Brian at the brand-new Knoxville-based blog Circle Park Forum thinks progressive activists in Tennessee and across the nation should focus on key electoral pressure points in 2010 -- including TN-05:

Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Well, oddly enough, it isn’t. With a few exceptions, progressive activists campaign tirelessly for progressive positions on a wide variety of issues, but do not think enough about how to help progressive candidates win elections...

Progressives must focus on helping progressive candidates win elections.

In 2010, Progressives must focus on primaries, taking out Blue Dogs, New Democrats, and other moderates in the Democratic Caucuses of the House and Senate, devoting resources to those races in which, if given the opportunity, the incumbents’ constituents would vote for progressive candidates in next year’s midterm elections (e.g. Jim Cooper in TN-05, about whom much more in future posts).

A second tea party activist has announced a run for the Republican nomination in TN-05:

Lonnie Spivak, a conservative Republican from Nashville, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to form an exploratory committee to advise him in planning a campaign for the U.S. Congress from Tennessee’s 5th District.

“Earlier this year I became alarmed by the tax and spend mentality prevailing in Washington, so I joined the thousands of people participating in the Tax-Day Tea Party Protest,” said Spivak...

Just days ago, tea party activist Patrick Miranda became the first official candidate for the Republican nomination in the Fifth Congressional District.

Both Dru Fuller and Kleinheider post this morning about a tea party activist who is apparently - so far, at least - the only officially declared candidate for the Republican nomination in Tennessee's 5th CD:

Who is Patrick Miranda, and What Does He Stand For?

My name is Patrick Miranda, and I am running as a Republican for United States House of Representatives from Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District....

I am a Christian. I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. I am also a member of Tennessee Right to Life, Tea Party Nation and the Eagle Forum...

According to OpenCongress.org, Miranda is as of now the only candidate to officially declare for the Republican nomination in 2010.

In a district that has been represented by Democrats since the 1800s, it seems increasingly probable that Jim Cooper will face more pressure from his own base than he will from the right wing in 2010.

It appears that Kent Conrad is now taking the lead in the Senate on the fight for the Cooper Commission (aka the "Catfood Commission") that would abdicate Congress' authority and fast-track cuts to Social Security and Medicare while making them more politically palatable:

The Conrad-Gregg commission would be able to make recommendations that Congress would have to actively reject with an up or down vote and no filibuster, actually taking the lawmaking process out of the hands of elected lawmakers. And the commission would surely favor cuts to social spending programs, a long-sought goal of those who are advocating for it.

A group of fiscal scolds in the Senate are intimating that they would refuse to agree to raise the debt limit, sending the nation into default, if this commission was not convened.

Chris Bowers at Open Left has described these tactics as being essentially a "national suicide pact":

Let's review the threat that these five Democrats are making:

* They will allow the United States to default on its debt, which will vastly increase the overall amount we have to pay on our debt

UNLESS

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi turns over Congressional power on Social Security and Medicare to an unelected commission that will almost certainly propose deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare entitlements. Keep in mind that if deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare pass under a Democratic trifecta, the party would be doomed at the ballot box for years to come.

This is completely insane, and there is no choice but to call this bluff.

Indeed, the statutory debt limit was raised seven times by Congress as President Bush racked up deficits while spending hundreds of billions in Iraq - from $5.9 trillion on the day he took office in January 2001 to $11.3 trillion on the day he left in January 2009. Each time, Congress needed to vote to increase the debt ceiling. And each time, the "fiscally responsible" Blue Dogs were largely silent.

Certainly there was nothing approaching these types of threats we are now seeing approved of by Jim Cooper:

The other track is by December the Senate will have to vote on raising the debt ceiling. Seven senators have now committed to not vote for that increase. I think seven Democratic senators, unless the bipartisan entitlement reform commission that I have long championed is part of the bill.

When Jim Cooper says he has "long championed" this commission to address cuts in Medicare and Social Security, he is entirely correct. In 2006 he compared the coming "crisis" in Social Security to Hurricane Katrina. In 2007, "Mr. Fiscal Responsibility" himself was named the DLC "New Dem of the Week" for launching a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" in partnership with the right-wing Heritage Foundation. In fall 2008, Jim Cooper was described by The Hill as a "modern day Paul Revere," sounding the alarm on a supposed "crisis" in Medicare and Social Security -- just days before he would vote for the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street bankers while worrying that even $700 Billion was "not big enough".

Through the entire Bush presidency, Jim Cooper's obsession with the issue strangely did not translate into any threats of action. But now that a Democratic president took office in a time of unprecedented economic crisis, he -- along with his allies in the Senate -- is willing to hold the entire nation hostage in order to fast-track cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

Roll Call reports today that the Jim Cooper-led Blue Dog effort to create a powerful bipartisan commission that could fast-track cuts to Social Security and Medicare advanced significantly last night:

In a direct challenge to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition voted Tuesday night to endorse a powerful bipartisan commission with fast-track authority to bring legislation to the House and Senate floor that would slash the federal deficit.

If House Republicans join with the Blue Dogs, they would have the votes to roll Pelosi, who has long opposed the idea. Blue Dogs will also have leverage to push the idea when House leaders bring their jobs package to the floor next month.

The SAFE Commission, sponsored by Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.), would set up an appointed group tasked with cutting the deficit and would have broad authority to propose tax hikes and spending reductions.

“I believe that the greatest threat to our nation’s economic security is our long-term fiscal imbalance,” Cooper said in a statement. “A fiscal reform commission will help Congress face these tough issues. Blue Dog support for this commission is crucial for its passage.”

This is not exactly news - Cooper has been pushing for just such a "fast-track" commission for ages, and recently testified in favor of the proposal, diagnosing the United States with "fiscal cancer" in front of a Senate committee considering similar legislation.

But just over a year ago, as the Wall Street bailout was being debated in Congress, where was Rep. Jim "Fiscal Responsibility" Cooper? Was he arguing about the horrific effect the bailout would have on the nation's "fiscal cancer"?

Nope.

He was arguing that the Wall Street bailout was too small:

"Is the bail-out big enough? No, this is not a joke. The Administration has consistently underestimated the problem; only three days ago they thought 500 billion was enough..."

And this past summer, as Congress debated the war supplemental, where was Rep. Jim "Fiscal Responsibility" Cooper?

Politico reported he voted no on the original supplemental in May due to "budget concerns". But after $108 billion for the International Monetary Fund was added by the Senate, Cooper ended up changing his vote to "aye".

As for the fast-track commission proposed by Reps. Cooper and Wolf, here is what Barbara Kennelly, former Democratic Congresswoman from CT and President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, had to say about it in front of Congress last year:

The National Committee is very concerned about the inflated fiscal rhetoric surrounding Social Security and Medicare. Often the future costs of these programs are inappropriately combined to generate an enormous multi-trillion dollar number to advance the notion that spending on entitlements is out of control. While Social Security and Medicare, in combination, are designed to provide older Americans with a sound foundation in their old age, they are in fact two very different programs.

Contrary to some accounts, Social Security is not facing bankruptcy but has a funding gap which is both modest and manageable. This gap is based primarily on demographics. Medicare, on the other hand, is a health care program. Most of its cost increases are being driven by the inflation in overall health care, not demographics. The reasons for these health care cost increases are many and complex and need to be addressed in a larger context. Cutting Medicare benefits without addressing this larger problem will only shift additional costs onto Medicare beneficiaries. ...

We believe that a commission that focuses on Social Security and Medicare in the context of the federal budget, with little regard for the critical role these programs play in the income and health security of future retirees, would be inherently biased and would inevitably result in a reduction in the standard of living of older Americans.

Rep. Cooper only seems to care about "fiscal responsibility" when it's the most vulnerable of his constituents who would feel the pain the most -- and not his corporate backers.

So says GoldnI today, a bit snarkily:

As has been noted, of course, [Stupak] would drastically change the status quo. It would make it nearly impossible for people within the exchange to buy a plan that covers the same basic service that most private plans do now, even if they're paying for the plan with their own money.

...But I'm sure that the President just doesn't understand the intricacies of the legislative process and all of these difficult questions that need to be asked.

CREDO action created an online petition last week targeting 20 "formerly pro-choice Democrats" who voted for the Stupak amendment restricting abortion rights. Jim Cooper, of course, was one of the 20. You can view photos of all 20 here.

Aunt B. took a look at the photos, and asks Rep. Cooper if he noticed anything similar about he and his 19 colleagues:

Oh, Jim Cooper, did you not even have a moment when you looked at the other Democrats in your group where you felt weird, like something was strange about this, even though you could not put your finger on what it was?

Some interesting answers from Rep. Jim Cooper during an interview with the Tennessean editorial board today.

On his vote for the Stupak amendment:

“There’s no denying it’s a subsidy and it’s direct. So if you’re applying the Hyde Amendment, I think most people want to preserve the status quo....

“In a confusing situation, it looked like it was coming closer to codifying the status quo than any other approach. … It involves applying a 1977 doctrine [the Hyde Amendment] to a new House bill. … This is not easy, simple stuff. It’s going to be an interesting question how direct or indirect subsidies are applied.”

On how he thinks his pro-choice female constituents should react to his vote for Stupak:

"Most of the House bill is not going to be seriously considered by the Senate. … What’s the most important issue. Getting health care to every man, woman and child in this country. … If you keep your eye on the ball, including for most women’s issues, the most important thing is providing affordable health care.”

On the state of health care legislation right now:

“The simple answer is the Senate will act and it will be sent to conference. … [But] There are a number of senators saying they’re not going to send it to conference. They’re going to say to the House take it or leave it. … They know what they have to do to get the 60 votes. … If you peel back the layers further, you realize it may be may difficult for the Senate to vote on anything. … A 60-vote majority is very fragile. … I’d say health reform, despite the House vote, is still on life support.”

On if he feels pressure from progressives:

“There are folks running in various other districts but maybe I’m blind to something. I haven’t seen any major activity here. I think we dodged that bullet months ago. As for the Daily Kos, I don’t know where he lives. I pay attention to the local folks.”

On his interactions with Speaker Pelosi:

[Q] What did Nancy Pelosi give you for your vote?

“The answer is nothing. … It’s really not like she’s ever done anything for me. If I’ve gotten anything, it’s the back of her hand. But it’s not about me...."

Jim Cooper is visiting with The Tennessean's editorial board today, and the paper will be liveblogging the event on their website at 1pm:

Rep. Jim Cooper will be at 1100 Broadway at 1 p.m. this afternoon to talk with the editorial board. Top of the agenda will almost assuredly be health care reform, including his votes for the House plan and the Stupak amendment, as well as the legislation’s future in the Senate.

Check back here for a liveblog of the discussion.

Here's the link.

"Health reform would simply not have passed without the Stupak Amendment."

- Rep. Jim Cooper, attempting to explain his vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment severely restricting abortion rights.

“The forty members who stood strong with me through this whole deal, I think at least 15 will not vote for the bill no matter what, even if Stupak is adopted,” he said. “Then there might still have been ten to 15 who would vote for it even if we didn’t get our amendment.”

So enough to put it over the top?

“It should be,” he said.

- Rep. Bart Stupak, right before the vote, saying that the health care bill would have passed whether or not his amendment was approved.