Retiring Democrat Jared Golden endorsed Republican Mike Lawler in a competitive New York race, and fellow Democrats are not pretending to enjoy the bipartisan moment.
Retiring Democratic Rep. Jared Golden has apparently decided that if you are already leaving Congress, you might as well kick one last beehive on the way out.
Golden, who represents Maine, endorsed Republican Rep. Mike Lawler for reelection in New York — a seat Democrats are actively trying to flip. This was not a vague compliment about bipartisanship or a nice quote about working across the aisle. It was an actual endorsement telling voters to send the Republican back to Congress.
Golden said Lawler had been a genuine partner, pointing in particular to their work on legislation affecting Maine lobstermen. In an op-ed published in Lawler’s district, Golden wrote that Lawler would rather work with the other party to pass something than simply score political points.
House Democrats responded with the warmth traditionally reserved for someone who brings a leaf blower into a wedding ceremony.
Axios reported that one House Democrat, speaking anonymously, said, “People are pissed off.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries publicly dismissed the endorsement and attacked Lawler as a Trump ally while arguing that Golden’s support would not change the race.
The anger is easy to understand from a purely partisan perspective. Lawler represents one of the competitive seats Democrats would like to win as they fight for control of the House. Golden is not endorsing a Republican in a ceremonial landslide district. He is helping a Republican Democrat strategists are spending serious money trying to defeat.
The endorsement also did not arrive in isolation. Golden has been aggravating Democratic leadership for weeks. Earlier this month, he and Washington Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez crossed party lines on procedural votes that helped Republicans bring legislation to the House floor when GOP leaders otherwise lacked enough votes.
Those were procedural votes, not blanket endorsements of the Republican agenda, but in the House, procedure is power. The majority party is normally expected to provide the votes for its own rules. When two Democrats step in and rescue that process, their leadership notices.
Then Golden endorsed Lawler, and whatever remaining ambiguity existed about his willingness to irritate his own party disappeared somewhere off the coast of Maine.
Golden’s defense is straightforward: he says Lawler earned the endorsement through actual bipartisan work. One example was legislation extending protections for Maine’s lobster industry, even though Lawler represents a New York district hundreds of miles away. Golden is essentially arguing that Congress would function better if politicians occasionally rewarded cooperation even when it creates a campaign headache.
Democratic leaders have a different job. They are trying to win a majority. From that perspective, a retiring member publicly telling voters to support one of the opposition party’s most important incumbents is not a heartwarming demonstration of civility. It is your teammate walking into the other locker room during the fourth quarter and giving a halftime speech.
The endorsement also highlights a growing fault line inside both parties: what does “bipartisan” actually mean when elections are this close? It is easy to praise bipartisanship when it means voting together on a bill that passes 390-40. It becomes much more uncomfortable when cooperation creates political capital for someone your party is spending millions to remove.
Golden has more freedom than most members because he is retiring. He does not need leadership money for another campaign. He does not need favorable committee assignments in the next Congress. Threatening to punish him politically has roughly the same effect as threatening to cancel the gym membership of someone already walking out the door.
That may be why some Democratic frustration is already shifting toward Gluesenkamp Perez, Golden’s frequent ally on cross-party votes. She is staying. Axios reported that some House Democrats worry Golden’s behavior will create suspicion around her even though she had nothing to do with his Lawler endorsement.
For Lawler, the endorsement gives him something every swing-district Republican wants: a Democrat willing to publicly certify that he can work across the aisle. For Democratic nominee Cait Conley, it creates an irritating subplot in a race already attracting national attention and money.
And for Golden, it is a final demonstration of the political brand he has spent years building: he will vote or endorse based on his own assessment, even when his party leadership would very much prefer that he enjoy retirement quietly.
If a lawmaker genuinely believes someone from the other party is doing a good job, should party loyalty still stop them from saying so during a competitive election?
