California Blue Dog Ellen Tauscher Is Back-- Lock Away Your Wallet

She's back-- and up to no good again!

It’s 10 years later and right-wing Democrat Ellen Tauscher-- once the head of the New Dems, a vice chair of the DLC, and a proud Blue Dog-- is rearing her head in Democratic politics again. She’s the chair of the California 7 Project (AKA- Fight Back California), which purports to being trying to defeat 7 California Republicans in 2018: Jeff Denham and David Valadao in the Central Valley, Steve Knight in the L.A./Ventura 25the district and the 4 vulnerable GOPers in Orange County, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Darrell Issa and Mimi Walters. Typical of crooked political operations, Tauscher’s outfit-- a shady SuperPAC-- is raising money for itself, not for any Democratic candidates. Tauscher told Roll Call she plans to raise $10,000,000, money that could be used to defeat conservatives that will instead be used to bolster conservatives and, in all likelihood, Tauscher’s and her cronies’ own accounts. You just have to trust she’ll spend it right. But you shouldn’t… because history shows exactly how she’ll spend it.

Tauscher is working with her original campaign manager, strategist Katie Merrill, who loses all her races, and they hiding who has already funneled 6-figures into their SuperPAC. So just what you would expect of a slimy character like Tauscher-- dark money fueling her efforts to sucker the grassroots into contributing to… probably herself and a gaggle of dreadful right-of-center Republican-lite candidates just like herself. Their main goal will be to make sure no Berniecrats win any nominations, just Tauscher-like offal from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. One source told me she’s getting money from the lottery winner the DCCC wants to sell the CA-39 nomination to, Gil Cisneros, but it’s impossible to confirm who’s giving Tauscher’s operation the cash, since she’s taking advantage of the dark money Supreme Court rulings to hide her sources.

My history with Tauscher goes back a ways. In 2006, she recruited an “ex”-Republican to run against the grassroots candidate in California she and Rahm were eager too defeat, Jerry McNerney. They decided McNerney was too liberal to beat Republican Natural Resources Committee chair Richard Pombo and they dug up a Republican masquerading as a Democrat instead. McNerney slaughtered the interloper in the primary and Tauscher and Rahm put a hex on the district, calling donors and telling them not to contribute to McNerney in the general. That’s how Rahm taught the DCCC to play-- a practice continued by Steve Israel and whoever tells the hapless Ben Ray Lujan what he should do. In any case, McNerney pulverized Pombo, shocking the GOP (and Tauscher’s and Rahm’s Republican wing of the Democratic Party). It was one of the biggest races of the year and McNerney, propelled by grassroots enthusiasm, took 109,868 votes (53.3%) to Pombo’s 96,396 (46.7%). Pombo spent $4,629,983 that year, to McNerney’s $2,422,962. The NRCC came to Pombo’s defense with a then-massive $1,442,492, while Rahm grudgingly allowed the DCCC to spend a mere $295,366, less that the Sierra Club or even the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

The media has always white-washed Tauscher and given her favorable treatment. Ten years ago, I wrote about a Washington Post puff piece on her.

Eilperin and Grunwald have written an inherently dishonest piece-- pure Inside-the-Beltway ass-kissery for the powers-that-be. Reading their whitewash you would never know that Tauscher recruited and pushed a pro-corporate, anti-grassroots shill to run against Democratic grassroots hero Jerry McNerney, only that she's being victimized by some left wing bullies for being a hard-working "moderate." From Eilperin and Grunwald a reader would reasonably conclude that Tauscher had merely "supported McNerney's centrist opponent in his primary, to the disgust of the Net roots." Not a word about the Tauscher-inspired financing that nearly caused McNerney to have to spend all his non-corporate, grassroots money in the primary, endangering his bid to oust the hated Pombo.

And every time Eilperin and Grunwald vomit out "moderate," as though the 135 House Dems with more progressive voting records than her are not moderates, but extreme leftists and dangerous communists, my skin crawls. Only reactionary Democrats have voted more frequently with the Republican extremists on substantive issues than Tauscher has, yet in the Post they phrase it a little differently: "Since 2003 she has voted with her party more than 90 percent of the time. This year, she has marched in lock step with Pelosi. But to Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars, she's Lieberman in a pantsuit. 'I don't think it's a fair comparison,' Tauscher said. 'My colleagues look at this and say, "If they're going after Ellen Tauscher, holy moly!'" Yeah, holy moly! What's next? Will someone challenge Jim Marshall or John Barrow or David Scott, 3 Georgia Democrats who spend an awful lot of time voting with Republicans?

…This oversimplification to the point of willful distortion is a perfect example of how the Eilperin and Grunwald have delivered for Tauscher today. The Democratic grassroots' dismay with Tauscher is not about "a vote" in 2002 for Bush's Iraq War. Between October 10, 2002 and May 25, 2005, the House voted on 44 Iraq War bills. Tauscher's Iraq voting record is one of the worst of any Democrat's, and far from being in "lockstep" with Nancy Pelosi's, as Eilperin and Grunwald deceitfully attempt to convey. Starting on October 10, 2002 with Roll Call 454 on H.J. Res. 114, the final resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Tauscher didn't vote with Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democrats-- and the majority of Democrats in the House; she voted with Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and the worst reactionary, warmongering scum in the Congress to give Bush the authority to do what he's done in Iraq. Bad enough to remove Tauscher? Absolutely. But that was just the beginning. Since then she voted with the right-wingers 13 more times to carry out Bush's war policies.

As one of McNerney’s top campaign staffers in 2006 told me yesterday, "Tauscher’s backing a former Republican against McNerney in 2006 almost saved Pombo's hide." Like me, he’s very wary of her current efforts. A former investment banker at Bear Stearns and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Tauscher is now on a number of corporate boards, like Southern California Edison, and, unfortunately, a few weeks ago Jerry Brown appointed the former Ready For Hillary corporate shill to the University of California Board of Regents. While she served in Congress, she was a virulent anti-progressive on every possible level, including, of course, policy. She worked with the Republicans to gut the estate tax and to screw consumers with a reactionary bankruptcy law written by credit card company lobbyists. She was also a bug proponent of NAFTA and every other unfair trade policy that helped wreck the Democratic Party brand and impoverish working families. A long-time war-monger, she voted against most Democrats to back Bush’s attack on Iraq. But she’s pro-Choice and pro-gay, so she can pass herself off as a "liberal," which is patently absurd... and dangerous to the serious efforts going on to win these seats and swap out conservatives for actual progressives.

California Congressional Races Looking Good For Democrats

California went through a nonpartisan congressional redistricting and it looks like it could work out well for Democrats. Although the Republicans were once hopeful they could make conservative Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney's race competitive (CA-09), last month a poll, from Celinda Lake, the most consistently accurate pollster in America, showed McNerney with a pretty insurmountable 16 point lead over Ricky Gill, an unemployed 25 year old stalker with a fake resume. The NRCC also had some kind of delusion they sold to the clueless media-- and Colusa County supervisor Kim Vann-- that they could beat John Garamendi (CA-03). Two polls have shown Garamendi leading by 15 points.

The DCCC is backing 7 challengers in Republican-held districts: Ami Bera (CA-07), Jose Hernandez (CA-10), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Raul Ruiz (CA-36), Mark Takano (CA-41), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), and Scott Peters (CA-52). Bera and Peters have been endorsed by the pro-business, anti-consumer/anti-worker New Dem Coalition. Takano is a progressive. The rest are somewhere in between. The most obvious race the DCCC should be pursuing, CA-25, pitting Dr. Lee Rogers, a progressive, against House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon, who is drowning in a sea of corruption scandals and a local GOP civil war, is being studiously and aggressively ignored by "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel. (You can contribute to helping Rogers replace McKeon here.) The DCCC doesn't take on Republican leaders like Boehner and Cantor and they don't take on Republican committee chairs like Paul Ryan and Buck McKeon. They specialize in faceless, unknown backbenchers. OK, someone's got to. But someone has to go after these galoots as well too... and corrupt hacks Steve Israel, Joe Crowley and Debbie Wasserman Schultz take too much cash from the same nefarious interests that finance your Eric Cantors and Buck McKeons and Paul Ryans to ever go up against them.



On the other hand, the good news is that Ventura County Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (CA-26) leads Republican extremist Tony Strickland by 4 points (48-44%) according to a recent poll by Tulchin Research. She has a decent record in the state legislature and would probably wind up voting with the Democrats on all important issues. Even better news is that the one real progressive the DCCC is backing in the state, Mark Takano (CA-41), is ahead of Chamber of Commerce candidate, Republican John Tavaglione by 4 points (42-38%), even with ConservaDem Riverside mayor Ron Loveridge campaigning for the Republican. And in the new 47th CD (Long Beach, Westminster, Cypress and Garden Grove), state Senator Alan Lowenthal leads Republican Gary DeLong by 11 points (47-36%), despite a huge fundraising advantage by DeLong.

Dr. Ami Bera, who has come close twice before, is tied with far right Congressman Dan Lungren at 47%, and after positives Bera leads by five points (51-46%). Obama leads Romney 52-44% in this same poll. Similarly, conservative New Dem Scott Peters is tied with shady incumbent Brian Bilbray in two recent polls, one at 45-45% and one at 40-40%. Peters is a total Steve Israel brand of candidate and the DCCC is expected to spend close to $2 million on this race.

And even in the two races where the DCCC candidates are losing, they're not losing badly and could make up some lost ground. Dr. Raul Ruiz (CA-36) trails Mary Bono Mack by only two points (43-45%) with 12 percent of voters undecided, according to a recent PPP poll. Obama leads Romney 49% to 48% in this same poll. And freshman Jeff Denham (CA-10) is under 50% with astronaut Jose Hernandez trailing by just seven points (41-48%) with 12 percent of voters undecided, according to a recent PPP poll. Obama and Romney are tied at 47% in this same poll.

Meanwhile, the big one in California is CA-25, the one Steve Israel, for whatever reason, is adamant on throwing. McKeon has been the epitome of right wing conservatism and his career is characterized as being anti-gay, pro-war, and anti-immigrant, and as a leader in the war against women. As chair of the House Armed Services Committee, he opposes any reduction in defense spending or withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. He promotes proliferation of nuclear weapons, threatening Iran with war, and the use of military drones domestically. He is the top recipient of campaign cash from the defense industry-- more even than any TWO senators!-- and he founded and chairs the drone caucus, which is giving him money hand over fist.

Several other circumstances make McKeon vulnerable for the first time. Redistricting was not favorable to him. The 25th CD used to be the second largest in California and had a 9 point partisan Republican advantage. Now it is a more compact, a mostly LA County district with a 4 point Republican advantage over Democrats and 18% Decline-To-State voters. The district is now 30% Latino, a group McKeon has alienated with his anti-DREAM Act stance and he’s even been caught trying to help overturn California’s state DREAM act.

What makes the race unique is that several large scandals have surfaced this year surrounding McKeon. The largest is the Countrywide Financial VIP program in which McKeon received a preferential loan at the direct intervention of then-CEO Angelo Mozilo. He lied about his involvement and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently released their report implicating McKeon. Issa, the chairman, referred to this loan program as a “bribe” on TV. National and in-district media have covered this story extensively. A newspaper poll even showed McKeon losing to an unnamed challenger over this issue.

McKeon has several FEC violations and failure to report in-kind donations and pays his wife to be his treasurer, in effect, illegally funneling vast amounts of campaign contributions into his personal household accounts. She is the highest paid congressional spouse and has made $600,000 from the campaign in recent years. McKeon also pays other family members for questionable services.

In the district, there is a gaping rift in the Republican party. McKeon former district director, Scott Wilk, is running for State Assembly in AD-38, a district wholly located inside CA-25. McKeon and Wilk separated on bad terms and McKeon ran his wife Patricia against him in the primary. Patricia lost embarrassingly, but not before causing irreparable damage to McKeon. In fact, all of his supported candidates in 2012 have lost local and state elections in the district, including the incumbent mayor of Santa Clarita. Being endorsed by McKeon is known as the kiss of death for any local Republican.

McKeon’s Democratic opponent is Dr. Lee Rogers, a surgeon and former national spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association and first time candidate. I know Lee personally and he's an independent-minded progressive who is articulate, intelligent and committed to public service in the same terms he's been committed to serving his medical patients.

Meanwhile, McKeon’s hometown newspaper, The Signal, refused to endorse him for the first time in 20 years in the primary over the CEMEX mining issue that Lee's been all over and will probably be the most important single issue in the minds of voters when they go into the voting booth. Please help us make sure Lee beats McKeon-- even without any help from Steve Israel, Joe Crowley and the rest of the corrupt DC insiders. You can contribute here.

Streams Of Consciousness, Dec. 2

Wonderers are wondering how the incredibly popular and respected Donna Edwards missed out on being elected chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus last night. More than a few sources have told me that even after Donna's idea for swapping out the co-chair structure for a single chairmanwoman was voted down, Donna was still in the running-- along with the two eventual winners, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). What did her candidacy in, oddly enough, was the aggressive advocacy by the very much disliked and ineffective outgoing co-chair, Lynn Woolsey. "Her leadership style," she told caucus members all week, "will be just like mine." That was enough to bring in a couple dozen CPC members who normally don't vote in these kinds of caucus meetings and who aren't aware that Donna is nothing like the demented and confused Woolsey (who was originally pushed into Congress by the Petaluma City Council so they could get rid of her).

Her whispering about how the extremely well-liked and admired Grijalva was "impossible to work with," wound up hurting Donna by being associated, albeit unfairly, with Woolsey. The Caucus then went on to elect Hank Johnson (D-GA) whip and 5 vice-Chair/liasons-- Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus), William Lacey Clay (Hispanic & Native American Caucuses), Chellie Pingree (Women's Caucus), Judy Chu (Asian and Pacific American Caucus), and Tammy Baldwin (LGBT Caucus). Grijalva and Ellison issued the following joint statement after their election:

“We are honored to have the opportunity to serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for the 112th Congress.  We will work tirelessly to project a progressive vision for America, and to advocate that vision to the American public.  Working families deserve a commitment from Congress to look out for their interests every day, and the Progressive Caucus will be on the front lines to honor that commitment.
 
The 112th Congress will present many challenges and opportunities for this country. As co-chairs, we will advocate for America’s working families and strive to ensure middle class prosperity for generations to come. We will work with President Obama to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and to make peace the guiding principle of our foreign policy. We will be the first to reject and defeat Republican attempts to eliminate benefits for unemployed Americans even as they call for another billionaire bailout. We will continue to work with the broader progressive community to ensure that every American who wants to work can find a good-paying job to support their family. These and other fights will take time and dedication, and we welcome the opportunity to lead the way.
 
With Republicans promising to scrooge the country out of a secure retirement, our commitment to protect the American middle class will be more important than ever. The American people need effective advocates-- in and outside of Washington-- to restore their faith in their government’s ability and willingness to do the right thing. Over the next two years, Republicans are going to push as hard as they can to cut programs that the American people depend on, like Social Security, and the Progressive Caucus will be out in front reminding them that Congress works for all of the American people, not just the top tax bracket. We stand ready to take on these important fights, and intend to win them decisively. America deserves no less.”

I saw some interesting responses from Democratic insiders over the 234-188 passage of the middle class tax cuts extension today. (We'll have an analysis of this vote up at 6AM.) One congressional buddy of mine told me he thinks if the vote had been taken before the midterms many Democrats who were defeated could have run on it and kept their seats. The Blue Dogs who told Hoyer they would lose if it was voted on before the midterms lost anyway, over two dozen of the most worthless and scummiest of them-- many of whom voted against the middle class tax cuts anyway today.

Obama, who Matt Bai reported today in the NY Times privately considers himself a Blue Dog, had an absolutely dreadful reaction to the passage of the bill. My friend Brad Reed from Crooks and Liars, in a fit of rage, e-mailed me a simple statement Obama should have made after the vote: "The House has already passed an extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans. This is an urgent matter for many families and deserves an up-or-down vote. If the Republicans want to filibuster this bill and raise taxes on the entire country just so Paris Hilton can afford a new pool, that's their business. But I'm not working for Paris Hilton. I'm working for 98% of the country." It could have been tweaked a bit, but you get the idea. Instead this is the statement Obama issued, completely stabbing Pelosi and the House Democrats in the back:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon. The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Another in a long series of botched "negotiations" from an inept political department in the White House.

Roll Call ran this today: "While the White House and Republicans have all but agreed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts for several years, House and Senate Democrats are still resisting that arrangement. Additionally, while those broad parameters may be settled, what other pieces of the puzzle will be included-- such as unemployment insurance or a set of tax cuts included in last year’s stimulus bill-- have yet to be determined." Like I said this morning, this wimp we put in the White House is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.

Meanwhile the DCCC was somewhat more proactive than the White House. When Obama ran in 2008, he beat McCain in Dave Reichert's suburban Seattle district 57-42%, one of his top performances in a Republican-held congressional district anywhere. Reichert scraped by with 53%. This year, even with the GOP tidal wave, he only scored the same shaky 53% against a political novice Suzan DelBene. Today he voted against extending middle class tax cuts. This is, in part, what the DCCC sent out to media in his district:

Even as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to afford gas, groceries, and housing, today Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans voted to give 98 percent of middle class families the one thing they need the least right now-- a hike in their taxes.
 
Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans’ vote against middle class tax relief comes weeks after Republican Leader John Boehner said he would support extending tax relief only to the middle class. Yet, rather than provide tax relief that will help struggling families make ends meet and small businesses to hire more workers, Representative Dave Reichert is holding these tax cuts hostage to provide tax breaks to millionaires.
 
“Instead of giving immediate tax relief to 98 percent of middle class families and small businesses who need it the most, Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans are fighting to give tax breaks to those who need them the least,” said Ryan Rudominer of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s outrageous that Representative Dave Reichert would vote to raise taxes on 98 percent of Americans during these tough times instead of doing everything possible to help families make ends meet and businesses to create more jobs.”

The measure includes:

o   A permanent extension of the 10%, 25% and 28% rate brackets. It also permanently extends the 33% rate bracket to the extent that this bracket applies to income of $200,000 or less for single filers ($250,000 or less for joint filers). 

o   A two-year extension of alternative minimum tax relief to protect more than 25 million families from the AMT. 

 o   A permanent reduction in capital gains and dividend tax relief for middle-class taxpayers.

 o   A permanent marriage penalty relief for middle-class taxpayers.
 
 o   A permanent extension of small business expensing amounts, to ensure that small business taxpayers be allowed to quickly recover the cost of certain capital expenses.

The DCCC sent similar press releases out to the media in districts that include Republican leaders like Boehner, Pence, Sessions and Cantor, as well as to districts where Obama did well in 2008, like those represented by Judy Biggert (IL-13), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Paul Ryan (WI-01), Aaron Schock (IL-18), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Leonard Lance (NJ-07) and several others.

Of course they didn't send similar press releases to media in eastern Oklahoma, where Dan Boren crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against these tax cuts, nor in western Minnesota, where another Blue Dog, Collin Peterson, did exactly the same thing. And California conservatives who voted against middle class tax cuts, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson were spared as well. There's never any price to pay for these kinds of outrageous votes within the caucus. Ironic how the DCCC just spent $1,031,192.02 in Independent Expenditures saving McNerney, in a district where Democrats and left-leaning independents stayed away from the polls in droves because of his conservative voting record-- a conservative voting record that attracted no conservatives whatsoever, of course. They all voted for the Republican. McNerney barely won, and only after a tense recanvas and even then only with a margin of just over around 600 votes, one of the closest calls for any victorious incumbent in the country.

Rangel Gets Censured

Charlie's such a likable guy. I was cheering to see so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus voting against censure today. And then to see one of Congress' most corrupt Republicans, Alaska career criminal Don Young, vote NO gave me a warm feeling for that old reprobate as well. But then I caught myself and reminded myself that even though the deck was stacked in Rangel's favor in terms of a real investigation and the charges he was found guilty of were technical and almost silly, he is the worst of what our political system vomits up. He's as crooked as Jerry Lewis. He's as crooked as Ken Calvert. How do I know? I know-- I know first hand. Let's leave it at that so I don't wind up as a witness at a real trial one day. The censure vote went against him 333-79, although a chastened (chastened for getting caught and disgraced, not chastened for being a crook) Rangel got a standing ovation after he was censured.

Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke voted against censure. This was her statement:

“Today, the House of Representatives took a vote on a resolution to censure Rep. Charles B. Rangel after the House Ethics Committee found him in violation of 11 counts of violating the House Rules of Conduct. After a thorough consideration of all the charges and the recommendation from the Committee, I have decided not to vote in support of censuring Congressman Rangel.

“Congressman Rangel has publicly taken full responsibility for his conduct over the years that violated House Rules. However, as it stands with Rep. Rangel, the Committee did not find any proof of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or acting for personal gain. His violations were primarily a result of improper, bad and inaccurate recordkeeping in regards to his financial affairs. While these are serious offenses to House Rules, Rep. Rangel’s actions are not consistent with the precedents in which Members of Congress have been censured.

“The precedent of censure used by the House Ethics Committee has been raised to the level of such offenses as improper sexual misconduct, were convicted in a court of law, or presented false statements to the Standard of Official Conduct Committee. Censure has been used exactly four times in the last 100 years because it is a severe penalty. It is not an appropriate penalty in the case of Rep. Rangel. I believe that Rep. Rangel should have been considered for a less charge that would be appropriate to his violations. This is precisely why I voted yes for a resolution offered by Rep. Bobby Scott, which substituted a penalty of reprimand for that of censure. I strongly believe that his punishment over exceeded his offense.

“Congressman Rangel has been vocal in taking responsibility of his actions and has taken steps to rectify the faulty financial disclosure paper work or any other the violations.  I strongly believe that Congressman Rangel’s service to our nation and his district will remain in history for years to come.  I am confident that despite the circumstances, he will continue to be an effective legislator.”

Issa

I can't wait for Darrell Issa, who Boehner is appointing to head the House Oversight Committee in January, to start issuing subpoenas. He plans to spend the next two years bothering Democrats with typically Republican frivolous investigations... he says he has 500 planned. That's almost one a day! The reason I'm so excited about Issa's subpoenas is because he's another GOP career criminal-- started as a common car thief-- albeit a serial car thief-- and never stopped. He's now the richest man in Congress and when he was subpoenaed for his role in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, he refused to submit to the subpoena. We'll be reminding Democrats of this regularly. And so will Issa Exposed, the new Everything Issa website, that launched this afternoon.

Bachmann Overdrive

Driving home last night I was listening to Mike Malloy. The guys so awesome but he really got carried away with his fantasy of angry Everymen running into Congress and dragging Republicans out of their offices and bearing them (to death, but he never said that; he's no dummy). Now Minnesota religious fanatic/teabag queen (self proclaimed) Michele Bachmann... she's a dummy. Today she was yowling about an insurrection again. She told some religious-right website that there will be a need for an insurrection-- but she wasn't just talking about Obama. She now has a grudge against Boehner and his cronies.

[T]here will need to be an “insurrection” against the House Republican leadership if it does not hold an independent, straight up-or-down vote on repealing the entire Obamacare law that does not tie this repeal to other policy initiatives including any effort to “replace” elements of Obamacare with new federal health-care reforms.

A spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), who will be the House majority leader in the next Congress, told CNSNews.com in response to Bachmann’s statement that Cantor agrees with Bachmann and is committed to the vote she wants.

Did You Kick In For Bernie Sanders Yet?

Obama's got to be primaried. He froze out Hope. Krugman wrote today Democrats have no choice but to look elsewhere for leadership:

After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking-- successfully, it seems-- to destroy him.

So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.

...there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands-- to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.

There were no comparable gestures from the other side. Instead, Senate Republicans declared that none of the rest of the legislation on the table-- legislation that includes such things as a strategic arms treaty that’s vital to national security-- would be acted on until the tax-cut issue was resolved, presumably on their terms.

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure-- that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Does Nigeria Have An Extradition Treaty With America?

Who wants to see Dick Cheney spend the rest of his life in prison? In Nigeria?

How Did Jerry McNerney Win Reelection?

This week, in one of only two congressional races too close to call, Rep. Jerry McNerney was finally declared the winner in the 11th CD, a swing district east of San Francisco. His opponent, David Harmer, was having too much fun in DC, at the Republican freshman orientation week, to concede.

The latest ballot-tallying updates from the most populous part of the district showed McNerney, D-Pleasanton, again had widened his lead over Republican challenger David Harmer to a margin of 2,475 votes, or about 1 percent of the 237,808 ballots counted. The Associated Press reported fewer than 1,900 ballots remained to be counted.

...McNerney, having secured his third term in the House of Representatives, leads Harmer in Alameda County by about 15.5 percentage points and in Santa Clara County by 8.2 percentage points.

Harmer leads McNerney by 0.15 of a point in Contra Costa County and by 3.6 percentage points in San Joaquin County; that latter number decreased from a 4.3 percentage-point lead as of Nov. 10. San Joaquin County is also where David Christensen, the American Independent nominee for the seat, fared best, with almost 7.1 percent of the votes cast; districtwide, he took about 5.2 percent.

McNerney first ran for Congress, against a very powerful and very corrupt incumbent, Richard "Dirty Dick" Pombo in 2004. McNerney didn't do very well-- scoring just 39% (103,587 votes) to Pombo's 61% (163,582). But McNerney-- and California activists-- sensed a path to victory in 2006 and McNerney never really stopped running. He was unquestionably the grassroots fave for the whole state of California and, primarily because Pombo was something of a caricature of a pollution-loving, sleazy pol, the race took on tremendous national significance. But before McNerney could get to a rematch with Pombo, there was a problem: Rahm Emanuel.

Inexplicably, the junior House Member-- who was widely loathed for his role in forcing enough Democrats to vote for NAFTA to pass what was basically a deadly Republican policy-- was appointed to head the DCCC. He set about recruiting corporate friend, conservative-oriented hacks like Tim Mahoney and Heath Shuler... from sea to shining sea. In California, Emanuel worked through conservative corporate shill, former stock trader and fellow New Dem, Ellen Tauscher in the neighboring 10th CD. Tauscher and Emanuel recruited a less grassroots-oriented, more corporate quasi-Democrat like themselves, Steve Filson, and then worked to drum up institutional support for him (including Nancy Pelosi) and cut off funding and support from McNerney. It was at that point that progressives started flocking to McNerney's banner in a major way. Local unions and the California Democratic Party supported him. Here's part of a post I wrote at the time:

... [U]nlike in many districts where their tactics have worked, Democrats in the 11th CD are too independent and feisty for them and have only pushed back harder against the anti-grassroots, anti-progressive, Inside-the-Beltway Democratic power elite. Filson's pathetic candidacy, despite all the big name Beltway-ites behind him, just has not taken off. McNerney just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

And today something really healthy for the 11th CD and for the California Democratic Party happened. The State Democratic Party Convention told Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Ellen Tauscher and all the other power-for-power's sake Democrats to go screw themselves, voting overwhelmingly to endorse Jerry McNerney. Party rules-- not the ones Emanuel ignores by declaring war on grassroots candidates everywhere in the country, but California Democratic Party rules-- require 60% of the delegates' approval to endorse a candidate in a contested primary. 75% of the delegates voted to endorse McNerney, making it unclear whether or not Emanuel and Tauscher will tell their puppet candidate to pack it up now.

In the end, Emanuel's ex-Republican shill, Filson, only managed to get 28.5% of the primary vote, a stunning defeat for the Inside-the-Beltway Establishment and a major victory for grassroots Democrats and progressives. At that point Emanuel and the DCCC lost all interest in CA-11 and, having forced McNerney to spend $300,000 of the $449,000 he had raised, abandoned him. Independent grasssroots PACs, like Blue America, stepped in, as did-- more importantly-- environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Sierra Club, League of Conservation voters, and Clean Water Action. Pouting, Emanuel insisted McNerney had no chance to defeat Pombo. That proved to be a great incentive for progressives to work even harder. In the end Pombo spent $4,629,983 and McNerney spent $2,422,962. McNerney won 109,868 votes (53.2%) to Pombo's 96,396 (46.73%) despite separate campaign appearances by both George W. Bush and Laura Bush. It was one of the sweetest victories on a very good night for grassroots Democrats and progressives around the country.

McNerney had asked people in the district to make a choice. "Do we want more of Richard Pombo protecting Big Oil or do you want to join me and start down a path that leads to energy independence and clean air? Do you want a congressman who continues to subsidize Big Oil or do you want someone who's going to stand up and demand that the oil companies actually pay their fair share? Here in the 11th district, do we want to continue to send Richard Pombo to Washington to cut shady deals that make him and his powerful friends richer, or do we want to restore honesty, integrity and accountability to Congress?"

But then a funny thing happened after election. Jerry McNerney went from a progressive grassroots poster boy to... well... someone who's better than a Republican. He voted to continue Bush's Iraq war policies (then backed away from that position momentarily) and then just sank into a shocking series of positions that alienated virtually all of his most energetic grassroots supporters. By the 111th Congress his ProgressivePunch score was only 52.03, indicating he had voted slightly more frequently with Democrats on contentious, substantive issues than with Republicans. He never joined the Blue Dogs but he voted more conservatively than some of them, including all the California Blue Dogs, Mike Thompson (79.03), Adam Schiff (78.23), Loretta Sanchez (77.78) Joe Baca (68.03), Dennis Cardoza (60.16) and Jim Costa (54.62). In fact, McNerney slipped across the aisle to vote with the Republicans more frequently than any other California Democrat!

Predictably, progressives and activists who had helped propel McNerney into Congress in 2006, were not very enthusiastic about his race this year. He had stopped communicating with progressives entirely and told Bay Area activists to stay away from his campaign. They did. So did plenty of Democratic and left-leaning independent voters.

In 2006 McNerney beat Pombo's support in the district's exurban Republican heartland (San Joaquin County) by racking up big leads in the suburban counties more in sync with the Bay Area. While he only took 49% of San Joaquin, the biggest part of the district, he managed to win with 62% in Alameda, 54% in Contra Costa and 61% in Santa Clara.

In 2008-- with Obama 10 points ahead of McCain (and 9 points ahead of what both Gore and Kerry had done in the district)-- McNerney increased his vote significantly in his first reelection bid. He beat Dean Andal 164,500 (55%) to 133,104 (45%) and won in all four counties, including an unlikely 52-48% win in San Joaquin! He took 64% in Alameda, 56% in Contra Costa and 59% in Santa Clara.

This year, many Democratic voters just stayed home, disillusioned or disinterested. McNerney's percentage went down in every county and he didn't just lose San Joaquin County, but Contra Costa as well. McNerney scored 56% in Alameda, 48% in Contra Costa, 44% in San Joaquin and 52% in Santa Clara.

Harmer outspent him $1,945,407 to $1,752,441 (as of October 13, the last FEC report available), although they each raised about $2.5 million. The DCCC spent $1,031,192.02 attacking Harmer and AFSCME spent ad additional $149,998.80 against him. Harmer didn't get the mega outside spending explosions that could have done to McNerney what they did to Alan Grayson, Mary Jo Kilroy and Carol Shea Porter. Rove ignored the race and the U.S. Chamber only spent $415,184.00. The NRCC's Independent Expenditures in CA-11 only amounted to $357,843.59 and the Club For Growth came to the table with $65,148.88, just barely above what Defenders of Wildlife spent helping McNerney. A GOP anti-choice PAC (Susan B. Anthony List) put up $5,924.08 against McNerney while Planned Parenthood spent $47,911.30 defending him. What was missing was the enthusiasm and activism that money can't buy. It nearly cost McNerney the reelection. The closeness this time guarantees a major effort to defeat him in 2012. The GOP will recruit a strong opponent and make sure he is well-financed. If I were McNerney, I would be seeking to mend some fences with progressives right now.

UPDATE: Someone Knows The Answer To The Question In The Title

This is an e-mail I just got from a very knowledgeable insider who's never steered me wrong:

Jerry survived because he still had the activists working for him - no one wanted that right-winger to win.

His former Chief of Staff, Angela Kouters, who was a Rahm underling was the reason for his turn to the right in his first term in office. She was the one pushing the Blue Dog agenda. She chased off all of the people that got him there.

Well she left Jerry after that first term as it wasn't a good fit for either of them. She went to work for Glenn Nye and they were Blue Dogs to the extreme. Nye is such as asshole that after losing he still refuses to extend unemployment insurance for the 99ers even though he has nothing to lose, and hell he and Kouters might even need UI soon enough.

If you haven't seen this blog posting from a local blogger in Nye's district, it gives you a good overview of Nye and Kouters disasterous political positioning. Basically what she did to Nye, was what she was doing to McNerney, luckily they got rid of her, and Jerry was no longer going around co-sponsoring legislation on immigration from Tom Tancredo, etc.

Good News In Northern California

Dean Andal must have been in the men's room

If California Republicans were smarter they would have focussed all their energy and their meager resources to try to hold onto the seats of endangered rubber stamps like David Dreier, Dana Rohrabacher and Brian Bilbray. Instead, they foolishly blustered around northern California, as delusional as ever, thinking they could win back Pombo's old seat with a Pombo-clone and win the seat John Doolittle has so thoroughly disgraced with a Doolittle-clone. Wrong on both counts.

The GOP's hopes for recapturing CA-11 have been spiraling rapidly downward as Jerry McNerney and his constituents have gotten to know and like each other better and better. Even Republican-leaning media outlets that supported Pombo have to admit that McNerney has been providing the San Joaquin Valley district with the best representation its had in many, many years. The opponent the hapless Republicans have put up, right-wing extremist Dean Andal, is already rolling around in the mud of scandal-- even before the election! And then there's the little fundraising problem... Andal's got the stench of death all over him. No one wants to get too close.

A bit further north, is CA-04, a district specifically created for Republicans. But even a district like that can only take so much before they just say "no more." And, according to the latest polling, that's exactly what they're doing. Charlie Brown, already well known and well-liked across party lines, almost beat Doolittle in 2006, when Doolittle's massive corruption case was just a rumor. It's gone way beyond rumor and no one doubts that Mr-- and Mrs-- Doolittle will be spending some considerable time contemplating their crimes in federal prison. Doolittle announced he wouldn't be running again and the GOP let out a collective sign of relief... and then managed to find someone even worse! Tom McClintock is not merely a worse and more radical extremist than Doolittle, he's not even from the district! He's not even from near the district. He's an L.A. guy.

And for anyone whose attention span is so short that they can't remember much about the Republican Culture of Corruption that has so taken root in DC, Doolittle's crooked chief-of-staff, a close associate of Jack Abramoff's, was charged with "conspiracy, fraud and obstruction of justice for allegedly providing lawmakers and officials with gifts to win favors for lobbying clients." (That's a polite way of saying bribery.) He has the nerve to even buy Dixie Chicks tickets for some of these crooks! What happened to the right-wing boycott! Why not buy them tickets to see Ted Nugent?

People who want more of that can vote for John McCain and vote for Tom McClintock. The two members of Congress who look likely to wind up in prison with Ring are Ernest Istook, former Oklahoma Republican congressman, once voted the most homophobic asshole in the House, and, of course, Doolittle. It's great that Doolittle wants to fight this-- he still claims that everything is just circumstantial and a coincidence and that he-- and the crooked wife-- didn't do anything wrong. The longer and harder he fights, the more he'll drag McClintock and the GOP down the toilet with him. Go, Doolittle, Go!

REPUBLICANS INTENT ON PICKING OFF REACTIONARY DEMOCRATS WHO VOTE LIKE REPUBLICANS

Bush Regime mouthpiece/right-wing propaganda sheet Weekly Standard is trying to bolster a counterintuitive notion that the GOP is not dead yet by quoting Democratic pollster Stu Rothenberg. Rothenberg acknowledges that the NRCC has some reason to be hopeful that they can minimize House losses by winning back a handful of seats that Democrats captured in deeply red districts. Rothenberg lists 5 as problematic for the Democrats.

Of them, a handful stand out because of their fundamentally Republican nature. Rep. Nick Lampson’s Texas district is horrible for Democrats, and that’s why he probably is the single most endangered Democrat who won in 2006. Yes, the Republican field has evolved in such a way that it now lacks big-name local officeholders, but that doesn’t change Lampson’s dubious prospects.

Reps. Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Christopher Carney (Pa.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.) and Jerry McNerney (Calif.) probably round out the top five ‘06 Democratic takeovers who are now vulnerable to a snapback...

If you examine the Progressive Punch rankings of every Democrat in the House you find Lampson way at the bottom of the barrel, far more likely to vote with the GOP than all but 3 reactionary Dixiecrats, John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Marshall (GA). Lampson's the 4th worst; not very inspiring for Democrats to go out and vote or to volunteer. But is it enough to convince actual Republicans to vote for him?

Chris Carney finds himself in a similar situation-- very red district, very Republican-friendly voting record that antagonizes every Democratic constituency except die-hard partisans who just want someone with a "D" next to their name, regardless how he votes on crucial values issues. Carney not only has a decidedly reactionary voting record, he has also developed a reputation for dishonesty and political expediency.

Tim Mahoney isn't even really a Democrat. Last year when Rahm Emanuel decided to take out hypocritical Republican closet queen/child predator Mark Foley, he found a wealthy countryclub Republican, Mahoney, convinced him to switch his party registration and run as a Democrat. In return Emanuel and Hoyer and their puppets at the pathetic excuse for a Florida Democratic Party knifed an anti-war grassroots progressive, Dave Lutrin, in the back so that Mahoney the Republican would have no opposition in a Democratic primary, and then made sure the Foley news was timed just right for an electoral win, Since coming to Congress Mahoney has supported the Bush Regime far more frequently than almost any other freshmen Democrats.

Nancy Boyda and Jerry McNerney have both racked up moderate voting records that reflect their red-leaning moderate districts. Each has a reputation in their district as a popular political straight-shooter and, although the DCCC is clueless about how to operate-- or even read-- either district, both seats are probably safe. Boyda was smart enough to tell the DCCC to keep out of her race altogether and let her do it on her own, the way she did last time. If McNerney is in trouble at all, with I doubt, it is because he has alienated his own personal core supporters in the progressive activist base. By burnishing his moderate credentials he may have lost many of his most avid volunteers and the goodwill of bloggers and activists but he has endeared himself to independents and moderate Republicans in the district and his seat looks far safer than freshmen who have chalked up truly reactionary voting records, particularly Lampson and Carney, the two Democrats I would bet will lose next year.

BLUE AMERICA HAS ANOTHER JERRY McNERNEY MOMENT

Jerry McNerney's election to Congress was an outstanding success for local grassroots activists and for the national and local netroots. He was one of the top recipients of donations from Blue America in 2006. 1,099 from our community contributed over $25,000 to his campaign (average donation $22.83). He won convincingly against a powerful and entrenched 7-term incumbent, Richard Pombo (who spent $4.6 million, not including several more millions spent by right-wing committees on his behalf), in CA-11, a Republican district that gave Kerry and Gore 45% each-- but awarded McNerney 53% of the vote. And even before that, Jerry had to overcome the forces of conservative Establishment, virulently anti-grassroots Democrats (Ellen Tauscher and Rahm Emanuel) who fielded their own candidate in the primary. The netroots bubbled over with enthusiasm for Jerry.

Since then, the mood has darkened considerably. Jerry's overall voting record is decent... but by no means heroic. Most of the other freshmen who have been endorsed by Blue America again-- in fact all of them with the exception of Patrick Murphy-- have more progressive voting records, including freshmen in similarly red-leaning districts, like John Hall and Carol Shea-Porter. But it wasn't Jerry's iffy voting record that has caused an explosion of-- at the minimum-- confusion from his supporters. Jerry won the seat for a lot of reasons but if you had to pick the one reason that earned him the dedicated support of the grassroots it was, hands down, his principled stand on Iraq. He wasn't equivocating and contradicting himself in 2005-6. Pombo was the Bush rubber stamp; Jerry was the one who wanted to end the occupation of Iraq. I don't really have any doubt that he still does. But he's given lots of other people plenty of reasons to wonder, including many of his earliest and most devoted backers like, for example, Babaloo. And even a big pushover like myself has become exasperated. This outstanding Calitics thread started by Julia Rosen contains some of the best writing you'll find anywhere on the controversy. Every point of view is covered.

A couple months ago, we had a... situation that came up with another freshman we backed in '06, Chris Carney. There were several differences, the most glaring of which is that Jerry asked to come over and speak with us, and when we took him up on it, he started proposing dates immediately and worked with us to find time while the topic is sizzling hot. Carney refused to even come out from under his desk for a phone chat and instead has been trying to use us, his former supporters, as a kind of Sister Souljah, labeling us as irrational and bragging to reactionaries that he's standing up against our demands (our only demand, by the way, is honesty and an explanation). So Congressman McNerney joins us this evening at Firedoglake (6pm, PT) for a frank discussion of the issues that will hopefully lead to a better understanding on all sides. Aside from reading the linked Calitics thread above, I want to suggest you do three other things to prepare for Jerry. Remember that we are all on the same team and that no one here tonight is Bush or Cheney or Pombo. Let's all conduct ourselves with self respect and with respect for everyone else's points of view. And let me also suggest two videos, a general one that the San Francisco Chronicle posted yesterday about Jerry's race and one from Darcy Burner, another Democratic leader that, to my mind, sets a high standard for Democrats, one each and every one of them should take to heart. Here she is talking about Bush's disgraceful FISA bill, one Jerry voted against (whew).



You can find both Darcy Burner and Jerry McNerney on our Blue America page. We'll be watching how everyone who reads this post "votes."


UPDATE: JERRY'S INITIAL STATEMENT AT FDL

Jerry arrived promptly and started with a statement. Please read it and then check out the entire archive of the discussion at FDL

I sat down ahead of time and thought through what I wanted to say to the FireDogLake community tonight. I’ve talked with many people about this. What’s written below may read a little cleaner than other statements I may make tonight but that’s because tonight I’ll be typing on the fly. Please read what I’ve written below and then let’s start the discussion.

This is an important discussion, and I’m glad that there’s so much interest. I’m sure some of you may strongly disagree with me, but I hope that we can all respect each other and our motives. I’ve been absolutely opposed to the war from the beginning and will do everything I can to end it as soon as possible.

I hope that this live blog enlightens everyone, including me. Dissent and frank discussion are the essence of democracy. That’s not something I am afraid of and that’s why I’m here with you today to talk and share ideas.

To start this discussion, let me be clear about where I stand.

I want to end this war as soon as possible. In practical terms, that means beginning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq now and end with a fixed date.

It’s important that we begin the withdrawal soon because it will take time to remove all of our troops and equipment from the country. Like Gary, a staffer and friend who’s in the Navy Reserves said to me: the last guy doesn’t head home until after the first guy does.

But in order to force that withdrawal we need to have a veto-proof majority so that we can overrule President Bush. That’s why sympathetic Republicans are key to beginning a withdrawal from Iraq and bringing our troops home. We don’t yet have that veto-proof majority – but we need to get there.

If the Democrats pass a resolution to bring the troops home and end the war, President Bush will veto it and it will be little more than a hollow victory. That veto will be portrayed as partisan grandstanding. Just look at the coverage of past attempts.

I truly believe that the best and soonest way to end this tragic war is to work with open-minded Republicans to find an acceptable end date. That’s what I believe, and that’s what I will fight for.

JERRY McNERNEY CLARIFIES HIS IRAQ POSITION

Last night we talked about Democrats who who have gone over to the Greed Zone and been razzled and dazzled by the Bush Regime's siren song of military success. Republican-in-Democrat's clothing Tim Mahoney (FL) and Brian Baird (WA) seem lost to the cause of reason and a few days ago, highly respected blogger Babaloo wondered aloud whether Netroots hero Jerry McNerney (D-CA) hadn't also drank the Kool Aid. Returning from a trip to Baghdad he issued a confusing statement.

After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he’ll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home. “I’m more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” McNerney said.

Reading it made me wonder if McNerney was jetlagged or drugged when he said it. Today he issued a clarification.

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date ("date certain") and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an "open-ended" timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

Jerry urged Americans to carefully read The War As We Saw It, an Op-Ed that appeared in Sunday's NY Times, written by 7 military men stationed in Iraq which puts all the Bush Regime propaganda efforts to the lie.

Jerry's blog has his full explanation and he sent the following note to the Blue America community:

Thank you to everyone at FDL, Crooks & Liars and DWT for always taking the time to let me know your concerns about Iraq and many of the other difficult issues facing us as Americans. You stood behind me when I ran for Congress against Richard Pombo and I hope you'll stand behind me now as the debate on the war heats up again in Congress.

As soon as I get a chance, I would enjoy live-blogging again with all of you and Howie on Blue America. In the meantime, if you have thoughts you would like to share with me and our community, please post a comment on my blog or privately to the "Contact Us" section of our campaign web site.

UPDATE: BABALOO SAYS SHE'S RELIEVED. IF SHE IS, WE ALL ARE

Babaloo, who was instrumental in helping Jerry gather netroots support for his race originally, called on him to clarify his stand. She's looked it over and says she's relieved.


IS McNERNEY SCHIZOPHRENIC? DID THEY GIVE HIM SOME KIND OF DRUG IN THE GREED ZONE?

This from today's Washington Post:

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

He doesn't accept that the Bush Regime is the enemy.

SOME DEMOCRATS WHO REPRESENT GRASSROOTS AMERICANS ARE ADAMENTLY OPPOSED TO GIVING BUSH ANOTHER BLANK CHECK

I'm not 100% sure that 100% of the Democratic leaders-- read "reactionary war-mongers, like Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Ellen Tauscher, and Artur Davis," for example-- are just afraid of Bush. (Of course, some are afraid and pathetic.)

Today CBS and the NY Times point out that public opposition to Bush's entire war agenda is at an all-time high. Emanuel and Hoyer are political operators and longtime war supporters. Bush and the hated Republican minority are just their excuse. And their next line of defense will be the Republican's partisan hack general Patraeus.

I'd like to mention that Democratic congressmembers who are really opposed to the war are voting against this disgraceful bill. This came from Lynn Woolsey's office:

This capitulation proves once and for all that we cannot negotiate with this President. He won't listen to his military generals on the ground, he won't listen to outside experts like the Iraq Study Group, he won't listen to the Congress, and worst of all he won't listen to the American public.

Faced with this blind arrogance we have no other choice but to take bold steps to confront this President and to hold him accountable for his continued failures in Iraq. If we refuse, if we continue to take piecemeal steps such as today's vote, then we must accept our complicity in his continued occupation of Iraq.

The American public voted Democrats into power for one simple reason-- they trusted us to act boldly to hold this President accountable and to bring our troops home. So far we are failing the very trust that they have placed in us. But more importantly, every day that we allow this occupation to continue we are failing our brave young men and women who are serving honorably and professionally in Iraq. And we are failing their families here at home, who, while struggling to keep
their lives and families together, are forced to worry whether their loved ones will come home alive, and if so in what condition.

Today is not an opportunity to claim victory, or to give bellicose speeches for partisan gain. Today is an opportunity to grieve for the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for this President's failed
Iraq policy, to stand by our nation's sons and daughters who suffer through the irreparable physical and mental wounds of war, and to grieve for the lives that we will continue to lose so long as this
President refuses to bring our troops home, and continues to send our young men and women to die for his failure."

When Jerry McNerney called me on the phone last week to explain to me and the Blue America community why he had voted against the McGovern legislation that upset so many of us, I believed his sincerity and there was no question in my mind that he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Today he made a statement that backed up my feelings about giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Our troops have done everything we have asked of them. They have put their lives on the line in service to our country.

They deserve our utmost respect and real leadership from the Congress.

For our troops and their families, for our nation, we need a new direction in Iraq .

That is why I cannot vote for a bill that does not include enforceable benchmarks, a reasonable timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq , or the requirements for providing the training and equipment our men and women in uniform need.

I cannot support another blank check for the President.

Beginning in January this new Congress began the process of implementing new policies, of bringing accountability to the conduct of this war, and of forging a new direction in Iraq. That is what the American people demanded.

Yet, this supplemental funding plan is a step backwards because it is a blank check for the President. I have consistently called for real benchmarks and a reasonable redeployment timetable. This bill provides neither.

Critically, the bill includes no provisions to ensure that our troops are prepared, rested, and ready for the battles they must wage - a rejection of the Pentagon's own standards.

Not only that, but this bill includes no requirement to use diplomacy to create the framework to end this conflict, the course recommended by the Iraq Study Group. And there is no plan to reduce the tremendous strain on our military or to refocus our nation's efforts on the broader war on terror.

Supporting our troops means providing our men and women in uniform all of the means necessary to carry out their mission and bring a responsible close to the conflict in Iraq. This bill does not do that and I cannot support it.

If you haven't watched Keith Olbermann's Special Comment, I want to recommend it very strongly. John Edwards' leadership today shows why he has what it takes to merit serious consideration from progressives for the presidency.


UPDATE: CONGRESS STOKES THE FIRE OF AN ANTI-INCUMBENT REVOLT

Kerry just sent out an e-mail explaining why he was voting no on giving Bush a blanks check. Here's what he said:

I'm voting no on this bill. I'm tired of the false choices of Republicans and all the recycled spin of old battles and the political calculations that do nothing for our troops who bear the real costs of this war. Bottom line: we support the troops by getting the policy right, and this bill doesn't do that. I've said it again and again and I'm not about to stop: we need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform. Do we need to bring out the hand puppets and make the case again?

So who would Jimmy Stewart play? Well, certainly not Gordon Smith. We'll see who votes against this travesty. I know Patrick Murphy-- who won by a razor-thin margin in a GOP-leaning district-- is voting against it. As is... the bill's floor manager, Rep. Obey. And the Speaker of the House? This gets more and more interesting. So this is all the Rahm Emanuel/Steny Hoyer show. And it looks like the bad old Murtha is back, voting with Emanuel, Hoyer and the Republicans, just like in the good bad old days. On the Senate side I know we can count on Feingold and Dodd.

REPUBLICANS HAVE NO REASON FOR POLITICAL OPTIMISM-- THE TIME HAS COME TO PAY THE PIPER

Dirty Dick Pombo isn't in prison or on trial and, rather miraculously, he hasn't even been indicted yet. But-- to the disappointment of many Democrats-- he's not running for his old seat in northern California either. Instead two local Republican pols are getting ready to battle each other to face straight-arrow new-comer Rep. Jerry McNerney. One, Guy Houston, defines the word hack. He's been in one office or another for well over a decade and he's about to be termed out of his Assembly seat. Many constituents of McNerney's, especially in the western part of the 11th CD, are also residents of Houston's 15th Assembly District. As an Assemblyman he's been a garden variety wingnut. His Republican opponent, Dean Andal, a former Assemblyman, has been even more of an extremist and now works for a developer.

A few days ago, Tom Cole (R-OK), the hapless head of the NRCC-- their version of the DCCC-- laid out his plan for how the GOP could take control of the House next year. (Most more realistic and more honest Republicans are looking for ways to minimize expected losses, losses likely to be as catastrophic as last year's. But Cole painted a rosy, if highly dubious, picture in May 9th's Roll Call. "Almost 20 of the 30 seats Democrats picked up on their way to winning the House majority sit in Republican districts where ambitious GOP pols have been waiting years for the rare opportunity to run for Congress... Many well-established Republican incumbents went down to defeat in November, some of whom were ethically scarred. Given the bent of the districts-- 18 Democratic freshmen represent areas that President Bush carried in 2004 with anywhere from 51 percent of the vote to 62 percent-- local officials who have been waiting their turn are eager to run against those new Democratic Congressmen, Cole said."

In light of Cole's optimism, let's look at CA-11. Bush took the district with 53% against Gore and with 54% against Kerry. On the other hand not only did Dianne Feinstein win in the 11th CD, so did the far more progressive Barbara Boxer. And McNerney beat Pombo convincingly-- by over 10,000 votes, 53%- 47%. There are districts around the country where Republicans may have a realistic shot, CA-11, while not solidly blue yet, won't be one of them. In fact, in California, the GOP is going to have to put their resources into defense, where a slew of ethically-challenged Republican incumbents-- from Jerry Lewis, Ken Calvert, Brian Billbray, Gary Miller in the southern part of the state to John Doolittle in the northern part of the state-- are under investigation for one thing or another or, in some cases, for many things.

In fact, Doolittle's case has moved into high gear. The House leadership has kicked him off his committees, indictment seems imminent, a plea bargain likely, and it's a real stretch to imagine that he will run again-- even if he isn't in prison. Right-wing radio talk show host/nutcase Tom Sullivan says the vultures are circling. He's one of them. A pack of right-wingers are salivating at the prospect of Doolittle's political demise, particularly Assemblyman Ted Gaines, former State Senator Rico Oller, and the very ambitious Mr. Sullivan, whose remarks on radio over the year, nicely compiled, will be all Charlie Brown needs as ammo against him.


The RNCC seems to be putting forth quite a few self-financing vanity candidates with little chance of winning but who will at least be defeated on their own dimes. Examples of Republicans with virtually no chance to win are former New York Republican State Committee Chairman Sandy Treadwell, a wealthy dilettante who wants to run against Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20. An even better challenger for Gillibrand would be John Faso, an also-ran in the NY gubernatorial contest. He couldn't even crack 30%. Gillibrand's solid moderate stances are very much in sync with her new district and she has nothing to worry about from either of these clowns. Even more secure is John Hall (NY-19) who will probably face a fashion exec, Andrew Saul, who has always dreamed of running for office and can buy his way into the GOP nomination. The other New York seat they lost, the 24th, is now firmly held by Mike Arcuri and the Republicans haven't been able to find an even modestly credible opponent for him and will probably be stuck with a disastrous re-run of 2004 with Ray Meier, who was thrashed by Arcuri last time and should absolutely bury him next year if he's foolish enough to try again. There's some rich construction company owner, Richard Hanna, who fancies himself a congressman and a minor state senator, James Seward, who would like a shot. None of them would have one.

Observers thought the GOP might have a better chance to pick up Mark Foley's old seat, but credible Republican candidates the RNCC sought to recruit-- particularly state Rep. Joe Negron who ran last time-- have turned them down. Tim Mahoney, a recent convert from countryclub Republicanism himself, has plenty of his own money and hasn't made any of the kinds of waves that might cause constituents to kick out an incumbent. Among possible opponents are an extraordinarily lackluster bunch: state Rep. Gayle Harrell, Palm Beach City councilman Hal Valeche and Tom Rooney, the grandson of Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney. 


A handful of defeated Republicans are probably going to try again, a likely recipe for disaster. Mike Sodrel has a shot against Baron Hill in Indiana's 9th CD since the GOP registration advantage will come into play in a presidential year. Republicans are less certain about over-the-cliff extremist Jim Ryun in Kansas' second district being able to successfully challenge Nancy Boyda who beat him 51-47% last time out and has shown herself to be a moderate, independent voice that fits her district to a "t." It might be more of a contest if state Treasurer Lynn Jenkins is the Republican nominee instead, since she is generally considered sane. Carol Shea-Porter will face Jeb Bradley again, in a district that has been trending more and more blue.

My guess is that the three most endangered Democrats are Nick Lampson in TX-22 (Tom DeLay's old seat), Jason Altmire in PA-04 and Chris Carney in PA-10. Carney won his very Republican district because the incumbent beat and choked his young mistress. The Republicans don't have an opponent yet, but they will. Carney has chosen to play Republican-lite, completely alienating activists and the Democratic base. If the Republicans don't find a credible opponent, he might have a chance to hold on. Altmire has taken a similar Republican-lite approach, though not as radically or as off-puttingly as Carney's. On the other hand, he already has strong opposition, including the rubber stamp ex-congresswoman he beat (Melissa Hart) and popular Pittsburgh football player Lynn Swann (who was swamped when he ran for governor but managed to eke out a modest victory in PA-04). TX-22 is warming to Lampson and I would say he's favored to be re-elected at this point. Expect a bloody and damaging Republican primary, probably between 3 far right extremists, Sugarland Mayor David Wallace, Harris County Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt and that kooky woman whose name no one can pronounce who he beat last time.

In his NY Times column this morning Frank Rich went a long way towards explaining the precipitous decline in the value of the Republican brand, a decline that dooms all of Cole's efforts and masks a pervasive panic that is settling in among GOP officeholders.

It could be argued that the Iraq fiasco, disastrous to American interests as it is, actually masks the magnitude of the destruction this presidency has visited both on the country in general and the G.O.P. in particular.

By my rough, conservative calculation-- feel free to add-- there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. I am not counting State, whose deputy secretary, a champion of abstinence-based international AIDS funding, resigned last month in a prostitution scandal, or the General Services Administration, now being investigated for possibly steering federal favors to Republican Congressional candidates in 2006. Or the Office of Management and Budget, whose chief procurement officer was sentenced to prison in the Abramoff fallout. I will, however, toss in a figure that reveals the sheer depth of the overall malfeasance: no fewer than four inspectors general, the official watchdogs charged with investigating improprieties in each department, are themselves under investigation simultaneously-- an all-time record.

Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That’s the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.

BLUE AMERICA-- LET'S TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND REASSESS A LITTLE

To be honest, I saw the Carney thing coming a mile away. His voting record hasn't been among the best of the freshmen. In fact, I think the only newly-elected Democrats with more reactionary records are Rahm Emanuel's Heath Shuler (NC), Indiana's conservative congressmen Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth and Texas' Nick Lampson. When Carney voted against the Hate Crimes bill last week-- one of only 14 Democrats who did (while 25 Republicans voted with the Democratic majority)-- the only thing that surprised me was how easy it was for Carney to go back on a direct campaign promise (as well as a direct promise to me personally) to support equality. When his office said he wasn't available to discuss it with me and instead sent a lame e-mail of Republican talking points as an excuse, I got really depressed.

Then came the vote on ending the war in Iraq. Three congressmen endorsed by Blue America abandoned the Democrats and voted with the Bush Regime: Carney again, Ciro Rodriguez... and Jerry McNerney.

Jerry's explanation (part of that post in the link just above) wasn't insulting the way Carney's excuses were. But I was still dismayed and disappointed. Today a reporter from one of the district papers called me to get a comment. I knew what he wanted; I didn't give it to him. Unlike Carney, McNerney's been a very good congressman so far. He's earned, at least in my mind, the benefit of the doubt. Where do we go from here? How do we respond? And what do we do in the future? Join us this morning (11am, EST) over at Firedoglake for a discussion.

Teddy was the first, but several community members who had donated to Carney's campaign asked for refunds. Others called and e-mailed. So far, he's been totally unresponsive. What's our next step? Should we chalk it up to a lesson learned? Or should we ramp up the pressure? I'm looking for suggestions from the community. And what about Jerry? What do we done about him?

I will say one thing that's positive which has come out of this; now when challengers request an opportunity to come on for a Blue America chat, I ask them to read the Carney thing first. A woman running in PA-15 against classic rubber stamp Republican Charlie Dent, looked it over and said she's a perfect match for us. I'll introduce her as soon as she's filed her papers and made it official. I suspect that the seriousness with which we, as a community, take this will determine how other candidates take it. A future Carney might look at it and decide it isn't worth the hassle and decline to get involved with us. That would be fine with me.