Democrats are trying to figure out what to do about John Fetterman. One of them is stepping up
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania isn't even up for reelection until 2028, but already a one-time primary foe, former U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb, is crisscrossing Pennsylvania and social media, looking and sounding like he's preparing to challenge Fetterman again.
At town hall after town hall across Pennsylvania, Democrats and allied progressive groups aren't hearing from Fetterman in person — or Republicans who control Washington, for that matter.
But they are hearing from Lamb, a living reminder of the Democrat they could have elected instead of Fetterman. The former congressman has emerged as an in-demand town hall headliner, sometimes as a stand-in for Fetterman — who just might bash Fetterman.
"I thought I was going to play Senator Fetterman," Lamb joked as he sat down in front of a central Pennsylvania crowd last Sunday.
Lamb's reemergence comes at an in-between moment, roughly halfway through Fetterman's six-year term, and is helping define the struggle facing Democrats in swing-state Pennsylvania.
There, Democrats figure prominently in their national effort to push back on President Donald Trump, but also in their struggle to figure out what to do about Fetterman, who is under fire from rank-and-file Democrats for being willing to cooperate with Trump and criticizing how Democrats have protested him.
Frustration with Fetterman has been on display on social media, at the massive " No Kings " rally in Philadelphia and among the Democratic Party's faithful. The steering committee of the progressive organization Indivisible PA last month asked Fetterman to resign.
It's quite a turnabout for the hoodies-and-shorts-wearing Fetterman, elected in 2022 with an everyman persona and irreverent wit, who was unafraid to challenge convention.
For some progressives, frustration with Fetterman began with his staunch support for Israel's punishing war against Hamas in Gaza, an issue that divides Democrats.
It's moved beyond that since Trump took office. Now, some are wondering why he's — as they see it — kissing up to Trump, why he's chastising fellow Democrats for their anti-Trump resistance and whether he's even committed to their causes at all.
Most recently, they question his support for Trump's bombing of Iran.
"It hurts," said John Abbott, who attended Sunday's event in suburban Harrisburg.
Speaking at the flagship "No Kings" rally in Philadelphia, Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg name-checked Fetterman.
"We're looking to the leaders who will fight for us, because even today there are folks among the Democratic Party who think we should roll over and play dead," Greenberg said. "Anyone seen John Fetterman here today?"
The crowd booed.
In Pittsburgh, progressives trying to land an in-person town hall with Fetterman or first-term Republican Sen. David McCormick noticed when the two senators advertised an event together at a downtown restaurant to celebrate the release of McCormick's new book.
Progressive groups organized to protest it and — after it got moved to a private location with a private invite list — went ahead with their own town hall. They invited Lamb and a local Democratic state representative instead.
More invitations for Lamb started rolling in.
By his count, he's now attended at least a dozen town halls and party events, easily clocking more than 2,000 miles to appear in small towns, small cities and suburbs, often in conservative areas.
"Showing up matters and it really does make a difference," said Dana Kellerman, a Pittsburgh-based progressive organizer. "Is that going to matter to John Fetterman? I really don't know. I don't know what he's thinking. I don't know if he's always been this person or if he's changed in the last two years."
Fetterman has brushed off criticism, saying he's a committed Democrat, insisting he was elected to engage with Republicans and — perhaps hypocritically — questioning why Democrats would criticize fellow Democrats.
At times, Fetterman has criticized Trump, questioning the move to "punch our allies in the mouth" with tariffs or the need for cuts to social-safety net programs in the GOP's legislation to extend 2017's tax cuts. Fetterman's office didn't respond to an inquiry about Lamb.
For his part, Lamb — a former U.S. Marine and federal prosecutor — says he isn't running for anything right now, but he'll do whatever he can to "stop this slide that we're on toward a less democratic country and try to create one in which there's more opportunity for people."
To some Democrats, he sounds like a candidate.
"That he's doing these town halls is a good indication that he'll be running for something, so it's a good thing," said Janet Bargh, who attended the event in suburban Harrisburg.
Aside from the town halls, he spoke at the Unite for Veterans event on the National Mall. He has also been active on social media, doing local radio appearances and appearing on MSNBC, where he recently criticized the June 14 military parade ordered up by Trump.
Not long ago, it was hard to envision Lamb losing a race, ever.
In 2018, he won a heavily Trump-friendly congressional district in southwestern Pennsylvania in a special election. It was the center of the political universe that spring, drawing campaign visits by Trump and then-presidential hopeful Joe Biden.
Suddenly, Lamb was ascendant. Then he ran for Senate and lost handily — by more than two-to-one — to Fetterman in 2022's primary.
People often ask Lamb if he's going to challenge Fetterman again. Lamb said he reminds them that Fetterman has three years left in his term and pivots the conversation to what Democrats need to do to win elections in 2025 and 2026.
Still, Lamb is unafraid to criticize Fetterman publicly. And, he said, he's a magnet for Democrats to air their unhappiness with Fetterman. What he hears, over and over, is frustration that Fetterman spends too much time attacking fellow Democrats and not enough time challenging Trump.
"And that is, I think, what's driving the frustration more than any one particular issue," Lamb said.
At the town hall, Lamb wasn't afraid to admit he'd lost to Fetterman. But he turned it into an attack line.
"When I watch the person who beat me give up on every important issue that he campaigned on ... the more I reasoned that the point of all of this in the first place is advocacy for what's right and wrong," Lamb told the crowd. "And advocacy for not just a particular party to win, but for the type of country where it matters if, when you stand up, you tell the truth."
The crowd cheered.
___
Follow Marc Levy on X at: https://x.com/timelywriter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
29 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Justices need to own the consequences of their injunction ruling
A case the Supreme Court decided on Friday stemmed from President Donald Trump's attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship, but the ruling's implications go beyond even this big issue: The justices curbed the power of lower court judges to block illegal presidential actions, even as the sitting president tries to do things that are plainly unconstitutional. Now they need to own the consequences of their ruling. More than ever, they must be willing to act with speed and force when the president attempts to violate Americans' rights.
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. "Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved," said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. "Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents." Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional "collections" actions that one would take against a "deadbeat debtor." Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including "sanctuary" policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. "We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites," she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. "It's a novel concept," said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. "I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds." Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. "So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much," said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. "There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people," he said. "The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'" But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. "Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'" he said. "States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law." But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. "We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget," said Moon, the Maryland legislator. "There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House."
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
'It's time to end the war': Parents of Oct 7th victim call on Netanyahu to reach ceasefire
All times eastern Fox Business in Depth: Red, White and Blue Collar/Dagen McDowell Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Senate convenes over President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
