I Need To Write About Who Bernie Will Pick As VP, But I'll Do That Next Time

Yesterday, Bill Barrow at the AP ventured that Trump's midwestern wall is at risk. "The pendulum," he wrote, "could swing against Trump in the band of Great Lakes and Rust Belt states that delivered him to the Oval Office. Aided by a court-ordered redraw of congressional districts, Democrats will pick up at least a few seats in Pennsylvania. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa each have multiple GOP House districts where Democrats have nominated competitive, if not favored, candidates. Republican governors in Wisconsin and Iowa are at-risk, and open GOP seats in Michigan and Ohio are toss-ups. Meanwhile, Democratic senators across the region are either favored or in re-election tossups-- but none are considered underdogs... Democrats have a younger, more liberal, and more diverse slate of candidates they believe can flip control of the House and reclaim several governor’s offices. Republicans, meanwhile, have doubled down on being the party of Trump."

Diverse? Yes. Younger? They could hardly not be younger than the fossils that dominate the Democratic congressional caucus today. More liberal? Nope. Totally not. Although there are certainly some candidate who were inspired by Bernie to run, the DCCC sabotaged most of them and inserted their own very corporate, very conservative candidates instead. Leave it to any random AP "reporter" to look at a list of Democratic candidates, all GOP-lite, that includes Blue Dogs Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Ben McAdams (UT), Brendan Kelly (IL), Max Rose (NY), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Paul Davis (KS), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Gretchen Driskell (MI), MJ Hegar (TX), Ron DiNicola (PA), Dan McCready (NC), Kathy Manning (NC), and call it "more liberal." And then there are the neo-liberal, New Dems, owned by Wall Street and backed by the DCCC. They're not Republicans and they're anti-Trump... but, unless we've changed the meaning of the word "liberal," they're not that by any stretch of the imagination. And some are cringe-worthy, like payday lender lawyer Jason Crow (CO), former NRA poster child Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), former-- I suppose-- CIA operative Elissa Slotkin (MI), Mob-backed socialite Susie Lee (NV)... sure, real liberal.

For the last several months, Blue America has been urging progressives to contribute to Bernie federal campaign account, not because he needs money for his Senate reelection, but because everything that comes into that can be used in his 2020 presidential run. Those midwestern states that Hillary lost to Trump... those were states Bernie did so well in during the 2016 primaries... especially when you look at the county levels. Hillary kicked Trump's ass in Democratic strongholds like Milwaukee, Madison, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis-- straight across the Midwest. Those cities are filled with voters far too smart to fall for Trump's gaslighting. But what about the rural areas and small towns where Trump beat her and took those states? Those were areas where Bernie didn't just beat Hillary, but, in many, outperformed Trump as well. Like In Wisconsin. Kenosha County has been a blue collar blue bastion but Trump beat Hillary 36,025 (47.5%) to 35,770 (47.2%). But, look what had happened on primary day-- not at how Bernie beat Hillary, but how Bernie's 14,612 votes were significantly higher than Trump's 11,139 votes. All over Wisconsin, Michigan... the whole Midwest you find that. Even in West Virginia.

And, sure, there are a handful of loud Hillary dead-enders out there who feel they were somehow wronged and would rather see Trump win than Hillary, but they are noisy and few. Ignore them; poor fools and tools without even knowing they're doing the work of corporate interests. Yesterday, Amie Parnes reported at The Hill what we've known all year-- that Bernie is running in 2020. Our Revolution chairman: "I expect him to run. He’s probably the most popular elected official."

Sanders allies increasingly talk more confidently about the likelihood of a second presidential bid. Just a few months ago, the allies were more careful about his potential candidacy.  Jeff Weaver, who served as Sanders's campaign manager in 2016, said Sanders “is being very thoughtful about” whether he enters the ace.

“He's very focused on the question of beating Trump and putting a Democrat in the White House,” Weaver said. “And if he runs it's because he thinks he's the one to do it.”

Weaver added that he’s “convinced” that his former boss “is the strongest candidate.”

Sanders has a lot going for him if he does decide to enter the Democratic primary, political observers say. For starters, he would bring an infrastructure built during the 2016 election, and his die-hard supporters give him a base that would be the envy of many candidates in what is expected to be a crowded field.

He also seems to have momentum. Sanders has seen his brand of progressive politics take sway within the Democratic Party as reflected in policy and politics. A number of Democrats have latched on to his “Medicare for all” single-payer healthcare plan.

And while Sanders has backed some losing primary candidates, his allies have also pulled off some huge upsets, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s defeat of Rep. Joe Crowley in a New York Democratic primary, and Ayanna Pressley’s defeat of Rep. Mike Capuano in a separate Democratic primary in Massachusetts. Sanders scored another victory with Andrew Gillum’s win in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Florida.

Nonetheless, Sanders will face a lingering challenge in winning over former supporters of Clinton who remain stung by the 2016 battle.

A number of Democrats continue to believe that Sanders has divided the party, was partly to blame for Clinton’s defeat and should not be considered as a party candidate.

“Sanders can continue on his quixotic presidential campaign but NOT as a Democrat,” said former congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, who worked under Clinton at the State Department and served as a surrogate to the Clinton campaign in 2016.

“He’s completely using the party to serve his best interests,” one longtime Clinton aide added. “He’s a Democrat only when it’s convenient to be a Democrat.”

Ah, yes, Tauscher... someone wandered into the Graveyard of Political Corruption and dug up her fetid casket and dragged out her rotted carcass. When she served in Congress, she served corporations and big money interests-- only and always and in all ways. She was a New Dem chair who lived too collect Wall Street money. There's not a question in my mind that she would vote for Trump rather than Bernie. Think about that. This cycle she's been working to defeat progressives in California so that only corrupt conservative Democrats would be in the general election. Does she speak for Hillary? Probably. She's still bitter and blames everyone but herself but herself for a poorly-run campaign. Sanders endorsed her, campaigned for her and urged his followers to vote for her. Do you think she'll do the same for him? LOL!

Weaver, who said Sanders isn’t paying too much attention to polls as he considers another run, thinks the senator's independent status is a plus to a potential candidacy.

“If you look at the sentiment of the people, nobody wins the presidency with just the people in your own party,” he said. Sanders has “unique appeal” with independent voters, which he said is “an incredible strength.”

In his Senate reelection bid this year, Sanders ran as a Democrat but declined the nomination after he won the primary, only to run as an independent in the general election.

By doing this, Sanders prevented a Democrat from opposing him in November. He used the same political maneuver in the 2006 and 2012 Senate elections.

“A cynic might say the guy who complained about the rigging of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary is kinda, sorta, rigging the 2018 Vermont Senate race for himself,” journalist Aaron Blake wrote in the Washington Post in May. “It all suggests a guy who is still very much using the Democratic Party when it’s convenient for him.”

Sanders allies say he has to run as a Democrat in 2020.

“The way the electoral college system works, it would be very unlikely for anyone to win” as an independent, the Sanders ally said. “And because of the electoral college system, you could select Trump without the party.”

In 2016, the Democratic Party was accused of tipping the scales in Clinton’s favor and turning their backs on Sanders.

Asked if the party would support a Sanders candidacy during the primary, a Democratic National Committee official replied, “All candidates must meet the standards that are set forth in the Rules and Call.”

The rules, adopted in June, states that at the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly “they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat. They also need to affirm in writing that they are a member of the Democratic Party, will accept the Democratic nomination and will run and serve as a member of the party.

The Sanders ally said if the senator does run for president in 2020, he will accept those conditions.

The ally added, “And he’ll be happy to help lead the Democratic Party and build it.”

Let's go for greatness this time, not just another mediocre president. Obama was cool, but the U.S. hasn't had a truly great president since FDR. I want to see one in the White House before I die. Please help me. And, for you're own sake, try to imagine a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren as president and vice president. 

DCCC & Kings Landing Consultants Are Instructing Candidates How To Deceive Democratic Primary Voters On Healthcare

I know it's hard to imagine but there was a time when the DCCC used to give their candidates my contact info and tell them to talk with me about progressive issues. That was almost a decade ago. Today they tell their candidates to avoid me at all costs-- or else! And many of their candidates do... but not all. I have decent and professional relationships with some of the DCCC candidates and this week one, a centrist guy who feels his district will respond to centrism better than to a progressive approach, sent me a note about one of his primary opponents sending out a notice embracing Medicare-For-All." I wrote him back and told him that that's the Blue America standard and wondered why he sent something that we would admire about his opponent.

That's when it got interesting. He said the DCCC is now instructing their candidates to thwart progressives by pretending to be for Medicare-For-All to help them defeat progressive primary opponents who are for Medicare-For-All. This is what he sent me, in confidence:

Short version is this: As you know, "Medicare for All" is language that can either refer to Medicare as a public option or Medicare as a vehicle for single payer. It's intentionally confusing (my DC consultants advised me to use this language, and I told them I wanted to be very clear about where I stood). The language below (including talking about Medicare for All in the context of "access to health care for all" and "improving on the successes of the ACA") sounds consistent with the public option version of Medicare For All and not a single payer approach.

He was referring to his opponent's notice. On a follow up phone call he went on and on about the DCCC and their associated consultants are telling their candidates to say whatever it takes to trick Democratic primary voters. Admirably, he refuses but he's one of the few who is refusing. So now, I guess, we have to ask candidates for fuller explanations about why they're for Medicare-For-All and if they will pledge to co-sponsor John Conyers' Medicare-For-All legislation, H.R. 676, as 116 House Democrats have, the most recent being the just-elected Jimmy Gomez, who won a special election in Los Angeles this summer, beating a conservative "ex"-Republican.

First sign of trouble is when a candidate starts hemming and hawing and seem unable to give a public yes or no answer. As Kaniela Ing, Hawaii's most progressive state legislator, told us a week or so ago, "The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America's most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors. Unfortunately for them, authenticity matters, and voters are smarter than they think. A silver tsunami of aging boomers is approaching, and single-payer, Medicare-for-all is America's only sensible and sustainable healthcare solution. Anything short will continue to allow big-pharma, corporate hospitals, and insurance companies to exploit the sick and their cash-strapped families into paying way too much for needed services. This in turn could have devastating effects for our overall economy. Democrats know that healthcare is a human right. If you want to reach Republicans, add that Medicare is the most efficient system we got, and that Medicare-for-all will save taxpayers $17 trillion. We have facts on our side and shouldn't run from them. Voters in both parties recognize that the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals have too much power. The People's trust will go to the party or set of candidates willing to take them on."

No one has to twist Kaniela's arm to get him to say he's for Medicare-For-All, for single payer, for Conyers' H.R. 676. That's what he's about. Similarly, David Gill, a progressive candidate in Illinois' 13th district and an emergency room doctor for nearly 3 decades, has been aggressively working on this issue for 25 years. "I think the most important part of my ability to appeal to people across the political spectrum, even those who disagree with one or more of my progressive positions, is the fact that I am genuine. I simply say what I believe-- I don't try to tailor my talk or be particularly nuanced. I've been a physician for 29 years and I've been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and I'm sick and tired of watching the vast majority of Americans get ripped off by a for-profit private health insurance industry that doesn't provide them with one iota of health care or actually give a damn about their well-being. I use that type of language while also incorporating the terms 'single payer' and 'improved Medicare for all', and I make it clear that I'm running because I ACTUALLY CARE about their well-being. The same caring instinct that drove me into a career in medicine is what drives my desire to be a leader in Congress. Each candidate has a unique set of circumstances, but I think that demonstrating a passion is ultimately even more important than the particular words that we put forth."

The newest Blue America candidate-- we're endorsing him officially tomorrow-- is Derrick Crowe for the TX-21 seat currently occupied by Science denier and anti-healthcare fanatic Lamar Smith. Derrick told us, simply "I support Medicare For All in virtually every speech, in front of every audience. It's in our literature and is one of our main platform planks. Democrats shouldn't shy away from it for any reason. Most Americans think our country should make sure everyone has health care coverage, and among those under 30, a stunning 89 percent support that statement, with 66 percent of those young people saying they want a single national government program. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a positive reaction to the term, 'Medicare For All.' If Republicans want to try to attack you for supporting Medicare For All in public, hand them a microphone, because we'll take their seats. Beyond the polling, it's just simply time for America to get back into a leadership role on health care. We spend more money on health care and have worse outcomes than virtually any other well-developed nation. Of the 35 countries in the OECD, we rank 27th in life expectancy, despite spending the most on health care-- so for those worried about the cost of a single-payer system, I'd challenge them to prove the value of a private system. Tell me why we should die earlier so insurance CEOs and pharma bosses can get richer off our misery."

And Derrick is eager to co-sponsor H.R. 676. His top primary opponent is "ex"-Republican Joseph Kopser, who a year ago was happy to have himself described as a "Reagan Republican" and who sits on the board of the Texas Association of Business, which the Texas Tribune describes as "the most powerful conservative business lobby on the state." Kopser uses the misleading DCCC/Beltway consultant misdirections, talking about how he supports "health care for all," but carefully skirting anything about "single payer" or Medicare-For-All.

Geoffrey Petzel, the progressive Chicagoland candidate running for the IL-06 seat occupied by TrumpCare-backer Pete Roskam, said that "Personally I agree with Our Revolution. Dems who don't publicly support single payer should get a primary challenge. I strongly support single payer, have since I ran in 2011, and proudly show my battle scars for taking that stance. Because I support single payer I was not endorsed by local media in 2011. In a bigger picture, Dems lack of vocal support for single payer is my biggest personal issue with the party. Just the other day I had a serious discussion about running as an independent instead of a Democrat because the party isn't pushing progressive policy positions like they should. The reason I'm not running as an independent, other than the prohibitive ballot requirements in Illinois, is that I believe we need to re-set the Democratic party and place it back on a track that supports progressive ideas proudly and loudly. [Democrats who] fear to proudly promote single payer makes me believe they're not real progressive and represent the status quo we have been served by the DCCC over and over again."

Little on-topic bonus, this morning: remember a couple months ago I warned you about longtime corporate shill and Blue Dog wretch Elen Tauscher trying to worm her corrupt right-wing ass back into California Democratic politics? It didn't take long. This week she was on the attack-- against Elizabeth Warren. She could hardly wait to croak out the same old corporate shill tune to The Hill, which reported that Tauscher, a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats for Blue Dog-type characters in the Golden State, said "We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states." Democrats will never take back the House with people who lost it originally calling the shots. (And of course, her crooked website asks for contributions for herself, not for any candidates-- always the mark of a criminally-minded conservative.)

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.

Many Reactionary Democrats Are Blinded To The Benefits Of Emergency Deficit Spending

Ellen Tauscher-- lurking in the darkness

Monday D-Day wrote about New Democratic Coalition leader Ellen Tauscher's insatiable appetite for more homeless people. The former Wall Street stock broker and fiscally conservative (though socially moderate) Democrat led the reactionary/Blue Dog revolt against Nancy Pelosi's attempt to pass "cram down" legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify terms of mortgages on primary residences to prevent more of this kind of destruction of social cohesion across the country. Tauscher isn't a Blue Dog but she works closely with them to drag the Democratic House caucus away from pro-working family positions and towards her the special interests of her sleazy corporate patrons. She certainly cares more about the banksters than about her own constituents. Her New Democrat Coalition-- which is much bigger than the Blue Dog caucus-- isn't considered quite as venal as they are. But they share many members and when it comes to protecting special interests (of their corporate donors) they can be just as fierce as Blue Dogs and Republicans.

The NDC-- like the Blue Dogs-- has grown wary of "outing" their new members. Neither group has updated its membership lists to include freshmen and both still include right-wing Democrats who followed their reactionary precepts are were defeated in November, Nick Lampson and Tim Mahoney. The last available NDC membership list:

Ellen Tauscher (CA), Chair
Ron Kind (WI), Vice-Chair
Artur Davis (AL), Vice-Chair
Adam Smith (WA), Vice-Chair
Joseph Crowley (NY), Vice-Chair/Whip
Jason Altmire (PA)
Michael Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY)
Brian Baird (WA)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Melissa Bean (Blue Dog-IL)
Shelley Berkeley (NV)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Lois Capps (CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
André Carson (IN)
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Joe Courtney (CT)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Susan Davis (CA)
Rahm Emanuel (IL)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Bill Foster (IL)
Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ)
Kirstin Gillibrand (Blue Dog-NY)
Charles Gonzalez (TX)
Jane Harman (Blue Dog-CA)
Stephanie Herseth (Blue Dog-SD)
Brian Higgins (NY)
Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Darlene Hooley (OR, retired)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Ron Klein (FL)
Nick Lampson (defeated Blue Dog-TX)
Rick Larsen (WA)
John Larson (CT)
Tim Mahoney (defeated Blue Dog-FL)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Kendrick Meek (FL)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Dennis Moore (Blue Dog-KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Chris Murphy (CT)
Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)
Ed Perlmutter (CO)
David Price (NC)
Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)
Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-CA)
Allyson Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
Joe Sestak (PA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
David Wu (OR)

This morning's Hill reports on conservative Democrats' yipping and yapping about the deficit, playing right into Republican strategy for derailing President Obama's ambitious plans to start down the road to restructuring American society in a more equitable direction. They're grousing that although Obama's plans for bringing down the Bush deficit by more than two-thirds, it could start growing again in 2014. It shocks me when naive Democrats join with corporate shills to empower treacherous Republican partisans.

In this new Republican strategy there is an incongruity. GOP lawmakers have said the stimulus bill heaps too much debt on the next generations. Where were these reborn fiscal conservatives when the prior administration ran a war-- whose costs now rival World War II-- on a credit card?

One of President George W. Bush's most damaging and self-destructive choices was to make the war on terrorism a partisan issue. It was a Karl Rove tactic designed to produce "a permanent majority." By doing that and by shunning the sympathy of other nations, Bush turned a golden moment into a dead-end strategy. And now the diminished Republican numbers in Congress are making the nation's economic recovery a partisan issue. Indeed, they are betting on calamity.

The congressional Republican profession of horror at the site of deficit spending resembles the feigned surprise of the police chief in the movie Casablanca who was "shocked" there was gambling at Rick's Cafe and then was handed his winnings. The GOP's new deficit spending mantra is a lot like congressmen and senators who shun certain health care funding scenarios because they "don't want to see health care rationed." In truth, we ration health care now. In fact, every culture has rationed health care. It's simply a matter of how we choose to ration it. Will some of us get health care, or will a broader swath of Americans get it?

Deficit spending is worth it if a nation gets something for its money. The infrastructure elements of President Obama's stimulus package are especially worthy. It is the largest such package since the Eisenhower administration, when America built the interstate highway system. This is a good marriage of an urgent need and a pressing moment.

CQPolitics reported this morning that the Democratic culprits working with the Republicans to derail Obama include Utah and Arizona reactionaries Jim Matheson and Gabby Giffords. And they're not alone. Almost 50 Blue Dogs and NDC members are skulking around plotting with the GOP about eviscerating Obama's plans to help the middle class. These are all members of Congress who always put the special interests first and their own constituents last. It's what got us into the mess we're in in the first place.

A dozen of them were among 20 House Democrats who voted against the $410 billion discretionary fiscal 2009 spending package (HR 1105) on Feb. 25. Another group later forced House leaders to sideline a contentious bill (HR 1106) to allow bankruptcy judges to modify home loans.

Although only a handful of moderate and conservative Democrats abandoned their leaders during party-line votes on the economic stimulus law, the group of vulnerable Democrats branded the omnibus spending bill as a budget buster and questioned whether the mortgage bill would raise interest rates on average home-owners and cause some struggling homeowners to rush to bankruptcy.

The defections could cause heartburn for Democratic leaders charged with ushering through Obama’s three biggest priorities: a health care overhaul, a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions and his fiscal 2010 budget blueprint. The president might also have trouble winning their votes for an anticipated second financial bailout package.

...Many of the 49 Democrats in the group have particular concerns about Obama’s call for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy families to expire.

“I don’t agree with the administration about letting all those tax cuts expire for upper-income families,” said Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz. He argues for retaining the current 15 percent rate on capital gains and for permanent reductions in the estate tax.

Sounds exactly like a Republican, doesn't he? He called me when he was running for office in 2006 against an incredibly worse Republican, J.D. Hayworth, and even then I had to choke back the stench of reactionary shit-brains to not warn Arizona voters that they were trading in an "F" for a "D-minus." On key substantive issues, Mitchell has voted like a Republican from the moment he got into office. Let's hope the folks at Accountability Now are watching.

To Republicans Still In Office We're All Losers

Rep. Mike Castle could lose his seat over mortgage crisis

I know that there aren't very many people who watch CNN, Fox and C-Span, so even though all 3 cable networks carried Rush Limbaugh's keynote speech at CPAC Saturday (commercial free, as though he were something other than a Hate Talk Radio clown), unfortunately it wasn't as widely viewed as it would need to be for it to drive another nail into the Republican Party's coffin. On the other hand something that just may drive a spike into the corpse's heart is the vote this week that the House will take on H.R. 1106, the mortgage relief bill, that pits the ever-popular banksters and their lobbyists against folks who are in danger of losing their homes, primarily due to institutionalized lender malfeasance.

This weekend Kagro X took a data projection of home foreclosures created by the Center for Responsible Lending that broke down estimated foreclosures by congressional district and examined who represents each district. Almost all the most heavily foreclosed upon districts are represented by a Republican congressman. And almost all of those congressmen are opposed to H.R. 1106, agreeing, in essence, with Koch shill Rick Santelli that the families who are being forced out of their homes are "losers" and don't deserve any help. I'm sure there are some solidly red districts where this kind of selfish posturing makes complete sense-- but not all of them.

The congressional district with the most foreclosures, OK-01 (Tulsa) is solidly red and happy enough with its uber-reactionary congressman, John Sullivan. Obama only won 36% of the district's vote in November (while Sullivan was re-elected with a hearty 66%). If the bill passes and court-modified terms of loans go into effect, it is estimated that 5,595 of Sullivan's constituents' homes will be saved. My guess is that Sullivan wouldn't change his vote even if all 56,651 homes that are projected to be foreclosed on in the next 4 years could be saved. Republicans bail out banksters and corporate campaign contributors, not their constituents and not average working families. His constituents don't care. Others just may.

Mike Castle (R-DE) wanted to vote for the Stimulus Bill but party discipline prevented him from doing so. I am fairly certain he'd like to vote for H.R. 1106 too and that he will unless Boehner and Cantor force him not to. For Castle it could be political suicide. He's very popular in Delaware but it's a Democratic state (PVI is D+7) and Obama won a 62% landslide over McCain just 4 months ago. The state (which is also his district) will have 12,457 foreclosures in 2009 (and 41,473 over the next 4 years). The legislation would save over 4,000 families from foreclosure this year. What complicates this further for Castle is that he is mulling over a Senate run.

Other Republican incumbents who could be vulnerable if they vote against their constituents and for the banksters are Dan Lungren (CA-03), an extremist who was nearly defeated in November in an increasingly purple district (Obama tied McCain there); freshman Tom Rooney (FL-16) who will be facing a real Democrat in 2010, Dave Lutrin, and where over 10,000 families are facing eviction in 2009 and over 34,000 over the next 4 years; Mike Rogers (MI-08); Henry Brown (SC-01); Buck McKeon (CA-25): David Dreier (CA-26); Ken Calvert (CA-44); Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45); Brian Bilbray (CA-50); Bill Young (FL-10); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18), who I think will be too scared to vote "no," in a district with a projection of over 22,000 foreclosures in the next 4 years-- and where Obama beat McCain; Tom Latham (IA-04); Ahn Cao (LA-02), a district where Obama took 74% of the vote and where another 2,000 families are looking at eviction this year; Vernon Ehlers (MI-03); Fred Upton (MI-06); Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11); Erik Paulsen (MN-03); Michele Bachmann (MN-06); Lee Terry (NE-02); Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02); Leonard Lance (NJ-07); Dean Heller (NV-02); Pat Tiberi (OH-12); Steve LaTourette (OH-14); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Mike McCaul (TX-10); Randy Forbes (VA-04); Frank Wolf (VA-10); Dave Reichert (WA-08); and Paul Ryan (WI-01). While you watch this new film clip on why real people-- not "losers"-- get foreclosed on, try thinking about how much better Congress would be without that list of actual losers above.



Jane at FDL has done some digging to figure who was behind the hold up in the bill last week-- and why. And the culprit wasn't one of the ideologically reactionary Democrats opposing the bill in the procedural votes, marginalized kooks like John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Walt Minnick (ID), or Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), who love crossing the aisle every chance they get. It was the very corrupt shill for bankster interests, Ellen Tauscher (D-CA). Jane wants to know "why is Ellen Tauscher, head of the New Democrat Coalition, working so hard on behalf of bank and mortgage industry lobbyists to stop it from happening" even though "President Obama says that allowing bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages to reflect fair market housing values is an important part of his plan to arrest the downward spiral of the mortgage crisis." This morning Politico got into the back story behind Tauscher's perfidy. Bragging that she was able to force Pelosi to postpone the vote and rework the bill to make it less family friendly and more friendly to the bankster interests served by Republicans and by Democrats-- like Tauscher and the Blue Dogs-- who vote with Republicans.

“It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex,” said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill.

...Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition teamed with their natural allies in the Blue Dog Coalition to impose 10 significant changes, including requirements that bankruptcy judges use federal guidelines to determine the fair market value of a home and that modified loans must be “unaffordable and not just underwater” to prevent wealthy homeowners from taking advantage of the process, according to a widely distributed e-mail from Adam Pase, executive director of the New Democrat Coalition.

This, of course, angered some liberals. “The New Dems’ position is the banks’ position,” a senior Democratic aide involved in the bankruptcy negotiations complained on Friday. “New Democrats are shills for the banks.”

Will Blue Dog-GOP Alliance Sabotage Democrats' Plans For Mortgage Write Downs?

More of these will be arriving, courtesy of the GOP & their pet Blue Dogs

The House started voting on the procedural legislation for a bill by Barney Frank and John Conyers, HR 1106, that would allow bankruptcy judges to write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences. Two passed-- against 100% Republican opposition and with loads of Blue Dogs crossing the aisle. The second of the two votes was uncomfortably close, 224-198.

All 172 House Republicans, voted against bringing it up. They were joined-- in the two procedural votes-- by a gaggle of mostly reactionary anti-working families Democrats, regular suspects and Chamber of Commerce sellouts like Jason Altmire (PA), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Mike Ross (AR), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Harry Teague (NM), Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Ben Chandler (KY), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Walt Minnick (ID), Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), etc.

With the Blue Dogs yowling and barking and corrupt Democrats like Ellen Tauscher threatening a revolt on behalf of the banksters and Rick Santelli, the leadership decided to postpone voting on the bill until next week. Banksters who lured millions of unsuspecting homebuyers into this untenable loans are up in arms, reminding Blue Dogs and Republicans about the millions of dollars they've poured into their political careers. President Obama is backing the approach but the Blue Dogs and Republicans refuse to go against their campaign contributors, no matter how badly it hurts homeowners and the economy. It will be even tougher in the more corrupt and more conservative Senate when they take it up next week.

The banking industry has lobbied hard against the measure, mounting a successful multimillion-dollar effort last year to kill it.

This year, mortgage industry players who are scrambling to narrow the scope of the measure to reduce its potential cost for banks have won some key concessions. House Democrats agreed to limit the measure to existing loans made before the bill is enacted and to borrowers who can show they tried other ways of modifying their home loans before resorting to bankruptcy, among other changes.

But banks want to go much further, restricting the bill only to subprime or other exotic loans.

There are too many Democrats in Congress who are either frightened, bought off and corrupt or who just plain think like Republicans. I hope these folks are keeping score.

UNLIKE TAUSCHER, SOME DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEMBERS HAVE READ THE CONSTITUTION-- JAY INSLEE WILL OFFER A RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH GONZALES TOMORROW

No one who favors the rule of law here

Yesterday we had a good laugh over reactionary Democrat Ellen Tauscher's idiotic response to the calls for the impeachment of serial perjurer Alberto Gonzales. Tauscher must still be getting her talking points from Karl Rove's office. Washington Congressman Jay Inslee, on the other hand, is neither a reactionary nor an ignoramus. He also, unlike Tauscher, values the rule of law. Tomorrow he'll be introducing a bill to impeach Gonzales. The text:

RESOLUTION
Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Simple enough-- even for an Ellen O. Tauscher.


DON'T COUNT ON CHENEY TO VOTE FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE RULE OF LAW IF THERE'S A TIE

According to CBS the most hated man in American contemporary politics just loves little Alberto. Cheney may be the only Republican in elective office to support Gonzales but he told CBS he's a "big fan" or Gonzales (and of Scooter Libby's). Since "None of the Above" continues to be the overwhelming favorite in every Republican primary poll, I don't understand why there hasn't been a Draft Cheney Movement. No one represents the heart and soul large intestines of the GOP the way Cheney does.


UPDATE: CHENEY & BUSH MAY BE THE ONLY ONES IN AMERICA WHO THINK GONZALES SHOULDN'T BE FIRED

This weekend the editorial boards were busy. You already saw what the NY Times had to say. But papers from every part of the country were calling on Congress to impeach or on Gonzales to resign:

• Brattleboro Reformer: "If Congress wishes to remain a meaningful... branch of our government, it must rein in the executive branch. The tool for doing this is impeachment."
• Hartford Courant: Gonzales "put on a pathetic performance" in front of the Senate Judiciary Committtee 7/25, and the nation "would be better served without Mr. Gonzales in charge."
• Kentucky Post: Senate Dems' call for a special counsel "would be overkill," because "if Gonzales did willfully mislead, there's no way the president can keep him on."
• Lousiville Courier-Journal: "These days" the WH "operates in a different world... There is ample evidence for the Senate to pursue perjury charges against Mr. Gonzales, and it should do so."
• Newsday: "If Gonzales doesn't have the good sense to resign... then the Congress will have no choice but to demand a special counsel... Bush is making a big mistake in placing loyalty above integrity."
• New York Times: Gonzales either "lied to Congress," used "a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public," or else is "helping Mr. Bush cover" up "more wiretapping than has been disclosed." If a special prosecutor is not appointed, "Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales."
• Norfolk Virginian-Pilot: "How can America tell the attorney general is lying to Congress? His lips are moving." If Gonzales "really" wanted to improve the DOJ's credibility, "he'd resign."
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The attempts of the Congress to obtain information" from the WH "are worthy of respect... this kind of 'We are above the law' lack of accountability on the part of Mr. Bush... has now gone far enough."
• Portland Oregonian: Last week "Gonzales sank even further, if that's possible... Every day he remains in office inflicts further damage to the nation's once-respected" DoJ.
• Portland Press Herald: "It is the White House that is out of control, not the Congress." The call for a special prosecutor is "justified"

UPDATE: GONZALES' IMPEACHMENT IS BEING HANDLED BY CONGRESSMEN WHO WERE FORMER PROSECUTORS

Joining Jay Inslee in co-sponsoring the bill to impeach Gonzales in the House are former prosecutors Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Dennis Moore (D-KS) and Bruce Braley (D-IA). The spans the whole party ideologically. Chandler and Moore are very conservative. Becerra, Arcuri and Braley are pretty progressive.


UPDATE: MORE DEMOCRATS JUMP IN AS CO-SPONSORS

Although partisan Republican hack Lamar Smith (TX) was screaming hysterically that the impeachment resolution is just a political stunt-- sound familiar? it's what Republicans say about anything they disagree with-- more co-sponsors are signing on by the minute. Tom Undall (D-NM), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) are now co-sponsors too. Do you know your congressmember's e-mail address or phone number? Let him or her know how you feel about this.

THE NY TIMES INSERTS AN "IF" INTO THEIR CALL FOR CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GONZALES

You know how most of us at DWT feel: impeach Bush and Cheney and the rest of the rotten regime can be taken care of within the bounds of the criminal justice system. That would include Bush's shameful excuse for an Attorney General, his pathetic Texas crony Alberto Gonzales. The Times has been 6 months or so behind us on most everything and they're not there on impeachment... yet. This morning, however, they do make the case-- or a mini version of the case-- for Gonzales' impeachment.

The editorial starts with the absolute premise of incompetence and then moves on to perjury. "Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so-- even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing."

The Times, in passing, also makes the case for Bush's own impeachment but, like I mentioned, they're still 6 months from figuring that out and speaking about it out loud. The Times is far more comfortable ignoring Bush and going for the low lowest hanging fruit, Abu Gonzo.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

He won't; it's not. They should start Monday but they're afraid of the right-wing media, so they probably won't.


UPDATE: NOT EVEN FOX COULD FIND A RIGHT WINGER BRAVE ENOUGH TO COME ON TV AND DEFEND GONZALES

Think Progress has a riotous report out this morning about how Faux News talking head Chris Wallace tried to find a right winger to come on and defend Gonzales. None would. He contacted the far right senators on the Judiciary Committee-- Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Chuck Grassley-- who are all Bush Regime rubber stamp shills who will always vote to do whatever Bush and Cheney tells them to do. But none would make public spectacles of themselves, not even on their own propaganda network-- defending Abu Gonzo. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has this to say:

Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.

The closest anyone would come to defending Gonzales is Utah's far right nutcase and Regime apologist Chris Cannon who, when asked by Chris Matthews last week if Gonzales is "a good attorney general," said, "He's a good guy."


HOUSE MEMBERS EARN GOOD SALARIES-- IF THEY'RE NOT WORTH IT WE SHOULD FIRE THEM

Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has a record that not only merits firing, but makes me think she should refund her salary for the last year. She was singing a variation on the Democratic Leadership's anti-impeachment talking points. (Yes, my friends, the Democrats have talking points too. I called 7 progressive congressmembers in a row last week to ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 333 and it was word-for-word exactly the same message from each one.) But Tauscher went a step further when she wrote to one of her constituents to explain why she wouldn't support the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales. Tauscher's response:

The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president in a non-impeachable office. Unless convicted of an illegal act, the Attorney General cannot be removed from office without the president asking for or accepting his resignation. However, please be assured that I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind as I review the circumstances surrounding recent allegations of impropriety within the Justice Department.

Apparently Ellen O. Tauscher has never read the U.S. Constitution, something that doesn't surprise me one bit. She's a reactionary horse's ass with a voting record only a Republican could like. The Constitution is very clear about impeachment-- Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the united States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I took the liberty to emphasize a few words; Thomas Jefferson surely never imagined we would have elected officers in government as stupid and ignorant as Ellen Tauscher. Perhaps Ellen Tauscher can't be impeached-- but that's what primary elections are for.

WASHINGTON POST WHITEWASHES TAUSCHER FOR INSIDE-THE-BELTWAY BUBBLE-HEADS

This morning Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald delievered a Valentine's box of confections in a nice Washington Post wrapper to Ellen Tauscher and, nevermind the date; it was very timely. A number of Bay Area-based activists and bloggers are determined to challenge one of the Democratic Party's most egregious corporate whores and Bush enablers in 2008 this side of Joe Lieberman.

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?

Marshall's in a safe Republican seat and although his voting record pisses a lot of Democrats off, it's not likely anyone is going to challenge him. Barrow and, especially Scott, on the other hand, are in safe Democratic seats... and they still vote like Republicans. But that's a top for another time.

The Post asks, rather rhetorically, since her p.r. flack has already filled in the blanks, "Why are they going after Ellen Tauscher?"

She has annoyed [like in high school?] the left [Lenin? Castro? Markos?] by supporting legislation to scale back the estate tax, tighten bankruptcy rules and promote free-trade agreements. She served as vice chair of the pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, which many liberal activists dismiss as a quasi-Republican K Street front group. And she voted to authorize the Iraq war, although she did so with caveats, and was quick to express her displeasure with its execution.

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.