Hopefully, you're already on board supporting Debra Bowen as the next representative for the 36th Cong. District in California in the seat that Jane Harman quit from just a couple weeks ago. (If you're not yet familiar with Debra Bowen and why she's worth supporting, take a look here: "Why Debra Bowen") The Governor today set the election date May 17, just two short months from now. (If no one gets over 50% of the votes cast, then the top two will go head-to-head in a July 12 election.)
This diary isn't going to be asking you to donate to her campaign (although there's an Actblue page for Kossacks to show support here). Instead of asking you to give money - which, sadly, is a limited resource - I'm going to ask you to donate (in a way) something more valuable which paradoxically you may have an endless supply of: Weekend Minutes!
Anti-war activist and progressive Democrat Marcy Winograd said Thursday that she's planning a run for a soon-to-be-vacated South Bay congressional seat.
An official announcement is scheduled to be made at 10 a.m. Saturday at Fox Drugs, 1327 El Prado Ave. in Torrance, Winograd said.
Winograd, a Santa Monica resident, took 41 percent of the vote in last June's 36th Congressional District primary against Rep. Jane Harman, who is expected to resign Monday to lead the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank.
Explaining her decision to run, Winograd said, "I feel that we need a real progressive in the race, somebody who has been advocating for a long, long time that we need to transition from a war economy to a green economy."
And netroots and progressive leaders immediately began signing a petition urging her to run. Calitics readers will recognize many of the names, people like Brian Leubitz and Robert Cruickshank and David Dayen and Dante Atkins and Matt Lockshin.
Harman (left) and Hahn with LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.Daily Breeze
Jane Harman has an interesting history. She was recently re-elected to her ninth term in the 36th Congressional district, with her main challenge being from the left. However, it looks like we will be having a special there soon:
California Rep. Jane Harman (D) will resign from Congress, according to two senior Democratic leadership aides, a surprise announcement that will set off a special election in her 36th district.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who broke the news of Harman's resignation, has reported that the California Congresswoman will take over as director of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. That job is currently held by former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton (D). (WaPo)
She is probably better known around these parts for her rather controversial positions on warrentless wiretapping, the defense budget, and the wars, but she was also active on health care issues, and was an early opponent of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
As for the district, the speculation so far has been on Janice Hahn, who previously ran for the district back in 1998. She lost to the Republican Steve Kuykendall, but since then the inclusion of Venice and Mar Vista means that it is a pretty strong Democratic seat. However, it is likely to change in the redistricting for next cycle.
With the California primaries only days away, I decided to make a list of races worth watching this coming Super Tuesday. Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.
U.S. Senate (R) - Fiorina seems to have consolidated the "outsider" vote, seeing as she is the only one of the three that has not held elected office and it seems that being an outsider will get one far in the Republican primary (though not so much in a California general election).
Governor (R) - Exactly as I predicted, this race has unfolded to be 2006 in reverse. Whoever wins the GOP primary here will be so radioactive that many Republican voters likely will cross over to vote for Jerry Brown, like many Democratic voters did for Arnold last time. If Jerry Brown pulls similar numbers among Republicans that Arnold did among Democrats, then Brown is likely gonna win big. And I'm unsure about how indies will go, so I just went with an estimate similar to the 2006 numbers.
Lt. Governor (D) - This race will be very interesting: a classic NorCal/SoCal matchup, between Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn.
Lt. Governor (R) - Newly-appointed incumbent Abel Maldonado will face a tough primary with more conservative State Senator Sam Aanestad. Given that moderates have fared pretty poorly in California elections of late, I give Aanestad the edge.
Sec. of State (R) - Any race with the Birther Queen just has to be a race to watch, more so for the comedy value, though I think most Republicans don't buy her BS, so I see Dunn getting the nomination. No matter who wins, Debra Bowen is likely a cinch for a second term.
Attorney General (D) - Very crowded primary here, with 3 term-limited Assemblymen, Torrico, Nava, and Lieu; S.F. District Attorney Kamala Harris; Facebook attorney Chris Kelly; and disgraced ex-L.A. city attorney Delgadillo, though the race seems to have narrowed to just Harris and Kelly. From what I have heard of Kelly, I am rooting for Harris.
Controller (R) - Not much drama here, but I am hoping for Tony Strickland to win so he can lose to John Chiang even worse than in 2006. Unfortunately, he is not up for reelection to the State Senate until 2012, so if he wins the nomination but loses the general, he will still be in the senate (hopefully until 2012).
Insurance Commissioner (D) - Here we have two strong candidates in term-limited assemblymen Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones. I have no preference in this race, but since Jones has more money and establishment backing, I think he'll win the nod.
CA-11 (R) - Will David Harmer, who lost by only 10% in the more Democratic CA-10 in the special election (albeit with lower turnout) be able to make it past the primary against Tony Amador and be more competitive in the general?
CA-19 (D) - I am pulling for Loraine Goodwin here. Any campaign based on health care reform is a big winner in Democratic primaries and in general elections in most parts of the state. Not sure what the HCR numbers are in this neck of the woods.
CA-19 (R) - I think I will root for Denham here, as he has won in more Democratic turf, so he is relatively saner. (And Denham is term-limited, so CA-19 run or no CA-19 run, we have a great shot at winning SD-12.) Pombo shouldn't really be of much concern, as he has placed a distant third in the recent primary poll.
CA-26 (R) - My hometown district, where Dreier faces a primary challenge from businessman Mark Butler. While I consider Dreier to be the heavy favorite, this primary challenge could further drain his campaign coffers. If he wins the primary, Dreier has the advantage of incumbency and a year more favorable to his party (though anti-Obama sentiment is much weaker in California than elsewhere). A disadvantage Dreier has is depleted campaign coffers, from spending like crazy to win only 52% against Warner in 2008 and possibly from this primary challenge.
CA-33 (D) - Former Assembly speaker Karen Bass is likely the heavy favorite, and I hope she wins.
CA-36 (D) - Harman/Winograd redux, only with more fireworks this time around.
CA-42 (R) - Even though Gary Miller's voting record is unabashedly conservative, he is still getting teabagged by three other Republicans. Count on yet another incumbent scoring a subpar primary performance.
CA-45 (R) - Mary Bono Mack has drawn teabag primary opposition from Clayton Thibodeau for her vote for cap-and-trade. She also voted against repealing DADT in spite of her district having the highest concentration of gays of any Republican-held district, possibly out of fear of getting teabagged. If Thibodeau upsets Bono Mack, this Obama-voting R+3 district could be put into play.
CA-47 (R) - Will Tan and Van split the Vietnamese vote, allowing Kathy Smith to sneak through?
CA-50 (D) - I like Busby, but I think her time has passed, if she couldn't beat Bilbray in the far more Democratic-favored 2006. Attorney Tracy Emblem seems to have most of the grassroots support.
AD-05 (R) - In this open, evenly-divided suburban Sacramento seat, the Tea Party has gotten into another Republican primary, backing Craig DeLuz against party-backed Prop 8 backer Andy Pugno. I am rooting for DeLuz to win the primary so in one election we defeat a Prop H8er and increase our chances of winning this district too.
AD-30 (D) - The Parra/Florez feud continues, with Nicole's dad Pete Parra facing off against Dean's mom Fran Florez, who lost to Danny Gilmore, who didn't like being an Assemblyman and that's why he's not running, which I at first found surprising.
AD-36 (D) - Linda Jones, who ran here in 2008, faces primary opposition from real estate broker Maggie Campbell and police officer Shawntrice Watkins. This time I am rooting for Watkins, because this Antelope Valley-centric district is very law-and-order, being the home of the Runners (Sharon and George, of "Jessica's Law" fame), and incumbent Steve Knight also having been a police officer before being elected to the Assembly. Watkins could cut into Knight's law-and-order advantage. Plus Watkins' endorsement from Equality California can't hurt either.
AD-68 (D) and (R) - I am really looking forward to an all-Vietnamese matchup here. Will be interesting to gauge the Vietnamese vote if it's Phu Nguyen (D) vs. Long Pham (R).
And what is a California election without some ballot measures? Five are on the ballot this time.
Prop 13: Tax break to property owners for making seismic retrofits. I like seeing tax breaks used as incentives for good causes. Vote YES!
Prop 14: Top two votegetters in the primary would go on to the general election, limiting voter choices. Vote NO!
Prop 15: Repeals ban on public financing and raises fees on lobbyists to fund a public financing system for SecState election beginning in 2014. Vote YES!
Prop 16: PG&E power grab that requires a 2/3 vote to create public power districts or allow local governments to purchase their own renewable power. Vote NO!
Prop 17: Weakens consumer protections and allow car insurance companies to charge much more for late payments. Vote NO!
Congressional candidate Marcy Winograd is mounting a tough challenge to Jane Harman in CA-36. Following the Israeli commando assault on flotilla attempting to deliver aid to Gaza, Winograd issued the following press release:
(Marina del Rey) Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36) questions why her opponent Jane Harman chooses to remain silent in the aftermath of an Israeli assault on the Free Gaza flotilla carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid to over a million Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza.
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.
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:
(Calitics promotes diaries from candidates and elected officials. - promoted by Robert Cruickshank)
Dear Friends,
I'm Marcy Winograd and I humbly ask for your vote in my challenge to Jane Harman in the June 8 Democratic primary. I agree that the opportunity to serve is not an entitlement. That's why when Congress debates health care or the wars or the foreclosure crisis, I will take the debate to my district with town halls and meetings. The people are entitled to participate in a national debate. Unfortunately, my opponent was one of the few in southern California who failed to hold one town hall during the epic health care debate.
Our Democratic district deserves a real Democrat as its representative, not someone beholden to big banks, Wall Street, or the weapons industry. We are at the crossroads and the choice is clear. Together, we can all win. Just watch.
EDIT by Robert: More (including a video) over the flip.
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.
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.
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here's what version 2 looks like, overall:
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 decided to try my hand at redistricting California's Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave's Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here's what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here's the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
We're setting a course for the center of the sun in the state budget process right now, but today is also the last day of the second quarter, an important day for Congressional candidates, who must file fundraising reports based on close of business today. So this is as good a time as any to take a look at the Congressional races and where we stand at this point. I have not yet done similar roundups for 2010 statewide offices or legislative races, but plan to do so in the near future. If you find any of these challenges attractive, I urge you to pass a few bucks along to the candidate of your choice. This quarter will help or hurt the candidacies in terms of their perception of viability.
A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link. Open Congress also has a good Wiki on all the seats involved.
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.
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.
So I'm quoted in this Politico article about potential primary challenges to Jane Harman. I've said clearly that she'll either face a primary or drop out, and now multiple challengers, including 2006 opponent Marcy Winograd, have stepped up. One thing that people don't totally remember about that 2006 challenge is that Marcy got in the race in February for a June primary. She ended up raising and spending about $380,000, but she did not have time for a national fundraising base or a netroots strategy. She basically just went ahead and ran, and she got 38% of the vote. Starting the primary a year out this time will simply yield better results.
The other part, which Alex Eisenstadt acknowledges, is that Harman was a target long before the recent revelation of wiretapped conservations between her and suspected Israeli agents offering vague quid pro quo deals on getting some AIPAC members out of legal trouble.
It's true that Harman holds a firm grip on her comfortably Democratic district, having won 69 percent in the 2008 general election.
Still, her left flank remains exposed in large part because of her hawkish, pro-military reputation. After Sept. 11, 2001, Harman was an early advocate for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and she threw her support behind the American-led invasion of Iraq. She went so far as to criticize the FBI and the CIA for moving too slowly to respond to terrorist threats.
Those stances continue to rankle local progressives, and the recent controversy has only revived the frustrations that seemed to crest in 2006 with Winograd's challenge. Last week, Winograd organized a protest outside Harman's district headquarters, with activists calling on the California Democrat to resign. The environmental organization Greenpeace is coordinating a mailing in the district pressuring Harman, who has a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, on energy issues.
David Dayen, a California activist who writes for the liberal blog Calitics, said he expects progressive organizations to ramp up their efforts against Harman in the weeks ahead.
"I don't get the sense that in May, the year before this primary is happening, there is going to be a lot of clamoring over Harman, but I do think you're starting to see progressive groups get involved," said Dayen.
I reject the theory later in the piece that CA-36 is a moderate district. The PVI is D+12, and the formerly conservative areas have moderated their views. Torrance, the supposed "Orange County of LA County," just elected two Democrats to its City Council. What's more, Harman votes substantially to the right of the district and has for years.
Winograd will be holding a campaign kickoff on Monday at the Venice Pier around 4:00pm, so she's obviously serious about making this run again. And she'll be taking questions in a liveblog session at Firedoglake today at 11am. John Amato of Crooks and Liars fame may also make a run at this seat.
UPDATE: LA Progressive now has a post from Winograd herself announcing her campaign kickoff.
Via the website Activist Los Angeles comes the announcement that Marcy Winograd will be challenging Jane Harman for the Democratic nomination in the 36th District.
Winograd Challenges Harman - Campaign Kick-Off in Venice
May 7, 2009 by Admin1
Mon., May 11, 4 pm
Join Marcy Winograd and supporters at the Venice Pier as they kick off the Winograd for Congress 2010 campaign to unseat incumbent Jane Harman in the 36th congressional district.
Assembled at the Venice Pier, near the northern end of the district, Winograd for Congress will launch a year-long campaign involving listening tours and grassroots precinct organizing.
"I am challenging Jane Harman because the 36th district deserves a representative who stands for integrity, commitment, and leadership," says Winograd. "Jane Harman got caught with her hand in the cookie jar - trading favors with a foreign lobby group in order to advance her own political agenda. That's not leadership; that's corruption," says Winograd, adding, "Harman's apparent willingness to campaign for warrantless wiretapping in order to avoid an FBI investigation reflects a disregard for the Constitution and Americans' right to privacy."
Winograd is founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Progressive Democrats of America. In 2006, in less than three months of campaigning, Winograd garnered almost 38% of the vote in the June primary challenge to Harman. Daniel Ellsberg, Gore Vidal, Dolores Huerta, and Susan Sarandon all supported Winograd's challenge.
Winograd's 2010 campaign has received early endorsements from 36th district notables, such as Mitch Ward, Mayor Pro Tem of Manhattan Beach; Carl Clark, Vice-President of the Redondo Beach School Board; David Greene, President of the San Pedro Democratic Club; Julian Burger, President of Progressive Democrats - Wilmington/Harbor Area; Mickey Oskey, Pres of Westside Progressives and Nativo Lopez, President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), which has thousands of members in the harbor area.
Winograd's platform calls for redirecting expenditures on war and occupation to address human needs for jobs, Medicare for All, education and housing. "We need a massive green jobs program, a new New Deal," says Winograd, "and incentives for cities to mediate foreclosure disputes in order to allow homeowners to modify their loans. It is a time of crisis but also of opportunity as we look at ways to strengthen local economies and reinvest in our communities."
Winograd teaches English at Crenshaw High School in South Los Angeles.
The 36th congressional district includes: parts of West LA, Venice, Westchester, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Wilmington, Harbor
City and San Pedro.
If she can afford to get a professional campaign in place, then she can probably go far. Even without a really polished campaign, she got 38% with a campaign that was only 3 months long. With a well-coordinated and planned campaign, she could probably do a lot better. The initial signs, though, are that we're not there yet. (More below)
By a twist of fate, Jane Harman actually appeared at the AIPAC convention over the weekend, bringing full circle the recent controversy over her comments picked up on a wiretap offering help to get AIPAC staffers out of a Justice Department probe in exchange for help getting the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. She vowed to begin a crusade against illegal wiretapping and overreach from the surveillance state.
Harman has described the wiretap as an abuse of government power. But sources have told The Washington Post that she was not being surveilled; the tapped phone belonged to the suspected Israeli agent, who happened to talk to her.
"I will not quit on this until I am absolutely sure this can never happen to anyone else," Harman told the AIPAC audience, which warmly applauded her. She said the incident was having "a chilling effect" on members of Congress who "care intensely about the U.S.-Israeli security relationship . . . and have every right to talk to advocacy groups."
Later, she called herself a "warrior on behalf of our Constitution and against abuse of power". Which, coming from Harman, is utterly absurd, a magic act where she transforms herself from a vigorous defender of executive prerogatives on wiretapping to a civil liberties zealot who wants to take down the surveillance state.
Jane Harman is a warrior on behalf of the Constitution and against abuse of power -- that's the same Jane Harman who tried to bully The New York Times out of writing about Bush's illegal spying program, who succeeded in pressuring them not to publish their story until after Bush was re-elected, who repeatedly proclaimed the program to be "legal and necessary" once it was revealed, who called the whistle-blowers "despicable", who went on Meet the Press and expressed receptiveness to a criminal investigation of The New York Times for publishing the story, who led the way in supporting the Fourth-Amendment-gutting and safeguard-destroying FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and who demanded that telecoms be retroactively immunized for breaking multiple laws by allowing government spying on their customers without warrants of any kind.
That is who is a self-proclaimed "warrior on behalf of our Constitution and against abuse of power."
As Atrios notes, Jane Harman is primarily concerned about wiretapping of People Named Jane Harman. And her point that this represented a potential abuse of government power, which by the way is
entirely plausible, was the entire point of people like me when we decried an illegal wiretapping program that would be ripe for abuse. You know, the one Jane Harman defended.
Worse, in the "Fact Sheet" Harman is sending around to supporters in the district, she characterizes herself as, among other things, a longtime critic of warrantless wiretapping in the most fantastical way possible:
• Harman has never supported so-called "warrantless wiretaps" on Americans. "We must use all lawful tools to detect and disrupt the plans of our enemies; signals intelligence and the work of the NSA are vital to that mission. But in doing so, it is also vital that we protect the American people's constitutional rights." (Press release of Dec. 21, 2005 -- four days after the President declassified the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program).
• Harman introduced the LISTEN Act (H.R. 5371) with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to add resources to the Justice Department to ensure the issuance of individualized warrants under FISA. (Press release of May 11, 2006).
• Harman, Senator Obama, and Speaker Pelosi supported amendments to FISA to expand protections to US citizens, and give limited court-reviewed immunity to telecommunications firms that prove they relied in good faith on what they believed was a valid order to produce records. (Vote date of June 20, 2008).
She must think we're all idiots. That vote of June 20, 2008, the amendments to FISA to "expand protections to US citizens," in addition to providing retroactive immunity for the telecoms for breaking the law, actually granted sweeping new powers to the federal government, including the ability to "conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing." The fact that this lack of oversight or judicial review could lead to abuses of surveillance power has been confirmed by reports that the NSA overstepped its legal authority to wiretap by intercepting the private emails and phone calls of Americans, problems which grew "out of changes enacted by Congress last July in the law that regulates the government's wiretapping powers." The fact that Barack Obama supported that bill, considering that he was massively criticized by progressives for that FISA vote, doesn't exactly help the cause.
Harman's record on wiretapping is well-known and her efforts to wiggle out of it are frankly laughable. And the rest of her record, as demonstrated by Swing State Project today, shows her to be among the top 20 Democrats voting less liberal than what their districts would support. That, more than this hypocrisy on civil liberties, is why she'll draw a primary challenge next year, should she choose to run again.
