All my life, I’ve heard politicians in Sacramento and Washington promise to change the way they do business, and to take action to solve our most pressing problems.

When I was born almost thirty years ago, millions of Americans lacked access to health insurance, millions of families couldn’t afford to send their kids to college, and the scourge of discrimination kept even more Americans from realizing their dreams.

Thirty years ago, tens of thousands of veterans who answered their country’s call in Vietnam were already calling the streets their home, and thousands more would soon follow.

Thirty years ago, the United States was coming out of an unprecedented energy crisis, vowing to change the way we powered our nation.

And thirty years later, despite year after year of politicians promising change, these problems haven’t just gone unsolved–just about all of them have gotten worse.

For me, like most Americans who live and work far from the halls of government, these are not issues that live in the political abstract or as talking points used to sell hastily crafted budgets.  They’re very real, very consequential, and very personal.

As the son of a single mother from Fairfield, I’ve lived the fight for a quality education (earning a Congressional Appointment to West Point), while facing the uncertainty of being without health insurance for most of my life.  I served two tours as a combat platoon leader in Iraq, led recovery missions to help rebuild the lives of fellow citizens abandoned by their government in New Orleans and challenged the military’s failed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” policy here at home-even when it meant my career.  

Ultimately, I’ve seen too many Americans pay a big price for the convenient choices of politicians.   And I believe the only way to break this vicious cycle is to elect leaders who are willing to make the courageous ones.    

That’s why I have come home to begin the process of forming a campaign to become the next Congressman from California’s 10th Congressional District.

In the weeks and months to come, I am looking forward to sharing my values, my vision, and my priorities for moving our district, our country, and our politics in a new direction.

And while standing up to an unjust policy cost me my dream of serving the country I love in the military just six months ago, that experience has only strengthened my resolve to fight for the solutions we all deserve—and with the real world sense of urgency that is too often missing from public debate on issues like universal healthcare, expanding economic opportunity, keeping faith with America’s veterans, and eliminating the cancer of inequality from the world’s greatest democracy once and for all.

I consider myself a proud member of the “Millenial Generation,” and though some will call me young, I have spent more time on the front lines of battles than most politicians do in a lifetime.  

Like the “Greatest Generation’s” battles against economic depression, segregation, and World War, the Millenial Generation also finds itself at the crossroads of history.  

I believe that we too have greatness within our grasp.  But to seize it, we must be willing to forego the convenient politics of the past, to hold one another accountable for the difficult choices that lie ahead, and most importantly, to summon the courage of our convictions.

Together, I know we can.

Anthony Woods

Visit My Website

Visit My Facebook Page

Help Jumpstart our Campaign via ActBlue

There has been much attentionpaid 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.

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 her 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 Primary…

  CA-07 turnout CA-10 turnout CA-11 turnout State turnout
  24.4% 21.6% 14.7% 39.3%

  CA-07 CA-10 CA-11 Statewide
Governor Angelides 54.0% 52.1% 48.5% 48.0%
  Westly 37.9% 41.9% 45.3% 43.2%
  Becnel 2.9% 1.7% 1.8% 2.7%
Lt. Gov. Speier 46.4% 52.8% 52.8% 39.7%
  Garamendi 38.7% 37.1% 35.7% 42.6%
  Figueroa 14.9% 10.1% 11.5% 17.7%
Sec. State Bowen 60.6% 64.2% 59.7% 60.9%
  Ortiz 39.4% 35.8% 40.3% 39.1%
Controller Chiang 58.8% 61.0% 56.4% 53.3%
  Dunn 41.2% 39.0% 43.6% 46.7%
Att. Gen. Brown 73.5% 78.4% 75.4% 63.3%
  Delgadillo 26.5% 21.6% 24.6% 36.7%
Ins. Comm. Bustamante 71.5% 68.8% 64.5% 70.5%
  Kraft 28.5% 31.2% 35.5% 29.5%
US Senator Feinstein 89.3% 91.7% 91.7% 87.0%
  Fernald 7.0% 5.5% 5.1% 8.0%
  Church 3.7% 2.8% 3.2% 5.0%

I started this blog because someone over at kos said they needed one, and literally the day afterward, I read a story in the MSM and started writing an entry for this blog. Before I  published, I had lunch, went back to my desk and, just browsing around I found  3 blogs that said what I would have said, written better and published first. Ooops.

The folks at Ellen Tauscher Weekly keep track of the great work that https://calitics.com/tag.do?tag=Ellen+Tauscher and Kos post on Dear Ellen every week,  there are regular posts on MyDD, by Chris Bowers, and other places.

The day I started this blog, I emailed Act Blue on what to do about primary elections, and I didn’t even have a candidate to name. Haven’t had an answer yet, and I can see why. Why would people give money to an unknown quantity? I wasn’t going to choose who people were givig their money to, and having Act Blue hold the money in trust for a nameless stranger was not a good idea.

So here’s the deal. I understand the pre-Lieberman campaign took pledges for a candidate to be named later. That’s what I propose now. You email this site, $20, $30, $50 whatever ($1 accepted, as a placeholder) Include your email address, and when we have a candidate or candidates, you look over their positions, weigh their chances, and send in your $ or not. We will help with research on all potential candidates, who are willing to toss their hat in the ring. We post their postions, interviews, YouTube posts, we’ll help everyone. (Not indescriminately, this is my site, but I’ll let any legitimate candidate’s advocates become poster on this site. NO REPUBLICANS AND NO TAUSCHER)

What I’m after, is showing the potential candidate that there is support out their for him/her to make a SERIOUS run against a candidate that can raise $1M for a primary, and doesn’t have to spend bupkus against a Republican. (the Republicans don’t eat their own, they know Dear Ellen is a fellow traveler. Lord, I wish the Dem’s would learn that. (HEY! PROGRESSIVES ARE DEMOCRATS! HELLOO….) There are good potential folks on the back bench who are looking at state offices, city offices, dog cacher because money is the deal killer and they don’t know any millionaires.

You pledge your $, as little or as big as you can afford. Anyone who steps up to mount a primary challenge, we post what they say and what we find. We’ll have help in the later, because Dear Ellen will have $1M to spend on oppo research, and you can just open up the Contra Costa Times to see all tha bad stuff about anyone who dares speak out agianst Dear Ellen. You’ll get email from all the declared primary challengers, and anytime between filling day and the primary, you can redeem your pledge. I would be surprised if, between now and the primary, there wasn’t a candidate not worth supporting. If you find more than one, feel free to redeem your pledge more than once. Or redeem your pledge more than once to the same candidate.

My point is to start building a war chest. The total will appear here, in 6 months, 3 months after that, and  more often if needed to convince the good candidates that they will have support for the primary, support for the general. Too many good legislators are kept out of office because the grind of raisng money is a daunting and dispiriting task. For an incumbent, who can provide that all valuted “access” if not a quid pro quo, money is much less of a problem.

If we can show a candidate who has a progresive record, that they have as little as $100k before they even file, and a fundraising op behind them, if they decide to take on a conservatve entrenched career politician, I think we can have our pick of a field of 2 or 3 prime candidates. (If we find three progressive candidates, there are state seats, commissions, county seats, city seats, we can start packing the back bench up BIG TIME)