Another Blue Dog Bites The Dust-- Jane Harman Leaving Congress

Don't worry about millionaires; they have hundreds of Members of Congress to continue pushing their interests in a post-Harman world

Conservative multimillionaire, AIPAC lackey and pro-war fanatic Jane Harman has had a rough time winning Democratic primaries in her progressive Los Angeles district lately. It's probably been no fun for her having to defend her regal self against scrappy anti-war progressive Marcy Winograd. So it wasn't that big of a shock early yesterday morning when the Internets started buzzing about her retirement from Congress, something that was quickly confirmed by her regal self:

Dear [fill in the name of a dupe who supports Harman],

Earlier today, I filed paperwork notifying the House of Representatives that I am in discussions to succeed former Rep. Lee Hamilton as President and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I send this note because a decision is imminent and I wanted you to hear the news from me first.

This is an excruciating decision because the distinction of representing the smartest constituents on earth will never be surpassed-- nor will my relationships with my exceptional staff and colleagues in Congress. But shaping and leading the Wilson Center is a thrilling new challenge.

I have always believed that the best solutions to tough problems require a bipartisan approach, and bipartisanship is the Center’s “brand.” Serving at its helm provides unique opportunities to involve the House and Senate, top experts, and world leaders in “great debates” about the most pressing foreign and domestic policy matters.

Should this opportunity come to pass, I would be required to resign my seat. But please know that I would remain in Congress for some weeks and do everything possible to ensure an orderly transition to whomever is elected to succeed me. Sidney and I will always retain our residence in Venice, be home frequently, and stay engaged at USC and active in the community.

You have elected me to nine terms in Congress-- an honor without equal. I hope you understand how truly grateful I am for your friendship and support.

JANE

Harman, a Blue Dog in a progressive state, who has alienated Nancy Pelosi and been exposed for underhanded anti-U.S. dealings on behalf of the Bush Regime, had no future in Congress. She has lost influence committee-wise and is considered the least trustworthy member of the Democratic caucus. "Her word doesn't mean a thing," the chief of staff of one influential Democrat told me last night. "The voters in her district will be better off without her in Congress."

The Wilson Center hasn't made a final determination on whether or not to offer Harman the job and they are meeting today to decide. There is some chatter in their circles that Hosni Mubarak may be looking for a new gig and that he would be just as suitable as Harman. And he's even richer than she is-- having pillaged an entire country for decades.

Even before I knew Harman was planning to resign, I had a call from a friend of L.A. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, asking me if Blue America would back Hahn, extolling what he called her "strongly progressive record." I called Marcy Winograd, who Blue America has backed in all her runs against Harman and she told me Hahn had reached out to her as well, assuring her that, like Marcy, she strongly opposes current U.S. doctrine of preemptive wars. Later, Marcy posted this message to her supporters:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your calls and emails, wanting to know my thoughts on Harman's resignation. I appreciate your interest and outreach, and am excited about the possibilities for substantive change
.
Please read my blog post below and let me know what you think. Warm regards, Marcy

Winograd on Harman's Resignation & a Possible Run

When I heard the news that Jane Harman was resigning, I thought, ‘Now we finally have an opportunity to send a progressive to Congress, someone who will work to create jobs in the new economy, to free the 36th District from its perpetual war footing.'

I was at school, in between TEACHING classes, checking my cell phone messages from news editors, bloggers, and former campaign supporters, all asking the same question…

‘Will you run again?’

‘I am exploring the possibility,’ I told them, adding that I live in Santa Monica now, less than a mile outside of the district that hugs the coast from Venice to San Pedro. In 2010, just months ago, the Winograd for Congress campaign mobilized 41% of the vote in a primary challenge to Harman. It was exhilarating, daunting, inspiring, and eye-opening as I precinct walked from one end of the district to the other.

Most of the support came from the northern end of the district, from Venice and Mar Vista, but we enjoyed significant inroads in the working class union strongholds of Wilmington and San Pedro.

I barely had time to digest the political possibilities before running back to class, to my South LA high school students, some of them dressed in military fatigues, where we would read Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic’s essay, Breaking the Silence of the Night, a passionate account of Kovic’s transformation from blind follower to critical thinker and anti-war leader.

My high school students knew nothing of the buzz in the blogosphere, only that their teacher seemed a little preoccupied.

I had just hung up with LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who told me she was running, making a courtesy call-- perhaps hoping to clear the field-– and asking for an endorsement. I told her I had two concerns-– that we needed a voice that would challenge pre-emptive wars, regardless of whether the wars were waged by Republicans or Democrats, and that we needed a Congressperson who would advocate for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, someone who would not be afraid to criticize Israel, to fight for equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews. It was time for the United States to be an honest broker at the negotiating table. World stability depends on it.

After reminding me she had supported anti-war efforts on the Los Angeles City Council, Hahn added, “I want to make it clear. I am a friend to Israel.”

I am a friend to equality and dignity for all.

I asked Hahn if she would be willing to meet with a group of Jews and Palestinians offering an alternative viewpoint to current US foreign policy.

Yes, she would.

A few hours later news broke that Secretary of State Debra Bowen was also running. Not surprising, since Bowen will term out of office soon. I know Debra and admire her courage in taking on the electronic voting industry, in banning touch-screen voting machines. Would she also be ready to take on the military budget? To demand that Washington stop holding our young engineers hostage to bomb-building-- and award contracts, instead, to corporations intent on developing mass transit, high speed rail, and solar cities?

I haven’t had a chance to speak with Debra Bowen-– but when I do I will ask her the tough questions, starting with …

“Will you vote against further military appropriations for expanded wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?”

“Will you go to the wall to defend Social Security and Medicare, our greatest safety nets?”

“Will you visit Bradley Manning in solitary confinement?”

“Will you walk the streets of Wilmington with me, breathe the oil fumes, and work to crack down on polluters?”

“Will you support the right of states to pursue single-payer health care?”

I am waiting to ask the tough questions-– and to hear courageous answers.

Then I will decide.

## ##
Californians recently passed an Open Primary law, meaning that if no candidate wins 50% plus one vote in the Special Election, the top two vote getters go head-to-head in the next round. Had the Open Primary law been in effect when Winograd challenged Harman in 2010, the two would have faced off against each other in the General Election, as well. Given the small turn-out in special elections, 35,000 of the 300,000 registered voters may decide who replaces Jane Harman. In June, 2010, Winograd received 18,000 votes.

Others considering the run include Crooks and Liars publisher John Amato of Mar Vista and, as Marcy said above, Marina Del Rey resident and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. And with the conservative DLC closing up operations-- another Harman base-- let's all pray fervently that Harold Ford's next move in search of something with which to repay Wall Street for their generosity (to him and his career aspirations) isn't to Venice or, more likely, Palos Verdes Estates.

Mark Kirk May Be The Biggest Liar In Politics THIS Week, But Is He As Bad As Jane Harman?

I've known Marcy Winograd since 2005. There's little doubt in my mind that if she's elected to Congress Tuesday she'll catapult immediately into the prominence of being among the half dozen best members. Best? Well, best in terms of serving the interests of working families and best in terms of pushing forward powerful ideas that drag the hidebound system away from the status quo and away from the narrow machinations of lobbyists and powerful corporate interests. Just that. She'll always be controversial and never really fit in with the go-along-to-get-along crew. But one thing we don't need is another one of 435 cutout congressional clowns. Marcy will never be one of those. I guarantee it.

And how bad is Jane Harman? If you've been reading DWT with any frequency, you already know she's always been the worst kind of corporate shill, consistently voting-- and, more important, working behind the scenes-- against the interests of working families and pushing a Big Business agenda. When she said, unaware of the age of 24/7 news coverage, that she's really a Republican at heart, she had no idea it would come back to haunt her. Her aisle crossing vote, for example, in favor of the draconian, anti-consumer bankruptcy bill that has forced so many families on CA-36 out of their homes is one thing. But it is hard for many people to understand, even though every single Republican voted for something the banks and credit card companies were clamoring for-- and paying congressmen to support-- while most Democrats opposed it. This documented statement by Harman, however, which she desperately tries claiming never happened (like the espionage phone call she was taped in the midst of), is easy to understand:

"I just want to say how flattered I was in the last election to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party," she told several hundred civic leaders at the downtown Los Angeles meeting. "I accept."

She now imperiously denies having ever said it. It isn't the only time she's been caught in a lie like that. In fact this one that Rachel Maddow caught is far more serious. How serious? Jane Harman shouldn't be running for reelection. She should be in federal prison. Take a look:

June 8th Primaries And Propositions-- California

In 10 days, June 8, there are several important primaries: the Arkansas runoffs-- in which Blue America has endorsed proven progressive superstar Joyce Elliott for Congress and is helping raise money for Bill Halter, the candidate running against the odious Blanche Lincoln-- plus the races in Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and California. We'll continue looking at some of these contests over the next 10 days but, as we do every year, I want to focus on California Democratic ballot today, especially the down ticket races and propositions.

My friend Gus has an easy to remember formula for the California propositions: YES on 13 and 15; NO on everything else. Even I'll be able to remember that. But some of the NOs are more important than others. A few weeks ago we covered the battle over Prop 17, a slimy effort by Mercury Insurance to spend enough money on patently deceptive advertising on TV to persuade gullible consumers to remove consumer protections previously placed on insurance companies by voters. If you watch television-- even a little-- you cannot miss Mercury's patently misleading barrage of ads that promises lower rates-- like any insurance company, let alone these cutthroats who systematically discriminate against military vets and women (among others), has ever in the history of the universe voluntarily lowered rates, What it would really do is allow them to plaster their customers with unrestricted increases and penalties if there's any interruption in coverage (like if you don't have a car for a period for some reason, for example, or move out of the state for a while). Every single credible organization and media outlet in the state is urging a NO vote, including the Courage Campaign, CREDO, the California Democratic Party, AFSCME, the California Federation of Teachers, the California League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters, the California Nurses Association and our pals at Calitics. Mercury is one of the worst corporate citizens on earth, on a level with BP and Fox; I started my vote against Prop 17 but ending my relationship with Mercury and going to a less horrible insurance provider for my coverage. But let's look at some of the other propositions we haven't covered yet.

Prop 13, which we're recommending a YES vote on, offers tax breaks for property owners who retrofit their buildings to bring them up to seismic stands though retrofits. It isn't a controversial proposition and even conservatives support it.

All of the rest of the voting is, in the end, about the corrosive, corrupting onslaught of corporate money gushing into California politics. Prop 14 is an anti-democratic shenanigan by Abel Maldonado and Arnold Schwarzenegger to prevent smaller parties-- whether Greens or Libertarians-- from ever appearing on the general election ballot. It limits voters' choices by mandating that the two top vote getters in a primary-- even if they're from the same party-- are the only two to appear on the general election ballot. Had that been in place in Kentucky, for example, the general election would be a rematch between Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo and Rand Paul would be sitting at home muttering darkly about the Civil Rights Act instead of campaigning on ideas that polite people outside of the salve-holding states never admitted they held. In effect, there will be no party primaries-- with two Republicans competing in the more backward areas of Orange County, for example, and two Democrats competing against each other in the normal parts of the state. It's a terrible idea and is almost universally opposed.

Prop 15-- the only other one we're recommending a YES vote on-- is about Fair Elections. In fact, it's called the California Fair Elections Act. If passed it will set up a pilot program of public funding of campaigns for Secretary of State (starting in 2014) so that elections are about who is the best candidate and not just the best fundraiser. And better yet, it is paid for by a tax on lobbyists. Of course the Chamber of Commerce is opposing it; all civil groups favor it.

Prop 16, like 17, is a cynical enterprise and was put on the ballot by a corporation with the intent of tricking the public into screwing itself and turn consumers into victims. This one is courtesy of the bloodsuckers at PG & E. The aim-- which you would never guess from their slick multimillion dollar propaganda media campaign-- is simple: to perpetuate PG & E's monopoly on power, stifle competition from cooperative local green power generation organizations that are put together by progressive local governments. The Chamber of Commerce supports it and, again, they're alone as every single civic minded group in the state is against it-- from the non-partisan League of Women Voters to the Courage Campaign and the Democratic Party.

If you live in the 36th congressional district-- a stretch along the coast that starts up in Venice and heads south to San Pedro, taking in Mar Vista, El Segundo, Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Hawthorne, West Carson, Redondo Beach, Marina Del Ray and Hermosa Beach-- you have an opportunity to vote in one of the most iconic elections of the year, pitting a conservative longtime incumbent serving corporate interests (the odious Blue Dog Jane Harman) against a scrappy and highly principled progressive tribune of ordinary working families, Marcy Winograd. Marcy was Blue America's first endorsement of 2010.

Unlike Harman, some incumbents running on the 8th deserve re-election: Senator Barbara Boxer, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Controller John Chiang, and Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The Attorney General race is tough for me to call. I can tell you that the worst choice would be the creep all over TV-- Facebook attorney Chris Kelly-- and I'm not keen on ex-L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo either. I'm lining San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, Santa Barbara Assemblyman Pedro Nava and 2 other Assemblymen, Alberto Torrico and Ted Lieu. I have nothing to say about the Democrats running for Governor or Lt Governor other than that Janice Hahn seems like a better choice in the latter race and that I went to see the blogger running, Mickey Kaus, in the former and he was just godawful and almost made me glad about Jerry Brown being a shoe-in.

In my own congressional district, Karen Bass is the best choice to replace Diane Watson. She has solidly progressive instincts and hopefully she'll hang around with a good crowd and start to understand that being a progressive doesn't necessarily mean parroting whatever middle of the road Barack Obama says and that solidly blue districts like CA-33 are where the impetus for progressive change has to start. That's Karen and I up top.

My friend Zack Webber has a grasp of the judicial races that I'm still as uninformed about as most voters:

L.A. County Superior Court Judges: In some cases there are more than one good candidate running. I met some of these candidates and also looked at various endorsements.
Office #28: Randy Hammock  
#35: Soussan Bruguera 
#73: Laura Matz 
#107: Tony de los Reyes
#117: Patricia Vienna 
#131 Maren Nelson

I'll study up and try to get up another post on June 7th with some more races.

Oh, and if there are any Republicans reading this-- Chris Riggs is an extremely right wing insurgent candidate looking to upset Ken Calvert. They'd probably vote alike most of the time but Calvert is a dishonest and profoundly corrupt character while Riggs is a straight arrow idealist who will at least be voting for all the crazy things the GOP pushes because he believes in them rather than because he's being paid to. DWT doesn't normally endorse in Republican primaries but Calvert is probably the single most corrupt man in the House-- well, among the half dozen most corrupt-- and does not deserve renomination. In November we're backing the exemplary progressive Bill Hedrick for that seat but we'd love to see a real battle between Bill's great ideas and Riggs' conservative delusions. And, given the nature of the district, Riggs would be the far easier Republican for Bill to beat. So... for the first time ever, DWT endorses, in the GOP primary in CA-44 (Riverside and Orange counties) a conservative Republican, Chris Riggs. (Digby and Amato would laugh in my face if I suggested Blue America do likewise so keep in mind this endorsement is just for the primary and just DWT, not Blue America. In fact, if you really want to do some good for the folks in the 44th CD, you'll donate to Bill Hedrick's campaign so that he can win in November against whichever conservative he has to run against. If you want to have a better understanding of Ken Calvert-- and of most conservative politicians-- watch what Chris Wallace of Fox News had to say about him:

Why Winograd Matters-- Guest Post From Brad Parker

Marcy Winograd is more relevant than most of us, today, right here, and right now. Through six years of campaigning to win a seat in the House of Representatives, she has revealed the true inner workings of the Democratic Party, both in California and nationally. Her epic struggle to unseat Representative Jane Harman, in the 36th Congressional District of California, has proven Winograd’s true grit and revealed the Party’s soulless Status Quo Establishment in inexorable decline.

Across the Golden State, this is the only race that has captured the imagination of Democrats of every stripe. Factions on all sides have ferociously fought to capture the flag and control of the once noble Democratic Party. Winograd has been hammered by parliamentary procedure and arcane by-laws at the California Democratic Party conventions and primary endorsement meetings. It was even proclaimed, by more than one Harman supporter at the recent CDP convention, that if Winograd prevented Harman from getting the CDP primary rubber-stamp, then all incumbents were in danger. Yes, that is true. In fact, Winograd’s mere presence in those proceedings spells the end of the old Imperator system of “Incumbents Only Rules” at the CDP-- either that or the demise of the CDP as a meaningful voice of the Democratic Party membership in California. Everywhere she goes Winograd is bringing introspection to a political process that has long been devoid of change, truth or competency.

The outcome of the Marcy Winograd versus Rep. Jane Harman race in the 36th Congressional District of the Golden State of California has been decided. Marcy Winograd is the winner. Yes, that is what I said-- Winograd Wins! Even if Jane Harman takes the seat in Congress next January, which Winograd supporters are actively working to prevent, Winograd is still the winner. Just cast your mind back about six years ago to when Harman was riding high on the Blue Dog bandwagon of Perpetual War and Wall Street Gangsterism; then contrast that to the scene at the Progressive Caucus meeting of the CDP this past April. There, sat Ms. Harman desperately attempting to portray herself as, dare I say it, a Liberal. 

As she gamely fumbled around denying that she was a Blue Dog and vainly pressing the point that she in fact is a Progressive but that the invitation to join the House Progressive Caucus must have blown off of her porch, all the chickens came home to roost. Without Marcy’s principled candidacy, across six years and two election cycles, Jane would still be absentee on the frontlines of Peace, Justice & Equality that the Progressive Movement has been championing these past six years. The Winograd run for Congress is already paying dividends to the American public in the Left Turn Only of the newly minted “Perhaps I Am A Liberal” Jane Harman. So, Winograd is the winner. Who then is the loser? The Status Quo California Democratic Party and National Democratic Party leadership appear to be the losers, with this in-your-face challenge to their crumbling contraption.

Sadly, there are other notable losers. The Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives has been compromised at the highest levels. You would expect to see Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Nadler, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters or other leading Progressives in the House supporting Winograd. But no, dear friends, none have lifted a hand or a dollar to support the Progressive challenger. To add insult to injury, House Progressive stalwarts Lynne Woolsey and John Conyers have openly endorsed Harman. Even the fact that Harman’s husband is a War Profiteer, with his many industrial interests in the War machine, could not persuade any Progressive in the House to break ranks and defy the hegemony of Incumbents Only that is rotting the body politic.

Marcy Winograd matters because she has shown the courage, vision and determination for change-- real change that would transform the dying carcass of American Empire into a dynamic positive collaboration among We the People. Harman is irrelevant except to shine a light on the empty hollow vestige of a once Liberal Democratic Party. 

Hats off to you Marcy Winograd. I have always been proud to stand up for you as you have always stood up, shown up and spoken up for all of us. May your light always shine. You are the best of us and that is a damn good thing!

Two Weeks From Today We Get To See If California Voters Are Ready To Give Dishonest Incumbents The Ole Heave-Ho

They could start their own lobbying firm next year

Primary candidates all over America must be looking at Rand Paul's ability to go up against the GOP Establishment machine and just decimate Kentucky Party boss Mitch McConnell's hand picked recruited protégé and, believe me, many are thinking something along the lines of "If that doofus can do it, I can do it." I know; I spent some time on the phone talking with them yesterday. And they can't. One guy I was on the phone with, who's challenging Jerry Lewis from the right, is Eric Stone. He ran against Lewis in 2008 too, one of three Republicans on the ballot. He's not a stupid guy and he knows how corrupt Lewis is and how vulnerable he should be. But I got the distinct impression that he's waiting for someone to deliver the nomination to him on a silver platter. There was nothing-- no strategy, no energy, no passion, no hope, no life... just some paranoia that if he pops his head up out of his hole he's liable to get it smacked. I don't know why he's running. He did manage to achieve one thing-- he wrote a candidate statement for the Board of Elections. I got the feeling he has a hope-- a faint one-- that people will read the statement in their Official Voter Information Guide and decide to vote for him instead of the guy the district has been electing since 1978. Here's the statement:

The power of knowledge and wisdom; the courage and conviction to move forward the solutions necessary to propel us far past the ills plaguing our system of government are my qualifications.
 
Combined with:

*The skills to bring the jobs home from over 30 years of both large and small business experience are key to our local economic recovery.
 
*Workable plans to restore the intended purpose/form of government set forth by our Founding Fathers back from the hands of multi billion dollar, needlessly controlling “special (power over you) interest” groups.
 
*Proven track record to champion new business enterprise directly challenging, when it became necessary, a self-dealing government body to successfully get the job done.
 
*Paramount in serving you is the unwavering “NEVER SELL OUT” INTEGRITY taught to me, by example from my father, a retired WWII United States Air Force, Colonel.

Officially (Federally) recognized, licensed, hands-on experience in local government and federal deficit financing including State and Federal bureaucracy experience (both good and challenging alike) with pinpoint careful budgeting skills adhering to spending limits are all key preparations to serve you with Honor.
 
On the lighter side but no less important the wisdom to “ask that your vote not prosper special interests” but rather ask how much better could the lives of the people you love be if government were exclusively responsible to benefit “We The People”, then absolutely –
Definitely Vote for Eric R. Stone.

Although Eric is running against an incumbent in a year incumbents are supposed to be unpopular and against an incumbent who not only voted for the no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout-- twice, once on September 29, 2008 and then again on October 3, but also helped John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan strong-arm and bribe another 26 reluctant Republicans into voting for it-- like Charlie Dent-- who were needed to make it pass, Eric is failing to exploit any of Lewis' myriad vulnerabilities.

I had such high hopes for the teabaggers to at least be able to weed out some of the trashiest of the corrupt southern California Republicans, especially Lewis, Mary Bono-Mack and Ken Calvert. But with just two weeks to go, it looks like the only incumbent in these parts likely to fail to win renomination is a Democrat-- or at least a putative Democrat-- out-of-step Blue Dog Jane Harman, the one who bragged about being the best Republican in the Democratic Party. Like Lewis, Calvert and Bono-Mack, Harman is a conservative and a corporatist who voted for Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout. Unlike Jerry Lewis' opponent, though, Harman's-- progressive firebrand Marcy Winograd-- has been all over her for it.

"Before bailing out Wall Street, Congress should have bailed out the American people who were victimized by predatory lenders selling bad loans. Any bail out should have been tied to a moratorium on foreclosures and a "First Right to Rent" rule, requiring banks to offer homeowners facing foreclosures a chance to rent their homes at market value.

"Had the government included in the bail-out low interest loans for such homeowners, we would not be facing massive foreclosures, blighted neighborhoods, lower property values, and county coffers starved for money for social services.  Instead, Washington politicians turned their backs on struggling homeowners and turned over the keys to our treasury to the same institutions that engineered our economic decline. All of this came at lightening speed, at a dizzying pace, with little time for thought or reflection or for demands that the recipients of the bail-outs funnel money back into local economies, into low-interest loans for small businesses, the most vulnerable to collapse.  

It was a lousy deal, one with no strings attached, that was sealed overnight. When dawn came and we looked around, Wall Street was still an unregulated casino. Had I been in Congress, not only would I have taken to the floor to argue for a foreclosure freeze but also for a return to regulation and limits on how big banks could become. No bank should hold more than 10% of our national deposits.
Otherwise we're back to square one, with banks too big too fail calling the shots on Capitol Hill.

"Congressional representatives with significant stock holdings in banks involved in TARP should have recused themselves from the bail-out vote. According to the most recent financial statements, my opponent Jane Harman had anywhere from one to five million dollars invested in Goldman Sachs at the time that she voted for the bail-out. In essence, she was voting to bail out
her own portfolio at taxpayers' expense."

It's not an argument a conservative can make with a straight face. All they can do, in effect, is say they would have let the American financial system collapse, a position extreme right anti-government members of Congress-- like Mike Pence, Darrell Issa, Virginia Foxx and Michele Bachmann-- were more than delighted to take.

Last week Ben Goad, writing for the Press-Enterprise took a look at the Inland Empire GOP primaries and didn't come up with much. Certainly Mary Bono Mack had aroused more antipathy from the teabaggers than any other Republican on the West Coast. And teabaggers have vague but palpable understandings that both Calvert and Lewis are egregiously corrupt and in and out of ethics and criminal difficulties. In Calvert's case, the Fox News Special on his corruption cases didn't do him any good. Watch it if you haven't seen it already:



Goad started with Mack, who, he points out "will square off against Clay Thibodeau in her bid for an eighth term in the 45th Congressional District, which includes Moreno Valley, Hemet Murrieta and Riverside County's desert communities."

Through March, Thibodeau had raised less than $20,000 for his campaign, while Bono Mack had collected more than $1 million.

Thibodeau, an author who lives in Hemet, said he is poised to pull off an upset with help from the conservative wing of Riverside County's Republican Party.

"People vote, money doesn't," Thibodeau said. "So we went after people, not money."

...To the west, Calvert, R-Corona, faces a challenge from Chris Riggs, a commercial real estate broker from Corona. Riggs said he has already amassed significant support throughout the 44th Congressional District, which includes Riverside, Corona, Norco, and a sizable part of Orange County. Riggs, whose war chest also is dwarfed by that of his opponent, pointed to primary upsets in Utah's contested U.S. Senate seat and a congressional seat in Maryland as evidence that voters are angry at the status quo.

"People are absolutely sick and tired of incumbents," Riggs said.

To overcome his fundraising disadvantage, Riggs is looking to social networking websites and a new law allowing congressional candidates to place candidate statements in sample ballots sent out to voters. In Riverside County alone, more than 813,000 ballots are being sent out to registered voters.

"It's a cheap, effective way to reach a lot of people," said Riggs. Calvert narrowly won a ninth term two years ago, when he edged out Democrat Bill Hedrick, who is running again this year. Calvert campaign consultant Scott Hart said the nine-term incumbent is fully engaged in the primary.

"We've got to get over this hurdle first," Hart said. "We're not taking anything for granted."

Eric Stone, a Republican challenging Lewis, R-Redlands, also is banking on the sample ballot law change to get his name out. A real estate project manager from Cedarpines Park, Stone said he would bring a renewed focus on the constituents in the 41st Congressional District, which includes Redlands, the Pass, parts of the High Desert and San Bernardino County's mountains.

"Special interest groups have hijacked our system of government at their benefit and our expense," he said.

Goad might have missed something in two of the races-- enough genuine dislike for Bono-Mack and Calvert to put the earnest and hardworking Thibodeau and Riggs over the top. Thibodeau comes off very arrogant and has already drawn attention to himself as a potential ethics problem-child. Riggs, on the other hand, comes across less as a teabagger and more as a straight ahead hard core conservative. He's working hard and taking his campaign very seriously-- and counting on God to help him-- really.

Riggs calls the biggest part of the district-- western Riverside County-- "the Bible Belt of California" (and that's probably why he lives there). Why is it a big deal that mega-churches dot the landscape as if in parody? For starters, on November 23, 1993 Calvert was caught by Corona Police receiving oral sex from a heroin addicted prostitute, which is the same year he divorced his wife. Couple this with the fact that the anti-Choice crowd which dominates GOP politics in the desert feels betrayed by his recent YES votes for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and that he didn't join 55 far right crackpots who sponsored some kind of the Sanctity of Life Act, that Riggs would have probably written. All this has placed Calvert in as an awkward a relationship with the Sunday morning church crowd as his votes fro Bush's Wall Street bailout has put him with the teabaggers.

To further complicate matters for an incumbent who is hardly known by his constituents for anything other than his moral and ethical shortcomings, he is involved in a high-profile illegal land deal where he and his partners purchased 4.3 acres of land from a Public Agency that is part of his own Congressional District without competition, and media outlets are now reporting he has been asked to give a deposition regarding this foray into out-and-out criminality prior to election day. And the reason Calvert's high-priced consultant told Goad they're taking the primary so seriously is because Riggs, a 31 year old Christian Conservative, with a picture-perfect family-- 4th kid on the way-- (the antithesis of the hard-drinking, whore-mongering, money-grubbing and philandering Calvert-- who is known in Washington as the one Republican to make David Vitter look like a choir boy), is challenging him from the right! And, he's hammering him for all he's worth.


On the surface, Riggs’ disadvantage has been his fundraising and he's running a race that looks more like what grassroots bottoms-up Democrats do than what you'd expect from the button down, strict hierarchy party. But Riggs is smart and limited resources has him relying on the passions of volunteers to make him competitive. He landed a strategist out of Sacramento to help on principle rather than retainer. He has attorneys and accountants handling the administrative spectrum pro-bono, and has assembled a team through his connections in those mega-churches to handle his website and social media efforts (Riggs is crushing an 18 year incumbent on Facebook fans, while the hapless Calvert makes an idiot of himself daily on Twitter, clearly not his medium). Riggs' campaign reached every absentee voter home that has a published phone number last week with an aggressive auto-call, and they have managed to accumulate tens of thousands of registered Republican email addresses and have been firing pointed-- even barbed-- emails over the last few weeks. Riggs managed to get on the Faith Family Freedom & California Taxpayer Protection slates, each of which hit 40,000 high propensity Republican voter households over the last 10 days, complete with a little education on Calvert’s record on supporting the Bush Wall Street bailout.

A recent Fox News poll showing that 71% of likely Republicans voters in America, if given no information other than whether someone is an incumbent or a challenger, said they would vote for the challenger. With only 32,740 votes cast in the 2008 Republican Primary in the 44th District, out of roughly 145,000 registered Republicans, it is not a stretch to assume that the crazed, racist, pissed off teabaggers and the dedicated church going types are the ones who will be showing up on June 8th. If this is the case, Calvert just might be looking for a job on K Street sooner than he expected. Maybe he and Jane Harman could open a bipartisan lobbying firm.

Harman is home free if she can somehow manage to derail Marcy Winograd's huge momentum. Calvert, on the other hand, would probably not been able to beat Bill Hedrick this year-- even if an earnest conservative hadn't left him half dead on the side of the road. Electing Marcy Winograd and Bill Hedrick are two ways to fix what ails America so please consider a donation here at our Blue America ActBlue page.

What Happens To "Conservatives" Who Supported Bush's Wall Street Bailout Bill?

Different clubs, same mindset

There's been a lot of rumble lately about how angry teabaggers-- the GOP electoral base-- turned on Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) and ended his political career because of his support for George W. Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout bill in the fall of 2008. But Bennett was hardly alone among Republican senators giving their Wall Street campaign donors a big fat wet kiss with our tax money. In fact, most Republican senators, 34 of them, voted for it. There's some speculation that the unprecedented drubbing inflicted on Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson Tuesday was largely-- and correctly-- because he was perceived as McConnell's boy and that the overwhelming anti-Grayson vote that saddled the GOP with the unelectable kook Rand Paul, was an anti-McConnell vote. Remember, McConnell didn't just vote for the bailout, he, along with Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander and Richard Burr, made sure it passed.

Another race that played out badly for a Republican incumbent Tuesday, one who had taken massive-- if thinly veiled-- bribes from the financial sector ($6.4 million), was in Pennsylvania. There 29 year Republican Senator Arlen Specter had been driven out of the GOP after voting for Bush's bailout, tried to seek re-election as a Democrat and was soundly rejected by Democrats in every county in the Commonwealth save three. Among the Republicans who are into the most peril in the November general election are bailout supporters Richard Burr (NC), Chuck Grassley (IA) and John McCain (AZ). Several other bailout supporters-- George Voinovich (OH), Mel Martinez (FL), Kit Bond (MO), Chuck Hagel (NE), and Judd Gregg (NH)-- have retired or are retiring rather than face angry voters.

Things are even more dismal for Republicans bailout supporters in the House. Please recall that when the bill was first voted on, September 29, 2008, Bush was only able to muster 65 Republicans and the bill failed 228-205. Between bribes (called sweeteners) and brute force (applied by bailout advocates John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Pete Sessions and Paul Ryan) when the bill was voted on the next week, it passed 263-171, with 91 Republicans voting in favor. Many have already retired or gone down to defeat.

The first Republican to see his career evaporate because of his support of the no-strings-bailout was Chris Cannon (R-UT), replaced by extreme teabagger Jason Chaffetz, almost immediately after the vote. But Cannon is far from the only Republican House member who lost his seat-- or retired or is retiring now-- after voting for the bailout. Others include:

Barbara Cubin (WY)
Tom Davis (VA)- defeated in a bid for higher office
Vern Ehlers (MI)- retiring this year, afraid to face the voters
Mike Ferguson (NJ)
Vito Fossella (NY)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Dave Hobson (OH)
Joe Knollenberg (MI)
Randy Kuhl (NY)
Ray LaHood (IL)
Jim McCrery (LA)
John McHugh (NY)
Chip Pickering (MS)
Jon Porter (NV)
George Radanovich (CA) -retiring this year, afraid to face the voters
Jim Ramstad (MN)
Ralph Regula (OH)
Tom Reynolds (NY)
Jim Saxton (NJ)
John Shadegg (AZ) -retiring this year, afraid to face the voters
Chris Shays (CT)
Tom Tancredo (CO)- defeated in a bid for higher office
Jim Walsh (NY)
Dave Weldon (FL)
Jerry Weller (IL)
Heather Wilson (NM)- defeated in a bid for higher office

Going into the general election, there are a great many Republicans in a great deal of trouble. Bailout champions currently looking to go on to higher office who are getting blowback for putting their Wall Street cronies ahead of their constituents are Gresham Barrett (SC), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR)-- who will really get pounded if anti-bail out Democrat Bill Halter is his opponent instead of bailout queen Blanche Lincoln-- Mike Castle (DE), Mary Fallin (OK), Vito Fossella (NY, on the comeback trail in his mind), Pete Hoekstra (MI), Mark Kirk (IL), Adam Putnam (FL), Paul Ryan (WI), Zach Wamp (TN). Kind of tough for the GOP to claim that they are the party against bailouts when the absolute worst bailout ever was supported by every single House member running for senator or governor or, in Putnam's case, state agriculture commissioner.

And then there are the one's who want to keep their seats. The five California Republican incumbents most likely to lose their seats are Mary Bono Mack, the hated nemesis of all West Coast teabaggers, Ken Calvert, David Dreier, John Campbell, and Dan Lungren, three bailout proponents going into an election cycle with contempt and fervent opposition from the Republican base. Bono Mack and perhaps Calvert will each be hard-pressed to survive their June 8th primaries. Of course, to be fair, it isn't only California Republican incumbents who sold out their constituents for their Wall Street benefactors. Blue Dog Jane Harman-- who calls herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party" (although not so much this close to an election)-- is likely to lose her primary to Marcy Winograd June 8th. Last night I asked Marcy how she would have handled the request-- even pressure-- swirling around the financial sector problems that led to Bush's bailout. Noting that Harman, the wealthiest Democratic member of the House, didn't reveal-- let alone recuse herself when she voted for the bailout (of her own portfolio)-- that she owned millions of dollars in Goldman Sachs investments-- Marcy didn't back away from drawing the clear distinctions between herself and the incumbent from a policy perspective:

"Before bailing out Wall Street, Congress should have bailed out the American people who were victimized by predatory lenders selling bad loans. Any bail out should have been tied to a moratorium on foreclosures and a 'First Right to Rent' rule, requiring banks to offer homeowners facing foreclosures a chance to rent their homes at market value.

"Had the government included in the bail-out low interest loans for such homeowners, we would not be facing massive foreclosures, blighted neighborhoods, lower property values, and county coffers starved for money for social services. Instead, Washington politicians turned their backs on struggling homeowners and turned over the keys to our treasury to the same institutions that engineered our economic decline. All of this came at lightening speed, at a dizzying pace, with little time for thought or reflection or for demands that the recipients of the bail-outs funnel money back into local economies, into low-interest loans for small businesses, the most vulnerable to collapse.  

"It was a lousy deal, one with no strings attached, that was sealed overnight. When dawn came and we looked around, Wall Street was still an unregulated casino. Had I been in Congress, not only would I have taken to the floor to argue for a foreclosure freeze but also for a return to regulation and limits on how big banks could become. No bank should hold more than 10% of our national deposits.
Otherwise we're back to square one, with banks too big too fail calling the shots on Capitol Hill.

Of course, needless to say, this isn't just a California problem for conservatives like Ken Calvert, Dan Lungren and Jane Harman either. Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley is almost surely going to lose his seat over his extremely inglorious role in the bailout, as will Bob Inglis in South Carolina.

But what about Boehner, the architect of the whole operation to pass the bill after it had failed on September 29? Blue America is backing a straight-arrow West Point grad who's running for the western Ohio seat Boehner has been occupying for almost two decades of intense golf playing, Justin Coussoule. He has a very different perspective than Boehner on Wall Street bailouts and his whole campaign is about giving a hand to regular working families instead of special interests. He's what you'd call a Main Street Democrat to Boehner's Wall Street Republican. Justin:

"To those millions who are rightfully angered by the bail out of Wall Street banks and financial institutions who violated our trust and created an economic disaster for American families, they should be reminded that the bail out was George Bush's and John Boehner twisted arms to pass the bill for his friends on Wall Street.

"Although a response while our nation stood at the edge of economic collapse may have been necessary, a bail out without transparency, accountability and safeguards for American families was inexcusable. But 'Bail Out Boehner' chose to protect his friends on Wall Street and stiff working families, leaving them to pick up the tab."

Both Justin Coussoule and Marcy Winograd have been endorsed by Blue America. Marcy is fighting a Democratic corporate shill, Jane Harman, and Justin is fighting a Republican one, the aforementioned John Boehner, who spent one day out of three last year golfing and who was handsomely paid for his services to the financial sector, which has lavished $3,533,714 towards advancing his political career. Please consider contributing what you can to both Marcy and Justin-- on the same ActBlue page.

Jane Harman's Deception Blows Up In Her Face Again

It's hard to see the numbers on my house because there's a gigantic rhododendron growing down the side of the wall covering the address. I don't care; I hope no one bothers me. But these days everyone knows it's my house because there's a great big "Jobs Not Wars" Marcy Winograd sign out front.

Marcy's was the very first campaign endorsed by Blue America this year, and so far 817 netroots donors have contributed to her through Blue America '10, Bad Dogs and our Sending The Democrats A Message page. To us her race is iconic-- a way of holding a faithless corporate shill accountable and replacing her with someone we expect to be as vital to progressive politics as past Blue America endorsees Alan Grayson and Donna Edwards (our greatest hits).

Marcy e-mailed me after the California Democratic Party convention to let me know what happened there. The video above pertains to her run-in with Harman, described in her e-mail:

It happened unexpectedly at the Progressive Caucus meeting at the California Democratic Party convention when a panel was convened to discuss the fate of our nation. I spoke, then left, then got a cell phone call: "Get back here. Jane Harman just arrived." I ran back downstairs, returned to the crowded room, and quietly sat down, unbeknownst to Jane, just three bodies down from her on the panel. I waited for her to finish her thought, then jumped in. Jane stuck around for about 15 minutes, but when talk turned to the Middle East she made a break for the door and disappeared. [The second part of the video shows] what went down before she fled. I had been clamoring for a debate with Harman for four years, but she always refused, even when a rabbi offered his 800-seat sanctuary for the venue.

 
Instead, Harman just spreads her money around-- she and Darrell Issa are the two wealthiest members of the House-- and hopes that will buy her enough loyalty from enough places to allow her to keep her seat. She even got a somewhat addled leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to endorse her, something that ruined the poor woman's standing in the progressive community forever. And Harman has used that endorsement to try to mislead progressives into thinking she's changed her wicked ways. 

Rebecca Griffin is the Political Director of Peace Action West, another organization dedicated to peace that has been appalled by Harman and is eager to help replace her with Marcy Winograd. Rebecca was especially incensed because Harman tried to deceive California voters into thinking Peace Action supports her. She sent me this post for DWT.

Harman Tries To Use Peace Action To Bolster Flimsy Progressive Record

Facing a tenacious primary challenge from progressive Marcy Winograd, Jane Harman (CA-36), who once described herself as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party,” has been frantically trying to burnish her progressive credentials. This dynamic was on full display at the California Democratic Party Convention, where Winograd successfully gathered the necessary signatures to pull Harman’s pre-endorsement and force a vote on the floor of the convention. In an attempt to appeal to the party base, Harman published a glossy brochure touting her progressive record, leading with a photo of her with progressive antiwar leader Rep. Lynn Woolsey. The entire document is clearly designed to push a narrative that Winograd’s challenge is unnecessary because Harman is already so progressive. You can download a (roughly scanned) pdf of the brochure here. 

The part that caught my eye is the table of lawmaker ratings in her pamphlet that misleadingly includes a rating of 82 from Peace Action. It’s an odd record to campaign on in 2010, since the 82 rating comes from votes that occurred in 2007 (pdf). So what’s her most recent score? A whopping 50 percent. As staunch supporters of Marcy Winograd’s campaign to unseat Harman, we want to make sure voters in her district are getting the whole story. 

At best, Rep. Harman, a member of the conservative Blue Dog caucus that has notoriously watered down progressive initiatives,  has been a fair-weather liberal. Her pro-war record has made foreign policy one of the major points of contention with progressives. The 82 rating in 2007 came after Harman had been hammered for years for her early support of the war in Iraq, and it was politically safer for her to vote in favor of a timeline for withdrawal and speak out against the surge. Notably, she voted that year against a resolution that would have prohibited funding for military action against Iran without prior congressional approval, a sign that she has not learned important lessons about congressional oversight from the war in Iraq. 

It’s true that in recent months Rep. Harman has been expressing skepticism about the war in Afghanistan, and for that she should be commended. [Talk is cheap, and Harman is a notorious liar, widely considered the least dependable member of Congress when it comes to her word-- Editor.] But a glance at her record still makes it abundantly clear that people who want a reliable, progressive voice for peace in Congress should vote for Marcy Winograd. 

Her reckless and hawkish voting record doesn’t end with Iraq. Since the Harman campaign published their brochure, The Hill (the source for the lawmaker rating tables) has updated their website to reflect Harman’s latest score on her voting record. After eight years of the Bush administration’s disastrous foreign policy, Harman delivered voters hungry for change an abysmal record for a so-called progressive. Harman voted in favor of dangerous unilateral sanctions on Iran that won’t change the Iranian regime’s behavior and are likely to backfire and hurt the Iranian people who are fighting for their democratic rights. She supported a resolution condemning the even-handed report on the invasion of Gaza by Zionist and renowned human rights investigator Richard Goldstone. She voted to spend billions of dollars on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when there was little sign that the military-dominated approach in Afghanistan would net any positive results for US and Afghan security. 

But the voting record only tells part of the story. Jane Harman was a cheerleader for invading Iraq when the American people needed politicians who were willing to ask the hard questions and call foul on the Bush administration’s reckless drive to war. There were plenty of politicians-- and ordinary Americans-- who didn’t need years of hindsight to realize that was a mistake. 

Perhaps most chilling has been her fear-mongering and aggressive rhetoric on Iran. At last year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, Harman encouraged the fomenting of ethnic tension in Iran to destabilize the regime (she later apologized after being slammed by the Iranian-American community). She called for a “limited window” of engagement, and if that was unsuccessful, military action should be on the table. This is a recipe for war. Nobody expects a short attempt at diplomatic engagement with an arbitrary deadline to address decades of tension between the US and Iran. Harman’s support for harsh sanctions, saber-rattling and keeping military action on the table are a disaster waiting to happen. 

Then there is the story of Rep. Harman’s defense of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, full of screenplay-ready ironic plot twists. Rep. Harman was a champion for warrantless wiretapping, going so far as to encourage the New York Times to suppress the story before the 2004 election—a time when that news could have had a serious impact on Bush’s reelection campaign. Then in 2009 the story broke that her phone was wiretapped, and she was caught in a shady conversation with a suspected Israeli agent. Suddenly, she was opposed to wiretapping. Caught on tape, she was overheard telling the suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage charges against two former officials for AIPAC, in exchange for their help in securing the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. At the end of the discussion, she reportedly said, “This conversation doesn’t exist.” At the time of the phone call, the FBI had enough information to warrant an investigation, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales quashed the investigation because he needed Harman’s help defending the warrantless wiretapping program.
 
Voters should not be fooled by attempts to put a progressive sheen on a hawkish foreign policy record. People in the 36th Congressional District who want a true progressive foreign policy leader who will speak out against unnecessary wars before they start, will oppose wasting billions of dollars on military pork, and will vote with progressives 100 percent of the time on issues of war and peace should choose Marcy Winograd on June 8th. Click here to donate to Marcy’s campaign.

Oh, and by the way, no one's ever seen this clip before today:

Israel Is Not America, America Is Not Israel-- Tell Chuck Schumer And Jane Harman

Ken, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and I all went to the same high school, James Madison. There were some Italians in the neighborhood too but this was the Jewishest-- in a non-Hassidic sense-- part of Brooklyn back then. We were inculcated with the idea that Israel's security came first and foremost and America was as great as the amount of security (and cash) it provided Israel. In those days the Democratic Party was 100% pro-Israel and the Republican Party had a whiff of unsavory typically right-wing anti-Semitism around it. Just yesterday I was reading about how Nixon dealt with his collapsing economy in Rick Perlstein's stupendous history book, Nixonland and came across a transcript of him blaming "the Jews" for his woes, as he often did.

It was meat prices driving inflation, Nixon decided, big supermarkets who refused to pass lower cattle prices on to consumers. "Kick the chain stores," he said in early February... I think you will find that chain stores who generally control these prices nationwide are primarily dominated by Jewish interests. These boys, of course, have every right to make all the money they want, but they have a notorious reputation in the trade for conspiracy."

Yes, he was stark raving mad; but because he was a president surrounded by sycophants... well whatever he said became a kind of "truth," especially in the Republican Party. Jews in Brooklyn were wary of right-wing parties to begin with-- that whole kerfuffle in Germany was still fresh in everyone's mind-- and the Republicans were just a few degrees away from everyone's greatest fears.

But things have changed dramatically since then. The Party of the Robber Barons has had to degrade itself by cobbling together a Grand Know Nothing coalition that includes southern religious fanatics whose sad, miserable lives revolve around waiting on Jesus' return, something that will be triggered when Israeli tanks roll into Damascus or some such interpretation of the screaming voices in their heads. Zionism somehow coexists with anti-Semitism as tenets of American right-wing orthodoxy. And on the Democratic side, there is a growing awareness that Palestinians are human beings too. I think the last time I counted there were around half a dozen Democratic members of Congress who had come to that conclusion. None are from Brooklyn-- and that includes one Brooklyn congressman who went on to the Senate and is casting longing eyes at Harry Reid's job as Democratic Senate Leader.

I don't know if Schumer still believes the Israel uber alles crap we were taught as children but I do know he isn't taking any chances with his hometown base. He blasted Obama yesterday for not being suitably Zionist enough. Playing to an indoctrinated Jewish-American and Israeli-American listening audience on a fanatic religious radio show hosted by Nachum Segal, Schumer was all about poutrage for how tough the Obama Administration has been towards Israeli rightist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. How dare they look out for America's interests! Schumer:

"I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk. Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel, they, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a 2-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there. If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, “Why should we negotiate?” So that’s bad and that should change and we are working on changing it. But the other two are very good, according to both the Israeli government and the Israeli military and the U.S. government. But we should make that known, why don’t they? I asked them to do just that, I said we should make it public because it will, at least, give people, who are supportive of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, a little bit of solace... Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley.

And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans-- Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew-- would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.'”

Is Schumer an American Senator or an Israeli Knesset member-- or an Evangelical lunatic from South Carolina?

This is the 2nd time I know of that Schumer has publicly crossed the line when it came to zealously blaming his own government and colleagues in delicate matters of US-Israel-Palestine policy.

During the third of three major efforts of the George W. Bush administration to get the recess appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton confirmed in the US Senate, Senator Schumer launched a passionate personal campaign to help Bolton succeed.

Schumer called many Democratic Senate colleagues and bluntly said, "A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel." ... Note to Senator Schumer: you have certainly unloaded a lot of blame on the White House today. I have done a quick lexis and Thomas search and have been unable to find a single instance in which you criticized the behavior of the Israeli government at any time on any issue.

I guess Schumer has chosen to lie down with some mighty strange dogs, but, like I said, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders also went to James Madison High. He has a far more equitable approach to how to achieve peace in the Middle East, one in the best interests of the U.S., as well as taking in the legitimate concerns of Israelis and Palestinians-- if not AIPAC and the Likud. Well, at least Schumer isn't spying for any foreign powers and stepping over the treason line, the way Jane Harman did.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Your Government Not at Work - Jane Harman Scandal
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

If you watched that video, you might be looking for a way to help replace Jane Harman with mainstream pro-America progressive Marcy Winograd. By all means-- be our guest!

Along similar lines, I got a letter this morning from J Street, an organization of American Jews not dedicated to expansionism and aggression.

A moving article in Haaretz this week by Carlo Strenger, entitled "Israel's leaders have forgotten Herzl's dream," challenged the "silent majority of liberal U.S. Jewry not to be afraid any longer to speak its mind."

Amen. We are not afraid.

And we won't be afraid even when enforcers like Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz try to intimidate our movement by attacking J Street in an article brimming with distortions and name-calling.

Dershowitz's article is a perfect example of what is wrong with the conversation in our community on Israel. Far too often J Street's opponents spend more time manufacturing what they wish J Street has said, rather than checking the facts and actually challenging the merits of our arguments.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's Executive Director, fired back yesterday in the Huffington Post, calling out Dershowitz for his inability to mount any serious fact-based case to challenge J Street's assertions that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the interests of Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States.

TPM took up the story as well-- and like DWT gets the Schumer connection. They point out the good news that almost no one takes Dershowitz seriously any more as another other than a raving propagandist.

The bad news is that the people who do take him seriously are filling my inbox (and maybe yours) with anonymous screeds about President Obama, the "selling out" of Israel, Iranians who would happily die in order to kill Jews, and the imminent loss of Jerusalem to Hamas.

...My guess is that [Dershowitz] despises J Street for precisely the reason younger Jews, members of Congress, frustrated Israelis, and the Obama administration welcome it. It represents a new kind of pro-Israel activism-- activism built on the premise that the best way Americans can help Israel achieve security is by using our influence to encourage our government to push hard for negotiations.

Dershowitz is old school (not in a good way). He thinks that Israel advocacy should be left to the organizations which, although nominally supportive of the two-state solution, would prefer the United States to advocate peace rhetorically but not do much of anything to make it happen.

He also would prefer that the White House, the media, and the Israeli government not engage with upstarts like J Street but rather stick with the tried-and-not-so-true leadership of the "American Israel..." this, and the "American Jewish..." that. The last thing he wants to see is a whole new generation of pro-Israel activists moving on up, especially if it is dedicated to ending a status quo that it considers bad for Israelis, Palestinians, and American interests.

Marcy Winograd Takes On Jane Harman At The California Democratic Convention

Grassroots Democrats recognize Jane Harman as the worst elected Democrat in the state. Her boast "I am proud to be introduced as the best Republican in the Democratic Party" has come back to haunt her, as has a shameful congressional record that backs up the boast. This weekend she's being forced to come down from her high horse-- she's the wealthiest Democrat in the House-- to defend herself in the state Democratic convention here in Los Angeles.

Marcy Winograd, the progressive community activist who has been endorsed by Blue America, is on the verge of pulling off the year's biggest upset and ending a political career that has been all about serving corporations and collaborating with Republicans on war, torture and the curtailment of civil liberties. This week Marcy sent every delegate to the convention this letter, making the case for why they should deny Harman their support:

I need your support to block the endorsement of Blue Dog Jane Harman on the floor of the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles this weekend. Harman is a formidable opponent for the 36th congressional district seat (West LA to San Pedro), particularly since she has hired campaign consultant Harvey Englander, notorious for engineering the passage of Howard Jarvis’ Prop 13.

You will hear Harman’s appointees argue that we should not usurp the local caucus’s power to endorse. Our Party’s bylaws, however, provide for exactly this type of challenge because when a candidate is endorsed that endorsement reflects the will of the entire statewide Party, not just local delegates. Moreover, when a corporate Democrat, funded by military contractors and personally invested in those same contractors, takes us to war without exercising her oversight responsibility all of us pay the price.

You may hear that we must respect what Party activists in the 36th congressional district want. Please know that I am proud to be endorsed by the majority of grassroots Democratic clubs in my district, including the San Pedro Democratic Club; Torrance Democratic Club; Progressive Democratic Club (Harbor); Gardena Valley Democratic Club; Progressive Democrats of America-36th District.

Our efforts begin on Friday night when the Progressive Caucus convenes with national radio broadcaster Jim Hightower at the Palm Restaurant, 1100 Flower Street, across from the Marriott Hotel, where the convention will be held. All are welcome to attend and commit to gathering signatures for my petition to overturn Harman’s endorsement in the local caucus Saturday evening.

That local caucus, comprised of many elected officials and their appointed delegates, will undoubtedly endorse Harman, the candidate who once introduced herself to convention delegates as “the best Republican in the Democratic Party.”

Following her local caucus endorsement, we need to collect 300 delegate signatures within a few hours on Saturday night to overturn the endorsement and push this fight to the floor on Sunday morning. Dozens of Winograd for Congress supporters will circulate with clipboards, fanning out to collect the required petition signatures.

To block Harman’s endorsement on the floor, I will need 50% plus 1 delegate to reject her candidacy. For me to obtain an endorsement, I will need 75% of the floor.

Winograd vs. Harman: What’s the Difference?

I am a proud progressive, a public school teacher on leave from Crenshaw HS in South Los Angeles, and an organizer of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.

This is not a contest between two corporate Democrats.

It’s between Our Street vs. Wall Street.

Homes vs. Banks.

Jobs vs. Wars.

At stake are the values and soul of the Democratic Party.

Who are we? What do we stand for?

As a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America’s Los Angeles chapter, I helped write, along with author Norman Solomon and Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal, the resolutions putting our Party on record calling for an end to the US air and ground wars in Afghanistan. I also put our party on record calling for a cap on usurious bank interest rates, parole and sentencing reform, and an end to unfair trade agreements.

As a leader in the anti-war movement, I organized a 1,000-strong town hall with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and then led a delegation to Washington to introduce our representatives to wounded veterans with Iraq Veterans Against the War. On the election protection front, I worked hard to elect SOS Deborah Bowen and to make sure she stayed in office to enforce her ban on most touch screen machines. In the labor movement, I organized with Cesar Chavez and became active in my own union: United Teachers of Los Angeles.

I support clean money, both in word and in deed. I am not taking a dime of corporate
contributions because I am the People’s Candidate for the People’s House.

My opponent is smart and tough. Unfortunately, she has used her strengths in the service of:

• big banks and military contractors;

• supporting a bankruptcy bill that makes it easier for banks to hike your credit card rates, punish you for medical bankruptcy, and foreclose on your home;

• voting to deny you affordable generic medications for breast and brain cancer, HIV, and Parkinson’s disease;

• defying a majority of House Democrats to take us to war in Iraq, then escalate in Afghanistan;

• working to re-elect George Bush by pressuring the New York Times to suppress the story of Bush’s massive illegal wiretapping program;

• finally, becoming the subject of an FBI investigation after being caught in an NSA wiretap allegedly offering to use her influence on the House Intelligence Committee to get spying charges dropped against AIPAC analysts – this in return for their reported promise to defund House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party if Pelosi did not make her chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Enough.

I am not in the pocket of any lobby group-- and am deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with justice in the middle east.

It’s time for a change-- and a commitment at home to transforming our war economy into a new Green economy. We need a Green New Deal along the lines of the Works Progress Administration. Together, we can put Americans back to work repairing our infrastructure, strengthening our public school system, developing new energy, and building mass transit.

Enough of perpetual wars and occupations that create greater instability and rob our treasury of trillions needed for health care, education, and housing.

The ILWU Southern California District Council, University of California AFT, Mexican American Bar Association, Progressive Democrats of American, and the Armenian National Committee are among my endorsers.

I ask all delegates and grassroots activists to help me challenge Jane Harman to a floor fight at the California Democratic Party convention. Thus far, my opponent has refused to debate me, but rumor has it she will make a rare appearance at the annual convention.

I look forward to the challenge-- and to the moment on the floor when delegates will have an opportunity to stand tall.

Thank you,

Marcy Winograd
36th Congressional District Candidate

I don't know what the delegates will decide tonight, but I do know what progressive activists must do to elect the most outstanding candidate running for election to the House of Representatives this year. Blue America has Marcy on our main endorsement page, on our Sending Democrats A Message page and on our page dedicated to fighting against the Blue Dogs. Can I ask you to pick one and contribute what you feel comfortable giving, even if only $5 or $10? Like I said, Harman is the wealthiest Democrat in the House, and she will spend whatever she thinks she has to to hold onto her power base. Marcy could never match her-- but she doesn't need to. All she needs to do is get enough grassroots contributions so that she can get her message out to the people of the 36th District.

First Blue America Endorsement Of 2010: Marcy Winograd (CA-36)

Blue America is very proud to be endorsing Marcy Winograd for Congress today. She's our first challenger for the election cycle-- and our first endorsement in 2010. We didn't play eeny meeny miny mo to decide she would be our first candidate. For us she's a model candidate-- the kind of leader we're looking for to represent working families and progressive ideals in a Congress where neither gets taken seriously when push comes to shove. Let me quote from the opening lines of a flier her Jobs Not War campaign sent out to voters in CA-36 yesterday:

I live my life as a progressive. As an educator, I work to strengthen public education. As a human rights advocate, I promote peace and protection of innocent civilians caught in the middle of war and occupation.

We endorsed Marcy in her first run against virulent warmonger and Blue Dog Jane Harman, the second richest member of Congress (after Darrell Issa) in 2006. We've had a lot of time to get to know her. And the better we've gotten to know her, the more we like her, not just as a person-- which is surprising meaningful-- but as a potential leader of the Donna Edwards sort. Like Donna, Marcy is more than just a political job seeker with a package of consultant-tested positions. Like Donna, she's been a movement progressive, a community activist, and a grassroots leader-- a co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of PDA and a tireless worker for the ideals progressives aspire to.

Marcy's race is about more than just replacing a notorious Blue Dog with a progressive voter. Sure, Harman was the Bush Regime's favorite House member-- and even publicly bragged that she is "the best Republican in the Democratic Party"-- but what enthuses us so much about Marcy has nothing to do with Harman. It's all about Marcy. From the occupation of Afghanistan to comprehensive universal healthcare she has been on the frontlines formulating progressive approaches and strategies. John and Digby and I are relieved that when Marcy is in Congress, none of us are going to have to call her up and twist her arm-- or even hold her hand-- about voting the right way. It's more likely she'll be calling us and telling us who the nervous nellies are who need... bolstering.

John, one of Blue America's principals and a resident of Mar Vista in CA-36, was being urged to jump into the race and take on Harman. Hearing Marcy talk about a Green New Deal helped him make up his mind to concentrate on finishing the new book he and Dave Neiwert are writing, Over the Cliff-- How the Election of Barack Obama Drove the Right Crazy and leave the electoral campaign to Marcy while he bolsters C&L and works the book angle. As John reminded me after he had dinner with her, she's down with the nitty gritty, "a campaign to re-invest in America, converting an economy currently based on making war overseas into one that makes better schools, roads, bridges, railways, and new Green Industries at home." He was impressed with her answers to questions about a member of Congress can help create the jobs that are so desperately needed in Southern California. Marcy:

We must fight for a Green New Deal, modeled after the New Deal of the Great Depression. There is $200-billion left over from TARP that we can use not to bail out corrupt banks-- but for common good: the creation of a sustainable economy.

While some banks may be reticent to accept the TARP funds, the aerospace industry is not. Its association has explicitly asked for 6-billion in TARP to create new jobs. We can immediately contract with regional aerospace companies, not to build more bombs, but to create jobs in the New Green Economy. We need their engineering know-how and skilled workforce to build rapid transit and develop solar and wind resources that will make us strong and energy independent. Jane Harman has spent too many years lobbying for weapons contracts, failing to expand the reach of aerospace beyond a permanent war economy.

...Congress would be wise to model a new job stimulus package after a proven program: the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the 1935 Roosevelt Depression brainchild that employed an estimated 10-million Americans building 850 airports, 110,000 libraries, schools, and hospitals, 500 water treatment plants, 78,000 bridges, and 8,000 parks. The WPA also employed writers and artists, many of whom painted murals in post offices, like the San Pedro post office on Beacon Street, where inside the Art Deco building of marble and chrome we find a WPA mural depicting the history of the harbor.

Obama’s first recovery plan, the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act, funded “shovel-ready” jobs: storm drain clean up; energy retrofits; highway repairs.

President Obama’s second recovery plan must invest in future industries with large pay-offs in terms of career-path learning and earning opportunities in the Green economy. Put laid-off Boeing missile defense workers back on the job building electric buses for the future. Put college professors back to work in Green Energy Departments at universities across the country. Put steelworkers back to work strengthening our bridges in earthquake-prone California. Put everyone with a hard hat back to work building solar panel parts now outsourced to China.

How are we going to pay for this Green New Deal? Cut the fat in the bloated military budget, a sacred cow that is larger than all the world’s military budgets combined, and reemploy the workforce in the Green economy. Bring our troops home from the trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and honor our veterans with land and lessons in organic farming. Levy a 25-cent tax on every stock transaction on Wall Street and offer stock brokers opportunities to create real wealth developing credit unions that never heard of a sub-prime loan.

Close the corporate loopholes that hide billions in bank vaults in the Caribbean and use the cash to hire artists and musicians to inspire our young. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and employ doctors and nurses to work in the inner city. End the war on drugs with its obscene prison costs and recruit counselors to open mental health clinics.

When President Roosevelt enacted the New Deal one out of every four Americans was out of work. Today, in California, though the official unemployment rate hovers at 12%, the real unemployment rate, the one that includes the underemployed and those who have given up looking for a job, is pushing 20%.

Please join me and John and Marcy over at CrooksAndLiars, today at 10AM (PT) for a free-ranging discussion of the issues facing CA-36-- and America-- as we head into the midterm election cycle. There's a great deal at stake. We also urge you to join us in donating to Marcy Winograd's campaign fund.