DOWNLOADS: (232)

PLAYS: (797)

Embed

Join with me now and breathe a collective sigh of relief that Jane Harman is no longer in Congress. Because a bigger war-mongering Neocon-in-Democratic-clothing I do not think you could find.

Not content with just three declared fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and one stealth one in Pakistan) draining the country's resources, Jane Harman gets visibly excited at the thought of stopping all the evil Iran is supposedly doing in the Middle East. Gosh, it sounds like Harman is getting all her intel from Saudi and/or Israeli sources. because you know, they don't have any kind of agenda in dealing with Iran. That "playing" in Bahrain? Debunked. That "playing" in Lebanon? At the request of the Lebanese PM. Even the weapons with Iranian markings allegedly found in Gaza--how does that line up with all those American-made arms pointing at Palestinians? Funny how that goes unmentioned.

I'm sorry, but no American should be bemoaning the hegemony of any other country in the Middle East, unless we're just bound and determined to be the only purveyors of it. Note how quickly Harman glides into decrying Iran as the fount of all things bad in the Middle East to Yemen and conflating the country proper (no matter how unstable it is) with the American-born and officially Yemeni-convicted terrorist spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whom Harman has referred to as "Terrorist #1" (again ignoring the repeated acts of terrorism being committed in this country by all those "lone wolf" right wing nut jobs). The very fact that she holds up some magazine written by al Qaeda as proof of the threat because it featured an article on how to build a bomb in your kitchen, but ignores all that same information has been not only readily available on the internets (and hell, even in the library for us old-timers that still read books), but used by people like Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

But that Jane Harman, she loves her some military interventions in the Middle East...so much she's looking for more.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Just three weeks into the new congressional session, Democratic Rep Jane Harman (CA36) is announcing her intention to step down from her congressional seat to head a Washington DC think tank.

Rep. Jane Harman will vacate her Congressional seat to lead the Woodrow Wilson Center, according to a Congressional source.

The California Democrat, expected to make a formal announcement on Tuesday, will succeed former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) at the foreign policy think tank. Harman served as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee from 2003 to 2006 and has carved out a specialty in national security during her time in Congress.

Wait...why did she wait until THREE WEEKS AFTER the new Congressional session started to leave? Why did she opt to run again at all? Wouldn't the more prudent thing be to make way for another candidate (like say, oh....Marcy Winograd or our very own John Amato)??? Now what is the state of California--teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy--supposed to do?

To replace Harman, the state will hold its first Congressional election under its new top-two primary rules, when the top vote-getters from an all-party primary advance. However, under special election rules, a candidate can win the seat by taking at least 50 percent of the vote in the primary.

“It’s going to be a free for all for that seat,” said Eric Bauman, chairman of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.

The special election to replace Harman could be held on the second Tuesday in June, coinciding with a date being considered for a statewide vote on tax propositions.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the additional expense of putting on a special election to replace Harman is one the state cannot really afford. Maybe Harman, who is among the wealthiest congresspeople, should be asked to cough up at least some of the money to cover expenses since it was her own short-sightedness that put us in this spot.

I'm not surprised that Harman won the California Democratic Party endorsement Sunday because she's a very wealthy incumbent who has hand-picked many delegates to help keep her power when it counts. I'm saddened by it, but it shows how the game works and how hard it is to fight an incumbent. It doesn't matter if that person supported George Bush and got caught up in a national scandal about Bush's warrantless wire-tapping, or her role in trying to corrupt the media in the process. I was at the convention Saturday, but not Sunday.

d-day:

OK, so we’re on to the endorsement for Jane Harman. And this is a crackup. CDP Chair John Burton has kind of lost control of the thing. More in a minute.

Here’s the deal. Burton rushed the question on the endorsement to the floor, asked for whether there would be speakers on behalf of Winograd and Harman, and didn’t hear that there were. Then he called the question and nobody knew what the question was. Then he got hot and yelled at people who didn’t understand. He called the question again, but then Winograd and her supporters asked to speak again. Burton chided them for not getting their act together but allowed them to speak.

John Burton really isn’t interested in the party business stuff and it shows.

John Burton made an absolute mess of this important floor vote. Did they stack the deck against Winograd? From what I'm hearing, there's no way they could have counted those votes in the time frame allotted.

I was sitting at a table during yesterday's lunch at the convention and was talking to some really nice people. Arianna was waiting to give the keynote speech (she did very well), but Diane Watson was introduced first and she got a standing ovation. She's retiring after many years in the House.

I told some delegates that there's a big problem between the local Democratic Party infrastructure and the netroots across the country, but especially in California. Many in the state party seem pretty devoid of any interest or knowledge in using the Internet and the many local bloggers to their advantage. California is loaded with us DFH's.

As I was making my point to the table, John Burton stood up and introduced Arianna Huffington and to my disbelief he said that he never touches a computer or goes on the Internet. Now, it's certainly not his job to do this, but come on. In a time when computers, the Internet and the blogosphere have been changing politics, how can the head of the California Democratic Party be so out of touch? I turned to the table and said, "You see what I mean?" They all nodded in agreement. After Arianna's great speech, he told the audience that her speech might change his mind and force him to sit in front of a computer. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point. This disconnect between the party and the real world is starting to have dire consequences.

Winograd's team did a good job of getting enough signatures to thwart an automatic endorsement from the CDP, forcing a floor vote at the convention.

I talked to Marci and she was really upset at how this all shook out. Burton seemed to try and ram through the endorsement of the Bush Dog-like Harman. Marci gave me this quote:

I was pleased to see so many delegates, perhaps the majority of the floor, we'll never really know, stand up to block the endorsement of a Blue Dog that worked to reelect George Bush and foreclose on as many homes as possible.

Yes, she did get impressive numbers and Harman is going to have her hands full with the Winograd campaign. Don't be shy and help support Marci over Blue Dog Harman. The way Burton handled the Harman/Winograd situation was abominable. However, even with his hackery, I think with the blogosphere's support, Marci can still win.

Digby writes about the floor vote and says:

This is really all inter-party kabuki and doesn't mean much. The fact that Winograd even got a floor vote is a testament to Harman's weakness. She is after all, a very powerful incumbent and nationally known figure in the party. They always hang together against grassroots threats.

What matters is the primary vote. LA Progressive puts it this way:

Harman vs. Winograd is the quintessential battle of opposites; conservative vs. progressive, corporate donations vs. grassroots donations, power broker vs. people power, special interests vs. people’s interests, war vs. infrastructure, war vs. jobs, war vs. education, war vs. housing, war vs. health, war vs. the environment, and on…

This contest means the difference between reelecting an entrenched incumbent politician who supports militarism and corporatocracy or electing an inspired organizer and educator who’s dedicated her life to the local community and the community at large.

Lila Garrett, radio host, progressive icon and convention delegate summed it up for me this way:

“Winograd vs. Harman is not just another ho-hum congressional election. It’s a battle to define the Democratic Party. If it is represented by a permanent war economy fed by a policy of permanent war, secret government, authoritarian rule – that’s Harman. If it’s a party whose first priorities are peace, universal education, healthcare, employment and dignity – that’s Winograd.

They [Harman and Winograd] are polar opposites. Let the Democratic party be defined by this election. Then let those of us who care what our party stands for decide whether to remain Democrats or move on. It has come to that.”

I'm a believer in staying and fighting rather than "moving on" to quixotic, third party politics, but I agree with the rest. If Winograd wins this race it will send shockwaves through the Democratic establishment. Harman is considered untouchable, but as was demonstrated by the floor vote at the convention, she's on the run.

Harman is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. She can flood the zone with her own cash if need be. Winograd, on the other hand, is dependent on contributions from like-minded individuals who would like to have some representation in Congress that answers to the people rather than corporations, defense contractors and lobbyists.

You can donate a couple of bucks here to support her effort.

I've heard from some delegates that John Burton is doing a very good job fixing many of the problems the CDP has faced after he took over the party so that's really good to hear. They know the nuts and bolts of the party apparatus.

Robert Cruickshank has a great post up on Calitics about the CDC called:

A Movement - and a Party - In Search of Leadership

On a related note, Jerry Brown is the nominee for Governor and I haven't seen much if any outreach to the bloggers or advertising to get his message out on TV, have you?

Brown did challenge Whitman to a debate that she refused so they are now going after her hard on it with an action called: Demand Meg Join The Debate

We'll see how that winds up, but so far the word is that it's a very tight race right now.

Early polls show Brown in a statistical dead heat with Republican Meg Whitman, the billionaire former eBay CEO.

I do know one thing. If the Brown campaign doesn't get their act together soon, we'll be following up the horrendous Arnold years with Meg Whitman as Governor. I shudder at the thought.

(corrected from an earlier draft)

DOWNLOADS: (785)

PLAYS: (1769)

Embed

Glenn Beck didn't bother to even have any guests on his program yesterday because he was too busy calling progressives "parasites" and "a virus" and making insane connections that only he understands. That's typical eliminationist rhetoric.

He can't handle differences of political belief, so he wants to wipe out liberals and progressives from the face of the earth. He believes that since he uses a blackboard with chalk and incoherently erases a letter off of one word to form new words that will make it all comprehensible.

Beck's been working himself up into a frothy, psycho-frenzied lather about destroying all progressives as he promotes Jonah Goldberg's dishonest book and thesis about fascism, which he uses for his own demented documentary. And apparently I should be eliminated too.

Wow, all because I was not happy with Lynne Woolsey for hosting a fundraiser for CA-36's very own Blue Dog, Jane Harman, and wrote a few posts about it calling for her to stop.

Beck: The traditional democratic party is going up against the radical fringe left.

I've been telling you that there's a difference between democrats and progressives from the beginning now but nobody wants to listen. Here it is. Their are Blue Dog democrats and but they are not socialists, Marxists radicals. They are more like your grand father's democrat. Most Democrats still love America, they love the founders and they love the constitution and believe in this country. But then there's another group and they have infiltrated not just the Democratic party, but the republican party...

Speak softly and carry a big stick. blah, blah, blah...We got this from an insider. Wait until you hear this story. The co-chair of the CPC...

How many times have I said they are like a virus feeding on the host of republic.

The progressives are parasites inside the democrat....The California progressives weren't the only ones upset. John Amato of Crooksandliars wrote on Huffington Post.

"for Woolsey to holding a fundraising events for a known Blue Dog should be a firing offense for the CPC."

Progressives Democrats for America joined in, They started an online petition asking her to withdraw from the event. Woolsey said no. I don't know how this story ends quite frankly it's California and it's all going to end in a mudslide right into the bottom of the ocean eventually anyway, but let me tell you something. The last time the progressives were in this position and they started gobbling power and they exposed themselves people caught on and hated them.

That threatens him, so he warns that people like me are destroying the Democratic Party. Of course, you know he loves the Democratic Party as much as he loves eating sandpaper. He opines that progressives have been hiding for years and years in the wilderness and suddenly snuck up on him.

He's the Teabagger King and is trying to purge all moderate Republicans from the GOP, as if they were a disease, and replace them with arch-conservative haters. And while he's at it, he wants to do the same for Democrats.

Of course, Glenn has nothing but our own best interests at heart. Riiiiiiiight.

UPDATE: After watching this again and adding a little transcript, isn't it nice for Beck to hope that California gets hit with an earthquake that destroys the state and we end up as fish food. What a guy, that Beck. He not only is hoping for progressives to be eliminated, but the entire state of California as well.

This is completely unacceptable. The co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is throwing her support behind a Blue Dog named Jane Harman for reelection in 2010, and who happens to be the representative in my own district in California. I've been thinking of running against her because I'm so upset at Harman's actions in Congress, but for Woolsey to be holding fundraising events for a known Blue Dog should be a firing offense for the CPC.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva has been excellent for the CPC, but obviously Lynne needs to go. The idea is to grow the CPC and progressives in Congress, not support odious Blue Dogs who obstruct progressive legislation and take this country to the far, far right. This is a complete betrayal.

I'm calling for the CPC to remove her as the co-chair immediately.

Howie Klein has more:

Harman supports a wide range of Republican policies that Woolsey has always opposed-- from the Iraq War, the anti-family/pro-bankster bankruptcy bill, and abolishing the estate tax to warrantless wiretaps (except the ones that expose her as an Israeli spy) and offering "special treatment" to defense contractors. She is widely considered to be the least trustworthy and most disliked Democrats in the House by her fellow Democrats. And Lynne Woolsey understands that completely.

Is this how the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus builds a progressive movement? Marcy Winograd is in a tight primary race against Harman. It may be too much to expect Woolsey to campaign for Winograd, but endorsing the Blue Dog who is consistently voting against -- and working behind the scenes against -- everything the Progressive Caucus is supposed to stand for? Then they wonder why no one takes them seriously? Woolsey should be relieved of her position as co-chair...

Please have your phone in hand and start calling. Please be polite-- and firm:

Washington DC Office:

202-225-5161

Fax: 202-225-5163

District Offices:

Marin Office:

1050 Northgate Drive

Suite 354

San Rafael, CA. 94903

Ph.: 415-507-9554

Fax: 415-507-9601

Sonoma Office:

1101 College Avenue

Suite 200

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Ph.: 707-542-7182

Fax: 707-542-2745

Mercury Rising: Do many small wars add up to a very large one?

field negro: Hey Texas, when are you going to start that little secession thing? The rest of us are getting impatient

Economist's View: The serious conflict in modern conservatism

They gave us a republic: Roxana Saberi Free

Our friend Alicia Morgan of Last Left Turn Before Hooterville has been asked to sing at Marcy Winograd's campaign kickoff event today in Los Angeles.  Winograd is taking on Jane Harman for the CA-36 seat.

There was an article in The Hill the other day about Rep. Jane Harman's plight:

Tangled in wiretap, opposed by left, Harman could face tough primary

Anti-war forces and liberal bloggers have despised Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) for years, and now they smell blood in the water.

Harman has taken plenty of heat from her left flank over the years for supporting the Iraq war and President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. And now that she’s in some political trouble for allegedly offering favors on a federal wiretap, her detractors might just have the ammo they need.

Already, 2006 primary opponent Marcy Winograd has opened an exploratory committee and others are also making their interest known. Plus, bloggers are talking about recruiting one of the their own to challenge Harman.

Experts say the congresswoman looks OK right now, but the situation remains fluid.

That is all pretty much correct, but then Aaron Blake had a bit of other news in the story.

Howie Klein, the Southern California-based author of the DownWithTyranny blog, said the new revelations could help change that.

“When Marcy ran the first time, it was a really tough road for her, because people didn’t understand,” Klein said. “Even on a really great website like Daily Kos, there were a lot of people that didn’t understand.”

Klein said a group of bloggers met earlier this year to discuss challenging Harman in a primary, weeks before the recent revelations. He said many in the blogging community would like a fellow blogger, John Amato, to challenge Harman and that Amato is considering it.

I wanted to confirm to my readers that I am considering running for Jane Harman's seat. I've had meetings with bloggers and activists way before this story broke and they have urged me on. I've also been contacted by established campaign managers who have won elections which included huge upsets in the past that have expressed a serious interest in managing my campaign. This is a very important step in the process. At this point I am considering it, but haven't made a decision yet. I'm going to take my time before I decide, but I thought I owed it to you to confirm this report.

Now back to our regularly scheduled content.

Discourse.net:

A number of the best internet commentators are discussing today's news that a few of the leading Congressional Democrats may have been - probably were - briefed about the administration's plans to torture (waterboard, and maybe more) suspected terrorists being held in secret CIA facilities abroad. There's confusion about the facts, with few of the people allegedly briefed confirming the story. Notably, however, it appears that of those briefed, only Rep. Jane Harman objected. (Note that we're still at an early spin stage here - more facts about who said what to whom are likely to come out.)

The emerging consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that even if they had the presence of mind to object, the Representatives and Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of the Intelligence Committees or the leadership, they signed various secrecy pledges which stopped them from going public. To go public, it seems to be agreed, was to "jeopardize their careers and risk jail" as Kevin Drum put it; even so, Matthew Yglesias suggests that this called for civil disobedience, and that the representatives should have dared the administration to arrest them.

All this misses a critical aspect of our constitutional structure. Thanks to the Speech and Debate Clause there was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow the whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines - at worst they might have lost their security clearances (and even there the law is a little murky). Read on...

When I first read this report, I admit that I got angry. Then I got smart. Look carefully at the names named in this report. Isn't it interesting that the WaPo reporters made sure to point out the Democrats in attendance when Congress was still operating under a Republican majority? Hmmm....who do you suppose could have leaked this story to the press to perhaps deflect from their own negative stories?

No matter how you slice it, there's some serious 'splaining that needs to be done, but the lopsidedness of this article makes me more than a little leery of its accuracy.

WaPo:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.[..]

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.[..]

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Arianna has some very interesting news from today.

We're still on the Hill, and the great news of the day -- indeed, the best news we've heard all week-- is that tomorrow Democratic Congressional leaders will come out with a strong statement on troop escalation, laying down a marker and establishing the Democratic position on what has become the first critical decision on the war in Iraq facing the 110th Congress.

And as FOX & Friends tried to immediately smear Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman by telling us they were "cat fighting"---Huffington said:

Noticing how relaxed and comfortable Harman appeared, we couldn't resist asking her about the article in today Washington Post, headlined "Passed Over By Pelosi, Harman Doesn't Get Even. She Gets Mad." Harman shook her head and insisted it was time for the media to stop trying to paint everything Pelosi does as "a catfight." Got that WaPo? Time for a new story line.