Jane Harman-- The Richest Democrat In The House-- And, More Important, The Most Duplicitous

The other day a Capitol Hill staffer who works with the leadership told me that although California Blue Dog Jane Harman was parading around Southern California crowing about how she's a big supporter of meaningful health care reform-- she even did a video interview with Mike Stark which has been interpreted by some naive activists as meaning she's on "our side"-- she has informed the House whip team that she's a no vote on a plan with a public option.

"But what about the video she did with Mike?" I asked, bewildered.

"Harman is the worst Democrat in the House. She's not a good faith player... on anything," was the quick response.

Gee, the worst Democrat in the House? That covers a lot of ground-- Parker Griffith, John Barrow, Heath Shuler, Chris Carney... But people who don't like Jane Harman really don't like Jane Harman. There are a lot of reasons for Democrats not to like her and few that endear her to her colleagues. A duplicitous, calculated pattern of behavior has driven critics and constituents crazy.

The same way that she is rushing around claiming to be an advocate of progressive health care reform while working against it behind the scenes also has her at loggerheads with California's enormously influential Armenian community. Harman is a co-sponsor of the House Armenian Genocide resolution-- a nice public position to have in Southern California-- but, again, behind the scenes, she has been working to undermine Armenian-American aspirations in this matter. Last week the Armenian National Committee endorsed Marcy Winograd's primary challenge against Harman, calling her "a disaster for the people of the 36th Congressional District... “As her secret effort to kill the Armenian Genocide resolution showed in 2007, she is willing to barter away human rights to satisfy foreign Turkish interests. The citizens of the South Bay area in Los Angeles deserve better than Jane Harman. We urge all voters in the 36th Congressional District to cast their ballots for Marcy Winograd in the Democrat Primary to be held on June 8, 2010."

Harman made national headlines in 2007 when she secretly wrote a letter in opposition to the Armenian Genocide resolution to the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, while still being listed as a “cosponsor” of the human rights legislation.

The Los Angeles Times and others harshly criticized Harman for flip-flopping on the genocide resolution.  California’s 36th Congressional District covers a portion of the South Bay in Los Angeles County, including the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, El Segundo and Venice.

The fact that she's the richest Democrat in the House hasn't made her the most popular. She certainly isn't among the biggest congressional donors, although she does give out a few contributions to colleagues, mostly Blue Dogs, of course. Harman's financial reports show a decline in net worth of around 50% from last year, the biggest drop of any of Congress' many, many millionaires. I wonder if she had money with Madoff. Her immense wealth comes from her husband's company, Harman Electronics (JBL).

The only House member with more money than her is right-wing car alarm king/landlord Darrell Issa (CA). The next richest House Democrat is Jared Polis (CO), who has been extremely generous towards his less financially blessed colleagues.

Last week Harman penned an OpEd for the right-wing propaganda sheet the Moonie Times, arguing that if we can just end corruption in Afghanistan we can "win" there. More duplicity from Congress' most duplicitous member. "Success in Afghanistan is essential; the United States has invested too many troops and too much treasure to fail," wrote Harman, just back from a trip to that country with right-wing extremist and anti-Obama obstructionist fanatic Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the Republican Senate whip. She sounds just like him! And they're both wrong. GOP war-mongering talking points aside, the U.S. has no legitimate business occupying Afghanistan. And it is an endeavor that can only end in failure unless Obama ends it quickly.

Eliminating corruption in Afghanistan is in both that nation's interest and ours. From the Afghan perspective, an honest government would give the people a genuine say in the direction of their country. For us, it would dramatically increase our national security, both because it would increase the effectiveness of our efforts to fight the Taliban and because the end result would be an Afghan population more invested in taking on the fight themselves. That is our real objective.

When I traveled to Afghanistan in April with Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, we were warned by opposition candidates that the country's presidential election would be marred by widespread fraud. They were right. On top of everything else that we have learned about the Afghan government, the vote that took place on Aug. 20 was a sham. Every indication is that the election results have been completely skewed by widespread, systematic fraud.

Afghan politics have never been particularly clean-- money, power and position traditionally have been traded for support from tribal and ethnic blocs.

Unlike Harman and Kyl, who flew in and walked around for a day or two surrounded by a phalanx of troops and body guards, I lived in Afghanistan, part of the time in a mountian village where no one had ever heard of the United States or experienced electricity. If Harman and Kyl weren't talking out of their asses, they might realize that what offends them so very much about Afghanistan is what Afghanistan is. Pashtunwali is the way this country lives, and Jane Harman and Jon Kyl and a few thousand American soldiers aren't going to change it. Even John Murtha and Dianne Feinstein have finally realized that a U.S. military occupation is futile and isn't going to change Afghanistan. (On the other hand, The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse are urging more troops be sent to Afghanistan.) Harman is never going to "get it," another reason why we have to get rid of her. I called the progressive candidate running for the CA-36 seat against Harman, Marcy Winograd, and asked her if she could understand what Harman is talking about regarding Afghanistan.

Some say we cannot afford to leave Afghanistan. In fact, my opponent argues we must eradicate corruption there because "the United States has invested too many troops and too much treasure to fail." I say, we cannot afford to stay in Afghanistan, because these trillion-dollar occupations will bankrupt our country.

Each billion we spend on bullets and bombs in Afghanistan is a billion robbed from universal health care, quality public education, and good jobs in the emerging U.S. Green economy.

War and occuption breed corruption, so our policy of escalation in Afghanistan is at cross-purposes. If we really want to eradicate corruption in Afghanistan, then we should invest in humanitarian aid, not weapons that will kill innocent people and create new enemies.

Jane Harman supported the Iraq invasion and votes billions to send more of our young men and women to fight and die in Afghanistan. Unlike my opponent, I will vote to protect our troops by bringing them home from Afghanistan. As a community leader, I know that real security comes from forging coalitions and winning the hearts and minds of the people around the world. When I serve in Washington, I will continue the work I have been doing for years to shape a new foreign policy that truly strengthens America's security.

If you're so moved, you can donate to Marcy's campaign here; remember, she's running against the richest-- and arguably the worst-- Democrat in the House.