The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Current Crisis

(Page 2 of 2)

For example, Emily's List backed Lynn Rivers over Democratic lion John Dingell in the fight for Michigan's 15th district. Dingell won, but only after a fight that pitted labor groups against feminists.

Harris dismisses the criticism, pointing out that both were incumbents forced to run against each other due to redistricting. "More of Lynn Rivers' voters had been put into that district than Dingell voters," she said. "So there is no reason to think that she wasn't capable of winning that race."

Maybe, but Emily's List has made a habit of stirring up fights against candidates backed by organized labor.

It supported Nancy Kaszak over labor-backed Rahm Emanuel in Illinois's 5th district, a move that helped turn the primary into the most expensive in state history. Emanuel won the primary (and later the general election) but only after a campaign where Emily's List labeled him "anti-worker" -- fighting words in that blue-collar Chicago district.

It poured money into similar fights in Arizona, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maine, and in the Michigan and Massachusetts governors' races.

"Part of what's driving the unions crazy is, because Emily's List only funds women, they get into these races and they provide enormous financial resources only to the women candidates even when the male candidates are more progressive," a Democratic campaign consultant told the American Prospect magazine.

Another concern for other Democrats is that Emily's List is now pushing other hard-left issues besides abortion. Its attack on Dingell was inspired in part by his support for gun rights.

Still, such hardball tactics can win respect, if not love, in Washington politics. But you have to prove you can deliver when it counts. Emily's List had a terrible year. When it woke up the morning after November 5, it found that all three of the Senate candidates it backed had failed. So did seven of the eight House candidates it favored in races deemed competitive by the National Journal.

That gave it a congressional batting average of only .100, the worst of 20 major political interest groups profiled by the National Journal. (The National Right to Life Association's candidates, by contrast, won in three of their five Senate races and all five of their competitive House races.)

Emily's List did only slightly better in governors' races, winning three of nine.

"As the president of an organization that does similar things, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have that kind of record and go back to my members and ask them for more money," said Stephen Moore, president of the free market Club for Growth. The club went head-to-head with Emily's List in 5 races.

Moore claims the group's endorsement is becoming a mixed blessing for Democrats.

"In some of our ads we actually used Emily's List support against the candidates. We actually ran ads saying (Indiana Democratic candidate) Jill Long Thompson cannot possibly call herself a moderate if she is taking more than $100,000 of Emily's List money," Moore said. "I think that really hurt her."

Emily's List brushes off all the criticism. Its win-loss record won't deter it, Harris says.

Its relations with the Democratic Party and other liberal groups? "More than cordial," Harris said.

She adds: "I would say that there are probably a great number of Democrats and a lot of people in labor who certainly appreciated the work that we did with them during the general election."

Mary Landrieu probably isn't one of them.

topics:
Abortion, Law, NATO, Unions