Why Does She Keep Enabling Bush???

diplomacy? (0.00 / 0)

Didn't the Iraq Study Group just come out with reccommendations that we should have more diplomatic ties with Syria and Iran? I'm sure I saw an interview with Baker stressing the importance of talking to your enemies.

When the issue is in the spotlight, I would fully expect a sample of relevant committee members from both parties to meet with the man in the oval office.

Just meeting isn't a problem. We need to keep talking to Bush, if not to change his mind (seems unlikely) then at least to have something to show we tried. The story coming out of talking to Bush is perhaps the important part... "We talked to him at great length, but his mind was made up and despite our advising course X he chose Y." We need to be on record as having always advocated for the right course of action, and follow up with a big I-told-you-so later.

I suppose if meeting with Bush is somehow legitimizing and we want to delegitimize him, then perhaps not meeting with the man in the oval office, the acting commander in cheief, the resident, might be the right thing to do.

Santa Barbara Progressives

---

by: bolson @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 23:45:46 PM UTC

Re: Update (8.00 / 1)

Ok, yeah, now she's giving cover and conceeding to his framework, and that needs to stop.

Santa Barbara Progressives

---

by: bolson @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 23:47:08 PM UTC

last best chance? (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush mentions her by name tonight.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 23:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"this is the last best chance"???? (0.00 / 0)

What does that mean?  It almost sounds like support for the idea.

Brian, do you have that video of her at Rossmoor being steadfast in her refusal to allow Bush to send more troops?  She seemed confrontational then.  It just goes to show that it is all put on the keep the constituents happy.  It is just a show.

Later she was saying that we should write to Bush because he might "spin on the head of a dime."  Here she has her opportunity, that none of us will have and she stresses the "importance of the Iraqi government making political progress."

Her action betray her loud words.

---

by: marchmoon @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:00:49 AM UTC

Oh, good call. I'll get that up soon (0.00 / 0)

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:05:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bush Changing on a dime (0.00 / 0)

Here's that clip, I'm still working on the other.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:19:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe she likes being bent over a barrel... (8.00 / 2)

I mean, the barrel must provide support for someone without a backbone.

---

by: Matt Lockshin @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:03:42 AM UTC

this is alarmist (0.00 / 0)

About 100 Senators and Representatives have met with Bush this week.  Pelosi met with Bush today.  How exactly did you want her to "try to stop him," put him in a figure-four leg lock?  Her statement is not materially different from dozens of other Congressmen who've come out of these meetings.  She emphasized the need for a political solution, I'm assuming as opposed to a military one.  Her statement could have been stronger, but to say she's hopping on the policy is completely irresponsible.

Tauscher will, like everyone else, have an opportunity to vote on the policy, and we'll see where she stands there.  I'm not going to express dissastisfaction in a knee-jerk way over every little thing.

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:26:49 AM UTC

What sticks out for me (0.00 / 0)

Is the difference in rhetorical style when she was talking to her constituents and the attitude she took then (when she was first feeling our heat) and the attitude she is taking now with what seems to be a more timid acceptance.

We will see if Brian finds that clip of video, but I remember it being very animated.  If we compare that to her current stand, I feel like we will see that she was putting on a show for her constituents.  When she had a chance to actually take her stand, it was not something that she was interested in.  She could have registered her disappointment at his decision.  I don't really see that here.

---

by: marchmoon @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 00:42:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In a few minutes (0.00 / 0)

It's being processed on Youtube as we speak.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:44:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bush said stupid and she didn't confront (0.00 / 0)

The moment he said he had decided to increase troops the meeting should have been confrontational and she should have asked whether he was fucking delusional.

She is an idiot, she is playing checkers not chess and more people are going to die because Ellen Tauscher is dumb as a rock.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tauscher needs to go (0.00 / 0)

She needs to do many things, including acting like a Democrat and not bending over backwards for Bush & the Rethuglican agenda and listening to her consituents regarding this War. Her response to all this is pathetic.

SF Chron Poll Yesterday:

"Yes, escalation is the exact wrong way to go" = 75%

http://www.sfgate.co...

(-8.50/-7.44) Progressive Blue, An Oasis

---

by: Predictor @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 02:30:58 AM UTC

Like dday I want to see how she votes (0.00 / 0)

but I'm still not happy with her AT ALL.  What's the situation about a primary challenger for her?  Is there anything in the wind at all? Any back hall murmers?  Where does this stand?  I'm of the opinion we have our work cut out for us in the coming months between Doolittle (R), Lungren(R), and Tauscher(D).  Plus any Central Valley R-held District that starts looking shaky.

---

by: rolfyboy6 @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:12:52 AM UTC

Tauscher: No Surge (0.00 / 0)

You know, it is possible both to follow Speaker Pelosi and meet with President Bush. These are not mutually exclusive actions. The president is not irrelevant. People can oppose him while meeting with him.

BTW, Rep. Tauscher -- again -- made clear tonight that she opposes the surge idea.  Here's a statement, posted to her web site.

Washington, DC -  This evening President Bush addressed the nation regarding his plan to escalate the number of troops currently serving in Iraq.  Below is the official statement of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Chairman-designate of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Rep. Tauscher is an original co-sponsor of legislation that calls for the President to ask Congress for an up or down vote if he plans to raise troop levels above the current level.

"After meeting with the President Tuesday afternoon and listening to him plead his case to the American people tonight, I am more convinced than ever that this new plan would only lead to further chaos in Iraq.

"I believe that as commander in chief the President has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission which has the support of the American people, and an exit strategy to bring our troops home sooner and safer.  He has neither.

"Adding troops is not a change of direction, simply more of the President's same failed strategy.  I cannot and will not support putting any more American troops on the ground in Iraq to further what I, and the majority of Americans as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, clearly see as a failed policy." 

-Rep. Ellen Tauscher

I realize you are looking for any justification for a primary. Even knowing this, I fail to see how the beliefs outlined in the above statement could "enable" the president.

---

by: contracostan @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:11:13 AM UTC

Very pretty talk (8.00 / 1)

Tauscher has learned how to "talk pretty" to her constituents while turning around in Washington and acting in an exactly opposite manner.  She has already indicated that she has no intention of voting to withhold funding for the Iraq escalation.  So she can say whatever she wants — her words and her actions do not correspond.  Period.

---

by: babaloo @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:48:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recall? (0.00 / 0)

Let's mount a recall drive.

---

by: Airpower @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:16:30 AM UTC

Do you think that is neccessary? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that she is really THAT bad a Democrat.  She is just not a good fit for her district.  We can do better.  Much better, actually.

Just as removing Davis was an abuse of the system, I think this would be too.  That is what primaries are for.

---

by: marchmoon @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 17:59:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also (8.00 / 1)

Just found out that there are constitutional problems (US Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)).  The power to remove a Representative or Senator is reserved to the United States (Congress) and therefore cannot be delegated to the states or the people.

The problems with her are that:

- she is a GOPig enabler.  Her unwillingness to be aggressive against the head GOPig is an example.

- (as someone else said) she puts being a moderate ahead of being a Democrat.

---

by: Airpower @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 22:27:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]