Tom Lantos to Get Primary Challenge

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 16:21


Tom Lantos, who is one of the worst and most dangerous members of Congress with regards to Iran and Israel and one of AIPAC's top allies, is facing a primary challenge.

Looks like former Peninsula state Sen. Jackie Speier is indeed gearing up for what promises to be a big-money and highly charged Democratic primary run next June against 13-term Rep. Tom Lantos.

"It's Time!" declares an e-mail circulated by supporters to "friends" and "fans" this past week, announcing the first organizing meeting of the Jackie Speier for Congress Exploratory Committee on Tuesday at a home in Hillsborough.

Speier has been consulting with friends and supporters about a run since a poll conducted by allies in January showed her a 2-1 favorite among voters in the 12th Congressional District, which covers northern San Mateo County and parts of San Francisco.

Speier has since hired at least one staffer to start gearing up. Nonetheless, she told us late Friday that she hasn't made a final decision - and that when she does, we'll be among the first to know.

"The good news is Congressman Lantos has finally come back to the district," she said, a digging reference to his trip home this week for the holidays and to attend a congressional subcommittee hearing on the Coast Guard's role in the big bay oil spill.

Challenge or not, Lantos, who will turn 80 in February, said through his spokeswoman: "I fully expect to win the primary in June and the general election next November.

Lantos is the only holocaust survivor in Congress, and has been outspoken on issues of genocide.  He's also the Chair of the House International Relations Committee, and the author of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.  Lantos is a member of the progressive caucus, and has a progressive record on domestic policies.  On foreign policy, he is extremely right-wing, though he has distanced himself from the Iraq war after pushing aggressively for authority for Bush.

It's a fascinating and welcome development.  I don't know Speier, and I don't know if Lantos has been taking care of business in his district, but the generational argument might work.  You can expect AIPAC to dump money into this race, and for the antisemitism card to be used aggressively and repeatedly by older right-wingers rich and insecure Jewish men and defense contractors.  Younger progressive Jews like me are willing to step up and organize on behalf of less insane representation for our community, as we did against Lieberman in 2006.  I did enjoy being called a Hezbocrat during the Lebanon invasion, which took place during the Lamont-Lieberman race, as well as seeing Moveon and its mostly Jewish staff attacked by the American Defamation League's Abe Foxman because someone on an open forum they run made an antisemitic comment. 

This might be one opportunity to organize again, this time more explicitly against AIPAC, though I'd need to learn more about the district and the race before doing so.

Anyone in CA-11 know anything about this?

Matt Stoller :: Tom Lantos to Get Primary Challenge

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How about organizing around... (4.00 / 1)
OH-5.  Its a D vs. an R in a race not unlike the Hackett Race where netroots support can be concentrated and the Special Election is on Dec. 11?

Tom Lantos has to go, but not sure about Jackie Speier ... (0.00 / 0)
As a San Franciscan who lives in Pelosi's district, I can say that Tom Lantos has been invisible in the community for a very long time -- and besides Ellen Tauscher is the worst Bay Area Democrat we have.  Having a challenge against him from the Left is long overdue.  In 2004, activist Ro Khanna challenged him in the primaries -- but got slaughtered since he had no name-recognition and little standing in the community.

But I'm not totally convinced about Jackie Speier.  She was my State Senator, but I know very little about her -- other than she's raised a ton of money every time, which makes me skeptical about what special interests own her.  She had to leave the Senate in 2006 because of term limits, and she ran for Lieutenant Governor -- but lost the primary.  I voted for one of her opponents (Liz Figueroa) because she was more progressive.

If Speier comes out on what issues are important to her, says how progressive she would be, and that she'd be wiling to run an insurgent, Ned Lamont-like campaign, I could support her.  But not now.  I'd like to see Tom Lantos get kicked out, but I'm not sure how much better Jackie Speier would be.  I can't really get excited about her.


my 2 cents (0.00 / 0)
Jackie Speier is quite the sensible progressive, who comes from the most amazing background and is a perfect candidate as well as someone who can win that district.  I've met her a few times and seen her in action in committee and on the campaign trail when she was running for Lt. Gov.  I'm sure she has a wiki or a website you could get further info on but I personally really like her.

go with generations (0.00 / 0)
Lantos has already beaten back primary challenges focused on being more genuinely progressive and consistent on foreign policy post 9/11. Seemingly arguing for purity (even if not trying to) wouldn't work in getting a more energetic and consistent progressive in there. Making a positive case and one based on TRUE learned experience from the failure of the last 7 years, however, has promise.

An explicit campaign against AIPAC is tactically dumb to me, and I say this speaking as someone who was once an AIPAC campus organizer but was severely disillusioned by my actual experience during that process and by an increasingly inability to reconcile my (always-pro-peace) beliefs with the tone and stances it was taking on. AIPAC is a problem, but its not intrinsically a foe; there are allies within its ranks (in fact there was a huge power struggle over the Oslo process in the early 1990's there, initially won by the hawks but ultimately by the doves for the time being). And even those organizing to rightly build a pro-peace lobby aren't trying to take down AIPAC, but to offer an alternative and, when needed. counterweight. Even now, there are signs that AIPAC will be forced along with more pragmatic measures, such as its newfound (though still faint) support for strengthening aid to the Palestinian Authority, which is being attacked by GOP and right-wing Jewish groups.

I'd also add that attacking AIPAC might alienate some definite allies, including among young progressive Jews who are not necessarily in the same place Matt and others are (and I'd say I'm somewhere in between on that spectrum). When I was at an AIPAC student conference in 2003, among the Democrats there (roughly 75% of the 400 attendees, proportional to the Jewish community's voting habits), Howard Dean was easily the most popular among that group despite the clear fact that SOME (but not nearly all) staff were subtly pushing an anti-Dean and pro-Iraq-war agenda. I myself came into that scenario as someone who had organized very actively against the Iraq war. Going after the organization as a straw-man, just the way it often goes after straw-men, seems counter-productive.

That all said, there's a STRONG case to be made in general for replacing tired, problematic people like Lantos if the opportunity presents itself. Its similar to the case that a lot of reformist/progressive Dems (including John Kerry) made in the 1970's against entrenched incumbents, both those truly problematic and still pro-Vietnam, and those who maybe came around but were simply just not leading and out of touch with their districts. And regarding Iran, it VERY much traces the argument being made in the presidential primaries against Clinton's vote on Lieberman-Kyl-- the idea that while maybe Tom Lantos isn't a neocon chichenhawk, he still hasn't learned, and is abetting the push for war rather than standing with those who want a true diplomatic solution.

Fittingly enough, Lantos has endorsed...Hillary Clinton.


AIPAC Challenge (0.00 / 0)
I agree that running against AIPAC is difficult and since Speier doesn't appear to be running a quixotic campaign I imagine she'll leave that out.

That said, I do think it would be a good long term move for somebody to challenge AIPAC head on.

Now, I'm coming from a British leftist perspective. The left in Britain hasn't been keen on Israel for years and one occasionally finds disturbing anti-Semitic overtones (mostly from the crazies, but not always). I'm more sympathetic than most, but that largely means that I don't think it's viable (and quite probably not a good thing anyway) to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I'd still argue, for example, that the "Security Fence" ought to come down, that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders and that somebody probably has to negotiate with Hamas to achieve a solution.

So yeah, I'm obviously not coming from a neutral position. But AIPAC is simply too powerful. There is literally nobody in Congress who is anything but very pro-Israel. When somebody is, they can expect to be primaried quickly (see McKinney, Cynthia). Sometimes a powerful lobby can be helpful to progressivism. Sometimes it can be harmful. But long time it's a bad thing either way, as it wields a disproportionate influence in a way that doesn't favour an open and vibrant democracy and silences conversation, which is really what is needed on the issue of Israel - it doesn't need unquestioning support nor half the weapons subsidies it gets, it needs support where it's due, constructive criticism where it isn't and a superpower which can help to negotiate peace without being viewed as a non-neutral observer.

AIPAC isn't the devil, although it does often put forward a pro-Likud rather than pro-Israel position. But there are certainly grounds for creating narratives against it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
AIPAC (0.00 / 0)
The problems with AIPAC go way farther than mere warmongering, as serious as that is. It is involved in criminal conspiracy. It really needs to be disbanded.

[ Parent ]
Lantos on Iraq (0.00 / 0)
Just quickly appending my comments above-- regarding Iraq, there's not much in the present to knock Lantos on that I can see immediately. A quick Google search doesn't reveal a bad voting record of late, and it does turn up footage of him blasting and grilling Petraeus' testimony (as well as right-wing blogs and trolls calling his doing so a disgrace on the grounds he should be more respectful of a U.S. military that liberated him from the Nazis!). True, he did vote to throw MoveOn under the bus and that will resonate with activists and broader progressive movement folks, and it does feed into a generational-approach-based takedown. Recognize, though, that the aforementioned items would be thrown back at attacks concerning Iraq, and blunt some of the impact.

For my money, the best bet then is to tie the MoveOn vote, Lantos' initial fervent support for the Iraq war, and his overly-hawkish tone on Iran together as a pattern of bad judgment at worst and out-of-touch appeasement at best. String together with a generational argument and a strong challenger (not being a Californian I'm not familiar with Speier, though her bio seems outstanding) and there's a chance, if not to win, to make a very good and important point.


Interesting (0.00 / 0)
Speier clearly has a political future - she nearly got the Democratic nomination for LG in 2006 - so I find it very interesting that she's willing to challenge an entrenched incumbent in the primary.

This tells me that 1) this is a very serious challenge
2) she feels she can get access to a lot of funds outside normal party resources
3) the Californian Democratic elites aren't all as hidebound as those who shot down the Feinstein censure and
4) primary challenges appear to be becoming viewed as an acceptable step, which is crucial for involvement in the democratic process in safe seats.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


I asked around at Calitics a while back (0.00 / 0)
and people there were saying that Speier was seen as the automatic Congresswoman once Lantos retired, and she had little reason to risk that on a primary challenge to Lantos that could possibly backfire.  So given that she is the presumed successor, yes, it is a huge deal that she's choosing to primary.

I'm surprised.

The little I've heard about Speier has been pretty good.

I think part of her losing the Lt Gov nom was that all the big future governor candidates (Newsom, Villaraigosa, Nunez) did not want to see a relatively charismatic progressive woman in the Lt Gov slot, because that would turn her into tough competition in a future gubernatorial primary.  That is just a hunch, but I think Garamendi (the guy who won the Lt Gov primary, barely) is a lot easier for them to beat in a primary than Speier would have been.


[ Parent ]
Speier has one notable prog credential (0.00 / 0)
The only thing I know Speier for is her valiant, but (so far as I know) losing, fight in the CA Senate for better conditions in CA prisons. (She worked with fellow senator Gloria Romero on this.)

In particular, against the evil CCPOA prison union, which had pretty much bought the rest of the lege.


Speier has been around (4.00 / 1)
She was a legislative aide to Congressman Leo Ryan in 1978 and went on a fact-finding trip to Jonestown, where she was wounded.  She has been in CA politics ever since, and was once considered one of the more promising Dems.  She has been termed out of the state Senate and lost a bid for Lt Governor.  This is a logical race--maybe she felt if she waited for Lantos to retire the race would be more crowded.  She was an advocate for consumer rights against the banking industry, especially privacy rights.  At 57 she isn't exactly a fresh face, but then Lantos is 80.

I'd say she is reasonably progressive, and not moneyed like Pelosi.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


He's getting angry (0.00 / 0)
Lantos has been increasingly crazy though, which gives some leeway.  He called Chancellor Schroder a political prostitute over the summer and recently went off on some Dutch lawmakers saying that they didn't do enough about Auschweitz to criticize Guantanamo.  He went on to say that Europe would be part of the Third Reich if it wasn't for the United States so they don't get to criticize the U.S.  That's not really the best rhetoric from the Foreign Affairs committee chair.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Also (0.00 / 0)
it's CA-12, not 11.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Lantos (0.00 / 0)
I used to live in Lantos' district which I believe is CA-12 (not 11) and now live in CA-14.  Lantos gave me the impression of being detached and out of touch with the district.  He hasn't faced a serious challenge a really long time. 

The generational argument is a good one.  Speier comes off as a dynamic and engaged leader while Lantos gives the impression
that it's time for him to retire.

I don't see arguments pro or con about AIPAC having much if any traction in the district.  What residents know or maybe need to be reminded of is that Lantos was a proud co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution.  Regardless of whether he gives Petraeus a tongue lashing or not, he's partially responsible for the disaster in Iraq.


Darfur (0.00 / 0)
Lantos was very strong on ending the genocide in Darfur just within the past year.  That's worth a lot to me.  We don't need many Tom Lantoses but maybe we could stand one.

Frankly, the other impression he made on me was his participation in a documentary on the Holocaust.  Again, this has little to do with the district.

California Democrats have underperformed in recent years, gaining only the extra seat due to redistricting and Piombo's seat but losing the recall and losing basically two elections to Ahnold.  I'd much rather have them go after Republican crooks like Jerry Lewis or jerks like David Dreier.


I'll give money to Speier (0.00 / 0)
She would do better.

Don't forget privacy rights... (0.00 / 0)
In the CA Senate, Jackie Speier tried to get a bill passed to prevent banks from selling customer information. I think she really "gets it" when it comes to "Bill of Rights" type issues. IMO, she's been a solid progressive for many years. I'll definitely give money to her primary campaign.

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search