Dennis Cardoza (h/t to Matt O.): “The vast majority, maybe two-thirds of the Democratic Caucus, or over two-thirds, are not members of the Progressive Caucus, and that says volumes,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza , D-Calif., a Blue Dog member.”
Me: A more vast majority of the Democratic caucus is not a member of the Blue Dog Democrats. member list here
(If Bush doesn’t meet with the Progressive Caucus, would that make Tauscher a liar? – promoted by blogswarm)
I’ve been fighting over whether or not to post a second blog. I got so much support from my previous blog I hardly knew what to do and I don’t in anyway want to lose that support by saying moderately nice things about the person I had gotten so much encouragement for lambasting earlier. That said, I feel an obligation that if I am going to write at all, I need to write as honestly as I can.
Shortly after posting my last blog, I found out that Tauscher would be speaking for the Rossmoor Democrats on Tuesday, December 19. I figured I would go, witness something similar to what I had seen at the Mt. Diablo Peace Center meeting, and write another anti-Tauscher blog. Oddly enough, when I arrived at the meeting 45 minutes late (I thought it started at 11), I did not find the hostile Congresswoman I had seen before. Maybe it was the vicodin (I had gotten my wisdom teeth removed the previous day) but this Tauscher seemed a lot more calm, comfortable, and polite. She still said quite a few things I’m not too fond of but it was a lot better than before. This is in no way an endorsement of Tauscher, I still refuse to vote for her, but it is a bit more positive than what I wrote before or have seen here in the blogosphere.
When I arrived, the question was on the topic of healthcare. The questioner wanted to know how citizens could get onto a healthcare plan similar to that which members of Congress receive. Tauscher’s response surprised me greatly. She said that it wasn’t Congress’s healthcare plan we wanted because she pays for her healthcare just like everyone else. While this response surprised me and lead me to believe I was going to see the same Tauscher I had seen before, her continuation was far more reasonable. She spoke about the need to expand healthcare programs so that everyone, especially children, is covered. It was a very typical politician speech but it had the right message, everyone needs healthcare.
Next came the topic of Iraq and conflicts in the Middle East. Tauscher strongly stated that an escalation of troops was a bad idea. She directly stated, “More is not the answer…less is the answer…none is the answer.” Beyond being a nice little sound bite, this is the exact stand Democrats need to be taking. While on the topic of the Middle East, she also brought up combating unemployment in West Bank and Gaza as a way of combating terrorism. This is something that is so logical it always astounds me that hardly any politicians talk about it.
Her final question was on Bush and her response was both the most admirable and unbelievable of the morning. She immediately brought up her recent meeting with Bush. Now this meeting seems to have been one of the things the netroots have been most upset about and understandably so. However, what she said to us (and I really want to believe she was telling the truth) is she only went to meet with Bush after two things. First, she talked with Pelosi who urged her to go. Second, she agreed to go only on the condition that the Progressive Caucus, Black Caucus, and Hispanic Caucus all got similar meetings.
Now, I’m not fully sure that Tauscher was telling the truth. I believe she met with Pelosi first, it just seems too natural, but I’m more skeptical about the meetings with the other caucuses. To my knowledge, no such meetings have been reported and Tauscher spoke as if they had already occurred.
If she is telling the truth, I would argue that rather than criticizing her for meeting with Bush we should be thanking her for both following through on Pelosi’s request and creating an opportunity for the other caucuses to meet with the President when otherwise they would never get the chance to directly voice their objections to Bush. Additionally, if this is the truth, it comes as a further reminder of both the benefits of having someone in the party the Republicans trust and the fact that maybe the resources that would be going toward her primary challenge might be better spent keeping McNerney in office, knocking out Doolittle, or getting Democrats elected in the local races in her district.
If she is not telling the truth, than my initial image of her stands clearer than ever and the first reminder can be completely disregarded. The second reminder, even in the event that she was lying, still needs to be taken into account but, if she was lying, there is a far stronger case for the “no, the resources would not be better spent” response.