(Oh, sweet, Ms. Tauscher has also narrated a slideshow. Apparently, the bankruptcy bill was A-OK with her conscience. There’s also going to be a chat tomorrow at 8AM California time on politics, and I’m sure this topic will come up. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

In what can only be described as a delightful day in the life of Ellen Tauscher, the Washington Post took a front-page look at the contest in CA-10.

Tauscher was reelected with 68 percent of the vote, but she said she takes this threat seriously; she has already used it in fundraising appeals. And though she has always highlighted her independence — shortly before the election, she warned Democrats not to “go off the left cliff” — she’s now emphasizing her party loyalty.

She was once the only California Democrat to oppose Pelosi’s campaign for leadership, but she now marvels that the speaker’s performance has been “absolutely perfect — and she looks so beautiful doing it!” Tauscher’s Web site no longer features photos of her with Bush or Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who lost a Democratic primary of his own last year.

Follow me over the flip.

I spoke to Michael Grunwald for this article (my quotes appear in the middle of the article), and while the quotes seem grammatically akward, they are fairly representative of our discussion.  The authors explore Tauscher’s strengths (pork and fundraising) and weaknesses. 

They spent a little time talking to Markos, but they don’t mistake him for a “raving idealogue”, opting for a softer sheen on the right’s new boogey man:

That’s why Kos has promised “a vicious fight for her seat.” He’s often portrayed as a raving ideologue, but he’s really a savvy strategist; he has no problem supporting conservative Democrats in conservative districts such as new Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.). But he sees no need to tolerate a DLC type in Tauscher’s district, where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) received 58 percent of the presidential vote in 2004. And he said that primaries are the only way to force incumbents with safe seats to pay attention to constituents.

“We’re creating real democracy,” he said.

Sure, some might call challenging an incumbent risky, or dangerous.  But, is a little democracy really more dangerous than this:

Tomorrow, the House will consider S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act. We write to let you know that final passage of the Bill will be a key vote for the NDC and to encourage you to support this common-sense, bipartisan legislation. (Calitics)

Yeah, I know that incumbency is powerful, and incumbency makes the world go round.  But the primary is part of the American Democracy.  The primary is frequently the only time voters can influence their representatives.  But, as Hilda Solis  and Marcy Winograd can tell you, sometimes the tough fights are the ones you need to take on.

(Great letter – promoted by blogswarm)

It’s been a week now and I’ve finally gotten the time to write a letter in response to Chris Thompson’s article “Tauscher’s a Tough Target” where he states that Calitics “contributors could find only a few local politicos who don’t care for Tauscher – one of them a high school student.”  I’m proud to be that high school student even if Thompson believes that means my opinion is less valuable.  The letter is as follows…

I’m very disappointed with Chris Thompson’s article “Tauscher’s a Tough Target”

I was indirectly mentioned in his article as an example of the lack of support for Moulitsas and Working for Us in district 10.  He implied that surely there can be little support if a high school student, such as myself, is getting recognition on the issue.  Surely a high school student’s opinion is not as valuable as one of an adult.  He failed to mention that I am a voting high school student, Youth Outreach Coordinator of the Lamorinda Democratic Club, and currently working to create the Contra Costa County Young Democrats. 

It is the belief promoted in Thompson’s article, that some are less worthy to have an opinion, that was the focus of my blog about Tauscher in the first place.  Her pro-corporate attitude was not my target but rather her stance that politics is for politicians and that the people should just smile, nod, and fund her campaign that turned me off of her. 

Robert Kennedy once said, “All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people – speaking out – in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out – in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes – let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind.”  Well, Mr. Thompson and Congresswoman Tauscher, we are speaking.

So I was talking with an esteemed linguistics scholar at Berkeley (I’ll leave that up to your imagination as to who it is) the other day about Tauscher. I mentioned the couple of interviews with the media and some of the basis for a primary challenge.  I discussed all the areas that really angered us. You know, the “left cliff”,the“kabuki dance”,and my personal worst Tauscherism ever…THE BANKRUPTCY BILL. But we talked about what Tauscher was really doing, and after a little while a few words kept coming up

Tauscher fails to protect Americans from Corporations.  Or, put another way, Tauscher protects Corporations OVER Americans.  She doesn’t fight for the people, rather she fights for DC’s lobbyists.  And don’t take this as some left-wing screed against all business, or all trade or whatever nonsense.  I’m most certainly not against all business.  After all, I like my tech toys, how do I get those without business…or without trade?  No, this is about fair, reasoned trade, not just jumping at every possible deal to allow American companies to exploit foreign labor pools.  I was quoted, well actually paraphrased, in the CoCo Times saying that I believed in ideology over viability.  I assure you this is not what was said, but another part of the remark was accurate:  Once voters hear Tauscher’s record, they won’t like it or her, he said.

Yup, I said that.  It’s true too.  She has a record that sets her up perfectly for a challenge, not from the left per-se, but from populism.  She is actively supporting corporations over people.  A populist primary challenge would hammer her on the fact that she hasn’t stood up against corporatism like her neighbors in CA-11 and CA-07 have.  That’s really what’s underlying everything with her: she’s anti-populist.  She is of the money,or as David Sirota put it, she is a “leader of the Money party”:

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA): Tauscher has been one of the most aggressive spokespeople for the Money Party, using her position to undercut major Democratic efforts to address core economic issues from a middle-class perspective. As an example, it was Tauscher who ran to newspapers desperately trying to let K Street know that she would be working to undermine Democrats’ efforts to reform our trade policy. More recently, she told the New York Times that Democrats would be engaging in a“kabuki dance” with their own base voters – implying that there would be moves for show, but that pay-to-play business as usual in Washington will continue in the new Congress.

In other words, she fights in favor of the moneyed interests over the interests of the people.  Let’s move over the flip…

Let’s start with the bankruptcy bill, and then we’ll get into more stuff later. I’m going to bust out the famous New Democrats’ Letter regarding the bankruptcy bill, and this is all over the place, and most assuredly this won’t be the last time you see it grace these (virtual) pages. (ViaAtrios):

MEMORANDUM

To: NDC Members

From: Reps. Ellen Tauscher, Ron Kind, Artur Davis and Adam Smith

Re: NDC Key Vote Alert!

Date: April 13, 2005

Tomorrow, the House will consider S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act. We write to let you know that final passage of the Bill will be a key vote for the NDC and to encourage you to support this common-sense, bipartisan legislation.

Encourages Personal Responsibility

This bill reflects the New Democrat principle of greater personal responsibility by ensuring that those who have the ability to pay off some of their debt do so, and reaffirming that bankruptcy should be a last resort instead of a first option. Requiring people to file under Chapter 7, rather than Chapter 13, and set up a payment plan to repay some or all of their debt is reasonable and fair.

Protects People Living Below Median Income

Only those living above the median income and who have ability to pay debt will be required to do so. Conversely, millionaires who use bankruptcy as a method of financial planning will no longer be allowed to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all debt written off.

Helps Consumers and Small Businesses

Bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers, and the average family pays hundreds of dollars a year in higher prices. Small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill.

Ensures Help for Most Needy

S. 256 includes protections ensuring alimony and child support payments are made. We believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws. All consideration will be given to factors including job security, medical bills, and other circumstances.

History:

New Democrats have long fought for common sense changes to our bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy reform legislation has passed the House of Representatives numerous times. In the 108th Congress, it passed 315 to 113 with 90 Democrats voting for it and 70 percent of NDC members supporting it. Earlier this year, S. 256 passed the Senate with a vote of 74 to 25. It is past time that Congress pass sensible bankruptcy reform.

S. 256, The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act

YES on Final Passage

I think the years since enactment have proven what a disaster the bankruptcy bill really is.  It’s really one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written.  Is it bipartisan? Sure? The credit card companies paid congress members of both parties to sign onto the legislation that THEY wrote.  This legislation wasn’t Republican or Democratic, nope this was Banky Goodness the whole way.  And as for getting help for the most needy? Then why no exceptions for National Guardsmen, medical catastrophes, or for natural disasters?  Sensible bankruptcy reform? Hardly.

No, this was Ellen Tauscher and the NDC selling out to the corporate elite.  She needs to account for these votes and prove that she deserves re-election.

There has been much attention paid lately to the fact that the They Work For Us offenders list was scrubbed soon after its debut.  Many wonder how that bodes for a primary challenge against Ellen Tauscher.

For example, the East Bay Express, which takes what I consider an honest look at it, if a bit on the pessimistic side.  But then what do you expect from a segment called “City of Warts?” (emphasis mine):

On January 22, Democratic Party activist Steve Rosenthal announced the birth of Working For Us, a new Political Action Committee that would expose moderate Democrats to public shame, and even help run progressive primary challengers against the three “worst offenders.” …
The story got picked up by the Washington Post and Associated Press wire, Beltway tongues started wagging – and the blowback kicked in. …
Within 48 hours, Rosenthal had erased every name from his offenders’ list. …
What appeared in the first 24 hours to be a new, aggressive effort to replicate the libertarian Club for Growth muscle quickly fizzled into a tepid attempt at damage control. This is hardly an auspicious beginning for the Netroots campaign against Tauscher, and it shows that for all their online anguish, getting rid of the congresswoman will be a lot tougher than people think.

Personally, I think this is a good thing because it makes sense that this project have a populist component.  At the least it makes it seem less personal.  And that is as it should be (when you have a chance go to the link and nominate Ellen Tauscher or your other favorite).

But some seem to take this as an opportunity to cheer on Tauscher.  Join me on the flip…

Specifically, I am talking about Lisa Vorderbrueggen who writes for the Contra Costa Times.  Two weeks ago, she had erred by conflating Tauscher’s votes on Afganistan and Iraq.  Maybe you remember that?  She apologized, which is good, but let’s see what she has to say this time (emphasis mine):

[They Work For Us] will invest money and time in two or three 2008 primary races, Rosenthal said, although it hasn’t selected the races.

The Berkeley-based liberal blog Daily Kos and other Bay Area bloggers have taken a much stronger stand. They vow to find a progressive to challenge Tauscher, chairwoman of the moderate congressional New Democrat Coalition, in the 2008 primary.

They dislike Tauscher’s votes in favor of the Iraq war and a bankruptcy bill, her support of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and comments such as how Democrats must avoid going “off the left cliff.”

In District 10, however, political consultants and local elected and community leaders on both sides of the aisle are perplexed at the characterization of Tauscher as a mismatch.

To me this seems like a willful attempt to pull a fast one.  We should be talking about a primary challenge here, but there seems to be a continual effort to cast this as a general election battle.  Who do two of her star quotes come from? (emphasis mine):

Tauscher is a “perfect fit,” said Republican Antioch City Councilman Arne Simonsen. “The far left makes a lot of noise, but that doesn’t mean the silent majority doesn’t have a different feeling.”

Even Allan Hoffenblum, the GOP campaign manager for Bill Baker, who narrowly lost his seat to Tauscher in 1996, called her a strong match in the centrist district…

OK, do I really have to explain what is wrong here?  She is quoting Republicans about whether Tauscher represents the district!  I am all astontonished that they like her.  This is supposed to convince Democrats that a primary challenge is unneccessary?

To be fair, she does also quote one Democrat from Orinda, a conservative part of the district.  But that is supposed to be representative of the district, as a whole?  Hardly!  Yet she goes on to lecture us about District 10 politics and how we should all be focusing on helping McNerney win re-election to CA-11.

Gee.  I hope he doesn’t face a strong primary challenge.  Do you think that maybe Ellen Tauscher wants to support Steve Filson in the primary against him, again?  Maybe that is what she is saying?  Of course we are going to support McNerney in the general election.  He will need more help than whoever beats Ellen Tauscher in her primary, no matter who the Republican is that runs in CA-10.  Who knows.  Maybe by challenging Tauscher, we will have extra infrastructure in place that can be used to help McNerney?  But I digress…

Lisa quotes a lot of stats from the general election to try to prove her point.  She also compares CA-10 to neighboring CA-07 and CA-11 to try to prove her point.  She says that we are trying to turn Tauscher into Richard Pombo.

OK, where to begin?  First of all, we are talking about a PRIMARY, so the general election results don’t really mean much.  And I would never equate her with Richard Pombo but Steve Filson who Tauscher supported in the CA-11 primary against Jerry McNerney.  And they are telling us how much we need to support Jerry?  Forget it.  Let’s move on to the real numbers.  Those from the 2006 Democratic Primary

For comparison, Establishment candidate Steve Filson lost to Jerry McNerney 34.3% to 50.5% in CA-11.  George Miller and Ellen Tauscher ran unopposed in CA-07 and CA-10, respectively…

So Lisa was trying to characterize CA-07 as being much more liberal than CA-10, but I don’t see that here.  Angelides beat out Westly by a bit more in CA-07, but Speier, Bowen, Chiang, and Brown all did better in CA-10.  And all of these candidates did better in CA-10 than statewide.  Well, except Bustamante, and  that one is just screaming out as a joke about how much more intelligent these voters are!  These numbers pretty much speak for themselves.  Remember, this is all Democratic Primary results.  And as Lisa points out, CA-10 has a 12.5 point Democratic advantage in the general.

It is funny.  There has also been a lot of defenders of her pointing out where her record makes her a liberal, but then cry that if they target her then that means we need to target all moderates.  It doesn’t make sense.  They can’t have it both ways!  They point out how she is a defender of women’s rights, but I would expect that from anyone elected to the current CA-10.  The point is that we can (and will) do better.

The thing is, not only did she support the war in Iraq, and play an influential role in smoothing the way for the bankruptcy bill that gutted the rights of consumers recently, she consistantly stands up for the rights of corporate interests instead of her constituents.  She has also continually supported Republican tax “reform” legislation like the abolition of the Estate Tax (which, by the way, represents the most American of ideals, but that is a different diary).  And don’t forget her vote to impeachwith Republicans to investigate President Clinton.  But that was a vote of conscience, I suppose.

But that is why she needs to have a primary challenge.  Her constituents need to have a vote of their conscience, too.  If she represents her Democratic constituents much as Lisa claims they do, she won’t have anything to worry about.  It would have been nice if she could have found more than one that feels the same.

The time of the “New Democrats” is over.  Trying to out-Republican the Republicans has failed.  We need leaders and advocates.  Jerry McNerney has proved that.  That is what the basis of representation is supposed to be.  It is clear that Tauscher represents her donors, not those that elected her.  I am sorry to all the Republicans that feel represented by her.  Enjoy her while you have her.  Lisa says that we are full of ourselves because we helped McNerney win in a Republican District.  Maybe we are, but he did win, and CA-10 is a Democratic district.  Won’t that make it easier?  They make a show of supporting McNerney now, but never forget that they opposed him in the primary.  And we won, anyway.

There has already been a great diary on the East Bay Express recycling stale insider dogma by calling Ellen Tauscher “moderate” instead of using the label “big business” which is far more accurate.

But that wasn’t the only major blunder by New Times Media reporter Chris Thompson. The more glaring example of his failure to understand the dynamics was his dismissing of the viability of the primary challenge to Tauscher. Thompson said that this was a “pipe dream” and declared that Democratic Party activists “won’t win” despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

That is what “they” said about Tauscher bagman Steve Filson in CA-11 who was stomped by 24 pts in last year’s primary in a more conservative district right next door. It was a landslide, he was beaten like a drum. Filson is a punchline in East Bay politics.

That is what “they” said about the primary campaign against then-Congressman Jeffery Cohelan who was again in a neighboring district to Tauscher but lost his re-nomination even with the union support Tauscher won’t enjoy.

That is what “they” said about Joe Lieberman, who had been the Democratic Party VP nominee yet also lost his primary in no small part to the netroots.

If you want to know what bands are playing, check out the East Bay Express. But don’t expect them to help you understand political dynamics they don’t get.

The East Bay Express, which is generally one of the better free weeklies in the Bay Area has a piece about Ellen Tauscher, They work for us, and a lot of folks who write and read this site.

Ever since the November elections, progressive activists have been focusing on their next goal: to purge some of the more moderate Democratic congress members, especially those who live in reliably liberal districts. No one has taken more heat than East Bay Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, whom a US News and World Report correspondent recently dubbed the “second most-disliked Democrat.” Last week, these forces took their first serious stab at intimidating her – and it was an awkward flop.

Now, you can call it whatever you like, Thompson definitely seem to be stepping in as Ellen’s defender. Personally I would be fine with this little campaign being “an awkward flop” if meant ET were spending more time representing her constituents and less taking checks from big corporations and sabotaging Pelosi and the party’s agenda.

If even the thought of a primary did that, hey… great by me. Label me unconvinced though.

But that’s not why I wrote the express… I wrote them over the term “moderate”
here’s the letter I wrote back:

Chris, your recent article about Tauscher is an interesting one, however, i’d like to take issue with your nomenclature. Specifically you call Ellen Tauscher a “moderate” and imply that it is her “moderation” that causes her to be a target from those nefarious fiends of the ever
angry left. In reality it doesn’t have a thing to do with “moderation”, it has everything to do with her constant and consistant cozying up to big business at the expense of her constituents and her undermining of the leadership of the Democratic party. You would be wise to not make
the same mistake again, and fall into an all too easy and misleading style of language.

Language is important, it doesn’t make me mad that she’s a moderate. Heck, living in the bay area, there are times that my uber progressive self can be considered “moderate”.

What makes me crazy is that “moderate” has become a synonym for “pro-corporate”. And that, my friends, will not stand.

Jim Webb is a Moderate… Ellen Tauscher tends towards corporatism.

In his defense, Thompson e-mailed me back quickly, and suggested that it be put in as a Letter to the Editor, which I agreed.

Perhaps you have thoughts on this as well, and would like to write a LTE to the East Bay Express too?

-C.

Here’s why I’m determined to find a candidate to beat Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) in 2008’s primary. His name is Rep. Mike Honda (CA-15). A man that spent his early years in an American Concentration camp, he steps up for Lt. Eheren Watada in a published OP-ED. No weasle words.

Lt. Watada has taken a solemn oath of allegiance as a military officer. With the order to deploy to Iraq, he found himself with a dilemma: Either follow this oath or risk the severe consequences of disobedience. In the spirit of Henry David Thoreau, this young man searched his soul and found himself unable to suppress his conscience and opposition to what he views as an immoral, illegal war.

There’s not much more, but there’s more.

Thanks for following me down. The dead-trees media that published his opinion disagrees with him.

His arguments are appealing, but unconvincing. As an officer, he’s in no position to refuse orders to go to Iraq. His change of mind and claims of conscience don’t excuse him duty.

Some folks have emailed me about how Tauscher isn’t so bad, after all, she’s a Democrat, yada, yada, yada. My point is that her district isn’t as conservative as Mike Honda’s, and Honda speaks out. (San Jose is like the Bay Area’s little slice of Orange county) Not to mention

I voted against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, and do not believe his justifications for taking us into war were even minimally adequate. As a duly elected member of Congress, I express my admiration for a young American who, in the same spirit, has heeded his conscience at tremendous risk to livelihood, reputation and personal freedom in order to right what he and the vast majority of his compatriots see as a tremendous wrong.

And the CA-10 deserves a Representative in the US House that will say out loud (or rather, in print)

At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America’s international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters.

Follow the links to read the whole story. Anyone living in the CA-10, who do you know that’s electable?
Cross-posted on kos and my blog. See kos for the poll, I want a kinda-real sample