How You Can Support L.A. Teachers Before And During the Strike

by Marcy Winograd

Pre-Strike Community Support-Let's Go!

Let's Organize Community Support for Striking LAUSD Teachers!

Show up on Thursday, Friday and Monday: 7 am-8am, at your neighborhood LAUSD school (I'll be at Venice HS, 13000 Venice Blvd., in front--meet me there) to show pre-strike and strike support for our 34,000 public school teachers and support staff.

Directory to LAUSD Schools

Teachers are fighting for lower class size (now over 40 in some classes), more nurses on site every day (80% of the schools reportedly have no full time nurse), more counselors (some have over 700 students on their case load!) and librarians (who now run back and forth between schools). Teachers are also asking for pay increases (3% at first, followed by another 3%) not tied to cuts in health benefits for new teachers.

The District says it can't afford to adequately staff our schools, but LAUSD's reserves total almost $2-billion.

I'll have signs and flyers at Venice Hs or you can download this sign and bring it or show up with your own organization's banner. (FYI ... Strike support at Venice HS will be headquartered at the Venice Alumni House, 2435 Walgrove Ave.)

It looks as though teachers may or may not (operative words) strike Thursday (still in court fighting District attempts to stop the strike), but if it's not Thursday or Friday then probably Monday, Jan. 14th. Regardless, the key to a successful teachers' strike is widespread community support, so let's get out there Thursday, Friday and Monday morning, Jan. 10, 11th, 14th, wave signs of solidarity and make some noise!

If you prefer to go to your neighborhood school, organize a contingent of community friends to show up with banners and signs and write and deliver a letter to the principal expressing your support. Show up before school or at the end of the school day when you can talk to parents. Principals have been told to notify the superintendent of the level of community support--so you matter big time in this effort to not only improve conditions for teachers and students but to save public education from the claws of privatizers!

That's right. LAUSD's superintendent, a former investment banker, wants to break up the district into over 30 mini-districts, close lots of neighborhood schools and open charters, instead--then push and highlight the charters, publicly funded but privately operated--some by corporate chains), in student enrollment packets. This is called the portfolio plan and threatens to bankrupt LAUSD, which, according to United Teachers of Los Angeles, is already losing $600 million dollars a year to charters that don't pay their fare share of infrastructure maintenance costs.

Read more about the privatization plan here.

LAUSD is the second largest school district (600,000 students) right behind NYC, so what happens in L.A. will reverberate throughout the country.

Who's schools?

Our schools!

In solidarity,

Marcy Winograd (P.S. I'm supporting Jackie Goldberg for the LAUSD District 5 seat in the special election on March 5, 2019. Jackie will protect our schools!)

Impeachment Time Is Coming

Pelosi thinks it's "bad politics" to impeach Trump. (It's no less her duty than it was Paul Ryan's-- maybe more so.) She may be wrong... and her hand may be forced. A new poll, released this morning by the Associated Press, confirms that most Americans believe that Trump has obstructed the investigation by Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election that put Trump into the White House. And a smaller majority think that if the case is proven that Trump worked with the Russians on this, he should be impeached and removed from office.

It's become painfully obvious that the Republican-controlled Senate won't vote to remove Trump regardless of what crimes he's committed (and what danger he puts the country in)-- including high treason. But if Pelosi is making her calculations based on what is good and bad politics, impeaching Trump, only to see the Republicans vote not to remove him, might be great 2020 Senate election politics. This could tip the scales in Republican-held seats in Kentucky (McConnell), Arizona (McSally), Colorado (Gardner), North Carolina (Tillis), Iowa (Ernst), Kansas (Roberts, if he runs again), Maine (Collins) and maybe even in Texas (Cornyn). 

A majority of Americans-- 58 percent-- think the president has tried to impede the Russia investigation, while 4 in 10 say he has not. An overwhelming share of Democrats, 90 percent, say the president has sought to obstruct the probe, compared with 22 percent of Republicans.

The survey also shows that if Mueller’s investigation finds that Trump did not personally have inappropriate contacts with the Kremlin but nonetheless tried to obstruct the FBI’s work, 51 percent of Americans think Congress should take steps to remove him from office, while 46 percent think it should not.

The special counsel’s obstruction investigation has shadowed the president for a year and a half, unfolding alongside his inquiry into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the election and the separate campaign finance probe in New York. The last month has produced bombshell developments in the investigation, including Cohen’s sentencing, allegations that Trump’s former campaign chairman lied to prosecutors and a judge’s unexpected upbraiding of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

...About 8 in 10 Democrats and 2 in 10 Republicans think Trump should be removed from office if he committed obstruction. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and only about 1 in 10 Republicans think Congress should take steps to impeach him if he directed illegal payments.

Overall, 45 percent said Congress should take steps to remove him from office if he orchestrated the hush money payments. Slightly more, 53 percent, said Congress should not take steps to remove Trump for that.

About 4 in 10 think he broke the law when it comes to directing Cohen’s payments, and about as many say the same of his ties to Russia. About 2 in 10 think Trump has done nothing wrong, with the remainder saying his actions were unethical, but not illegal.

About 7 in 10 Democrats believe Trump has done something illegal involving Russia. Among Republicans, 55 percent say Trump has done nothing wrong when it comes to Russia, while 35 percent think he has done something unethical but not illegal.

...The poll finds rising confidence among Democrats of the fairness and impartiality of Mueller’s investigation. Overall, about a third of Americans say they’re extremely or very confident that the inquiry is fair and impartial; another quarter say they are moderately confident. Roughly 4 in 10 say they’re not confident.

Democrats are more likely to express confidence today compared with a year ago, 51 percent to 38 percent. Just 14 percent of Republicans say they are confident, which is unchanged from last year.

Members of Congress who will have to sit in judgment of Trump, probably shouldn't be making too many public statements about impeachment at this point. I reached out to some former members and so candidates we supported who ran and didn't wind up winning. Alan Grayson has been loud and clear about his support to move forward on impeaching Trump. This morning he reiterated that "Trump said on national TV that he fired Comey because of 'that Russia thing.' He exchanged information with Manafort and dangled a pardon after Manafort signed a plea agreement. That’s obstruction of justice. Trump called on Russia to hack Democratic e-mails, and Russia did so. Russia also ran a social media campaign to suppress votes for Clinton. Trump paid back Russia by removing Ukrainian support from the GOP platform, appointing a National Security Advisory on Russia’s payroll known as 'Misha' [Flynn], giving state secrets to the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office, refusing to implement sanctions on Russia, and now withdrawing US troops from Russian ally Syria.  That’s collusion and treason. Trump should be impeached and removed from office because he has committed impeachable offenses, in broad daylight. Q.E.D."

Dan Cannon, who ran for an Indiana congressional seat this year, sees it much differently. "It's incredible that nearly half of Americans would not support impeachment at this point, given everything we know about our incompetent, narcissistic, crime-boss president. These poll responses, especially from Democrats, say a lot about how easy it is to manipulate the public into accepting a new normal for ethical behavior and the rule of law in general, and how quickly that manipulation can be accomplished. Still, as much as I would enjoy seeing Trump impeached, imprisoned, and humiliated, I think a better outcome would be to see him decisively defeated at the ballot box next year. Without the votes in the Senate, impeachment seems an exercise in futility anyway (Trump doesn't have the dignity even of a Richard Nixon type-- he won't resign). The real question is whether American democracy can handle another two years of Trumpism."

Los Angeles progressive activist and former congressional candidate Marcy Winograd told me she's "looking forward to a Democrat-controlled House conducting vigorous hearings and investigations into multiple Trump abuses of power, most importantly the use of corporate facilitators to pose as regulators, allowing polluters to plunder our land, air and water. My concern about impeachment is that I would not want to see the Vice President, a fundamentalist, ascend to the presidency to execute a dystopian vision. If we could impeach both Trump and Pence, then so be it. As for Trump obstructing justice by interfering with the Russia probe, I think the answer to that is clear: He obstructed justice when he fired the former FBI director James Comey and when tampered with witnesses on twitter, urging them, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, not to cooperate with the Department of Justice."

Blue America supported Norman Solomon when he ran for Congress in northern California. We'd be way better off now if he had won. "The House," he told me today, "should move toward impeachment, though at best there'll be nothing immediate about it. First step is an impeachment investigation via committee."

Mueller's report or anything coming through the courts shouldn't impede or delay the House from going ahead with impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a legislative branch function-- it's not a judicial function-- and frankly it has a lot more to do with politics and media than legalisms.

Tactical discourse can go on indefinitely, and conventional wisdom has been wrong so often in recent years that you gotta wonder why the pundits are taken so seriously at this point. From the outset of his presidency, Trump has been violating the foreign and domestic emoluments of the Constitution of the United States-- which is supposed to be 'the supreme law of the land.'

Impeachment would anger most Republicans. No telling what would do for independents. The 'backfire' argument cites what happened after Clinton was impeached, but skips over what happened after Nixon was forced from office on the verge of impeachment-- the Republicans lost lots of congressional seats and the White House.

No one is above the law-- what a concept!

John Laesch is another great candidate Blue America strongly supported (against Denny Hastert). I asked him what he thinks about all this impeachment discussion. He said that "A Democratic majority was elected by the American people to serve in the House of Representatives during the 2018 election. When those newly elected members of Congress take office we will probably see more congressional investigations on top of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Donald Trump’s Russian dealings. At this point, I think the American people want the United States Congress to do more to make sure that nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. But as the Democratic majority pursues their 'death by a thousand cuts' strategy to thwart the rest of Trump’s chaotic presidency, they should be paying attention to polls like this one. According to a Dec. 2018 poll, 51% of Americans think that Trump should be impeached if he obstructed the Mueller investigation and 45% think that he should be impeached if he initiated hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. According to a Reuters  poll on Aug. 2018, 70% of Americans now support Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare. It doesn’t seem like rocket science and the math doesn’t lie. The American people are more willing and ready to support fundamental healthcare change than they are ready to support impeachment. A stronger strategy for Democrats would be to advance a bold, populist agenda that works for working Americans. This strategy has the added benefit of undermining Trump's populist rhetoric that helped get him elected."

Doug Applegate had the least honey-coated and more dire warning. A former Marine colonel, who ran for Congress in the Orange County/San Diego district and basically ran Darrell Issa out of office, he reminded us just moments ago that "Since 2016, I have stated publicly that Donald Trump was unfit to command. Donald Trump's actions disclosed to date far exceed the wrongful conduct of Nixon. Should we fail to impeach a president attempting to slay our Republic by suicide, the parties responsible (both political and individuals) will forever lose the moral authority to stop the next Donald Trump. Worst yet those political parties and individuals will have enabled the next despot to occupy the Oval Office. Chuck and Nancy must act now or step aside."

Some California Down Ballot Suggestions

There's no one that great running for governor but there's a great candidate for Superintedent of Public Instruction

Every couple of years at this point in the cycle, Californians ask me who to vote for in down ballot races. I don't know who will be the best judges but I try to figure it out. I spend my time trying to figure out who the best candidates for Congress will be. And in California the Democratic incumbents who really don't deserve reelection are Jim Costa, Ami Bera, Scott Peters and Lou Correa. Some the others are great-- like Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Alan Lowenthal, Barbara Lee, Mark DeSaulnier and Judy Chu-- and others are just the lesser of two evils. As for non-incumbents congressional candidates, these are the ones I'd vote for:

First and foremost is Kevin de León for the U.S. Senate. As far as the House:

• CA-8- Marge Doyle
• CA22- Ricardo Franco
• CA-23- Wendy Reed
• CA-39- Sam Jammal
• CA-45- Katie Porter
• CA-49- Doug Applegate
• CA-50- Ammar Campa-Najjar

Go ahead-- give it a try

The very worst Democratic congressional non-incumbent candidates are, the ones for progressives to avoid like the plague:

• CA-22- Andrew Janz
• CA-25- Bryan Caforio
• CA-39- Gil Cisneros
• CA-45- Dave Min
• CA-48- Omar Siddiqui
• CA-49- Mike Levin
• CA-49- Paul Kerr

The California gubernatorial race doesn't excite me, although we laid out the strategic reasons to vote for Antonio Villaraigosa. Too bad Gvin Newsom will probably win; he's terrible. There are more interesting candidates for Lieutenant Governor, Democrat Jeff Bleich and independent Gayle McLaughlin. I'm going to vote for Dave Jones for Attorney General and Richard Lara for Insurance Commissioner. As far as state Senate goes, opposing the Josh Newman recall (SD-29) is really important. For Assembly, Steve Dunwoody (AD-54) and Eloise Reyes (AD-47) are important candidates to back and the Speaker who killed Medicare-for-All, Anthony Rendon, should be defeated and made an example of. His district is AD-63, which includes Maywood, Bell, Cudahy,South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, the eastern part of North Long Beach and Lakewood. If I lived there I'd vote for Maria Estrada.

That all said, I asked my old friend-- a progressive and school teacher-- to explain why she supports Tony Thurmond for state Superintendent of Instruction over right-wing privatizer Marshall Tuck.




Why I'm Voting for Tony Thurmond for CA Supt. of Instruction
by Marcy Winograd

As California’s June 5th primary approaches, please help me save public education from deep pocket Republicans trying to take over our schools.

Elect a progressive: Tony Thurmond, Oakland Assembly Member, former Contra Costa School Board Member, 20-year social worker, and champion for publicly run and publicly operated schools; endorsed by the LA Times & California Teachers Association.

As a California lawmaker, Tony Thurmond authored AB1014, a bill that allocates 35 million from the criminal justice system directly to the schools. Plus, this week, Tony's bills to increase resources for special education and bilingual education passed through the Assembly and are on their way to helping two of the student groups most impacted by the achievement gap-- students with special needs and English language learners.

As chair of the Assembly STEM Education Committee-- that's science, technology, engineering, and math-- Tony is pushing the state to allocate $200 million to expanding STEM education, especially in low-income and rural school districts. Trump has suggested $200 million for the entire country, but Tony understands that we have to invest more in preparing our kids for the jobs of tomorrow.

Tony Thurmond and the people of California are engaged in an epic battle to save public education from the likes of Betsy DeVos. His opponent, funded by rich Republicans and the charter school lobby, is also running as a Democrat, but not as a progressive Democrat. For more on Tony’s opponent, read this.

Below is a video of Tony’s speech to the California Democratic Party. It'll help you understand who he is and why Marcy is so enthusiastic about helping elect him:

Bernie Endorsed Steve Zimmer For L.A. Unified School District Chairman

At the end of March, L.A. progressive icon Marcy Winograd wrote a guest post about the importance of Steve Zimmer's May 16 school board election-- a week from today. She termed it "a showdown over education privatization and de-regulation [with] voters in the San Fernando Valley, coastal Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Hollywood deciding who controls the Los Angeles Unified School District Board, a 7-member governing body that oversees 900 schools-- some 200 specialized magnets-- with 650,000 students, over 75% students of color. If the billionaire boys club-- Eli Broad, former mayor Dick Riordan, the Waltons of Wal Mart-- have their way, voters will choose a candidate who will carry their water to make 50% of LA’s public schools independent charter schools over the next eight years. Not so fast, fat cats. LAUSD Board President, Steve Zimmer, a champion of the arts, a believer in equity for all, the guy who saved adult education and early childhood education from lethal budget cuts-- the mensch who balanced the budget is running for a third time to stop Broad’s plan to decimate the District by taking over its land while draining it of capital."

Yesterday Zimmer wound up with another progressive icon endorsing him: Bernie. He wrote to his supporters to announce the good news "Senator Bernie Sanders just endorsed our campaign to save public education in Los Angeles! Senator Sanders has a long record of standing up to the corporate special interests. I'm honored that he's joined our fight to stop the 'hostile takeover' of our public schools, in what has become the most expensive school board race in history thanks to outside spending against me by PACS funded by billionaires, and oil and energy executives. [He] is leading the fight in Washington against the Trump administration’s devastating cuts to education. We are going to feel these cuts right here at home. After school programs, summer learning programs, teacher training, and many other vital public education programs and services are all at risk."

A few days ago Marcy formerly endorsed Zimmer and Imelda Padilla, labor and community organizer, both of whom are the endorsed candidates of the LA County Democratic Party, United Teachers of Los Angeles, a union representing 35,000 teachers fighting for the schools students deserve, as well as Our Revolution, a nationwide organization of progressive activists. Steve Zimmer has also been endorsed by LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and California Senate President Kevin de Leon.

"Under Zimmer’s leadership," wrote Winograd, "our school district has increased graduation rates from 54% to over 80%, saved arts education, early childhood education, and adult education from devastating budget cuts, promoted exciting new language immersion and science and technology magnet programs, declared our schools safe sanctuaries from immigration raids, and balanced LAUSD’s budget to earn the highest bond rating. We, progressives, will decide this important run-off election. To protect public education from Trump’s privatization agenda-- more and more charter schools operating behind closed doors, siphoning money from our school district's fixed costs, like electricity and building maintenance, as well as legacy costs, health care and debt service, I ask for your vote for Steve Zimmer and Imelda Padilla for LAUSD School Board. Yes, Zimmer and Padilla will keep the public in public school."

With Trump In The White House, Corrupt Conservatives Get A Shot At Re-Shaping U.S. Education

LAUSD Board President, Steve Zimmer

In many urban centers-- L.A. is one-- the Republican brand is so toxic that it's a real stretch for the party to even run plausible candidates. So the special interests and big money behind the kind of corrupt conservatism that the GOP embodies, finds its way into the campaigns of corrupt conservative Democrats-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. In my Assembly District last year, I was mortified to see the charter school billionaires successfully pass a repulsive Republican masquerading as a "moderate" Democratic, Laura Friedman, off on the voters by flooding the district with immense amounts of cash in the form of a deluge of deceitful communications. Today, in the congressional district next door, CA-34, the avaricious developers and predatory charter school monsters are doing the exact same thing-- flooding the airwaves with expensive false ads for Sara Hernandez, in effect, the stand-in for the Republican Party in the congressional race.

Our old comrade-in-arms, Marcy Winograd, has been warning about a similar situation in the elections in the L.A. Unified School District race. DWT readers probably remember Marcy as a brilliant progressive congressional peace candidate who did a great service for America by helping to drive Blue Dog Jane Harman-- a female Joe Lieberman-- out of Congress. Marcy has also served as a delegate to the California Democratic Party and teaches special education students at Venice High School. You can follow her on Twitter @marcywinograd. I asked her to explain why the school board race is so important to progressives everywhere.

Re-Elect Steve Zimmer Tues., May 16th-- Stop the Privatizers’ Hostile Take-Over of the Los Angeles Unified School District
-by Marcy Winograd

You don’t need to jet to DC in a pink pussy hat to flip the bird to billionaires hoping to bankrupt the Los Angeles Unified School District by turning half of the district's schools into union-busting independent charters, siphoning off state attendance funds to run a private crap shoot with public dollars.

A showdown over education privatization and de-regulation is set for Tuesday, May 16th, when voters in the San Fernando Valley, coastal Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Hollywood will decide who controls the Los Angeles Unified School District Board, a 7-member governing body that oversees 900 schools-- some 200 specialized magnets-- with 650,000 students, over 75% students of color. If the billionaire boys club-- Eli Broad, former mayor Dick Riordan, the Waltons of Wal Mart-- have their way, voters will choose a candidate who will carry their water to make 50% of LA’s public schools independent charter schools over the next eight years.

Not so fast, fat cats. LAUSD Board President, Steve Zimmer, a champion of the arts, a believer in equity for all, the guy who saved adult education and early childhood education from lethal budget cuts-- the mensch who balanced the budget is running for a third time to stop Broad’s plan to decimate the District by taking over its land while draining it of capital. Challenging Zimmer in the run-off is “Pick Nick” or the billionaire boy’s pick, Nick Melvoin, an attorney who taught for a minute in Watts until he lost his job during the recession, sued the District over its “last hired, first fired policy”, participated in a settlement, then offered to testify again in another expensive lawsuit against the District, (Oh, suing the District is so much fun, isn’t it?) this time unsuccessfully challenging its seniority commitment to get a thumbs down and cold shoulder in the Court of Appeal.

For the privatizers, it’s all about choice. I agree. Under California law, charter schools can choose to blow off much of the state education code, like caps on administrative salaries, requirements that teachers receive certification in teaching English learners, textbooks for all core academic subjects, third party vendor rules designed to thwart favoritism and corruption, and requirements that school boards be elected, not self-selected. Also in the choice column is the privatizers’ legal right to choose to plop their independent charter school on an existing public school’s property, booting public school teachers out of their classrooms to become rovers, sprinting between bells to make it to the next classroom.

According to the United Teachers of Los Angeles, independent charter schools already owe the larger district almost a half-a-billion dollars in unpaid or partially paid rental and oversight fees the District sorely needs to cover fixed district costs, such as electricity and building maintenance, as well as legacy costs; health care and debt service. To add insult to injury, an LAUSD report (2016) of the Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee, says charter schools serve disproportionately fewer severely disabled students and spend over seven times less on educating those same students.

Surely, Trump's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos-- a cheerleader for charter schools and vouchers-- will be eyeing the run-off, for as goes Los Angeles, the second largest school district in the US behind NYC, so goes the rest of the nation in the rocky terrain of education reform – or rip-off. First came the charters with their uneven-- some good, some horrific-- performance, then came the vouchers, and then came the bundlers on Wall Street, selling taxpayer-subsidized education coupons as derivatives that, like the fancy mortgage investments that went belly-up, will soon be worthless when the fly-by-night voucher-recepients shutter their schoolhouse doors after stashing their profits in a Swiss bank account.

Zimmer says he wants a robust public education system; Melvoin writes he wants a hostile take-over of LAUSD. Trump’s man Steve Bannon would call that "administrative deconstruction." Sounds more like plain old destruction.

Don't vote for the billionaire's pick. Vote for the people's educator. Re-elect Steve Zimmer on May 16th.

Marcy Winograd Leaves The Democratic Party-- Or Did The Democratic Party Leave Progressives?

In 2010 Nick Ruiz ran as a Green Party write-in candidate in a central Florida district with a reactionary Democratic incumbent, Suzanne Kosmas, and an insane teabagger challenger, Sandy Adams. Nick didn't really expect to win but he very much wanted to make sure that progressive ideas were inserted into the conversation and that the election wouldn't just be about two candidates fighting for ownership of right-wing ideas positions. As often happens when there's a DINO and a real Republican both advocating conservatism, the Republican won. Nick immediately switched party registration and is running again-- as a Democrat. He hasn't changed a word of his platform or his grassroots approach, of course. But this time voters in Seminole County will get a choice between a reactionary vision and a progressive vision-- unless the DCCC decides to put up a rich conservative candidate of their own, as they often do when grassroots progressives like Nick run in winnable districts.

Here in Los Angeles, Marcy Winograd has been an icon of those same kinds of values and principles... and tactics. She announced this week that she's moving in the opposite direction though. A former Democratic Party activist and congressional candidate, she's re-registered as a Green Party member. She explained what's she's doing in a post at the California Progress Report, part of which is reproduced below:

After the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, with its codification of imprisonment without charge or trial, I could no longer register voters for the Democratic Party – even with the hope of involving new registrants in the California Democratic Party’s popular Progressive Caucus. If I could not ask someone to join the Democratic Party, I could not in good conscience stay in the party, even as an insurgent writing resolutions and platform planks to end our wars for oil.

Unfortunately, too many corporate Democrats, beholden to big-money donors or to a jobs sector dependent on militarism, vote for perpetual war and the surveillance state, replete with secret wiretaps, black hole prisons, and targeted assassinations. Far too many who are fearful or bought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee vote for legislation that relegates Palestinians to second-class citizenship and threatens to take our country to the brink of an unthinkable war on Iran. 

President Obama, despite his eloquence and initial popularity, has continued, and in some cases, expanded Republican Party policies under George Bush by escalating drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; hiring deregulators from predatory banks to craft economic policy; repeatedly putting Social Security cuts on the table; lifting a 20-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants; signing NDAA legislation that eviscerates due process; increasing U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids and arrests of undocumented workers.

As the US empire crashes on the shores of rapacious greed, as power shifts from the federal to the local level, the Green Party can play a crucial role in creating and promoting local economies, worker or consumer-owned cooperatives, model municipal policy and participatory democracy. The time is ripe for municipal federalism with its emphasis on cities sharing expertise, policies, and strategies for community building in a sustainable world. 

I want to be part of that movement to create a post-empire future that rejects perpetual war, addictive consumerism and vulture capitalism to embrace a life-affirming vision of sustainability with measurable goals for energy, water and food independence.

As more people struggle financially and the cost of energy and optional travel increases, Americans will stay closer to home to invest and recreate more intensely in their communities and neighborhoods. Our challenge in the age of withering empire is to set a new economic course that helps us invest our resources in ourselves, rather than multinational companies that extract our wealth and labor for the 1%. 

While running Greens for federal office may help to register new Greens, to attract young people to the Party, the Greens’ resources – economic and grassroots-- are best used at the local level where the Party has experienced the most success in the United States. In 2011, 8 out of 12 California Green Party members running for local office got elected. 
 
In Richmond, California, the working class city’s Green Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, representing more than 100,000 residents, took on Chevron, resulting in a 115-million dollar pollution settlement, enacted a waiver on residential solar power fee installation; and spearheaded one of the nation’s toughest anti-foreclosure ordinances that exacts a $1,000 a day fine on banks who fail to maintain foreclosed property. McLaughlin was one of several Green Mayors to publicly oppose the dirty tar sands project, signing on to a letter to President Obama urging him to reject, as he recently announced, the XL pipeline that would carry the dirtiest crude from Canada across the United States to the Gulf of Mexico.

In the city of Fairfax in Marin County, Green Mayor Pam Hartwell-Herrero and a majority Green city council has banned intrusive Smart Meters, and authored successful ballot initiatives to ban plastic bags and the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. Fairfax is the third California city to have a Green majority on its town council, joining Sebastopol in Sonoma County from 2000 to 2008 and Arcata in Humboldt County, which had the world's first Green majority on any legislative body between 1996 and 1998 and then again from 2000 to 2002. 

...Rather than running candidates for every state and federal office, Greens can invest their energy in campaigning for local non-partisan offices, in electing Greens to neighborhood councils  and city councils; union leadership positions, pension and credit union boards, associated student bodies – and to movement-building and media messaging that injects and accentuates a Green anti-consumerist pro-sustainability vision into the economic discourse.

Though our emphasis should be local, our scope global as we solidify relationships with Green Party members across the world. Let us hold the Greens from Europe to Africa close to our hearts as we reject nationalism-- its attendant racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating-– and embrace global citizenry  and planetary-caretaking.

Let us look to the German Green Party, the first to enjoy national prominence and the catalyst behind Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Encouraged by the German Greens, we must challenge billions in U.S. federal subsidies for new nuclear power plants and demand plant closures from California to New York. With a void in leadership in the U.S. anti-nuclear movement, the Green Party can play a key role in re-invoking the moratorium lifted under the Obama administration.

Elsewhere in Europe, Greens have launched a Green New Deal (GND) aimed at “reducing inequalities within and between societies, and reconciling our lifestyles-- the way we live, produce and consume-- with the physical limits of our planet” through progressive taxation, tax incentives for green initiatives, and new economic indicators beyond the Gross Domestic Product. For example, in Vienna, Austria, a GND initiative built “bike city”-– a housing project that includes bike rental and maintenance, a compressed air station, 300 bicycle parking spaces, and extra large elevators for bike transport.

Let us build a new American landscape of bike cities, urban gardens, municipal credit unions, barter economies, and city-owned utilities with Greens organizing a new power-sharing worker-member-owner paradigm a la the Mondragon Cooperatives Cooperation in northern Spain. Based in Basque region, the Mondragon is a federation of worker cooperatives employing 84,000 people in four critical sectors: finance; industry; retail; knowledge.

Electorally, I envision a fusion approach-– whereby Greens support progressive Democrats, just as Los Angeles Green Party members recommended my candidacy when I challenged war profiteer Jane Harman for Congress, and just as Green Party activists in northern California support PDA’s Norman Solomon to fill retiring Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey’s seat. 

Endorsing progressive Democrats-- a la Congress Members Kucinich, Lee, Grijalva-– on the national level-– and Assemblyman Bill Monning and Senator Fran Pavley on the California state legislative level-– makes sense until the Green Party is ready and able to successfully elect statewide and federal candidates of its own, either because the Party has exponentially multiplied its current voter registration, estimated at 300,000 in the nation; 110,000 in California, or because enough cities like Oakland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Portland have instituted instant run-off or ranked-choice voting to increase the likelihood that voters will not simply cast their ballots for pre-ordained winners or lessers-of-evil but instead choose a candidate who truly represents their vision of peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability. 

Ranked choice voting must be a strategic priority for the Green Party in the U.S., with Greens in every leadership position-– be it a partisan office or a non-partisan environmental organization-- introducing ranked-choice voting into their respective organization. Strategically, Greens might organize a coalition of third parties-– Greens, Peace and Freedom, Libertarians, and the well-funded centrist Americans Elect – to institute proportional representation through state ballot initiatives for ranked choice voting.

Such initiatives would appeal to voters who want to save budget-starved states, counties or cities millions of dollars wasted on run-off elections.

In the meantime, until widespread adoption of ranked choice voting, the Green Party might leverage its power by becoming a fusion party, regardless of state laws like the one in California that prohibit candidates from becoming the nominee of more than one party. On the grassroots level, endorsing Democratic Party candidates active in Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) would address the “spoiler” charge and position Greens as a swing voting constituency, much as a swing state can decide a Presidential election.

Let the Greens be wooed; let every candidate running for city, state, or federal office feel compelled to address the priorities of the Green Party, and let our party learn the lessons of the Swedes and Norwegians who successfully challenged the 1% by building strong coalition governments and coalition movements behind those coalition governments.

While it’s true that California Democratic Party delegates can be stripped of their delegate status for endorsing Greens in elections, there is nothing stopping non-delegates active in PDA from participating in a blue-green coalition that endorses and works to elect local Greens. In fact, that should be the call to action, watering the Green seeds for the next generation.

In LA County, where there are 23,000 registered Greens, and over 900,000 Declined to States, the Party will participate in an aggressive voter registration campaign before the November 2012 election when a Green Party Presidential candidate, perhaps  pioneering environmental health advocate Dr. Jill Stein,  will likely enjoy ballot status in at least 17 states, including the largest state, California, with its 55 electoral votes, and swing states Ohio, Florida and Colorado. Other Green Party ballot access states or districts include Arkansas, Arizona, DC, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Though Green Party strengths lies in bottom-up organizing, running a Presidential candidate can provide a strategic stage for the left to critique and challenge the status quo, while attracting “millennials” or younger voters to a party platform that refuses all corporate contributions, supports single-payer health care, advocates zero-waste, calls for a tax on the rich, and opposes not only pre-emptive wars for empire, but weapons sales to other countries.

With strategic planning and a shift in focus, those newly registered Greens can rock the world of monopoly capitalism with a sturdy footing in city soil and municipal radicalism. I will proudly stand with them.

Losing Marcy Winigrad is a huge loss for the California Democratic Party, though, happily not for California progressives.

CA-36 Election Results

Click on the chart to enlarge

Looks like that half million dollars Republican Craig Huey spent out of his own pocket may have earned him a spot in the July run-off against front-runner Janice Hahn who was supported by the L.A. political machine. He appears to have edged progressive champion Debra Bowen by around 200 votes. In 4th place is the other progressive in the race, Marcy Winograd. Many people will say that Marcy played the spoiler and ruined Bowen's chances to make the runoff and beat Hahn. But Marcy has a unique message and had every right to run and she probably wouldn't have run had Bowen not played into Joe Trippi's hands-- Hahn's consultant-- with a bogus Israel pledge meant to lure Marcy into the race and do... exactly what was done. Bowen should never have signed the pledge, just said she supports a two-state solution and the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Israel. The pledge was created to enrage Marcy and lure her into the race to split the progressive vote and hamper Bowen. It worked.

However... there are still 9,800 absentee votes to be counted, more than enough to make up for the 200 vote lead Huey has over Debra. We may not know what the result is for another week or even two.






UPDATE FROM DOUG KAHN:

It’ll Be Debra Bowen vs. Janice Hahn in CA-36

I’m saying Debra Bowen will make the run-off in CA-36, that a final count will erase the 206 votes margin that separate her from a 2nd place finish. It depends on how good she was at the nuts and bolts of getting people to supporter her, and then getting them to vote. We really don’t know that yet. I think she was very good, but we’ll see.

I supported her, but made what I considered to be a token campaign contribution, because I didn’t think she’d make the run-off. Having two very good progressive candidates (and Marcy Winograd is a very, very good progressive) in a race is a double-whammy; they’ll not only split the vote, but you can expect many progressives to have a bad feeling about the contest, and just not vote.

It’s a Democratic district, for sure; and Blue Dog Jane Harman regularly rolled up 2 to 1 margins over her Republican opponents. But these were, by all accounts, weak candidates, and Harman appeals to older, conservative, and Republican voters; these are all high-propensity voting groups. Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 3, but 25% of voters are neither. This is a perfect situation for a tea-bagger; no mainstream Republican politician who has a shot at a seat in Congress thinks about running in the 36th. So an out-of-district wingnut like Huey can pretty much roll.

Harman resigned when she did because she wanted a low turnout election, setting up the contest for another conservative/hack Democrat, Janice Hahn. I don’t know if it was part of that strategy, but it also makes it easier for a teabagger to get a lot of attention and a lot of votes. That can’t be bad in a runoff with any Democrat.

I Thought Bowen was a Long Shot

So you had 3 well-funded, well-known Democrats fighting over 45% of the electorate, and one well-funded idiot drooling over the 27% of voters who are Republicans added to the usual slack-jawed ranters who vote because they think the Republican party has sold out to Socialism. Welcome to the new California election system.

Under these circumstances, my analysis (which is probably a too-generous self-appraisal of what goes on in my head) was that it was going to be Janice Hahn and an actual Republican, with real Democrats bringing up the rear.

Now I think I was wrong. I hope it’s because progressives are enthusiastic about elections these days. I know I am. Recent polling and results in special elections show a sharp reversal from last November’s results.

On Tuesday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives got a new member. In the 4th District, Republican Robert Mead had resigned to become chief of staff to House Speaker Bill O’Brien, another wingnut teabagger. He’s being replaced by Democrat Jennifer Daler, who beat a Republican in a heavily Republican district, and it was a landslide, 58%-42%. More important was how it happened. In a special election that was expected to have a dismal turnout and a highly conservative lean, 20% of voters came to the polls, and the extra voters were Democrats. Howie has a longer explanation going up tomorrow afternoon.

This District is Different

So yes, Debra is 206 votes behind, in third place. She didn’t beat Republican/Wingnut Craig ‘Baby’ Huey at the polls. But she did have a 798 vote edge over him in the vote-by-mail.

None of the media seems to understand that the 36th District has a unique history when it comes to absentee (vote-by-mail) voting. Jane Harman always had a massive vote-by-mail campaign running in general elections, so Democrats in the 36th District are accustomed to voting that way. The usual Republican edge in stay-at-home voters never held true there.

My memory is a bit hazy about the '90s, but I think at least once Harman was behind on election day before pulling it out when mail-in votes were tallied. I remember her spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on sophisticated vote-by-mail operations. We used to collect her mail pieces and crib off them to design our own in Pasadena-area local elections.

My first thought when I saw the LA Times coverage, the 206 votes Debra needed, was that she'd make it through once all the vote-by-mail ballots were counted. I’ve done some math, and I still think so. Here are the numbers on Bowen’s victory over Huey in the vote-by-mail count and defeat at the 261 polling places.

The Numbers

L.A. County reported 53,659 ‘ballots cast/turnout’ (vote-by-mail received plus day of election). 25,949 of those, slightly less than half, were vote-by-mail.

Bowen’s voters:

11,442 total

-5,448 vote-by-mail

=5,994 precinct vote

Huey’s voters:

11,648 total

-4,650 vote-by-mail

=6,998 precinct vote

There are 9,811 untallied votes, and 8,416 of those are vote-by-mail that hadn’t been received by election day. If those 8,416 go the way the mail-in count went, then Bowen would get 1,784 more votes, Huey would get 1,522 more, and Bowen picks up 262 more votes, enough to get her into the runoff.

In California, anyone can apply to vote by mail, and your ballot counts if it arrives by election day or if you drop it off in person. Debra’s chances depend upon how good her campaign was at identifying supporters, getting them to request mail-in ballots, and checking to make sure they mailed it on time.

Crucially, throughout the day on election day they had to examine the precinct lists at the polls to see how many of ‘her’ voters still hadn’t voted or turned in their mail-in ballots. Then, they had to somehow get these people to the polling place either with our without a mail-in ballot. If you’ve requested and received a ballot and haven’t mailed it in, you can still drop it off at any polling place; or you can turn it in unused at your own precinct and use the voting booth.

And then there are the 1,269 ‘provisional’ ballots; an unknown number of those were people who got mail-in ballots, didn’t send them in, and went to their polling place without the ballot. In those cases, the voter casts a ballot, and the vote will count if the Registrar of Voters confirms there was no mail-in.

This is a real test of campaign competency. Bowen is Secretary of State, responsible for California elections. You’d have to really wonder about her viability in a runoff if she didn’t have an efficient vote-by-mail/GOTV operation.

---------------

Late this afternoon Marcy sent an e-mail to her supporters thanking them for their help. She included this paragraph:

"Huey would like to buy his way into Congress, so that the super rich can privatize America and abolish all regulations, including environmental protections. Though few media pundits took him seriously, we must now mobilize to defeat him-- should he make it to the run-off. Given Bowen's strong base of support in the heavily-populated South Bay and Torrance, however, I expect she will make it to the run-off."

This is the time to renew our efforts for Debra Bowen. It's a chance for CA-36 to make a clean sweep of the bad old Jane Harman days and elect a real progressive leader, an independent thinker with a fresh outlook. She's on the Blue America page

Why Debra Bowen?

The race for the Democratic nomination to replace Blue Dog warmonger Jane Harman in CA-36 is a very tough one for Blue America. Instead of voters having to pick the lesser of two evils, as in most elections, we're facing two impeccable progressives, California Secretary of State and former state legislator from the district, Debra Bowen, and Marcy Winograd, who valiantly battled Harman in two difficult primaries since our PAC got going. Digby, John Amato-- who lives in the district and considered running for the seat himself-- and I thought long and hard about a race that is further complicated by an untested new open primary system, boundaries almost certain to be redrawn, perhaps drastically, in time for reelection, and a Democratic Party machine hack, Janice Hahn, also making one of her perennial bids to advance her career ambitions. The latest hack from the Hahn Dynasty, this one has rounded up a predictable basket of the least admirable Democratic machine politicians in the city to back her. The contemptible Harman started the ball rolling by giving her a heads up and a head start, presumably meant to derail Marcy. And Harman's fellow Blue Dog/corporate shill, Loretta Sanchez, was one of the first to jump on the Hahn bandwagon. Also worrying is that she's also touting the endorsement of slimy corporate lobbyist Dick Gephardt.

Obviously she was never really in contention for Blue America. The last thing this country needs is another mediocre machine pol who goes along with conventional wisdom, has nothing worthwhile to offer, and is, at best, a dependable vote for one faction or another. The L.A. delegation is filled with that kind of waste and with spectacular candidates like Marcy and Debra vying for the seat, there was no reason to give Hahn a second glance. But that left us with a terrible choice between two deserving friends and more than worthy candidates.

Either of these remarkable women could be reasonably expected to become focal points of progressive leadership-- Marcy in the galvanizing way that Paul Wellstone and Alan Grayson became moral forces for change and Debra in the steadfast and effective style of a Jeff Merkley, Barbara Boxer and Donna Edwards. If either of these women is elected to Congress, it should be a moment of great rejoicing for progressives nationwide and an opportunity for one of their distinctive styles to help make America a better place to live. So... the question of electability comes into play-- because, despite organized labor's grubby happiness with Hahn, she has no more to offer America than any of the careerist backbenchers eager to welcome another mediocrity like themselves into federal government service.

Since Harman attempted to pass her flickering torch on to Hahn, I've spoken with both Marcy and Debra. Today Blue America will be announcing an endorsement for Debra Bowen in this race in a live blogging session at Crooks and Liars with the candidate we think has the best chance of beating the Hahn Dynasty and going on to being the most effective advocate for working families in CA-36, in our city, our state and our country. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion that support should go to Debra. Many of our hearts have been with Marcy for a very long time. In fact, if you come to the conclusion she's the candidate you want to support, you can do so here at her website. Blue America has added Debra Bowen to ours and I hope you'll read Digby's post about why and join her, Amato and I at 11 for a live chat with her.

When Debra announced she would run, Hahn was already the corrupt L.A. Machine's anointed candidate. Yesterday Roll Call detailed down devious Blue Dog Jane Harman tried to hand the seat over to Hahn, something that has been shamefully supported by the whole stinking L.A. Democratic machine. Before being elected, and then re-elected Secretary of State, she had represented most of CA-36 in the state legislature since 1992, first as a Member of the Assembly and then in the state Senate, from a district including all or parts of Carson, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Venice, and Wilmington, about 90% of the congressional district. She garnered national attention in 2008 when she, along with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, another Blue America all-star, won the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, cited for her imposition of strict new controls on electronic voting despite the political fallout.

Debra, like Marcy, is aggressively committed to equality for racial, religious and ethnic minorities, women, the LGBT community, and people with physical handicaps and to make sure-- regardless of which political party hods the White House-- that the American policy towards "preventive war" is stopped dead in its tracks. Her substantive accomplishments to date have been around nitty gritty issues fundamental to democracy-- empowering voters by working effectively to increase voter registration and voter turnout across California emphasizing outreach to students and young voters and to Californians stationed overseas in the military or living abroad; using technology to dramatically open up government; ensuring that voting systems are secure, accurate and accessible, the lack of which in several states resulted in the presidency of George W. Bush; cracking down on fraud; protecting personal privacy; and advancing higher ethical standards in government.

If you can, please join us with Debra at Crooks and Liars today at 11 am (PT). Also take a look at the ringing endorsement from her campaign by Democracy For America and, if you can, please contribute to a game-changing campaign at the Blue America ActBlue page.

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.

U.S. Is A More Peaceful Place Than Angola And Bangladesh... Barely

Today's the day we can send a message 

to Washington that we want jobs, not war.

First off, today being the day of the California primary-- which features one race pitting a rabid warmonger, Jane Harman, against a pro-peace progressive, Marcy Winograd (CA-36)-- let's start this discussion with a one-minute video Brave New Films released yesterday:



OK, now let's think globally. This morning the Institute for Economics and Peace released the 2010 Global Peace Index, which, I'm assuming, will be available online later today. I'm working from a summary of an advance .pdf file they provided me with last night. "The results," it begins, "... suggest that the world has become slightly less peaceful in the past year. The GPI, which gauges ongoing domestic and international conflict, safety and security in society and militarization in 149 countries, registered overall increases in several indicators, including the likelihood of violent demonstrations and perceptions of criminality."

They trace some of this increase to the global economic turndown-- something we follow here at DWT and view as the successful class warfare conducted by the very wealthy parasites against society in general across the entire world. New Zealand, Iceland and Japan are ranked as the most at peace countries in the world, although if only Japan had a Second Amendment and a well-armed population I'm sure they would be as peaceful as the U.S. Oops... the U.S. ranked #85, just below totalitarian China and civil-war-plagued Bolivia, Macedonia and Nepal. But our bastion of "We're #1-ness" did come out ahead of Iran, Mexico, Yemen, Haiti, Syria, Algeria, Thailand, Turkey, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq... you know, the countries that have been in the news lately regarding difficulties.

Will our country ever be more at peace within itself and more of a force for peace in the rest of the world? Well... ever is a very long time, but the Change Obama seems to have been talking about when he ran for president didn't include either the intention or the will to change much of the Bush-Cheney policies encompassed in brutal class war at home and aggressive international superpower arrogance abroad. Here's some of the latter, which I especially hope our friends in CA-36 will think about when they go to vote today:



UPDATE: 2010 Global Peace Index Report Is Now Live

And available here... and beautifully laid out, with little flags and charts and graphs and bars.

Tomorrow's California Primary-- DWT Endorsements

Looks like that whole teabagger thing-- at least in California-- was just something the mass media drummed up to sell some advertising. Every teabagger is losing every GOP primary from the Oregon border to San Diego. And there are tons of teabaggers running in congressional races, even highly targeted ones like the vitriolic campaign against shameless corporate hack Mary Bono Mack., likely to be defeated in November by Palm Springs Democratic mayor Steve Poignet. And even thunderously touted DeMint Republican Chuck DeVore is coming in a distant third against a high-spending failed corporate executive and an odd-ball. The teabagger preferred candidate for governor is similarly nowhere, despite having spent millions of dollars of his own fortune in his pitiful race against another failed corporate executive, one he should have had on the defensive about why she was never indicted. So today's endorsements aren't about Republicans. There aren't any good ones-- other than the hopeless gubernatorial odd ball I referred to above-- and we'd all be better off if they all got in a big gun fight and shot each other.

Although there are several important Democratic primaries around the country-- the Arkansas runoffs pitting proven progressive superstar Joyce Elliott for Congress against reactionary Robbie Wills and Bill Halter against the odious Blanche Lincoln, plus the races in Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia-- I want to focus on California's Democratic ballot today, especially the down ticket races and propositions.

As I said last week, 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 nefarious 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 and our TV ads are still running in her district.

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 liking 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