David Harmer Finally Quits

So.... (0.00 / 0)

he votes for one bill that the Democrats opposed and he's now a corporatist? Robert, we're doing the same thing the right-wingers are doing to semi-moderates like Abel Maldonado, excluding out the moderates and appealing to the fringes. If i lived in McNerney's district, i would be disappointed to hear he voted against the tax-cut, but note that David Harmer would be that much worse (As a Mormon, we already know his positions on social issues). Yes, eventually California will become so Democratic that Republicans are better off spending $$$ elsewhere.

But for now, we're not that super-liberal state and we have to acknowledge the moderates that cluster around suburban Sacramento and Los Angeles and do what we can to engage them to vote for our side. McNerney is progressive, definitely not for a Oakland or Contra Costa district, but a moderate-leaning district.

A prime target for a progressive challenger? Tell me, did that work out well with Jane Harman in CA-36? Now she's a Democrat i really want gone, way more conservative than McNerney and he's in a R+1 district and shes in a D+15!! The reason why Harman won, establishment support. If Marcy Winograd had a better profile then just being a "teacher/peace activist" and having literally no cash, maybe she'd get closer but not beat Harman. Go ahead and try to challenge McNerney but who would face him? Only real challenge would be fellow Rep. Pete Stark, but the guy is an old-timer who periodically goes on Alan Grayson-like rants.

I'm sorry Robert, i despise and loathe the immigrant-bashing, homophobic, anti-everything Right-wingers just as much as you do, but we can't ignore the moderates until California is D enough to make moderates a non-factor. We need to make a message that the moderates can relate to, without demonizing them for being in the middle.

---

by: californianwonder @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 23:25:59 PM UTC

please show the poll numbers (0.00 / 0)

that bay area exurb voters and the 580 corridor voters are opposed to a tax cut for people making less than $250,000 a year unless the rich making more than $250,000 a year are also given tax cuts.

seriously, man, voting with the GOP =/= moderate. voters in CA-11 may not be as progressive, on the whole, as in SF, but that does not mean that they're specifically conservative on the issue of giving rich people tax cuts. more likely as not, it's going to be on social issues and regulation that affects farms and small businesses (although there are also a significant plurality of san joaquin valley voters who are in favor of stronger environmental regulations, because of the severe impacts that pollution has on their children's lungs).

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 01:58:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's my point, really (0.00 / 0)

California politics is quickly becoming reorganized along battle lines between left and what you call the "moderates." As I've said, the right cannot totally be discounted, but they are generally on the way out. The debate we're having here about McNerney is the kind of discussion that will come to dominate California Democratic politics.

As to Winograd, I see her as a "proof of concept" - she got into the upper 30s against Harman, which is pretty good for not having much of a campaign organization. As the top-two primary implications become clear, we'll be seeing a lot more of those kind of challenges to incumbents, but hopefully with better funding and better tactics.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 08:35:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen! (0.00 / 0)

Californianwonder is right on target!

Robert,  if we purge all those who are not "pure" progressives in 2012 (such as McNerney and President Obama)  we shall wind up with a Republican Senate,  a more Republican House, and President Romney or (God forbid) Palin. The idea is to expand our party, not shrink it.

---

by: stevefromsacto @ Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 16:25:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is off about your comment (0.00 / 0)

is that it is totally fixated on national politics, when robert was writing primarily about internal californian political trends. it is highly unlikely that republicans will beat feinstein, or that california's electoral votes will go to a republican candidate. so we're really just talking about mcnerney here.

---

by: wu ming @ Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 18:07:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

McNerney (0.00 / 0)

Last time I checked, McNerney was a U.S. Congressman, not a state legislator.

---

by: stevefromsacto @ Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 16:39:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the diary was focused on internal california political trends (0.00 / 0)

there is no chance that challenging centrist incumbants in california will lead to obama losing an election, and the senate going over to the republicans. whether the CA house delegation adds democrats or loses them as a result of primary challenges has nowhere near the sensationalist claims you were making, and at any rate primary challenges are going to be less of an influence on that delegation's balance than the new district lines + the top two primary, IMO.

congress and the presidency are won and lost on the other side of the sierras, it really does not matter much what we do here in CA. especially given the inexorable shifts in our state electorate, demographically and ideologically.you might have a point in the midwest, but it simply does not work in CA, where the GOP lost seats in an unprecedented right wing wave election nationally.

---

by: wu ming @ Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 22:21:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Friends or enemies? (0.00 / 0)

I was using the anti-McNerney sentiments as an example of the kind of thinking that will result in our losing the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Of course, a progressive purge of "impure" Democrats here in California will not have a major impact on the House and Senate and the Presidency. What it will mean--especially in districts like McNerney's--is that you will lose someone who votes with us most of the time and get someone like David Harmer who votes against us all the time.

If you honestly believe that a 100% liberal candidate can be elected in California's 11th Congressional District, please share with me whatever it is you are smoking.

---

by: stevefromsacto @ Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 17:44:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you think CA-11 voters who reelected mcnerney (0.00 / 0)

did so because they are so concerned that the $250,000+ crowd get their tax cuts that they'd be willing to oppose tax cuts for everyone, then you really haven't spent much time in the valley, outside of the marbled halls of the capitol.

you're defining moderate as voting for whatever damnfool thing the GOP decides to advocate. that has very little to do with what the 50%+1 voter in the 11th is going to be convinced by.  

---

by: wu ming @ Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 19:12:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2012 (0.00 / 0)

losing the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Based on the White House's actions on the economy to date, I do not expect Obama to win re-election.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 21:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep (0.00 / 0)

he should be a prime target for a progressive challenge in 2012.

I voted for him this time but won't in 2012. His pro-war and now this. I'll be voting green unless there's a progressive.

---

by: jo6pac @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 02:23:47 AM UTC

a lot will depend on the district lines (0.00 / 0)

the 11th could end up more of a bay area seat, or more of a stockton-centered seat. either way, he'll get a challenge, but it would be from different directions, i'd imagine.  

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 04:41:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jerry has never been a progressive (5.00 / 1)

Nor, for that matter has Barack Obama. Progressives worked for both, and I know many people who really wanted to believe both were more progressive than they are. But they're simply not and never have been. If people chose to delude themselves, they can hardly blame the candidates.

I've known Jerry McNerney for about five years. I worked on his campaign staff in 2006. He's a good man, and a very smart one. But he's no liberal. And anybody who read any of the stuff I wrote about him would know that. He went to a Catholic military boarding school. He applied to and was accepted at West Point. That should tell you something right there. But to show that this isn't a simple black-and-white issue, Jerry quit West Point because of the Vietnam war. He thought it immoral and knew he couldn't lead troops into war there, as he would have had to do. When he graduated with his math Ph.D., he got several job offers from oil companies. He turned them down because he didn't want to participate in destroying the planet either, and pursued a much less highly paid career in wind engineering for 30 years. But his current job title is "representative" and, as one other commenter points out, he represents a relatively conservative district. That said, he beat a serious slimebag, Richard Pombo. The country is better off with Jerry McNerney in Congress than Richard Pombo. Honestly, I would not be happy with some of the votes Jerry cast if he represented me. And I would have told him so! I would be equally unhappy with some of Jane Harmon's votes, and would have told her so too. That's the way our system works. We have the right to tell our representatives what votes we want (as I do with mine), express our opinion about what votes they cast (as I also do with mine), and support somebody else if we're really dissatisfied. Political parties, of course, almost always support incumbents. So anybody who wants to do that will be up against them too. But the Tea Party did it and won a few times. Not many, and only with some serious cash behind them. But they won a few. It can be done. I just don't think people should undertake it because a candidate didn't turn out to be something he never claimed to be. I understand what people hoped for. But it was not anything Jerry ever represented himself as. It was just what people wanted to believe.

Obama, on the other hand, while he was clear about believing in incremental change, did run on change. He has made some pretty clear pronouncements and promises that he has later completely caved on--or as Bob Cesca said in a scathing piece in the Huffington Post, he's practiced "preemptive capitulation." He has done the very things he dammed the previous administration for. And not done the things he claimed to believe in passionately. The things he has delivered on have been timid half measures that showed his incrementalism, but none of the audacity of hope he wrote about. I believe supporters do have some cause in his case to feel they did not get what they voted for.

---

by: cfinnie @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 05:00:50 AM UTC

Oh, and I don't believe the corporatist charge (0.00 / 0)

I know Jerry has changed since 2006. I've seen him a few times since he won, and I noticed it. I also think I know why. He called Nancy Pelosi his "new boss" and listened to her advice, and to others in the Democratic caucus with more experience than he had. I'm sure that accounts for a great deal of the change. And I also think the atmosphere in DC changes people. But I absolutely do not believe he swears "fealty to a corporate agenda," and you're going to offer some pretty substantial proof to convince me of that. I know him too well to believe it. Sorry. As I told you a few weeks ago, I usually agree with you. But not this time.

---

by: cfinnie @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 05:11:12 AM UTC

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

This site's about discussion and dialogue within the California progressive movement, after all. Perhaps I was too harsh on McNerney here, though I think he is an interesting case of the coming battle between left and "moderate" that will define California politics for the next generation.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 08:32:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

East LA, West LA (4.00 / 1)

Another division that could be arising, and I'm not sure how it will line up with Robert's "leftist vs corporatist" division, is "East LA Democrats" vs "West Side or Hollywood Democrats." East L A Democrats prioritize economic issues, pro-immigration, and proper respect for people and communities of color, but they tend to be culturally conservative on social issues not related to race. Hollywood Democrats, on the other hand, tend to prioritize social and cultural liberalism over economic issues. The presence of "East LA Democrats" explains why things like Prop 8 always do better than anyone expects. That's a fight that the "corporatists" have no dog in.  

---

by: Hcat @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 21:37:46 PM UTC

Always (0.00 / 0)

That's been the history of the Democratic Party for 40+ years.  

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 23:11:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]