Not all liberals lamenting Lincoln win

Many liberals are mourning the Tuesday primary victory of centrist
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) – but not children’s healthcare
advocates.

Lincoln, they say, is one of the fiercest, most reliable supporters of
children’s welfare on Capitol Hill, with a long voting record – and an
equally long list of sponsored legislation – promoting children’s
health.

{mosads}So even while the labor movement and some grassroots liberal groups
rallied behind Lincoln’s primary challenger, Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill
Halter, in the run-up to the vote, there were plenty of other liberals pushing a different message.

“She’s one of the most progressive senators on kids’ issues,” said
Bruce Lesley, head of First Focus, a children’s advocacy group. “If we
lost her, who’s going to step up and take that mantle?”

“On traditional children’s issues, I don’t know that I could fault her
for anything,” said Rich Huddleston, executive director of Arkansas
Advocates for Children and Families. “She really votes the right way
on these issues almost every time.”

The comments put a dent in the popular narrative that liberals
were staunchly united against Lincoln this year, and suggest the true
dynamics of the primary campaign were more complicated.

Children’s healthcare advocates, for example, have applauded Lincoln’s
long-time support for expanding child nutrition programs; for allowing
children to remain on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26; and
for renewing the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is
part of the new health reform law.

Jocelyn Guyer, head of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and
Families, also noted that Lincoln spearheaded the 2008 effort to
expand dental care to thousands of low-income children who were
ineligible for coverage at the time.

“She’s gone to bat for kids again and again,” Guyer said.

Not that the two-term Lincoln hasn’t agitated liberals recently. In
the past year, she’s sided against the Democrats on some of the
party’s most high-profile priorities, including a bill to create a
public health insurance plan and another to make unionizing easier.
President Barack Obama had endorsed both proposals.

In response, a number of liberal groups – including the SEIU, Open
Left and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee – launched a
multi-million dollar campaign endorsing Halter. Lincoln defeated him
52 percent to 48 percent.

Lincoln’s liberal critics argue that her voting record alone
wasn’t the impetus behind their campaign. Chris Bowers, head of the liberal website Open Left, argued recently that it was her
flip-flopping, not just her opposition to the public option and the
pro-union legislation, that spurred the opposition.

“Lincoln did not simply oppose card check and a public option,” Bowers
wrote this week. “She made public commitments of support for both
policies, before flipping when it was crunch time.”

Lesley argued that the liberals’ campaign raised “questions about
what the progressives are prioritizing, if not kids.”

Faced with the opposing ads, Lincoln last month reached out to her
liberal opponents – but not by trumpeting her record on children’s
heathcare. Instead, she put her weight behind a populist move to rein
in the derivatives market, an amendment to the Democrats’ financial
reform bill that the Senate approved last month.

That Lincoln’s support for children’s healthcare didn’t help her much
in the primary is no surprise, Huddleston said.

“Kids’ issues,” he said, “are just not a priority with either the
candidates or the media.”