I wasn’t going to write about this.

For the last few months, I’ve dealt with a series of family health crisis that culminated first in the death of my elderly mother, then my father exactly four weeks later.

The outcome of a contested primary in a safe Blue district hasn’t even been on my radar. But in the last couple of weeks I’ve had too many neighbors, too many friends ask about the race.

For better or worse, they want an opinion from me. So here it is.

On June 8th, I’ll be voting for Jane Harman. And I’ll be doing it as a Progressive.

Join me below the fold and I’ll tell you why.

If you’re an avid Winograd supporter – if you’ve volunteered in her office, canvassed for her, donated to her campaign – chances are what I’m about to write will piss you off. But I’m going to ask you to read on anyway. Because I understand why you’re volunteering and I deeply respect your need to make our country a better place. I’m the child of public school teachers who felt that need too and fought every day to lift their students up while everyone else worked to keep them down. I gave up 6a months of my life and worked unpaid as a regional field organizer on the Obama campaign precisely because I feel that need myself.

If I thought for a second Marcy Winograd was the best candidate to bring us one step closer to making that dream a reality, I’d be right there with you. But she’s not and she won’t.

Being a progressive is about moving forward – sometimes dramatically, sometimes incrementally – but always, and relentlessly, forward. And because politics in this country is a messy and inefficient process stuck in institutional inertia, being an effective progressive means the willingness to coalition-build with people you may not agree with on every issue.

Winograd, who’s never held even local elective office, has not yet demonstrated the ability or desire to be a coalition-builder, nor has she demonstrated the ability or desire to build consensus beyond her core group of supporters.

ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL (AND OFTEN MIND-NUMBING)

When Winograd ran against Harman in 2006, capitalizing on constituent frustration with the Iraq War, she managed to take 37.5% of the vote after a brief 3-month campaign. But instead of building on what was a very respectable showing, she gave up the Marina del Rey condo she’d rented for the duration of the campaign and moved out of the district and back to Pacific Palisades.

Winograd could have sold her Pacific Palisades home and actually put down stakes in CA-36. But she didn’t – buying a new home in Santa Monica (Henry Waxman’s district) in 2009 for $1.8 million. While our state faced the worst political and economic struggles in its history, Winograd could have dug in and run for State Assembly, State Senate, or even as a city council member for San Pedro, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Torrance or El Segundo. But again, she chose not to.

Voters in our district wouldn’t hear from Winograd again until a byzantine scandal surfaced last April involving Harman, AIPAC, the House Intelligence Committee and a prominent Democratic Party donor named Haim Saban. As scandals go, this one had all the staying power of cotton candy on hot asphalt (for a very comprehensive – and hilarious – review of the saga, check out this segment from the John Stewart Show ), but it was enough to give Winograd the opening she needed. Within a month she announced she would run against the suddenly vulnerable Harman.

Winograd moved into another rented condo in Marina del Rey and the race was on.

Now, Winograd isn’t doing anything “wrong” (there’s no legal requirement that a candidate has to live in the same district they are running for, only the same state), but when a candidate puts more effort in creating the illusion of representing her potential constituents than actually participating in the daily, mind-numbing grind local politicians have to go through to make their constituent’s lives better, that ought to raise some red flags.

Even as she seeks to ride the coat-tails of progressive candidates Bill Halter (elected Arkansas Lt. Governor in 2006) and Joe Sestak (who spent 31 years in the Navy and served in the Clinton White House as Director for Defense Policy, and is now serving his second term as Congressman for PA-07), she chooses not to pay her dues as they did.

It’s one thing to say you want to change the political landscape, it’s quite another to grab a shovel and start digging.

PREACHING BEYOND THE CHOIR AND THE FIGHT FOR THE COVETED CDP DOOR THINGEE

If you’re a registered Democrat in California, right around election time, some helpful soul will hang a brochure on your front door knob that lists all the official California Democratic Party (CDP) endorsements for the election in your district.

So here’s how a Congressional candidate in California gets that endorsement: Local CDP delegates, county committee members and representatives of local Democratic clubs get to vote in something called a pre-endorsement conference for the Congressional candidate they would like to see endorsed. If 70% of the voters at that conference endorse a candidate, then that recommendation is sent to the full CDP Convention a month or so later where, usually, the recommendation is accepted by unanimous consent and placed on the coveted CDP Door Thingee.

If you’re a candidate with relatively low name recognition and even less money (Winograd), and you’re in a contested primary with an opponent who has high name recognition and a lot of money (Harman), you can see why getting your name on the coveted CDP Door Thingee would be very helpful indeed. In fact, candidates in this state would kill for a place on the damn thing, and the ensuing drama surrounding the acquisition of said Door Thingee is entertaining indeed.

Jane Harman received 72% of the local delegate vote, enough to send the recommendation to the full CDP Convention. But it wasn’t that simple. Before the Convention, opposing candidates can collect 300 signatures from delegates across the State to force another endorsement vote among local delegates at the Convention, which is exactly what Winograd did. This time, the only participants were CDP delegates in the 36th Congressional District. At that endorsement caucus, Harman got a whopping 82% of the vote – far more than the simple majority she needed to put her name back on the consent calendar for ratification. But at the Convention, Winograd was able to gather the 300 signatures from delegates outside the district needed to pull the recommendation off the consent calendar yet again and send it to the Convention floor for a vote. Winograd lost that floor vote 599 to 417, and Harman ultimately received the endorsement.

There’s a reason why you, as a non inside-baseball-California-Democratic-Party-delegate-nerd-geek-policy-wonk, should care about this.

Winograd’s campaign didn’t do substantial outreach to the local CDP delegates – her potential constituents – to make the case for Winograd. I know, because I’m one of those delegates who voted in the pre-endorsement meeting. I received not one phone call from Winograd’s campaign. No emails. Nothing.

Contrast this with Harman’s campaign – who reached out to all the delegates regardless if they were known Winograd supporters or not – to secure their vote for that meeting. They worked the phones, they held meetings, they asked questions and heard concerns. They organized and made the case for Harman to her own constituents and, in the end, the work paid off.

Winograd chose to reach out to supporters outside the district to get the recommendation of Harman’s constituents overturned. And when the final vote didn’t go her way, instead of thanking her supporters and moving on, she questioned the validity of the vote.

Again, Winograd didn’t do anything “wrong” – she followed CDP rules. But every action she took, every statement she made during the Convention process and afterwards was only meant to play to her base. She had the chance to organize support and build a winning coalition within CA-36 and beyond her choir of hard-core supporters and usual suspects. But she made a conscious choice not to, spending more time creating the illusion of constituent support than building it.

CANDIDATES WITH GLASS INVESTMENTS SHOULD NOT THROW STONES

Winograd, describing herself as the only “real” Democratic candidate in the race, has consistently gone after Harman as being “someone beholden to big banks, Wall Street, or the weapons industry.”

Winograd has made Harman’s wealth a prominent issue in the campaign, and has called on Harman to divest from Dow Chemical after the EPA identified Dow as a potentially responsible party for toxic pollution in the Harbor-Gateway area, suggested Harman’s vote on extending biologic drug patent protections was tied to her investments in Pfizer, Abbot Labs and Johnson & Johnson, and most recently “rebuked” Harman for a wave of spring-time foreclosures that hit CA-36 during the first three months of 2010.

“If Harman were to suddenly lose her 300-million dollar portfolio and find herself unable to pay a mortgage on her three-lot home in Venice, she might feel some compassion for the hundreds of homeowners in West Los Angeles, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Harbor City, San Pedro, and Wilmington facing foreclosure because of her support for draconian bank legislation.”

Winograd hopes to paint Harman as someone irredeemably corrupt and out of touch, an insular multi-millionaire profiting from Big Pharma, Big Banks, and Big Polluters.

Frankly, this argument would be more effective if Winograd herself wasn’t a multi-millionaire heavily invested in Big Pharma, Big Banks and Big Polluters too.

Winograd’s own financial disclosure statement, reveals substantial investments in Baxter International (biologic drugs) , Merck (which spent $3.2 million lobbying against health care reform in the first quarter of 2009 alone), and UnitedHealth Group (which made headlines last August, when it sent a letter to it’s employees directing them to anti-health care reform events hosted by the right wing America’s Independent Party)

Winograd, who owns two properties in Santa Monica and a Four Seasons Resort time share in Carlsbad, CA (combined worth over $2 million), also has a substantial investment in Wells Fargo, one of the banks at the forefront of a $1.4 million-a-day lobbying assault to stop reform efforts in Washington and which is currently embroiled in numerous consumer lawsuits, including one involving the city of Baltimore, which charges the financial giant with targeting African-Americans for questionable sub-prime loans that resulted in hundreds of foreclosures.

Lastly, Winograd has smaller investments with the timber and paper industries. One of those companies, Clearwater Paper Corporation, was charged with violating federal and state air-emission standards more than 50 times in 2009.

It’s important to note that Winograd’s investments aren’t part of a mutual fund package – these are direct, chosen, targeted investments and annuities, that as a trustee, Winograd herself would have been responsible for executing. She knows exactly what companies she’s invested in.

Are any of these investments illegal? Nope. But, again, Winograd is talking the talk, not walking the walk. If you’re going to portray yourself as the moral authority in this primary race, railing against the financial sector, health insurance, pharmaceuticals, and polluters, you’d better be as pure as the Dalai Lama in a snowdrift or else you’re traveling in the same circles of hypocrisy as George “lift my luggage” Rekers or Mark “Appalachian Trail” Sanford.

A PROGRESSIVE CASE FOR JANE HARMAN

In 1998, during a failed bid to win the Democratic nomination for California governor against Gray Davis and Al Checchi, Harman infamously said she was proud to be called the “best Republican in the Democratic Party.”

It was a statement her opponents would use against for the next 12 years.

By the time Marcy Winograd ran against Harman in 2006, she’d become a target of national Progressive frustration, thanks mostly to her support of Bush’s NSA warrentless eavesdropping program and her vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2003.

The irony of that ill-fated statement? She was attempting to describe herself as a coalition builder, who could reach across party lines. Harman actually ran to the left of Gray Davis, vowing to repeal 1996’s Proposition 209, the ballot measure that outlawed racial and gender preferences in state hiring and school admissions, and to sign gay marriage into law if elected.

And therein lies one of the great weirdnesses of modern Progressive politics in this country – that Jane Harman, a lawmaker who scores better for her voting record on War and Peace legislation than Dennis Kucinich, should become so synonymous with the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that Harman’s detractors have literally said support for her equaled killing babies.

For the past 4 years, Winogorad has made a cottage industry out of promoting Harman as the House version of Joe Lieberman, but it took me all of 15 minutes of web surfing to find that even as Harman took positions on national security issues and the military that drove Progressives (and me) nuts, she amassed one of the most liberal voting records in Congress on almost everything else.

The liberal website Progressive Punch.org gives Harman’s voting record an lifetime progressive score of 81.43. NARAL has given her a 100% pro-choice rating.

I also found:

In 2006, the ACLU praised her efforts to improve FISA, and that 18 months before Barack Obama became president, she introduced legislation to close Guantanamo.

She strongly opposed DADT when it was first implemented in 1993 and was one of 77 lawmakers who signed a letter to Barack Obama demanding it’s repeal. She voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (one of only 67 lawmakers, Republican or Democratic to do so), and for modifying bankruptcy rules to help consumers avoid foreclosures.

Last year, Harman broke with the Blue Dog caucus to support health care reform, becoming an outspoken proponent of the public option and at one point even threatened to vote against any bill that didn’t include it.

In December, she objected to Obama’s Afghanistan “surge”, saying that expanding our military footprint would be a mistake.

Earlier this month, she co-sponsored the West Coast Protection Act, legislation that would end new oil and natural gas leases on the West Coast.

(For an exhaustive list of her voting record, go to this link.)

Folks, a legitimate conversation can be had about Harman’s stands on national security, defense issues and Israel (As a J-Street Jew, I actually have issues with both Harman and Winograd when it comes to Israel), but baby killing? Really?

Look, I don’t doubt for a second Winograd’s passion and the passion of her supporters. The goals she promotes – withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, single-payer health care reform and a new economy built on green technology – are good, solid, progressive goals I agree we should all be working towards.

Yet I have no confidence she’ll move us one step forward in that direction if elected. Marcy Winograd is a protestor, not a legislator, and for all the reasons I’ve listed above I have serious concerns about her judgment, values, and ability to provide effective representation for me and my neighbors.

Contested primaries are healthy – I do believe Winograd’s challenges may have had a hand in moving Harman to the left on national security issues (although I doubt they’ve had any effect on her when it comes to social issues, since Harman was already pretty far to the left). But I can think of any number of progressive politicians in our congressional district who’ve put in years of public service (Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Secretary of State Debra Bowen immediately leap to mind) who’d I’d love to see make a run for Congress instead.

Until that happens, for me at least, the choice is simple.

Jane Harman remains the progressive choice for my district and I’ll be voting for her June 8th.

I hope you will too.

The purpose of this diary is to get you to donate to or volunteer for Marcy Winograd’s campaign.  I’ll match the first $5 you give to Marcy at my ActBlue page for her.  Also, if you pledge to phonebank or precinct walk for her, I’ll kick in to her campaign as well.  (Volunteer signup form here).

Why contribute to Winograd?  I’ll give you 3 reasons:

Because your support could make a difference: Winograd has a shot at winning. She’s raised over $300K for the race (with no corporate donations) and Winograd’s recent poll of the race found Harman to be well below the 50% threshold considered safe for incumbents.  Most relevant, the poll found that “…approximately 70% of all voters who have formed an opinion of Winograd are likely to vote for her.”  .  Your money or phone calls could get Winograd votes just by getting info about her to voters in the district.  

Because you need not worry that a Republican could be elected.  This district is tailor made for a BETTER Democrat, not just a tolerable one.  We can demand a great Democrat who we can trust will be with us when it matters, not saying the right things in public while privately trying to do the opposite.  

Because she speaks clearly on the issues, and will be accountable to us.  If Winograd gets elected, we’ll know where she stands on healthcare (a supporter of Medicare for all) and on Iraq and Afghanistan (she’s pledged to appropriate no money for those wars other than what’s needed to get the troops home. Pinning down Harman is impossible – usually she doesn’t take public positions on legislation prior to a vote.  

Please give what you can to Marcy, or pledge to make some calls/canvass in the comments.  I’ll match you the first five bucks (it would be great if you could give more), or I’ll kick in $5 to her if you pledge to do at least an hour of calling or canvassing for Marcy.  

First, let me say this: I am a big fan of primary challenges.  But to make it really get past the statement phase, you really have to catch lightning in a bottle.  Of course, Republicans are doing it all over the place these days, but that’s not the case for Democrats.

So, with that I give you news from the Harman – Winograd primary challenge. According to a new poll for the Harman campaign, she is up by 41 points, 58-17.  Now, much of this is about name ID, where Harman is known by the community, and Winograd basically isn’t. Harman’s favorable/unfavorable ratio is at 64/18, while Winograd’s is at 20/6.

Now, the caveats: this poll is a fairly small sample, so the margin of error is almost +/- 5%.  But with the lead being so large, that shouldn’t matter all that much.  What these numbers are telling me is that Harman is going to win the primary on the strength of her name ID.  With only a few weeks to go before the election, Winograd is left playing the statement role.

Back in 2006, she garnered about 38%, and she might just reach that number.  But, for now, it looks like Harman has herself in a position for a comfortable win come June 8.

CA-36 congressional candidate Marcy Winograd’s March 14, 2010 open letter to delegates follows:

Delegates, Floor Fight? You Bet!

Winograd vs. Harman: Choose Our Street over Wall Street



Delegates, I need your support to block the endorsement of Blue Dog Jane Harman on the floor of the California Democratic Party convention this weekend. Harman is a formidable opponent, particularly with her campaign consultant Harvey Englander, the man who engineered the passage of Howard Jarvis’ Prop 13.



You will hear Harman’s appointees argue that we should not usurp the local caucus’s power to endorse. Delegates are aware that incumbents enjoy institutional support and as such, many are unwilling to expend political capital or perceived accessibility to incumbents even though those incumbents may vote against core Democratic values. Our Party’s bylaws however, provide for exactly this type of challenge because when a candidate is endorsed, that endorsement reflects the will of the entire statewide Party, not just local delegates. Moreover, when a corporate Democrat, funded by military contractors and personally invested in those same contractors, takes us to war without exercising her oversight responsibility, all of us pay the price.



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

Our efforts begin on Friday night when many progressive delegates convene with national radio broadcaster Jim Hightower at the Palm Restaurant, 1100 Flower Street, across from the Marriott Hotel, where the convention will be held. All are welcome. At that time, I will ask you to commit yourself to gathering signatures for my petition to overturn Harman’s endorsement in the local caucus Saturday evening.



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



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



To block Harman’s endorsement on the floor, I will need 50% plus 1 delegate to reject her candidacy.



Winograd vs. Harman: What’s the Difference?



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



This is not a contest between two corporate Democrats.



It’s between Our Street vs. Wall Street.



Homes vs. Banks.



Jobs vs. Wars.



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



Who are we? What do we stand for?



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



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



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



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

* big banks and military contractors

* supporting a bankruptcy bill that makes it easier for banks to hike your credit card rates

* punish you for medical bankruptcy

* foreclose on your home

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

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

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

* finally, becoming the subject of an FBI investigation after being caught in an NSA wiretap allegedly offering to use her influence on the House Intelligence Committee to get spying charges dropped against AIPAC analysts – this in return for their reported promise to defund House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party if Pelosi refused to make Harman Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Enough.



I am not in the pocket of any lobby group – and am deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with justice in the Middle East.



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



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



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



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



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



Thank you,



Marcy Winograd

36th Congressional District Candidate

www.winogradforcongress.com

February 10, 2010

Winograd accepts Jewish Journal’s Debate Offer:  Harman, No Response

“Let’s pack the house,” says Winograd

(Marina del Rey, CA) Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36) accepts the Jewish Journal’s offer to participate in a proposed debate with opponent Jane Harman, and urges her opponent to accept, as well.  In a recent Jewish Journal article, Editor Rob Eshman issued an open invitation to both candidates, saying, “I invite Winograd and Harman to discuss this issue (Israel/Palestine) in a public forum hosted by The Jewish Journal at a mutually convenient date.”   Harman has not responded.

The offer to sponsor a debate followed a controversy over a letter Congressman Waxman wrote urging potential high-dollar donors to contribute the maximum to Harman’s campaign because of Winograd’s support for equal rights for all in Israel/Palestine.  Winograd is the co-founder of LA Jews for Peace, an organization which calls for an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Winograd responded to Eshman’s invitation, saying in a letter published in the Jewish Journal, “I thank the Jewish Journal for graciously inviting me to debate my opponent in the June 8, 2010, Democratic Party primary.  Given the diversity of opinion, I look forward to a robust and open debate, not only on issues pertaining to middle east peace, but also on single-payer health care, immigration and citizenship, and the transition from a war economy to a new Green economy. Let’s pack the house, wrestle with critical issues, and do some serious soul searching.”

During the 2006 campaign, Harman refused to debate, or even stand on the same stage.  In 2006 Winograd jumped into the race only three months before the primary, mobilizing almost 38% of the vote on an anti-war and pro-constitutional rights platform.   In 2010, Winograd’s platform calls for ending multiple perpetual wars and investing in human needs at home.

Contact:  Michael Jay

Campaign Manager, Winograd for Congress

[email protected]

Ph: (818) 445 4520

To learn more about the Winograd For Congress campaign, visit:

http://www.WinogradForCongress…

###

Driving to work (school) the other day, I listed on NPR as they talked about the need to curb spending, and AGAIN, the targets were the very DOMESTIC programs that the people value the most — Medicare, Social Security, etc. NOT ONE WORD about the incredibly bloated defense budget or the Homeland Security Agency that’s allowing more and more of our tax dollars to be privatized into black holes of campaign contributors. If we want to get a handle on the deficits (and I’m not sure any of our electeds are serious about that), then the MILITARY budget and their constant “supplementals” has to be put on the TOP of the stack for cutting.

Here’s another of the great releases being done by CD36 candidate Marcy Winograd. A few days old, but still quite relevant:

Marina del Rey, CA, January 20, 2010  — President Obama’s soon-to-be announced three-year spending freeze will have a chilling effect on our schools, says Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36/Harman), a veteran public school teacher, who points out that K-12 schools, already choking from lay-offs and overcrowded classes, face the danger of book shortages and additional program cuts.  

Programs Most Affected

Though the majority of school funding comes from the states, the Obama proposal could freeze spending on items funded with federal dollars: supplementary books, reading programs, English as a Second Language classes, and modifications for students with disabilities.

“Public schools need more stimulus dollars to preserve music programs, reduce class size, and pursue quality professional development.  A three-year spending freeze on education sends the wrong message to our children, who should be considered our nation’s greatest resource for innovation.”

Military Spending Continues to Soar

“If the President wants to appease the neo-conservatives, the deficit hawks,” says Winograd, “I would encourage him to cut our bloated military budget, which is now paying for multiple perpetual wars that create new enemies.”

The President’s deficit reduction plan would not touch military spending, slated in 2010 to include 30 billion for Iraq & Afghanistan, 700-billion for the defense budget.  Spending on air traffic control, education, and national parks would, however, be frozen.

Warning Signs:  Must Protect Social Security & Medicare

Though the freeze, which the President hopes will save 250-billion over 10 years, does not affect Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, Winograd warns those mainstays of our safety net could be next.  “Watch out,” says Winograd, “for anything billing itself as a bi-partisan independent commission to restore the nation’s fiscal balance.  In English that translates into cuts for the poor who rely on Medicaid and for seniors who worked their entire lives to receive Medicare and Social Security.

Marcy Winograd has been a teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School District since 1994.  Most recently she taught English and worked as a literacy coach at Crenshaw High School in south Los Angeles.

Winograd is a progressive challenging Jane Harman in the June 8, 2010, Democratic Party primary in California’s 36th congressional district (West LA to San Pedro).  In 2006, Winograd mobilized almost 38% of the primary vote in only three months of campaigning.  The San Francisco Chronicle recently highlighted the Winograd-Harman contest as one of the key races to watch in 2010.

To learn more about the Winograd For Congress campaign, visit:

http://www.WinogradForCongress…

http://www.Facebook.com/Winogr…

http://www.Twitter.com/MarcyWi…

http://www.youtube.com/Winogra…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/w…

http://www.meetup.com/Winograd…

Contact:

Michael Jay

Campaign Manager, Winograd for Congress

[email protected]

Ph: (818) 445 4520

###

I was overjoyed to see that a serious progressive, one who is COMMITTED to helping TEACHERS, is being supported by one of the most influential of our unions, UC-AFT. We need to STOP sending back to Washington the same old incumbents who can’t seem to separate themselves from their corporate sponsors. I personally think they should be registering as LOBBYISTS when they take so much money from the corporations.

Here’s the release I received:

Marina del Rey, CA, January 27, 2010  —  The University of California American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) has endorsed public school teacher Marcy Winograd for Congress in her challenge to Jane Harman in the 36thDistrict.  The union local represents 3,000 lecturers and librarians on ten UC campuses.  

Local President Bob Samuels said, “California needs to send a progressive vote to Congress.  Marcy Winograd is a proven supporter of higher education who will fight the current military expansion so we can fund education at the proper level.”

Winograd received her undergraduate degree in political science from UC Berkeley (1974) and her teaching credential from UCLA (1994).  Said Winograd, “I am proud to have the endorsement of colleagues working hard to restore world class education to California.  As a graduate of the UC system, I understand the importance of protecting and fully-funding one of our state’s most valuable assets – a distinguished public university system once affordable to all.”

Last year the UC Regents voted to hike fee increases 32%, despite massive campus-wide student walk-outs to protest the hike in fees and lack of transparency in the budget process. Winograd, a featured speaker at the November UCLA student rally, called on students and faculty to demand UC Regents lift the veil of budget secrecy to engage everyone in solutions. “The Regents meet with the blinds closed, while the students stand outside in the dark.  Let’s open up the books so we can see where the money is.  Without budget transparency, the larger community remains locked out of the problem-solving process,” Winograd told reporters, adding, “We should not be holding a funeral for the UC system, but celebrating its rebirth as one of the greatest educational institutions of all time.”

Said Samuels, “At UCLA they have given lay-off notices to most of the long-term lecturers, which could result in the cancellation of hundreds of classes.  They are also talking about suspending language requirements while increasing class sizes, threatening to close libraries, and limiting services.  In general, we are fighting the downgrading of educational quality.”

Winograd’s platform makes federal funding of higher education a top priority.  A 15-year veteran of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Winograd worked last year at Crenshaw High School, where she taught English and coached teachers on best literacy practices.

To learn more about the Winograd For Congress campaign, visit:

http://www.WinogradForCongress…

http://www.Facebook.com/Winogr…

http://www.Twitter.com/MarcyWi…

http://www.youtube.com/Winogra…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/w…

http://www.meetup.com/Winograd…

Contact:

Michael Jay

Campaign Manager, Winograd for Congress

[email protected]

Ph: (818) 445 4520

Jane Harman isn’t exactly popular around these parts.  Or around her district, to tell the truth.  But while Marcy Winograd challenges her from the left for the CA-36 seat, this attack from the right is rather silly. There are two fine candidates in the primary, both profiled in the Daily Breeze today.

Pete Kesterson, a tea party activist, and is running on a campaign in opposition to “out of control debt.”  But, this man has just about every strike possible against him.  While he is running his campaign on “fiscal sanity,” he has filed for bankruptcy twice and currently under-earning his monthly expenses by $1,000.

His opponent, Mattie Fein, just moved from Washington, DC to Venice to run fir the seat. But, you know, we learned that a carpetbagger can occasionally squeak out a win in CA-04, so just to make this Keystone Cops thing complete, Fein abandoned a house in Kentucky after having “fallen victim to unscrupulous lending practices.”

This crew sounds like something straight out of opposition research central casting, you’d almost think Harman recruited these people into the race herself.  Either way, this is a safe Democratic seat, whomever comes out of the primary stands a fantastic chance in the general.

I previously wrote about a situation where Jane Harman condemned those planning to oppose Iraq war funding in 2007 as being in favor of letting troops die from IED’s, and how she herself ended up voting against the war funding.  Apparently, Harman’s condemnation of herself is becoming a habit.

This time it’s over passing war funding in emergency supplemental budgets.

Jane Harman explained quite clearly in 2007 how wrong it was to be budgeting quite predictable war funds outside of the normal budget process.  In a post titled simply enough “Put the Iraq War on Budget”, Jane Harman was clear on her thinking:

We have already spent at least $400 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But only about 9 percent of those funds were approved through the normal appropriations process.

The rest was passed in “Emergency Supplemental” appropriation bills not subject to budget caps or the normal congressional oversight process. These supplementals – because their numbers do not appear on the budgetary bottom line – allow the White House to pretend it is maintaining a semblance of fiscal discipline. But our deficits are already spiraling out of control and there is no way to bring the budget into balance without taking the staggering war costs into account.

The Bush Administration has claimed emergency spending is necessary because the costs of a protracted war on terror are not known. Nonsense. Both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars were almost entirely financed through the regular appropriations process – not emergency supplementals.

The White House will soon ask for over $100 billion in new emergency war spending, Adjusted for inflation, that is more than we spent in 1968, the most expensive year of the war in Vietnam. And the lion’s share of that funding was done through the regular process.

There must be no more blank checks for this President, and I predict this will be the last “emergency” supplemental in the new Democrat-controlled Congress.

This week we saw a repeat of almost the exact same situation: The administration asking for just shy of $100 billion for war spending, without any restrictions (aka a blank check).

Given her clear statement she’d never again approve non-emergency war spending outside of the normal budget process, you’d think it would be easy to predict what Jane Harman would follow her own admonition and vote No when faced with the exact same situation this week. It turns out, she voted Yes.

So, simply using Harman’s own criteria about “off budget” war funding, her consistent votes in favor of it show that she supports:

– purposely mischaracterizing war funding to avoid having to budget for it;

– making our deficits which are already “spiraling out of control” get even worse;

– making the Federal budget impossible to balance by refusing to take the staggering war costs into account.

That means that it’s not just Marcy Winograd who’s criticizing Harman over her support of irresponsible and progligate war spending – the person that Harman sees when she looks in the mirror is too!

Yesterday at the Venice Pier, Marcy Winograd announced her campaign for Congress in front of about 75-80 supporters and friends, and many leaders of the progressive activist community in Los Angeles.  The campaign showed their thrift and commitment to recycling by using the old Winograd ’06 campaign posters and skillfully pasting a “’10” sticker in the appropriate place.  It’s going to be that kind of campaign.

After a few speakers (I particularly enjoyed Julian Barger from the Harbor area of the district calling Jane Harman “Congresswoman Helmsley” for her double standard on civil liberties for her vs. civil liberties for all Americans), Marcy gave a short speech where she emphasized her no-holds-barred progressive values and offered a true contrast to her incumbent opponent.  She called for a “new New Deal” to put America back to work, announced support for John Conyers’ HR 676, questioned the continued bailout of the banks and the use of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, argued for rapid transit and renewable energy in the Los Angeles area, and said of her primary challenge, “this will reverberate throughout the country.”

Winograd spoke to various concerns of families in the district, noting that areas of Torrance are experiencing skyrocketing foreclosure rates, and that business has declined over 20% in the port at San Pedro.  This is an area where, with a longer campaign time frame than her quick run in 2006, Winograd can make headway in all areas of the district and throughout the South Bay, speaking to the economic concerns of the area and drawing contrast with Jane Harman’s more conservative approach.  Obviously, the greater concern about Harman more recently has been her defense of the Bush Administration’s the warrantless wiretapping and her generally hawkish stance abroad.  But there is an opening for a core economic argument, still the major preoccupation of voters, to be made.

Winograd’s announcement got covered in LA Weekly and the CoCo Times.  Mainstream news pieces about this primary challenge never fail to emphasize that the 36th is a “moderate” district and that Winograd will have to “broaden her appeal” to win over those voters.  This assumes that Democratic primary voters, or virtually anyone, makes election choices based on firm ideological footing.  Poll after poll has shown that on the issues, Americans portray a far more progressive belief system than their typical electoral choices.  Maybe consultants and Democratic strategists need to “broaden their appeal” to potential candidates that can articulate a progressive agenda.