major spokesman at the national level for Democrats.  It is a very cynical judgement by her friends that he is the easiest person for her to beat both because of his age and because of all of the responsibilities he is trying to shoulder and just as Jackie Speier's refusal to endorse John Garamendi over Tom McClintock was about Jackie putting herself and her desires first, so is this campaign for Congress, if it happens.

Personal selfishness of course happens a lot in politics and it isn't always a bad thing.  Many times people lead a charge for progressive change for purely selfish reasons that might not happen otherwise.

But in this case, the dangers to the Democratic Party are incredible.  You may have seen in the paper last week where Joe Lieberman said he might not vote for the party nominee for President.  The response disagreeing with his view in the New York Times was given by Tom Lantos.  Do you think he was an effective spokesman?

Lantos has opposed the war (after voting the wrong way originally) and has been given credit publicly by many sources for his impact on changing the debate and asking tough questions.  He was the first member of Congress to question payments to Haliburton and he has been probably the most prominent defender of Speaker Pelosi when the Bush crowd tried to smear her by attacking her patriotism.

Time and again Lantos has defended the idea that Democrats were being responsible in opposing the war and were not just a bunch of crazies that the Bush crowd has tried to make us out to be.

Given his background, he had the credibility to make that argument and to make it stick.  As I mentioned above, Tom Lantos being in Congress not only made it possible for Nancy Pelosi to make her trip to Syria, he also gave credence to many people in Middle America to the idea that negotiations with other countries in the world were not the same as not caring about the security of Americans. 

In the coming Presidential election, just like three years ago, the Republican candidate will be preaching the idea that Democrats are endangering our security and can't be trusted.  A Tom Lantos with his background is a much more effective speaker in such a debate than anyone else.  Giving him up will cost our eventual nominee a major weapon which he or she will need in the general election and I don't think the risk of electing a President Guliani is worth it. 

---

by: doughnut70 @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:05:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

While I find it VERY difficult to believe (8.00 / 1)

That the fate of the 2008 election hangs on Tom Lantos, I think that my original point still remains valid - these are issues that are well suited for discussion in a primary election. Your comment is basically a defense of Lantos, an argument for his re-election, and that's exactly what you should be doing in a primary battle, just as Speier and her supporters should and will advance their cause as well. That's what makes a healthy democracy.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:12:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A fair point (0.00 / 0)

I hear you about the primary, but the problem is that I really do believe that the Presidential election and control of the House could literally depend on Tom Lantos and even his having to fight a tough primary battle weakens the entire party.  I normally hate these people that give the whining "don't divide the party, let's stay united" spiels and regard them as nothing more than self interested con men, but in this case, I think it really does fit and as I said, if there was a history of Jackie Speier taking stands that were opposed to Lantos, I wouldn't mind the fight so much, because democracy is paramount.  But in this case, you are talking about a member who if he is weaker in the polls, it is because he has been such an out front supporter of the Speaker's that National Republicans have been trying to tear him down and because his opponent thinks maybe she can use his age against him in a campaign.  I just don't like it.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:48:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you think it's because of his age (7.00 / 3)

and not because the war is so unbelievably unpopular you really must not talk to too many people in his district.

jewish voters have been against the war from the get-go, doubly so out here in CA. given the choice between donors and others, democrats ought to go with the voters every time, no matter which demographic we're talking about.

lantos' "help" is what got the war going in the first place, and his holocaust survivor status was and is used to sell illegal war and unconscionable torture under that moral cover. unless you've got voting reciord evidence that speier would be less progressive on labor and other issues than lantos, i don't see how it could be anything but a trade up.

time to scare the hawks. they haven't listened to their constituents up to now, perhaps they'll value their jobs enough to cut bait.

---

by: wu ming @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 00:59:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh! (0.00 / 0)

First, Lantos has opposed the war for some time and been critical of the Bush administration's conduct.  After a bad vote, he has been given credit by several people for moving the debate forward dramatically and was the first Congressman to spotlight the abuses of Haliburton in Iraq.  Certainly I don't remember Jackie Speier taking on a major role in anything that would indicate she felt any differently about Lantos's voting record until she started trying to find an office to run for. 

Second, if I was simply trying to make the case that Lantos was the better representative, I would probably make the argument around environmental protection issues where he has been considered for some time by many who work on those issues as their strongest supporter in Congress.  In that field he has a phenomenal record that I don't think anyone would challenge.

But those types of differences are things that could be worked out in the course of a primary fight if this were a normal election and that would be fine just as it was two years ago when Lantos had a primary opponent. 

Unfortunately, in this years race, I think the issues are different and I think the stakes are much bigger.

First, there is no record that I have been able to find of Jackie Speier criticizing Tom Lantos record before she started looking for an office to run for.  They have always had the same basic world view and come from the same wing of the Democratic party and I think that just as she did when she refused to endorse John Garamendi over Tom McClintock, Jackie Speier is putting herself first. 

One reason I don't like to see the challenge is that I realize that Congressman Lantos has taken some flack from some people because of his closeness to Speaker Pelosi.  He has been one of her closest allies and taken several tough political stands to back her up (Do you think he might have caught some guff from his social groups for going to Syria when he could have easily dodged the trip?).  The Speaker has made Lantos a messenger in support of candidates in marginal Democratic districts and she has enjoyed a lot of success by doing so because of his unique background.  I support Nancy Pelosi's Speakership and I know it has been strengthened by elections that Tom Lantos has helped her win and I want him to remain in a position to continue that support.

Over the last year, the national party has been using Congressman Lantos in the same way the Speaker has and I think it has helped us tremendously in framing the ongoing national debate and I think Tom Lantos can play the same role in electing a Democratic President that he has played in electing so many other members of Congress and I want that to happen.

I think that if Lantos is tied down in a tough reelection fight, it will weaken the entire party nationally both in the Presidential race and the fight for control of the house because we won't be able to use Lantos to campaign for marginal Democrats and would also lead to a lot of internal bickering among Democrats when we can least afford it.  I think it would be a terrible blow to our party if he lost.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:37:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

His District (0.00 / 0)

I moved to his district last July and I have to say that it is pretty tough to get a sense of the district.  Many people living here work either to the north (San Francisco, almost all working in Pelosi's district, myself included) or to the south (Palo Alto/Mountain View/San Jose).  While the war is unpopular on both ends, it's a much more intense sentiment in San Francisco.

I'm unsure of how this will play out- Speier is very well connected on the peninsula (she even has a Caltrain named after her) but Lantos is still an established incumbent.  I'm curious how the SF Chronicle will cover this- the paper has been insanely favorable toward Newsom so I wouldn't be shocked if it took a side early in the primary.

---

by: MikeD @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:57:23 AM UTC

Mea Culpa! (0.00 / 0)

I looked back at my posts on this topic and realize that I was over the top on some of them.  There have been some recent attacks on Lantos for paying too much attention to national issues and not spending enough time working for his district which I thought were unfair and resented because I felt like his work on those issues benefited everyone and he deserved credit, not blame.

However that issue also is fair game for a political campaign and I should have respected that.  When I saw Jackie Speier's comments about Lantos not paying enough attention to his distict, it set me off and I did some things that were completely inappropriate like questioning her motives for running. 

I still hope she doesn't make the race, but, she has a long record of political involvement and finding an office to run for would fit in her efforts at community service and certainly I had no business challenging her motives or criticizing her for how she chooses to go through the decisionmaking process.  I hope I didn't offend anyone.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:39:48 AM UTC

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I thought the majority of your argument was very reasonable. Speier will have to deal with the questions of whether she is doing this because of Lantos' age. It is going to come up no matter what, so it's a valid point.

The rest of your defense was a valid argument in favor of retaining Lantos. While not everybody would agree on whether we should retain him, a debate isn't unreasonable.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 15:14:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]