I’m honored to share a letter that was sent by Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, regarding her recent endorsement of my re-election. I urge you to watch her video message and share it with your friends and family.

Dear Friend,

My name is Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. I am proud today to announce my endorsement of Congresswoman Jane Harman.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor represents over 300 unions – the men and women who make up all of the different industries that make Los Angeles work – from the public sector and the private sector.

In the years I have known Congresswoman Harman, she has shown herself to be leader. She takes hold of an issue in Congress and gets the job done. She is as courageous as she is energetic.

Congresswoman Harman has always fought for a worker’s right to organize, and she is an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. She refuses to cross picket lines and has marched with local janitors, health care workers, and others to make sure that people who work hard and play by the rules are paid well and treated with dignity.

She has opposed unfair trade agreements, including NAFTA and CAFTA, and has long advocated better technology and fairer hours for air traffic controllers.

Most importantly, as we fight our way out of the Bush recession, we are proud to work cooperatively with her to create good, high-paying, skilled jobs for our communities.

I hope you will watch this short video and share it with your friends and family.

We appreciate somebody who is strong, thoughtful and courageous. And we are deeply appreciative of Congresswoman Harman for always fighting for us.

Jane Harman deserves our support. I could not be more proud to endorse her today and ask you to vote for her in the Democratic Primary on June 8.

Sincerely,

Maria Elena Durazo

Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor

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…

###

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

In today’s Willie Brown column, Willie praises Gavin Newsom for “having the courage” to drop out of the race, he speaks that which the Chronicle’s news section, as well as the LA Times, refuses to admit is a possibility: there just might be another candidate on the Democratic side.

But it is absolutely necessary for a politician to have that type of courage if he wants a long career. And make no mistake, Newsom still has a future. He is still a tremendous communicator.

Although Attorney General Jerry Brown comes out the early winner in Newsom’s withdrawal, I have to believe there are many Democrats out there who still say, “Can’t we find someone with a newer paint job?”

Two names have already popped up: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County), and Maria Shriver. (SF Chronicle 11/1/09)

For a few weeks these rumors have been going about.  There a number of reasons for this, the big one being that there is money sitting out of this race.  This is more than just your normal money sitting out of the race for economic reasons, but some typical players that didn’t take a side. That could have been that they were leaning away from Brown and weren’t sure about how long Newsom could survive. Or that Newsom wasn’t able to extract money and just tried for the second best and asked people to hold off on giving money to Brown.

Jerry Brown has a lot of inherent advantages in the race, yet he’s certainly not unbeatable.  Brown coould yet lose to a well-funded candidate, especially if that well-funded candidate was a minority, a woman, or a combination of the two. Harman carries baggage with the base, and the word on the street is that she may not be able to self-finance her campaigns going forward.  Shriver carries some baggage of her own, prinicipally from being married to a rather poor governor.

But those two names are not the only two taking a look at the calculus of the 2010 governor’s race. If I were to be putting odds on somebody else getting into the race, I think I’d peg it at slightly better than even money, maybe 60%.

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!