Nota Bene: This is an open letter to Charlie Brown, Democratic candidate for CA-04’s open seat. I have notified the Brown campaign of this diary by email. It is also crossposted at Daily Kos.

***

Dear Charlie,

I supported you in your race against John Doolittle back in 2006. This year I would like to support you again in your open seat race against Tom McClintock. While I would never under any circumstances vote for Tom McClintock, as things stand right now I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I do not currently intend to cast a vote in the CA-04 House race.

Almost one year ago I decided to write to you because I wanted assurance from you on a matter that became very important to me after the 2006 elections. After a few brief formalities, I wrote the following:

Subject: A Constitutional Question

To: The Charlie Brown Campaign

Date: 10/1/07

… I have come to realize that my support depends entirely upon your answer to the following question:

Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

I trust you can intuit the subtext of this inquiry.

A couple days later I received the following response from your campaign manager, Todd Stenhouse.

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Me

Date: 10/3/07

Thank you for your question. Charlie asked me to respond to you directly on his behalf.

Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power – which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.

As a number of investigations continue, the decision to actually vote on impeachment is a decision each member of the House must make – carefully considering the costs and benefits of such a decision – not just on the business of government, but the nation and world community as a whole.

For the past 6 years, we saw Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch – or to deliver the results the people need on so many issues – healthcare, global warming, education, and a horribly mismanaged foreign policy to name a few. The nation spoke loudly last November. Regardless of who the next President is, Charlie Brown will never forget who he works for, or what his responsibilities are as a member of Congress operating within the system of checks and balances.

Just over a year from the next election, Charlie’s focus is on bridging the growing divisions in our country, solving the problems we face, and the vital cause of electing new leadership to our Congress and White House in 2008. Only then, we believe, can we bring the sad era of corruption, incompetence, and scandal ridden partisan politics as usual to a close.

I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead

Thank you again for your inquiry.

To this I replied:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/10/07

Thank you for your reply. At the end of your email you said “I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead.” Unfortunately, no, you did not answer my question to my satisfaction. But I have not given up on you yet.

You wrote that “Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power—which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.” Even if I put it in the best possible light, your answer is, in the end, a mere truism. Bringing impeachment charges implies the event of an actual vote of the full House on those charges. In such a vote the House does not have to vote (choose) to bring charges as they could vote against bringing charges.

The choice (the right) of a district attorney to bring charges or not is predicated upon there already having been an investigation into whether or not there are grounds to bring charges. The investigation is obligatory. While district attorneys often only review evidence and evaluate investigations conducted by law enforcement, in the House investigation, evaluation of evidence and the bringing of charges are combined in one body. The House functions to that extent less like a district attorney and more like a grand jury. While it is true that the House may ultimately vote not to bring charges, the question is really whether the House can choose not to investigate grounds for impeachment. That is why I did not ask merely about bringing charges, but about the investigation that necessarily precedes any decision over charges.

When I wrote initially I deliberately asked about the rights and duties of the office and chamber. I did this to spare you from having to answer the historical and specific version of my question. But perhaps I should ask it.

I agree with you that in the last 6 years we have seen “Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch.” For 5 years after 9/11 the Republicans proved themselves quite unwilling to provide such oversight. What I find reprehensible, however, is that in the one year since the Democrats took control of Congress they too have proven themselves unwilling to provide meaningful executive oversight. The reason for this delinquency is quite simple: Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Because of her decision Congress has left Bush’s claims of executive power entirely unchallenged and intact.

If Charlie is elected to Congress he will take an oath neither to me nor to you, nor to any party or any person. The oath will say nothing of “healthcare, global warming, education” or of our “horribly mismanaged foreign policy.” The oath will be to the Constitution itself – that would ultimately be “who he works for.” The oath would require him to affirm to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and it would require him to pledge his “true faith and allegiance to the same.” For a Congressman, when it comes to defending and supporting the Constitution there is no consideration of “the costs and benefits of such a decision.” He is duty bound in that regard.

Nancy Pelosi has forgotten and betrayed her oath of office. Her decision to take impeachment off the table has led to a dereliction of Congress’s Constitutional duty. Had a full investigation been allowed then it may very well have led inexorably to a vote on impeachment. But Pelosi had already said that impeachment was off the table. Consequently, no investigations could truly proceed and no oversight could truly take place. I consider her decision to take impeachment off the table every bit as dangerous to this country as George Bush’s extensions of executive power.

Indeed, Pelosi’s decision was arguably even more dangerous. The Constitution anticipates overextensions of executive power and provides impeachment as its specific remedy. Unlike “the power of the purse” and “censure,” impeachment speaks directly to the Constitutional question and has the express effect of defining and clarifying executive power. The Constitution, however, does not anticipate that Congress will render itself impotent by disavowing this remedial power because such a disavowal would grant the president de facto immunity from effective oversight and undermine the integrity of our system of checks and balances. That is, however, precisely what Pelosi has done.

So I can ask my question again in a different way: Does Charlie believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

If Charlie honestly believes that Pelosi had that right, then I, as a matter of conscience, will have to take my support for him off the table. More than that, however, if Charlie honestly believes Pelosi had that right then, should he be elected, he should not be able to take his oath of office in good conscience.

Now that I have told you where I stand on these matters, I hope you can tell me in specific terms where Charlie stands.

For several weeks I waited in vain for a response. Finally, I sent Todd Stenhouse another email:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/29/07

Todd,

Should I consider your lack of response to my reply an indication that you do not believe you can give me the assurance I require in order to pledge my support to Charlie Brown?

Unfortunately, that email went without reply as well.

Over the winter I decided to post the entire email exchange on Daily Kos. I hoped placing this discussion in a public forum would bring a response, and even if it didn’t I wanted to raise these points publicly because I believe all voters should demand that anyone who is running for Congress answer these questions and answer them rightly.

But between the holidays, the primaries, the summer, and the conventions the timing never seemed right. I have, however, run out of time. Circumstances now dictate that I cast my ballot on Monday, October 6, the first day of early voting here in California.

On all these matters I feel as strongly now as I did a year ago. With this open letter I am giving you one last chance to assure me that you are a man of integrity who will uphold the oath of the office for which you are running.

And so I ask my questions once again.

1. Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

2. Do you believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

These questions ask the same thing in two different ways. You do not have to answer both of them, but if you want my vote you will have to give the right answer to one of them. If I do not receive a reply, or if I receive a reply with the wrong answer, then my vote will remain off the table.

Sincerely,

CA04 Voter

This last weekend, Charlie Brown held his 2nd neighborhood BBQ Town Hall in the city of Oroville. The crowd gathered in the Oroville Veterans Hall, a fitting place for a meeting that consisted largely of veterans and their families.

Introducing Charlie was the Mayor of Oroville, Steve Jernigan. Having local officials introduce your candidate is nothing new, but the interesting point about Steve Jernigan is the highly respected Republican Mayor of Oroville. Steve is a sought-after commodity in Republican politics. Everyone from Mitt Romney to John McCain to Ron Paul have sought his endorsement, but only one has been given: to Charlie Brown.

Steve told the gathered crowd about the importance of putting patriotism before partisanship, and how real work gets done by those who are willing to put the country first.

After taking the microphone from Mayor Jernigan, Charlie began to explain his 26-year history in the United States Air Force and his experience as a teacher, Roseville Police Department employee, and the chair of a $5 million credit union.

Most of the question from the crowd revolved around the economy, and one man asked Charlie how more jobs could be brought to Oroville and the rest of the district. Charlie’s answer surprised some: he could get new jobs to the district by pushing for alternative energy.

Under Charlie’s energy plan, thousands of new jobs can be created by transitioning to “green collar” jobs that produce solar, wind and biofuel energy. With a new wind farm being proposed in Lassen County, right here in the district, new jobs can be brought right here to the district. We simply need the leadership to make it happen, and Charlie is the man for the job.

Another question brought up during the town hall revolved around Charlie’s ideas on tax cuts. Charlie explained his view on taxes, promising tax relief for the middle class while pointing out that Tom McClintock’s Auburn Dam would cost tax payers $10 billion. Charlie explained exactly what taxes he would eliminate: the Alternative Minimum Tax, Widow’s Tax for Military Families, and concurrent receipt to name but a few.

More than a few veterans were in the audience, so the conversation naturally turned to military-talk. One veteran, a fellow Vietnam vet, asked Charlie about what changes he would like to see to the VA. Charlie voiced his support for mandatory VA funding, specifically regarding disabled veterans receiving their full benefits. He also again pointed to the Widow’s Tax on military survivor benefits.

The day was full of substance and spirits were high, as Charlie has proven once again that he is the only candidate in this race concerned about serving the needs of the district and having the desire to listen to the voters in California’s 4th Congressional District.

This weekend, Charlie travelled to South Lake Tahoe for the 3rd BBQ Town Hall meeting at Bijou Park. Details from that exciting day are coming soon!

(I love ground reports. – promoted by David Dayen)

From today's Beyond Chron.    

Last Saturday, I headed up to the Roseville/Rocklin area – Sacramento suburbs off Highway 80 on the way up to Tahoe – to volunteer for Charlie Brown’s campaign for U.S. Congress. I arrived on the heels of some fantastic news for the campaign, a poll commissioned by Daily Kos revealing a five point lead for Brown. It’s hard to understate the significance of this considering the extremely conservative nature of CA-04 (take, for example, 2004, when Bush buried Kerry by 24 points here). After a day of canvassing in the district and speaking with the people that live there, the reasons for Brown’s success so far make a lot of sense to me. The place seems full of disaffected Republicans and Independents open to Brown’s positions and not wild about his challenger, Tom McClintock. While the day wasn’t all wine and roses, I’m convinced that CA-04 represents an enormous chance for Democrats to pick up a seat in Congress, and that activists should continue to focus on this race to ensure Brown makes his way to victory.

 My first pleasant surprise of the day came upon arriving in Brown’s Roseville headquarters, where a professional, competent staff greeted me and quickly gave a rundown of the day’s events. Folks could stuff envelopes, write postcards to potential voters, work the phones, build lawn signs, or hit the pavement and knock on doors. I chose knocking on doors, and when I left at 10 o’clock, the place already seemed a hive of activity. When I returned for a break at midday, the place was even more packed, with about 35 people all hard at work on a variety of tasks.

The second surprise came when I met seven people that came up to Roseville from the Bay Area early that morning to volunteer for Brown. Members of the nascent organization Take Back Red California, these folks travel all over the state to help out with close elections, including recent trips to CA-03 to help out Bill Durston and State Assembly District 10 for Alyson Huber. The commitment and good spirits of these folks boosted my usually low faith  

in the Bay Area’s involvement in statewide issues.

Of course, all good things must come to an end, and when I looked down at the sheets of voters I’d be speaking with that day, I realized more than three-fourths of the doors I’d be knocking on would be the homes of registered Republicans. For someone used to campaigning in San Francisco and Seattle, it came as a bit of a shock, but by the time I finished, I was glad I’d gotten the houses I did.

The major lessons I learned:

Democrats are in the Bag…Mostly

Most of the Democrats I spoke with immediately said they already planned on voting for Brown, and several said they would volunteer or donate to the campaign. However, I did speak with a couple folks who remained skeptical about Brown, citing his status as a former Republican, his avowed belief in fiscal conservatism, and his support for the right to bear arms. While they weren’t necessarily considering voting for anyone else, they wanted to make sure if we sent Brown to Washington, he wouldn’t jump ship and become another centrist Democrat indistinguishable from his Republican colleagues.

A few points seemed to hit home with these folks – Brown is pro-choice, a strong believer expanding health care to more Americans, and has made alternative energy a central focus of his campaign. An even stronger point seemed to be pointing out the evils of McClintock. Despite his run for Governor a few years back, people seemed relatively unfamiliar with just how far to the right McClintock sits. A quick rundown of his positions on climate change (a myth, he says), Social Security (it’s ‘morally bankrupt,’ he says) and the minimum wage (he calls it a ‘destructive government policy’) seemed to hit home.  

I can’t see Democrats in the district voting Republican, and I certainly can’t seem them not voting with the presidency at stake. But I can see some folks leaving the U.S Congress portion of their ballot left blank if they don’t learn a bit more about their candidate.  Brown’s campaign shouldn’t take his base for granted, and ensure Democrats know what he stands for, and what’s at stake in their district.  



Many Republicans Want to Talk



The biggest shock of the day came during my conversations with registered Republicans. For the most part, they seemed happy to talk about the race with me, and wanted to learn more about Brown. The talking points the campaign provided me helped a lot – the first few statements provided an immediate foot in the door, emphasizing Brown’s 26 years in the military, his status as a former Republican, and his belief in balancing the country’s budget.

From there, things got interesting. I talked to several people who voted for Doug Ose, a more moderate Republican in the primary, and felt McClintock didn’t represent their values. Like many Republicans, they seemed fed up with the Iraq war, with our dependence on foreign oil, and with valuing corporate America over the average citizen. McClintock seemed like more of the same to them, and Brown’s support of tax cuts to the middle class and providing health care coverage for more citizens resonated with them.

The message of McClintock as a carpetbagger, slammed home by Ose during the primary and picked up by Brown, also resonated with a lot of the folks. When they learned McClintock is not from the area, nor has any real connection to it, and simply seems to be looking for a way to continue his political career after being termed out of his Southern California State Senate seat, they listened. And they listened even closer when they learned that Brown has lived in Roseville for 16 years. There seems to be a strong regional identity in the area, and Brown’s campaign should continue to take advantage of the fact that people don’t like the idea of an outsider representing their homes.

Brown’s strong record as a military veteran also hit home. One woman I talked with spent much of her time taking care of her disabled brother, a veteran wounded during a tour of duty. While she usually voted Republican, she seemed impressed with Brown’s military experience. Even more so, she seemed livid when she learned of McClintock’s record in the State Senate, which includes several vote against benefits for veterans and their families.

Despite hearing from many Republicans who said they’d support Brown, or at least would remain undecided, a variety listened to me but maintained their support for McClintock. Most of these folks seemed one-issue voters – that issue being fiscal conservatism. They maintained that Democrats always run up massive deficits, and that they can count on McClintock to not do the same. Pointing out the record-setting deficit the Bush administration ran up over the past eight years didn’t seem to resonate. If they can, it seems Brown’s campaign could gain some traction by working more to tie McClintock to Bush and his failed economic policies.



True Believers are True Believers



As much good will as I found in the suburban cul-de-sacs and parkways of Roseville and Rocklin, I also found a chunk of strong McClintock supporters, maybe 10 percent of the people I talked to. These folks had no desire to speak about issues or the campaign, and I heard several variations of “I’m for McClintock and I don’t want to talk about it (cue slamming door sound)”. While this is to be expected, Brown’s campaign should do it’s best to identify strong McClintock supporters and not waste time trying to win them over.

Moving Forward

To win, Brown’s campaign must continue to get its message out to voters. Face-to-face interaction seemed to be an excellent way of doing this, as it quickly broke down the instant barriers Republican partisans put up against Democrats. So far, the campaign seems to be doing an incredible job, with a cadre of volunteers and staff that, at least from what I’ve seen, are energetic, competent and committed.

These folks, and the people in their district, represent one of the best opportunities Democrats have to turn a former Republican stronghold into a place that will help add to a blue majority in Congress. They deserve the support of progressives everywhere, and while it’ll take a lot more work between now and Election Day, I think a victory party in CA-04 come Election Day is within our sites.  

The most remarkable quote of the week came from a backbencher Yacht Party Republican named Mark Wyland, commenting on the historically late state budget.  If the California Democratic Party had a locker room, this would be serious bulletin-board material:

Voters are unlikely to punish lawmakers for the budget delay in any substantive way on Nov. 4  unless it’s to pass a ballot measure that would change how political districts are drawn, said state Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Carlsbad).

“My experience with voters is that they really don’t care how long it takes to get a budget,” Wyland said, following his participation in a panel discussion at an event on reforming state government.

According to Wyland, prolonged budget stalemates like this year’s sometimes encourage voters to keep their incumbents. Because districts are usually heavily skewed in registration to one party or another, he said, sitting legislators are more likely to hear encouragement for their party’s ideological position than disfavor.

And voting against the party – in Wyland’s example, for tax raises or to reinstate the unpopular vehicle-license fee – is an invitation to face a primary challenge in the next election cycle, he said.

This is the calcified opinion from the Yacht Party, and why they’ll never be moved from their ideological perches.  They believe that they have more to fear from internal challenges on the grounds of insufficient fealty to failed conservative policies than from the consequences of those policies.  And there’s a lot of evidence on their side, although not as much as they think.  

But the most glaring point made in this statement is one of contempt.  It shows contempt for voters to act in the best interest of an ideology than in the best interest of the state.  It shows contempt for voters to hold the budget hostage, causing extreme hardship in the lives of state employees, community health centers, policemen and firefighters, and public schools,  and expect nobody to notice.  It shows contempt for voters to use the tyranny of the minority to advance a cause completely at odds with the prevailing opinion of the state.  Real people were affected and harmed by this budget, and all of us will be in the future as the bills of conservative borrow-and-spend economics and systematic destruction of government come due.

And the thing is, Wyland is relying on a failed model.  Demographic shifts and a reckoning of the failure of conservatism has made no district safe.  Indeed Californians can punish Yacht Party Republicans for their intransigence and obstructionism.  There are a number of races at the federal and state level where Democrats have more than a chance to unseat Republicans and turn seats blue.  In fact, with some luck and proper resources we can get very close to that 2/3 majority needed to pass budgets and fix the structural revenue deficit.  That’s where you come in.

The Calitics Editorial Board has identified five seats which strike a balance between winnable races and progressive leadership.  We’ve decided to start a major fundraising push for these five candidates between now and the end of the quarterly reporting requirement on September 30.  That gives us only a few days, but here’s the kicker – Calitics will match every donation made to these candidates up to $500 each, for a grand total of a $2,500 candidate match.  

Please visit our special Calitics Match ActBlue page and support any or all of these five great candidates:

Charlie Brown (CA-04): A recent Research 2000 poll showed Brown leading perennial candidate Tom McClintock 46-41 in this deep red district.  Brown, a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel, nearly defeated indicted Congressman John Doolittle in 2006 and has shown tremendous leadership on veteran’s issues and the FISA fight before even coming to Congress.  He’s a better Democrat we can all be proud of.

Debbie Cook (CA-46): Running in a tough district against certifiably crazy Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Debbie Cook is running with an unabashedly progressive message.  The Mayor of Huntington Beach, Cook is an expert on peak oil and energy issues, and would instantly be one of the most knowledgeable voices in the Congress on how to move toward a post-carbon future.  She also believes in ending the Iraq occupation responsibly and achieving the goal of quality and affordable health care for all.

Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19): A former Assemblywoman and creator of Speak Out California, a blog and resource for Golden State progressives, Hannah-Beth Jackson has proven her progressive bona fides time and again.  Running in rapidly changing Ventura County against the former state director of the Club for Growth, Tony Strickland, Jackson can prove that even Tom McClintock’s old seat is not safe from the progressive wave.  She would lead in the State Senate on issues of economic justice and the environment.

Alyson Huber (AD-10): AD-10 is another district where the demographics are changing, and Alyson Huber is perfectly suited to take advantage of this and turn the seat blue.  Huber, an attorney and working mother, is focused on increasing access to health care and education for all Californians.  She would help tremendously in bringing us closer to that needed 2/3 majority.

Manuel Perez (AD-80): A transformative leader, Manuel Perez is ready to take that leadership to Sacramento.  Part of a growing group of Hispanic-Americans in the Coachella Valley who are leading a major progressive challenge to the typical politics of the region, Manuel has created community health clinics, served on the Coachella School Board as a trustee, taught classes, and organized his community to fight for change.  He is uniquely suited to take his varied experience and lead in the State Legislature.

The time is tight, but we need to make Mark Wyland and the Yacht Party Republicans he represents cry.  Please contribute to our Calitics Match fundraising effort before Tuesday!