IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

Why do people here seem to think every area is exactly like it was stereotyped 30 years ago?

[Calthrina950]

Is calthrina a spoof account parodying the 'muh enlightened centrist' stereotype?

No I am not. I've been on this forum since 2016, but I've generally remained confined to the Election Scenarios thread until now. And why do you, along with other posters here, have a bias against users such as myself? Is it because you cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't toe with the party line, whether it be Democratic or Republican? This statement is an unfair and blanket one to make, and engaging in this kind of rhetoric doesn't help anyone.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

Why do people here seem to think every area is exactly like it was stereotyped 30 years ago?

I don't seem to think that. I've never visited this district, and I will admit that I don't know all that much about Chicago-area politics. What I know comes from reading the posts in this thread and from reading a number of articles about the district, and the primary there. The impressions that I got were derived from those sources. I understand that parts of the district have gentrified, and that it has gotten more diverse than it used to be. But I had still read things discussing how there is still a large Polish/Irish population there, and that it was traditionally socially conservative. It is wrong for you to make assumptions based off just one post.

[Green Line]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Yeah La Grange is the epitome of an economically stagnant working class area.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

[Green Line]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Yeah La Grange is the epitome of an,economically stagnant working class area.

It has some nice parts.  It's also losing population.  You can cherry pick the wealthiest parts (It's a town of 15,000)  if you want but that's totally unrepresentative. 

[Green Line]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

[Green Line]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I bet you a million dollars Greenline knows more about this districts' shifts over the past 30 years than BRTD does.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

[Badger]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

"If gay marriage is legalized, next thing people will be marrying dogs and polygamy will be legal!"

[Blair]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

Add on to the fact that Mark Kirk, the Republican senator from Illinois had a more liberal record on social issues than Lipinski.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

"If gay marriage is legalized, next thing people will be marrying dogs and polygamy will be legal!"

I wasn't saying that. What I've been arguing throughout is that if you drive out all the Blue Dog Democrats from the party, it would further exacerbate the polarization problem. Having two parties with diametrically opposed views, and with no room for compromise, would not be conducive to good debate. But judging from your comments, and from the comments of others, you must think otherwise.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

If they are willing to call people like you right-wingers, then we may as well call them left-wing exclusionists.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

If they are willing to call people like you right-wingers, then we may as well call them left-wing exclusionists.

That's a good point. Posters on this website routinely demonstrate why polarization has gotten as bad as it has.

[MAINEiac4434]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

This is the bottom line, right here.

If he represented some Utah blood-red area or Alaska or the Oklahoma panhandle then no one would be complaining.

The stupid asshole represents Chicago.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

This is the bottom line, right here.

If he represented some Utah blood-red area or Alaska or the Oklahoma panhandle then no one would be complaining.

The stupid asshole represents Chicago.

Should be noted that a minority of IL-03 is in Chicago, and the gentrifying social liberal types Newman is targeting the most are such a tiny bit of the seat.

[Blair]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

You’re making it out as if Lipinski is some grand deal maker like Ted Kennedy. Heck he voted against the bipartisan Dream Act in 2010!!! To quote my early point on the rather weak argument about Lipinski being a bi-partisan hero

[quote]Whilst I'm not one of the people who thinks that a 'no labels' think-tank with Jon Huntsman, Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman and Joe Manchin holding hands would someone solve all of Washington's problems (or politics at large) I'm equally not someone who at all supports primarying people like Manchin, Heitkamp or Donnelly.

But you can't just turn 'think about the moderates' into a shield to defend politicians who are awful. If Lipinski had say endorsed Jill Stein in 2012, voted against Obamacare cause it lacked a single payer etc I'd still support primarying him. Even if National groups didn't turn in I remember ages ago when lots of people where upset that someone was challenging Lipinski; you don't have the right not to face a primary, and not to be called out over stupid votes/decisions that you make as an elected official.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

You’re making it out as if Lipinski is some grand deal maker like Ted Kennedy. Heck he voted against the bipartisan Dream Act in 2010!!!

He voted against it because it lacked Stupak-Pitts. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good-sounding story!