Robert Creamer,political organizer and strategist, says recent primaries offer lessons that don't bode well for the GOP

Lesson #1. Primary challenges are an effective tactic to enforce adherence to the progressive values of the Democratic Party.

Progressive organizations and unions are surely disappointed that they were unsuccessful at upending Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas last night. But they certainly did not "come up empty" as the Washington Post wrote this morning.

No incumbent Democratic member of Congress wants to be subjected to a multi-million dollar, grueling, down-to-the-wire primary challenge by the mainstream base of the its own party. By challenging Lincoln, progressive organizations and labor sent a loud message to other members of Congress that support for insurance companies, corporate polluters, and anti-union conglomerates does not come without a price.

Big campaign contributions from corporate PACs don't mean so much if you have to spend them in tough primary campaigns. Core elements of the Republican Party have used the primary threat effectively for years to maintain discipline in their ranks. The message would have been even louder had Lincoln lost, but it was heard around the Democratic Party none the less.

And the effect of Halter's candidacy on Lincoln's behavior was immediate. It is certainly one reason why Lincoln has become such a champion of tough regulations to crack down on risky behavior by big Wall Street banks that threaten another financial meltdown. Her populist stance on Wall Street regulation is at least partially responsible for her margin of victory.

Ironically, those big Wall Street banks were hoping that if Lincoln lost the primary she would be perfectly willing to compromise her tough provisions away as the Wall Street reform bill is conferenced by the House and Senate. Now Lincoln has every incentive to hang tough on Wall Street reform since she has to struggle to mobilize the Party's disappointed base vote in the fall elections.

These base voters won't vote for her opponent John Boozman, but they could very well sit the election out. The last thing she can afford is to appear that here commitment to tough Wall Street reform was nothing but an attempt to win the Democratic primary. In addition, of course, the notion of holding Wall Street accountable is popular across the Arkansas electorate.

Lesson #2. The Tea Party is becoming an extremist cancer in the Republican Party.

The biggest winner last night was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Conventional Wisdom's assumption that he faced certain political demise turnout out to be all wrong.

Instead of facing a more mainstream Republican in November, his opponent will be Tea Party affiliated Sharron Angle who wants to privatize Social Security, abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers, restore the prohibition of alcohol (in Nevada no less), eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, and store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, not too many miles from Las Vegas.

It is true that her "mainstream" Republican opponent, Sue Lowden, looked pretty extreme herself when she proposed bartering chickens for health care. But Angle is way out there -- a million miles from the political mainstream in Nevada.

The Tea Party, of course, was originally organized and funded by Dick Armey and his corporate clients in a bid to defeat the Obama agenda in general and his health care reform bill in particular. It has morphed into a Frankenstein monster that is now loose in the Republican streets and threatens serious damage to the party in the fall. While the Tea Party has helped to energize the Republican base, it is wreaking havoc in primaries and will fuel the Democratic narrative that Republican candidates are extremists and completely out of touch with the aspirations of everyday middle class families -- especially the key swing voting block of seniors.

Many seniors were frightened by the health care bill because they erroneously thought it would cut Medicare. Now they are coming to find that Republicans want to abolish Medicare altogether and replace it with vouchers not worth the paper they're printed on -- not to mention resuscitate George W. Bush's scheme for privatizing Social Security.

One of the problems with candidates like Angle is that -- though many main stream Republicans share her positions -- they aren't stupid enough to say so. Angle, and other Tea Party nominees like Rand Paul, just blurt their positions right out for all the world to see.

And that's not the only problem the Tea Party is causing for the Republican establishment. After losing last night's primary to oppose Democrat Tom Periello of Virginia, one of the Tea Party losers vowed to run as an independent -- effectively splitting the anti-Periello vote. That's great for Periello, who also happens to be one of the most principled and courageous Democrats in of Congress.

Lesson #3. It is increasingly clear the Arizona Immigration Law will damage Republican chances this fall.

The effects of Arizona's draconian "papers please" anti-immigration law are spreading like the oil from the BP's Deepwater Horizon.

Former HP Executive Carly Fiorina presents her self as stylish and 21st Century candidate, but she has taken a firm position supporting Arizona's SB 1070. Fiorina won the primary Tuesday to challenge Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. After some equivocation, former ebay CEO Meg Whitman also firmly backed the "principles" of SB 1070. She was nominated after spending $81 million to challenge former Governor Jerry Brown who wants to return to the Executive Mansion in Sacramento.

Their positions on the Arizona law may have helped them win the nomination, but they may be the kiss of death in the general election. Over five million of California's twenty four million citizens of voting age (21.5%) are Hispanic. They will likely be a decisive block of voters in the fall elections -- and they consider the Arizona law as a direct personal assault.

Not only will their position on the Arizona law become an albatross among persuadable Hispanic voters, it may likely spur large scale Latino turnout. Three million of the five million citizens of voting age are "surge" voters that usually vote only in general elections. But the Arizona law -- and large scale voter mobilization campaigns in the Latino community -- will likely change that.

Support for the Arizona law could spell trouble for other Republicans as well -- not only in California, but in many other swing Senate states like Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania and even Arizona itself.

MSNBC Host confronts GOP's former Senate leader over his party's unprecedented use of the filibuster

In a panel discussion on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher Friday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow forcefully confronted the GOP's latest Senate leader over his party's unprecedented use of the filibuster this Congress.

"Republicans are filibustering everything," Maddow told former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who retired in 2007. "It’s being used more frequently than it’s ever been used in American history before, and Republicans should answer for that, because it’s a really stupid way to run the country."

The audience erupted in applause and cheers.

Frist responded, "I agree, at times. Its purpose is to empower the minority and forbid the majority from exploiting them.”

Maddow wasn’t having any of it. "People just want Republicans to not ... put a filibuster on every single vote of consequence," she rejoined. "Every single one."

According to the Associated Press, Republicans have used the filibuster "at a record-setting pace" this Congress, including for uncontroversial legislation that overwhelmingly passes.

In February, six Senate Republicans who unsuccessfully filibustered the jobs bill turned around and voted for it, raising questions about their motives for using the procedure.

Maher argued that President Barack Obama’s call for expanding offshore oil drilling just weeks before the Gulf spill broke out was a politically-motivated attempt "to get a couple of Republican votes" on energy legislation and thus stave off a filibuster.

"The whole reason Obama was coming out for more drilling was as a sop to the conservatives," Maher said, "which would not be necessary if we didn’t have this filibuster nonsense."

When Frist said the filibuster could be bypassed, citing health care reform, Maddow noted that such a scenario could only occur when the reforms in question are "directly related to the budget."

Frist's response raised the eyebrows of the panelists and drew laughs from the crowd. "In the Senate, you can do anything, by the way. You can do anything that can’t be done," he said, sounding almost frivolously.

Congressman says 'Taliban' is killing US soldiers with American tax dollars

On June 7, the day Afghanistan became America’s longest-ever war, the New York Times reported on an ongoing investigation poised to prove that private security companies "are using American money to bribe the Taliban" to fuel combat and thus enhance demand for their services. The news follows a "series of events last month that suggested all-out collusion with the insurgents," the Times said.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a leading opponent of the war, wondered, "Is the U.S. paying for attacks on U.S. troops?” "Our troops are dying in Afghanistan, and now it turns out we may be funding their killers," Kucinich said in a statement, renewing his longstanding call for a pullout. "Our continued presence in Afghanistan is detrimental to our security."

"The American people are paying to prop up a corrupt government that may be using our money to pay private companies to drum up business by paying the insurgents to attack our troops," he said.

Kucinich’s motion in March to implement a swift withdrawal of US troops from the region failed by a margin of 365-65 in the House.

"In the coming weeks, Congress is expected to be asked to give another $33 billion for war efforts... I will be bringing this report to the personal attention of individual Members of Congress prior to the vote on any additional war funding," the Ohio congressman said.

The Times interviewed a NATO official in Kabul who "believed millions of dollars were making their way to the Taliban."

A White House spokesperson did not return a request for comment. The administration and large bipartisan majorities in Congress continue to support and fund 8-year-long military operations in Afghanistan, warning that a pullout could lead to a Taliban takeover and greater threats to American interests.

Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters Monday that the US, Japan, Britain and other countries have “committed” roughly “200 million dollars” to fund peace efforts in Afghanistan, Agence-France Press reports. The Afghanistan Peace and Reconciliation Program aims to reintegrate Taliban fighters who have renounced violence into Afghan society.