CA-10 Ellen Tauscher: Lies, Half-Truths and other distortions

cross-posted from Calitics.

Yesterday, Ellen Tauscher appeared on C-SPAN's Newsmakers program. You can watch the video there (RealVideo) or read the full transcript. First, she is simply puzzled that anybody, ANYBODY, would consider challenging her. Follow me over the flip...

I have 100 percent pro-choice record.  I have 100 percent record in the environment.  I have 100 percent record with labor, for example.  I've always had the AFL-CIO endorsement.  So, I think that, for folks to criticize my record, I think they'd have to go very far to find another Democrat in the Bay Area that's beaten a Republican in a district that still does not have a majority of Democrats who has a record as good as mine.

Really? Very far, huh? Um...how about one district over. CA-11, where Jerry McNerney defeated Richard Pombo in a district that has a Republican advantage.  And oh yeah, he's way, way better on the issues than Tauscher.  So...first question answered.

How about those 100% marks she is claiming.  Well, let's go look at the AFL-CIO's report card. 100%, huh Ms. Tauscher? Well, since when did 79%=100%? Becuase, Rep. Tauscher has a 79%.  For those keeping score at home, that's lower than Blue Dogs Jim Costa, Dennis Cardoza, and bleeping Joe Baca!

Next, on the Iraq War, she slanders Rep. Woolsey and the Progressive Caucus who have introduced bills that would fully fund the withdrawal of our troops:

They want to cut off funding to stop the war.  The net effect of it is that it would cut off funding for the troops, and I think that's where many people, including the Speaker and myself and many, many others, I think a majority of the caucus, understand that that is not where the American people are.  That is a very drastic step.  It is a step that has all kinds of problems attached to it. 

You know it's funny, a few weeks ago, Rep Woolsey was on local public radio, and mentioned that she supported Tauscher.  Now, I think part of this is the incumbency/primary challenge thing.  Rep. Woolsey is still bitter about being challenged by Joe Nation. I can understand that.  But, apparently this is how Ms. Tauscher pays Woolsey back for her support: accusations of harming the troops.

Something else funny about this exchange? Well, Tauscher was using the proper language, but when questioned on it, she returned to the Republican framing of the question. I do feel I owe Tauscher at least the credit to acknowledge that she understands the framing of the answer.

TAUSCHER:  No, no.  Let me correct you.  No one wants to cut off funding for the troops.  What people want to do is stop the war.  And I will tell you that I don't know of anyone who doesn't want to stop this war.

DOYLE:  You are - you are saying that there are not Democrats who have introduced bills that would cut off funding?

TAUSCHER:  They want to cut off funding to stop the war.  The net effect of it is that it would cut off funding for the troops, and I think that's where many people, including the Speaker and myself and many, many others, I think a majority of the caucus, understand that that is not where the American people are.  That is a very drastic step.  It is a step that has all kinds of problems attached to it.

But by the way, we know that it is out there in the future should the president remain confrontive, should the president not be persuaded, should the president not change course.

Why didn't she just stick with her original answer.  Or say something like, "Rep. Woolsey's bill is just another tactic to FUND THE WITHDRAWAL OF OUR TROOPS", rather than saying that there was any attempt to cut off funding from the troops.  Rep. Woolsey's bill does not deny funding for the troops, it just specifies that the money must be used to withdraw the troops.  If Bush chooses to flout the law, then bring on the Constitutional Confrontation, but it would be Bush who denies funding for the troops.

It really is a straw man to say that anybody would leave the troops without bullets.  Well, that isn't totally correct, I mean bush did send the troops in without proper gear, but that's for another story. No Democrats intend to leave our troops in unnecessary danger, something that cannot be said of the "Support the President" folks. Hey Tom Delay...it's not mandatory for a patriot to rally around the President upon entering a badly-run war of choice. But perhaps you should read Glenn Greenwald's How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok.

So, in the interest of keeping this (relatively) short, I'll invite you to find your own distortions from the half-hour interview.  It won't be that hard.

•  "Funding withdrawal" straw man

  All this talk about funding a withdrawal is nonsense. No special spending bill is needed to bring our troops home. Cutting off funds for the illegal war needs to be done. Our military can bring the soldiers home as a matter of their normal business.

  If cutting off funds for bullets means soldiers don't have them, then bring them home instead of deploying them in harm's way.

  Congress should cut off funding immediately and get on with the business of impeaching the bastards so they can be hauled before a court to be convicted and sentenced to their just rewards.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:25:33 PM PDT

•  TIps? Comments? Flames? n/t

  by UTBriancl on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:38:15 PM PDT

•  Has McNerney cast a single vote differently

  than Tauscher? Let me check, and I'll find out for sure.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:53:06 PM PDT

  •  No matter what you find...

    (And I am interested in what you find...)

    But, no matter what you find, it still seems pretty cynical, doesn't it?

    I mean, somebody should vote their conscience, shouldn't they?  The way she phrases that, it sounds like she thinks that getting re-elected is the pricipal issue.

    In addition, she is pointing out the same argument that is being made by those that want to challenge her.  Yes, she was a good D when is was a R leaning (or 50/50) district.  But now that it is safe, shouldn't we push a little over to the left?

    She treats it way too much like an entitlement.  She should represent her constituents proudly, don't you think?

    by marchmoon on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:17:50 PM PDT

    •  She does represent her constituents proudly.

      Her voting record has moved leftward with her constituents.

      And I didn't see a vote where McNerney or Tauscher voted differently.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:57:27 PM PDT

      •  There was only one...

        For vote 88, the Rogers of Michigan Amendment to HR 547.  I don't know the details of that amendment, but it has something to do with alternative fuels infrastructure.  Tauscher voted for it, McNerney against.  I don't know what McNerney didn't like about it.

        Then there were several votes (votes 119-122) that Tauscher didn't show up for, but McNerney voted for.  I don't know that it matters, but it was for things like: "Supporting the Goals of International Women's Day," and a few for memorials of soldiers and individuals.

        Still, the argument is silly on its face.  The district is no longer one where a Republican has a chance at winning.  Except Arnold.  I am also proud that she beat a Republican in the old 10th.  Especially Bill Baker.  But that isn't today's reality.

        I am not saying I would vote for any Democrat that runs against her.  I just think it is silly that she feels she should be above having to face one.

        Now, to answer your comment about representing her constituents, I disagree.  I think she is the type that would have different messages in front of different audiences.  Now, that is just my feeling.  I'm not inclined to go looking for examples, so I will just leave it as my impression without proof.  Still, that doesn't sound like proud representation to me.

        by marchmoon on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:44:22 PM PDT

•  Where does McNerney stand on the Dem...

  leadership bill?  Will he vote against it?  Is he a member of the Out of Iraq caucus?  I don't think he is.  What say you?

  by CAL11 voter on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:39:03 PM PDT