Peter DeFazio is an independent-minded progressive who's been representing Southern Oregon in Congress since 1987, and was one of the original opponents of NAFTA and other "free trade" legislation. He only takes Social Security-scale cost-of-living increases and donates the rest of his salary to local community colleges and federal debt reduction. He was re-elected with over 80% of the vote last time.
Yesterday, he appeared on a local Pacifica program here in Los Angeles because he's caused a bit of a stir taking on a shadowy Citizens United-spawned entity that was created solely to defeat him, in a support of a rightwing crank who's partly responsible for one of the more prominent global warming denialist hoaxes of all time (more on this below). The Citizens United decision was bad enough in itself, but it did leave some purported restrictions in place--such as forbidding the influence of foreign goverments and corporations. But with no disclosure whatsoever, it's impossible to know if even these restrictions are being honored.
DeFazio tries to find out who is behind mysterious attack ads
By Karen Tumulty
Saturday, September 25, 2010; A3
Even in this anti-Washington political climate, 12-term Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio had not been on anyone's endangered list. He generally breezes to reelection in his southwestern Oregon district by 60 percent or better.
But last Tuesday, something curious happened.
A group calling itself Concerned Taxpayers of America started running television spots - a substantial ad buy of $86,000 - contending that DeFazio had been in league with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in wrecking the economy. It also touted DeFazio's Republican opponent Art Robinson as "a new voice, a smarter choice, the independent leader we need."
As attack ads go, that is pretty mild fare. But its origin puzzled both DeFazio and his little-known opponent.
"I'm delighted to have their help, but the truth is, I have no idea who is doing this," said Robinson, a chemist who is popular on the conservative circuit for his work casting doubt that global warming is manmade.
Robinson's benefactor has spent more on advertising on his behalf than his own campaign has. But there seems to be no record of an organization called Concerned Taxpayers of America, outside a few filings at the Federal Election Commission. The filings list a Capitol Hill address and the name of a treasurer, Republican political consultant Jason Miller.
Miller declined to say who is funding the group. He described the backers only as "folks who are concerned about the direction this country's economy is going and want to make their voices heard."
The names behind those voices apparently will remain a mystery - at least until the organization has to make a quarterly filing to the FEC in October.
"Is this a corporation? Is it one very wealthy, right-wing individual? Is it a foreign interest? Is it a drug gang?" DeFazio said. "We don't know."
Amanda Terkel also wrote about DeFazio and his attempt to find out who was attacking him at Huffpo last Friday, and included this eye-openning video as well:
Representative John Boccieri just announced at a press conference that he will vote "yes" on the health reform bill. This is significant, because Boccieri voted "no" back in November.
He becomes the fourth confirmed "no to yes" vote. However, there are still eight "yes to no" votes, meaning the leadership still needs at least another three Representatives who voted "no" in November. Here is the running tally:
(Note: even if he is undecided, Cao will never cast the deciding vote in favor. As such, he should be considered a "Yes to No" for the duration of the vote count)
The results in a net of four votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up three more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
While Boccieri is a step forward, Peter DeFazio has emerged this morning as another November "yes" vote who could flip to "no" this time around.
Rep. Pete Defazio tells @ryangrim he's a NO unless they re-insert geo. disparity fix for Medicare http://bit.ly/dt1rog
What a slog. One step forward, one step back, lots of Reps looking to get in the headlines by saying they are undecided or about to announce their vote.
On Wednesday, Chris wrote a quick hit on Representative DeFazio's statement that there was "growing consensus" among Congressional liberals that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should step down. He went on to say that Summers should go as well. Folks in the blogosphere have been saying as much for a long time now, but this seemed like something new, coming from a veteran Representative. The piece Chris linked to ended with DeFazio saying, ""We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans," underscoring that it was not just a general criticism of Geithner and Summers, but one closely tied to the need for shifting from a Wall Street-centered economic policy to a Main Street-centered one. So I followed up by talking with Darcy Burner, Executive Director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, to see what it might mean.
Open Left:On MSNBC Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday that he and other liberal House members are becoming increasingly tired of the Obama administration economic policies that are too focused on maintaining the stability and health of Wall Street firms and largely ignore Main Street. There's been significant criticism of Geithner and Summers in the blogosphere since their appointments were first announced, and significant criticism of their policies as well. There's been scattered and occasional congressional criticism before, but this sounds like it's a good deal more serious. Is it? And if so, why is it different and why now? Let's take those one at a time.
Is it different?
Darcy Burner: My best guess is that it is more serious. Now the Progressive Caucus has not taken an official position. Congressman DeFazio was speaking on his own behalf, quite eloquently, I thought. I particularly liked the line about "losing two jobs to save millions." But I think that the indications are that there is growing dissatisfaction among the members of Congress who very much want to see a set of economic policies that are going to help main street, rather than just Wall Street. And a jobless recovering isn't particularly progressive approach to how we solve the economic crisis that we're in.
Now, it is the case, obviously, that we have some progressives who've been very active, particularly in the financial reform aspect, if you look at Alan Grayson, for instance. He is a member of the Progressive Caucus, he's been extraordinarily involved in asking the tough questions, and encouraging his fellow members on the Financial Services Committee to ask some really tough questions at the hearings they've held, about the Federal Reserve, about the banking system, about the banks, about some of the Wall Street shenanigans.
So there has been growing pressure from members of Congress. And, you know, we're seeing some traction around the idea of auditing the Fed, and finding out what's really going on there.
So I don't think it's particularly surprising that there would be an expression of real dissatisfaction with the Administration's economic policies and the economic advisors from progressives in Congress.
Here's their statement. I am leaving now for religious reasons, so anyone who wants to pick up this thread and add more details in the comments would be most welcome. Great progressives like Donna Edwards, Peter DeFazio, and Mazie Hirono are pushing this rescue plan. More information is here.
Meanwhile, Obama is demanding 'no vote' Democrats and Republicans "step up to the plate and do what's right for this country." Congratulations, all of us have just been called unpatriotic by Barack Obama for objecting to the bailout.
You guys are amazing. 43 donations in 12 hours is remarkable, not because of the number but because this site spends A LOT of time criticizing Democratic leaders, so turning around and investing your faith in Democratic politicians requires a dexterity of mind and a realistic optimism that we find quite rarely. We're going to shoot for 100 donations, because Better Democrats are the most important thing we can aim for this cycle. And as evidence, this is what having Better Democrats means.
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04), an outspoken critic of the Bush/Paulson bailout, along with Rep. Kaptur (OH-09), Rep. Scott (VA-03), Rep. Cummings (MD-07), Rep. Doggett (TX-25), Rep. Holt (NJ-12), Rep. Edwards (MD-04) and Rep. Hirono (HI-02), will introduce legislation today to address the failures in the financial markets. DeFazio believes that the Paulson/Bush proposal is based on a flawed premise: if the American taxpayers spend $700 billion to buy Wall Street's toxic assets - a plan pundits are calling "trash for cash" - it will create liquidity in our financial markets and will somehow trickle-down to Main Street.
DeFazio's plan is not in any way based on the Paulson/Bush plan. Instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at the program and crossing our fingers that the plan work, the measure will direct the Administration to take five simple steps, suggested by noted economist and former head of the FDIC, William Isaac, to re-regulate the markets and move America towards a healthy financial future.
The legislation will be available at the press conference.
Who: Rep. DeFazio, Rep. Kaptur (OH-09), Rep. Scott (VA-03), Rep. Cummings (MD-07), Rep. Doggett (TX-25), Rep. Holt (NJ-12), Rep. Edwards (MD-04) and Rep. Hirono (HI-02)
What: Press Conference to introduce legislation to fix financial markets
Where: House Radio and TV Gallery
When: 3 pm TODAY
I'm amending my position on a bailout from hell no to HELL YES. Here's a video from the night of Donna's victory, where she thanks OpenLeft for her victory.
We did this. We helped put Donna in office, and she's showing leadership. She's making us proud. And I know many of you gave to her and volunteered for her, and you should be very very proud. For those of you who didn't, you now have another chance to put people into office who will band together, as these progressives are doing, not when it is easy, but when the pressure is on, when it is hard. I know this is an uncertain time, nerves are raw, and we're playing with trillion dollar decisions. But this is when it is most important to stick to our values, to show that progressive leadership IS powerful and IS meaningful and that we will reward those who stand up.
Join us. Give a little today. And in 2009, we'll have a powerful caucus of Better Democrats in the House and the Senate. I can see it now, Donna Edwards, Darcy Burner, Alan Grayson, Jeff Merkley, Annette Taddeo, Sam Bennett, etc.
Like fellow progressive caucus member Peter DeFazio (Oregon) before him, Tom Udall (New Mexico) has opted out of a run for Senate. Both would have had excellent chances. A February poll for the DSCC found DeFazio already ahead of Gordon Smith 42%--38% in a pretty blue state. New Mexico is an open seat in a slightly lean-Democratic state, and Udall reports $712K cash on hand as of June 30th.
These were two seats where Republicans could have been replaced with very, very solid, progressive Democrats. In fact, despite their tendency to recruit Bush Dogs, these were even cases where the Schumer led DSCC would have been happy--if not eager--to have progressives in the race. As an active member of the Blue Majority fundraising page, I would have been personally eager to endorse either one, and I imagine the folks at Blue America would have felt the same way. Jonathan Singer, another member of Blue Majority, was active in both Draft DeFazio and Draft Tom Udall (I believe he founded the later). Basically, everything was in place for these two: very winnable races where they would start in the lead, plus lots of establishment and grassroots support to back them up along the way. They could have replicated Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in 2006, no problem. And yet they both passed.
At Open Left, we spend a good deal of time criticizing Bush Dogs. However, let me pause for a moment to criticize progressive caucus members. We simply can't build a more progressive Senate if progressive caucus members keep passing up opportunities to run for higher office. If progressives keep passing up on runs at higher office, should we be surprised that the Democrats who end up in higher office are often less than progressive? This is a failure of progressive leadership at the highest levels. I am well aware of the way conservative Democrats are often recruited for Senate by our existing leadership, but the DSCC does not share the entire blame here. In fact, in at least DeFazio's case, they really wanted the progressive to run, as demonstrated by releasing a poll showing the Defazio--Smith trial heat. I can't imagine they would have been opposed to Udall running, either.
We can't build a more progressive Democratic Party if progressive Democrats don't run for higher office. The double DeFazio and Udall let down are extremely disappointing. Honestly, it lowers not only my opinion of both men, but also of the congressional progressive caucus itself. This is a group of representatives who have a huge natural activist base and many great political opportunities to shine, but they consistently fail to step up to the plate. Media bias is not the only reason we hear more about the Blue Dogs than we hear about the caucuses in Congress. Part of it is that they are constantly trumpeting their own ability to stall legislation, their own ideology, and taking advantages of the opportunities presented to them to run for higher office. Progressives just are not doing the same things, at least to the same degrees. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is full of Democrats who could make activists feel a lot better about the party, but they are doing little to provide us with that feeling. They need to start stepping up more--a lot more-and one of the areas to start would be to take advantage of Senate campaigns where you would actually start in the lead.
Show some leadership, please. We are in desperate need of it.
STATE BLOGS
On Wednesday, Chris wrote a