From the Fever Swamp

PCCC Poll of CA-36 - Supporters of Social Security and Medicare

2011-02-22T21:25:00.000-08:00

Here's the poll that PCCC did which showed that a lot more people would prefer to tackle the deficit by reducing military spending that cutting Social Security or Medicare.

The PCCC's statement:

QUOTE FROM PCCC:

“This race is neck-and-neck among the top two contenders, Deb Bowen and Janice Hahn. Voters in this district overwhelmingly want a bold progressive candidate who is willing to crack down on Wall Street, embrace government investment in jobs, fight hard for Social Security and Medicare, and make government accountable to the people instead of the big corporations. The PCCC will continue our due diligence in this district in order to assess the most progressive, competent, and viable candidate.” -- Adam Green, PCCC co-founder

What is really important is that the PCCC did this poll now, before the candidates have staked out their positions. It's pretty well known among those outside of the beltway that people don't want to cut Social Security, but now the candidates in the 36th District have no excuse -- the district's voters have been polled and to the extent that they want to "tackle" the deficit, it's by cutting defense spending.

This sends the message to the candidates that it's good policy and good politics to be a solid supporter of Social Security and Medicare too. Money very well spent.

Ted Lieu - hopefully to be elected by 50% plus 1 tomorrow

2011-02-14T21:28:00.000-08:00

There's been a fair amount of outreach, from what I can tell. I got a live caller to ask for a vote for Ted a couple weeks ago. More recently, I have received a call from the LACCCC leader to return my absentee ballot, a subsequent message on Sunday from another Dem (I don't remember who) saying if I hadn't returned my ballot yet, not to mail it. And I got a pro-equal rights for LGBT folks in support of Ted.

I regretfully didn't get myself set up for phone banking sooner. The online tool was really impressive; you could plow through numbers really quick, making the 60-70% of wrong #'s/no answers really easy to code and move on to the next. And mercifully, the text was short and sweet.

If Ted can get to the magic number tomorrow, then we can fill the seat and be only 2 short of 2/3 majority in State Senate.

CA-36: Jane Harman Quits; Janice Hahn Hand-Picked Successor?

2011-02-13T16:25:00.000-08:00

Just documenting a little bit that flew by too quick with the news of Harman stepping down to pursue a think-tank job. I put the part in the headline about the speculation that Janice Hahn is Jane Harman's preferred candidate, but there are others.

Per CalBuzz:

Janice Hahn – The L.A. City Council member was Harman’s guest at last month’s State of the Union address; the fact that she announced her candidacy and had endorsements lined up about 12 seconds after Harman publicly made it known she was leaving, leads to the surmise that she’s the favorite of the imperious departing incumbent.

- Garry South is working under-the-radar on her campaign as an unpaid advisor. Not exactly someone who inspires confidence in the judgment of anyone who wants advice from him. (Just a taste of why in case you're not familiar).

- Parke Skelton is Debra Bowen strategist.

Also, I think the last part of the post is important about why the unhappiness of Harman's leaving - because of the possibility that she waited until after the election to be able to control who would take over.

A final word: Harman has never been one of our favorite people, not least because of her overbearing air of wealthy entitlement, and we can’t help but suspect her think tank deal has been in the works for some time, given that her predecessor announced he was leaving last May. So we agree with Huffpost blogger Richard Grenell that G.I. Jane ought to pay the cost of the damn special election to succeed her. What better way to spend some of Sidney’s zillions?

Dem Caucus Almost Unanimously Votes NO to Obama-GOP deal

2010-12-10T00:27:00.000-08:00

I just watched Rachel Maddow who reported that there was a closed door House Democratic Caucus meeting and a voice vote was held on Obama's tax cut plan. There was just one voice in support of the tax cut deal (yes, only one out of the 220+ Democratic House members voiced support for the Obama-GOP tax deal).

And guess what, it wasn't Jane Harman. So, either she wasn't at the meeting, or she didn't speak up in favor of the tax deal she said on her website that she supports.

Here's the segment of the Rachel Maddow show with the coverage about the caucus vote. Start it at the 2:00 minute mark.

So - hopefully I can find out if Jane Harman was there at the meeting. If she was, then this is significant. That would mean that she's unwilling to speak in favor of the Obama-GOP deal even though she's already said publicly she's for it.

That would be a very good sign, as it may mean she's movable off her stated position. I'll be calling again.

Jane Harman: Supporting Obama-GOP "Compromise" Deal

2010-12-09T08:12:00.001-08:00

Jane Harman is on board with Obama's attempted fait-accompli with Republicans.

From her website:

HARMAN STATEMENT ON OBAMA TAX CUTS PACKAGE
December 7, 2010 2:16 PM

WASHINGTON, DC – Representative Jane Harman (CA-36) today issued the following statement on the tax cuts package announced yesterday by President Obama:

“While there are some elements of the plan that I deeply dislike, I embrace the tax cuts package announced yesterday by President Obama. The 13-month extension of unemployment insurance is particularly important.

“Simply put, if Democrats and Republicans are going to work together – and I believe that was the message sent by the American people in November – then we have to start working together.

“I oppose extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, and have voted against them three times, most recently last week. It is simply wrong to provide such a break given the deficit implications and while millions of Americans struggle to put food on the table. In a perfect world, I would strike this provision from the package.

“But politics is about the art of the possible, and it’s important for Democrats to give the President the room to compromise. Voters clearly expect some bipartisan and bicameral cooperation – and it needs to start now.”

First off, I italicized several parts of that statement where she's scolding Democrats to let Obama compromise and that in the name of bipartisanship they must accept a deal that includes: 1) Everything on the Republicans' wish list: Continued tax cuts for incomes above $250K, Estate tax reduced even further to 35% to further shift wealth to the uber-rich, defunding Social Security through a payroll tax cut. 2) wants to feed him, which comes from letting Republicans tell him what they will give him (nothing). Keep in

OK, let's look at what it is she's hanging her hat on to support this. From Calculated Risk Blog: 1) Unemployment benefits extension. Sounds good. But this is not what it appears:

Just to be clear, the "extension of the unemployment benefits" is an extension of the qualifying dates for the various tiers of benefits, and not additional weeks of benefits. There is no additional help for the so-called "99ers".

Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) comes in four tiers:
Tier I is for 20 additional weeks;
Tier II is for up to 14 weeks;
Tier III is for up to 13 weeks;
Tier IV is for up to 6 weeks.

As an example, if a worker was receiving Tier I benefits, they will be able to move to Tier II benefits with this proposed extension. Without the extension of the qualifying dates, workers would not be able to move to the next tier. [...] To repeat: this extension doesn't add additional weeks of benefits; it keeps the above structure in place for an additional 13 months.

So those who've maxed out don't get any additional unemployment and are left to fend for themselves. This is being sold as if it takes care of everyone - it doesn't.

Jane Harman: Against the Tax Cuts for Rich, No Statement on Social Security

2010-11-20T23:05:00.000-08:00

Right now, it's possible Democrats could prevent a $700 billion giveaway to the rich. It won't happen though, unless Democrats have a united front in Congress to oppose it. So I called my Congresswoman, Jane Harman, and asked what her position was. There was an immediate response from the person who answered the phone at the DC Office: She's in favor of Obama's middle class tax cut plan and against passing a tax cut for income above $250K (aka the millionaire bailout). That's the Democratic position at this point, so Harman being public in support for that plan was a good sign. (The $4 Trillion in deficit spending on the tax cuts for the middle class would be better spent on infrastructure and green energy which would create jobs, but at least it wouldn't include the extra $700 billion in cuts for the very top earners.)

I called the same day to ask about what Harman thought of the plans being bandied about within DC to cut benefits for Social Security, and they said she's made no public statement about where she stands. These plans many would cut benefits by increasing the retirement age or change the annual adjustment formula so benefits grow slower.

The facts on Social Security are clear - it doesn't contribute one dime to the deficit, and it's able to pay 100% of benefits due for more than 25 years, and then pay 3/4 of benefits if nothing gets changed to the program. But people who are determined to gut social security are lying over and over to convince people it's in crisis so that they cut benefits.

Social Security is colossally popular:

The reason that Social Security is called “the third rail of politics” is because touching it is political death. The new Lake Research Poll for Social Security Works again proves this classic piece of wisdom. The poll found an overwhelming 82 percent of likely midterm voters oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the federal deficit. Across the political spectrum, Democrats (83%), Republicans (82%), and Independents (78%) are effectively all equally opposed to cuts.

Framing cuts to Social Security benefits as a way to make the trust fund solvent doesn’t make them popular. A solid super-majority of 67 percent of likely voters oppose cutting benefits to make the program solvent long term. Similarly, the poll found that 69 percent of voters opposed raising the retirement age to 69 as a means toward making Social Security solvent.

Given the program's popularity, there's absolutely no downside to making a stink to defend it. So Harman's silence is worrisome.

Henry Waxman Pokes All Progressives In Eye With Condemnation of Wingrad and Support for Harman

2010-01-15T09:17:00.000-08:00

Waxman's attack on Winograd about Israel is outrageous.

And his plea in this letter for giving "maximum support" to Harman and noting that he's giving the max through his federal campaign and PAC is just so offensive - she doesn't need the money, and, presuming we're living in a world where progressive Waxman supporters don't have unlimited funds to contribute to campaigns, he's asking them to divert the available money they would have otherwise given to the progressive causes and candidates they support it in order to donate it to civil-liberies destroying, war-supporting, estate-tax (aka "brat tax")-destroying Blue Dog Jane Harman.

It's sad to see blind support for likudnik policy in Israel and incumbency protection trumping progressive policy from somebody who people put forward as a progressive champion.

No one says Waxman has to put his neck on the line for Marcy, or even a well-funded/more established progressive in the district who would be a more formidable match for Harman, but he should just not get involved in races that are between Democrats.

Progressives in Congress Never Get What They Want Cause They Do Stuff Like This

2010-01-09T23:07:00.000-08:00

Co-Chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus Raises Money For Blue Dog Jane Harman

How to judge performance of Democrats in the House of Representatives?

2009-12-25T00:21:00.000-08:00

Some great analysis from Nate Silver.

What Needs to Be Done to Make Progressive Change

2009-12-17T08:26:00.000-08:00

How do progressives accomplish change? Not by looking for politician saviors, that's for sure.

Anyone with limited resources who wants to make changes for the good would do best to conserve them for use only on efforts such as those advocated in the article. As I'm tempted to simply give $ to favored political candidates, I am highlighting this here as a reminder to me that campaign donations are not very effective at making progressive change.

Harman - seeking counsel of neocon uberhawks; What's new?

2009-10-11T20:18:00.000-07:00

Why it is bad to have Harman in Congress. No matter how wrong they get things, she'll always listen to the neocons.

WASHINGTON - As intellectual architects of the controversial “surge’’ strategy in Iraq in 2007, military scholars Frederick and Kimberly Kagan have been frequent targets of the left, derided as “warmongers’’ and “cheerleaders’’ of the neoconservative ideology that advocates a muscular foreign policy to spread American values.

Now, with a new administration in power, the influential husband-and-wife team has emerged again, this time at the center of the debate over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

The pair, both former instructors at West Point, were on the advisory panel that helped General Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander, form his classified assessment to President Obama calling for more troops. And they have publicly been talking up their own view that 40,000 to 45,000 additional troops are needed to bolster the counterinsurgency mission.

[...]

Some Democratic lawmakers remain wary of being associated publicly with a couple that the American Conservative magazine recently called “superhawks.’’ An associate of Kimberly Kagan requested that the Democratic members of Congress the Kagans have recently briefed - including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin of Michigan, Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware, and Congresswoman Jane Harman of California - not be identified because they may not want their constituencies to know the Kagans are advising them.

Just a quick reminder of who Fred Kagan is. He's a fake "scholar" with the fake think-tank American Enterprise Institute who's been one of the biggest and most influential neocon war cheerleaders around. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com had this to say about him:

Other than Bill Kristol and Fred's brother, war cheerleader Robert Kagan, nobody has been more wrong about more things with regard to Iraq than supreme war theorist Fred Kagan. He's also deemed by the establishment media and the Bush administration to be the most respectable and knowledgeable expert on Iraq. Within that depressing contradiction lies most of the answers as to why we have destroyed that country and will continue to do so indefinitely.

How could anybody really take advice from somebody like him after all that's happened?

Harman on Tape: Pledging No Vote on Health Reform Bill Lacking Public Pledge

2009-09-18T21:27:00.000-07:00

Wouldn't it be great if we could manage to talk to our legislators person to person to hear their position on an issue directly?

I've been hoping to get through to Harman to really hear from her what she's actually prepared to do to make a difference in getting the American people the public health option that she has written so strongly in favor of. Since she didn't have any town hall meetings, I didn't get the chance.

My question was pretty basic: Are you pledging to vote against any health care reform bill that lacks a robust public option - both in the House bill any reconciled bill? All my calls get the same thing - she's released no statement.

Thankfully, Mike Stark from Firedoglake's been in DC asking this very question of legislators, and got Harman to answer. He did it two months ago, and I don't know how I missed it.

Starting at about 4:00 she answers the question:

I did make a commitment to vote against a bill that didn't have a strong public option in it. What I'm saying now is I don't have second thoughts about that statement but we're going to get more refinement in the next few days so that that statement will have much more meaning.

That's a pledge in my book - she clearly agrees during the conversation about what strong public option actually is, what they are intended to do - foster real competition and bring prices down, and that co-ops is not part of her definition. And says she's already committed to vote against a bill that doesn't have a strong public option. Whatever refinement she talked about never happened, but wouldn't have changed the dynamic about her committing to vote against a bill w/o the PO.

What this commitment means - to the extent that word has gotten around she's made it - is that it strengthens the hand of those fighting for the public option because it says to Rahm, Steny and friends that progressives and other PO supporters like Jane Harman, will not be rolled this time.

Winograd Campaign activity

2009-05-31T00:24:00.000-07:00

I was glad to see the Winograd campaign website and a Facebook page are now up and decently fleshed out. It's a good sign.

What Jane Harman Could Have Done

2009-05-27T21:54:00.001-07:00

What could Jane have done to blow the whistle on the illegal torture program she was told about by the Bush administration?

It looks like she could have done quite a lot more than simply write the weak letter that she did.

"Off Budget" War Spending: Harman vs. Harman

2009-05-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

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!

War Funding in Supplemental - Will Harman Support It?

2009-05-11T07:45:00.000-07:00

She said no more blank checks before, yet here we go again.

What's Harman going to do?

Changing the 2/3 Rules

2009-05-10T15:14:00.001-07:00

On the Secretary of State website, info about initiative petitions that are currently circulating show 2 that deal with the 2/3 rule. Or, to be clear, one (08-0022) deals with reducing the 2/3 rule to 55% for passing budgets, and one (08-0023) deals with reducing the 2/3 rule to 55% for both passing budgets and for increasing taxes (except property taxes).

It seems pointless to deal with the 2/3 budget rule without the 2/3 taxes rule. Here's why: We are staring at a structural deficit of $20 billion, so even if we had the ability to pass a budget with 55% (or even 50%), it wouldn't matter if we couldn't pass the revenue increases necessary to fund it. If Republicans retain their legislative veto over tax increases, then they control the budget - even if a budget can pass with 50% of votes. They will ensure that it's not funded.

As to the politics of what to put in the initiative: Anti-government forces are going to purposely conflate the two issues so that there may be little benefit to only dealing with the "less controversial" 2/3 budget rule. (In fact, I hear they are already doing this.) Why go running scared from these guys? No matter what you do to appease them, it will never stop them from unleashing their worst on you. Nothing to be gained.

As to the right threshold - 50%, 55% or something else, I say base it on principle and change it to majority rule. Picking some arbitrary number between 50% and 67% (such as 55% in this case) makes the change explicitly political (eliminating the Republican veto). This would seem to undermine efforts to make these changes be about budget reform, instead of partisan warfare. Also, trying to establish a different (albeit lower) supermajority for these votes would acknowledge that there should be some supermajority bar to raising taxes (without a corresponding requirement for lowering them I might add). These types of votes need to be taken off the pedestal that Republican anti-government types have put them on.

I won't let perfect be the enemy of the good, so if 55% is going to be what we have to get behind, I suspect I can deal with it. However, I think not addressing the 2/3 tax increase rule is counterproductive, and I just can't see myself supporting such an effort.

CA-36 News: Winograd Challenging Harman; John Amato Might Too

2009-05-08T09:47:00.000-07:00

[cross-posted at Calitics]

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.

Winograd's website is currently not much more than an appeal for donations, and her recent diary on Daily Kos about Harman was to impulsive. Just check out the comments - it's really bad optics to have the candidate's spouse be the one doing most of the push back against the critics. If you aren't saying things that are going to have others defend you when you get criticized, maybe it's best not to be posting diaries like that...

Not to mention, if you're having a kick off for your campaign, it would be a good idea to get the word out - and not leave it to other folks to spread the word who might not be 100% supportive (Such as myself. I supported Winograd in 2006, but at this point I'm not picking a candidate and will call things as I see them.) The campaign kick off event is on Monday afternoon, and as far as I can tell from Google, there have been no postings elsewhere on the web (news articles or blog posts) aside from the one I posted above. That sounds strange.

There was an article yesterday in Politico about the possible challenge in which Winograd got a good quote though:

“I think what’s important is that Jane Harman’s charade of being a protector of the Constitution should be challenged and exposed,” said Winograd, who received 38 percent of the vote to Harman’s 62 percent in 2006.

There's also some sounds coming from local musician and blogger John Amato of Crooks and Liars that he might run as well. He says:

But back home in her Southern California-based district, liberal activists who have never truly embraced Harman are just getting started. Several of them, most notably Marcy Winograd, who heads up Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, and John Amato, who writes for the popular Crooks and Liars blog, are now making moves to challenge Harman in the Democratic primary, and the recent controversy will be at the heart of their message.

The wiretapping story “has been very, very damaging to her because it highlights what people most distrust about politicians in general: personal gain taking precedence over the voters they are supposed to be representing,” Amato told POLITICO in an e-mail.

Politico also checked in with another local to get the lay of the land:

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 agree with Dave's assessment. We have a lot more time this cycle, and thanks to Winograd in 2006, it's been proven that there's a real constituency among 36th CD Democrats for a real Democrat.

Hypocrite, Thy Name is Jane Harman

2009-05-04T07:32:00.000-07:00

Hypocrite.

And in this case, the wiretap wasn't even illegal.

One quote from the Washington Post article:

"I will not quit on this until I am absolutely sure this can never happen to anyone else," Harman told the AIPAC audience

Apparently, the "this" she refers to is the outrage that the government didn't warn her that she was being caught on a legal wiretap before she engaged in unethical (and perhaps illegal) behavior. How could they do such a thing!?

Talk of a Primary Challenge of Harman Heats Up

2009-04-27T23:26:00.000-07:00

Marcy Winograd, the 2006 primary challenger, opens up an exploratory committee and John Amato, proprietor of Crooks and Liars.com and professional musician, indicates interest.

Good post from David Dayen (dday) about the news.

Atheists Starting to "Come Out"

2009-04-26T22:25:00.000-07:00

It's great to see it. I imagine I'm not alone in wanting to self-identify in a positive way (not just in reaction against religious bigots trying to impose their views onto the public), and it's great folks are doing this.

What those AIPAC Spies Were Really Doing

2009-04-24T06:13:00.000-07:00

Most coverage isn't very clear what those AIPAC officials that Jane Harman offered to help were doing and now some are rushing into this void to minimize this treasonous spyng against the US which took place over years.

Another thing to watch: the identity of the person was quid pro quo'ing with -- it may be someone who the FBI had the goods on but who got out of dodge (AKA returned to Israel) before being arrested: Naor Gilon.

Lot's more to find out. So far, Jane's getting an a for Brazenness.

Jane Harman - Civil Liberties Defender Extraordinaire

2009-04-23T00:22:00.000-07:00

She is if you let her tell it.

In reality, not so much. Glenn Greenwald, in response to Harman's righteous indignation at being caught on a wire tap, observes:

So if I understand this correctly -- and I'm pretty sure I do -- when the U.S. Government eavesdropped for years on American citizens with no warrants and in violation of the law, that was "both legal and necessary" as well as "essential to U.S. national security," and it was the "despicable" whistle-blowers (such as Thomas Tamm) who disclosed that crime and the newspapers which reported it who should have been criminally investigated, but not the lawbreaking government officials. But when the U.S. Government legally and with warrants eavesdrops on Jane Harman, that is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen, and full-scale investigations must be commenced immediately to get to the bottom of this abuse of power. Behold Jane Harman's overnight transformation from Very Serious Champion of the Lawless Surveillance State to shrill civil liberties extremist.

Supporting links documenting her statements are available in the original. I'm sure Jane would love to make everyone forget what she's done, but unfortunately this is not going to go down the memory hole.

Jane Harman - Did She Throw the 2004 Election to Bush?

2009-04-22T06:29:00.000-07:00

Surely Harman would have known she was saving Bush's butt by doing this:

The New York Times confirmed late Monday that a top Democratic congresswoman called the paper in 2004 and tried to keep it from publishing an article exposing the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program -- possibly helping to sway the balance in the 2004 presidential election.

The New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, revealing that the National Security Agency had engaged in the interception of thousands of American and foreign calls without a warrant as part of a program intended to disrupt terrorist plots. Upon running the story, they also admitted that they had withheld the article for a year at the urging of Bush Administration officials.

But buried in a Times article published Tuesday is the revelation that the top Democratic congresswoman on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman (D-CA), called the paper’s Washington, D.C. editor in “October or November” of 2004 in an effort to quash the story.

“Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement Monday that Ms. Harman called Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief of The Times, in October or November of 2004,” the Times writes. “Mr. Keller said she spoke to Mr. Taubman -- apparently at the request of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A. director -- and urged that The Times not publish the article.”

I haven't taken a look yet, but I seem to recall that the administration at the time before the election was still in full on denial mode about the fact they were spying on everyone, 4th amendment be damned.

If this attempt by Harman was from before the election, she would have to have known that she was trying to influence the election in Bush's favor just to protect the illegal spying program.

Aside from the fact that she may be a target of baddies in the CIA or Bush administration now, her trying to quash this revelation by the Times is not forgivable.

CIA Using Harman to Intimidate Other Dems? Interesting theory

2009-04-21T07:54:00.001-07:00

Interesting theory. Why the CIA was running the show on domestic wiretapping is pretty much a mystery.

If the real aim is to let Dems know that the CIA has them on tape doing the same thing as Harman, then they could discourage them from moving forward on investigations of the CIA. Given the power of big money and the friendliness that many Dems have toward (and the fear they have of) AIPAC, I think such a theory is not to be dismissed.

Great Harman AIPAC Coverage

2009-04-20T21:54:00.000-07:00

From the Orange Satan.

Harman AIPAC Wiretap Timeline

2009-04-20T21:07:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty sure this is going to be source of the best information on the Harman quid pro quo AIPAC timeline.
.....

It's kind of hard to fathom it possible that my U.S. congressional representative got caught redhanded offering to use her influence to come to the rescue of spies against our country.

Of course, that's next to all the Bush lawbreaking she let happen without blowing the whistle, so this isn't totally out of the blue, but defending spies against America? Really?

I'd think Congresswoman Harman would want an investigation to clear her name, if, as she says, "hese claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact".

Harman Caught on Wiretap Promising to Intervene for AIPAC Officials Accused of Spying?

2009-04-19T21:52:00.000-07:00

It's not looking good for Jane Harman

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but here are the highlights:

Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said.

And they were prepared to open a case on her, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court, the secret panel established by the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to hear government wiretap requests.

What happened? According to the article, the Bush administration protected her because she was so useful in facilitating their lawbreaking.

According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program

He was right.

On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.

And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.

So the investigation did not get terminated for lack of evidence - far from it. It was squashed.

If this bears out, Jane Harman must resign immediately.

Jane Harman is on the Side of the Banksters

2009-04-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

Jane Harman is once again proving she's on the side of the rich and powerful, not you. From Jane Hamsher:

Melissa Bean proved she's a worthy successor to Ellen Tauscher as head of the Wall Street-friendly New Democrat Coalition when she led the effort to insert a huge loophole in a bill that would have forced TARP recipients to stop paying "retention bonuses" as long as they were being supported by taxpayer dollars.

The bill, called the Pay Performance Act, passed the House on Wednesday. In its original form, it required all TARP recipients to make all bonuses performance based, and sought to put an end to the $1 billion in retention bonuses still to be paid out in July and September this year by AIG per an agreement they reached with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In other words, AIG could only pay out bonuses if the company actually did well, and couldn't be doling them out while the company was losing money and on taxpayer life support.

[...]

It looked like it was going to be smooth sailing, but then Melissa Bean decided to give the Republicans a hand. Her New Democrat Coalition has an Executive Director, Adam Pase, who is a former bank lobbyist for predatory lenders and their members brag about their Wall Street backgrounds and their close ties to the banks. The banks didn't want the bill to pass, and it looked like the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop it. So, Bean offered up an amendment which allowed TARP recipients to get out from under the bill's limitations if they had started paying their loans back.

Brad Sherman, known for being a genuinely fiscally responsible member of the House, objected (see YouTube). He said "it would allow a large number of companies to escape the effect of the bill without doing much more than making a few monthly payments of a very small amount." (His own bill, which would have capped executive compensation for TARP recipients at a million dollars, was never allowed on the floor.)

Bean's amendment initially failed on a voice vote, but she called for a roll call vote -- which allowed bank lobbyists to see exactly who did and didn't vote for the bill. This time, the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs made good on their threats to join with Republicans to pass legislation. Sixty-three Democrats joined with 165 Republicans to pass the Bean amendment.

Score one for the banks

Jane Harman was one of those 63 Democrats voting to eviscerate the bill. Disgusting.

By the way, you noticed I said Jane Harman was proving once again that she's proving she's on the side of the rich and powerful, and not you.

One prime example is how she voted in favor of aristocracy in 2001 when she voted to eliminate the estate tax. Howie Klein recalls:

One glaring example was how Bush and the Republicans-- with help from reactionary Blue Dogs-- put so much of their early energy into skewering the tax system against the middle class. One of Bush's first initiatives after stealing the election bore fruit on April 4, 2001 when the House passed a bill to eliminate the inheritance tax on multimillionaire estates. All but three Republicans-- moderates Mike Castle (DE), Amo Houghton (NY) and Connie Morella (MD)-- voted for it. That is hardly surprising. What is more noteworthy is that of 208 Democrats voting, 58 crossed the aisle to vote for plutocracy and aristocracy instead of for their own constituents' interests.

Jane Harman - Against the Mortgage Modification ("Cramdown") Bill?

2009-03-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

The bill is H.R. 1106 - Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Rep. Conyers/Frank – Judiciary/Financial Services).

More about the bill from Chris Bowers at OpenLeft:

One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).

If you want to get a feel for why judges should have the ability to write down the principal and interest of mortgages of homeowners in bankruptcy court, you need to remember that the home buyer who took that mortgage was at a distinct disadvantage when taking out their loans -- it is very easy for brokers to pretend to be on your side while working with the banks to give you the worst loan possible, because that generated higher upfront fees for them. Pretty ugly. And it's led to people being kicked out of their homes. Check out this video:

So where's Jane Harman on this bill? You'd think this would be a no-brainer, but she's no where to be found. This is unfortunately another instance where the Congresswoman doesn't feel obliged to let her constituents know where she stands on this issue. No public statements, announcements on her website and nothing coming from the folks who answer her phones.

However, it's advisable to assume that she's working on the wrong side of this bill (e.g. trying to weaken it). Here's why:

Yes, of course there's the fact that she's a member of both of the groups that are fighting to weaken this bill and make it more mortgage-industry friendly. Those groups are the Blue Dogs and a New Democrats (Harman proudly announces her membership on her website. That's not to say she is necessarily participating, though.

The real reason to be suspicious is her past history of siding with lenders over the people's interests: Jane Harman voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill
And given the changed circumstance with House control since then, it's not like we would expect Harman to come out and announce her opposition to this legislation. Rather, it would most likely be to work behind the scenes.

Circumstances have obviously changed some since the 2005 vote. For one thing, Democrats have regained the majority in both houses of Congress, and now hold the White House. In 2005, under Republican control, this bill was destined to pass pretty much regardless of what Democrats did (in the House, anyway). Now, with considerably more control over outcomes, front line responsibility for actual governance, and a mortgage foreclosure crisis that's hitting constituencies all over the country, positions have changed and votes will follow. Even among those who might otherwise have openly opposed this bill, the politics are such that outright opposition is a dangerous prospect, and the play instead is to fight a rearguard action, tinkering at the margins of the bill in the House, while hoping for a far weaker measure in the Senate, and throwing one's support behind that instead. That's what to look for from any opponents among House Democrats today, there being no real opportunity to stop the bill or make major changes today.

The fact that the bill is coming to the floor is an indication that they've done their vote counting, and there's no major threat on the horizon. Forty or so defections could actually kill the bill, assuming united Republican opposition, and it's not entirely clear that that's to be expected. Seventy-three Democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill in 2005, nine of whom are no longer in the House. Two Progressive Caucus members joined them, but might not be likely to do so again if they had the opportunity.

I have no doubt that the mortgage and banking industry is pushing hard to defeat or at least weaken this legislation, and that they're pushing Jane Harman to do their bidding.

If Jane Harman doesn't take a stand ahead of the vote, then we really have no way to tell whether she's fighting for our interests, or those of Countrywide's.

Something that bears watching.

Amazing Video

2009-02-06T11:06:00.000-08:00

Watch it.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Marriage rights for all. Invalidate Prop 8.

Obama Appoints Head of OLC and CIA Not Tainted by Bush Torture/Illegal Spying Policies

2009-01-05T23:22:00.000-08:00

Very positive development. One can hope this is a signal that there will not be tolerance of torture and illegal spying on Americans committed in America's name.

As you recall, Harman's name was floated for the CIA head. The NY Times had this to say about Obama not picking her:

Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

It's pretty simple - you can't have people enforce accountability for such illegalities that they themselves have let happen, voiced support for, or are implicated in. It was true for Brennan, and it's true for Harman. We'll have to see how this progresses.

Harman Recommended for CIA Director - by a Republican

2008-12-19T23:27:00.000-08:00

Who would have guessed it? On national security/foreign policy/war, there are so many similarities between her and Republican neocons, this isn't very much of a surprise:

Days after he became the first Republican House Member to announce his exit in 2010, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee revealed to HUMAN EVENTS that he had his own choice to be CIA director: Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California.

Despite obvious differences on issues, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R.-Mi) told us, “Jane is excellent on intelligence issues and you’ll recall that she was removed from the Intelligence Committee because she refused to dance to Nancy Pelosi’s tune.” Hoekstra added that he made the recommendation of Harman in a telephone call to incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

Harman (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 28%) has compiled a liberal record after seven terms in the House. But when it comes to national security, she has said “I live and breathe security 24-7.” The Californian supported giving authority to the national intelligence director and unifying intelligence resources. She also has been a consistent supporter of the U.S. action in Iraq.

The Republicans can tolerate her liberal record on non-defense matters because they get one of their own on defense/national security matters. Remember Harman was ahead of even Republican legislators in calling for eviscerating 4th amendment protections that Americans used to enjoy under the Constitution.

Obama would be very smart not to let her near intelligence/national security matters if he values American's constitutional rights and if he actually wants to hold the Bush administration lawbreakers accountable for their violations. She's too complicit.

Latest Scuttlebutt: Harman won't get top intel position

2008-11-24T23:21:00.000-08:00

From today's story on the AP:

A former intelligence official said he has been told that Obama is not considering giving either of the top intelligence jobs to "anyone with an election in their past." That would work against the selection of either California Rep. Jane Harman or former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, also a member of the 9/11 Commission, whose names had previously surfaced as contenders for top intelligence posts.

Passed along for what it's worth (not too much).

Jane Harman's Complicity in Illegal Torture and Warrantless Spying Programs

2008-11-09T22:57:00.000-08:00

As it concerns giving Harman a post in the intelligence apparatus, it's very important for everyone to remember how complicit Jane Harman has been in illegal acts by the Bush administration in allowing detainee torture to take place and in trampling on our rights as American citizens.

From Glenn Greenwald's post from July:

In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:

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

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA's interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. While Harman sent a letter to the CIA asking questions about the legality of the program, none ever took any steps to stop or even restrict the interrogation program in any way.

Identically, numerous key Democrats in Congress -- including Rockefeller and Harman -- were told that Bush had ordered the NSA to spy on American without warrants and outside of FISA. None of them did anything to stop it. In fact, while Rockefeller wrote a sad, hostage-like, handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003 (which he sent to nobody else) -- assuring Cheney that he would keep the letter locked away "to ensure that I have a record of this communication" -- Harman was a vocal supporter of the illegal NSA program. Here's what she told Time in January, 2006 in the wake of the NYT article revealing the NSA program:

Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."
Harman then went on Fox News and pronounced that the NSA program was "legal and necessary" and proudly said: "I support the program." Even worse, in February, 2006, Harman went on "Meet the Press" and strongly suggested that the New York Times should be criminally prosecuted for having reported on the illegal program. And indeed, in 2004, Harman demanded that the NYT's Eric Lichtblau not write about the NSA program. As Lichtblau wrote in his recent book about a 2004 conversation with Harman:
"You should not be talking about that here," she scolded me in a whisper. "They don't even know about that," she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. "The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story," she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew -- namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. "This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,' she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn't be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn't go there either. "This is a valuable program," she repeated.
In light of this sordid history of active complicity, is it really any wonder that these leading Democrats are desperate to quash any investigations or judicial adjudications of Bush administration actions that they knew about and did nothing to stop, in some cases even actively supporting?

While I'd love to have the chance to replace Harman with a progressive Democrat in my solid blue 36th Congressional District here in California, I would gladly keep her as my congressional representative if that kept her from being in any of those positions of power over intelligence matters. I think the most important thing first is to prevent her from getting named as DNI or CIA Director or DHS Chief. That's essential.

Jane Harman Up for Top Intelligence Post in Administration?

2008-11-09T22:02:00.000-08:00

According to the Daily Breeze, Harman is up for the top intelligence jobs in the Obama administration:

As President-elect Obama begins staffing his administration, one name that keeps popping up on lists of potential appointees is that of Rep. Jane Harman.

Harman, who has served the South Bay in Congress for 14 of the past 16 years, has been mentioned as a candidate for several positions, including CIA director, director of national intelligence, and secretary of homeland security.

Republicans would love for her to be named by Obama:

"Frankly, it would be a shrewd choice," said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "She's very well respected for her work in that area."

In case you wonder why Republicans would want her as CIA Director or DNI, and why it's such a bad idea, there are quite a lot of reasons. But really, all you have to do is look at Harman standing proudly next to Dick Cheney as Bush signed the FISA bill, which gave telecom companies retroactive immunity for illegally spying on Americans (something Harman fought hard to get), and jettisoned Americans' 4th amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures. The fact that she can smile and feel proud at such a time says it all.

A nice greeting for GOP convention goers

2008-08-27T23:18:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden Knows How to Attack

2008-08-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

(via JedReport)

McCain's Playing the POW Card So Fast No One Can Keep Up

2008-08-24T09:40:00.001-07:00

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd has a column today getting at McCain for referencing his captivity in Vietnam to fend off unrelated criticism all too often. As Josh Marshall remarks, "When Dowd devotes a column to it, the meme has arrived".

Here's Dowd:

So it’s hard to believe that John McCain is now in danger of exceeding his credit limit on the equivalent of an American Express black card. His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength — and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his P.O.W. experience — by flashing the P.O.W. card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements.

And she cites the times he's used to counter criticism of:

-offering up his wife for the topless (and sometimes bottomless) bikini contest at a biker rally.

-breaking the rules for the Warren debate and being able to hear or be briefed on the questions he would be asked

-not knowing how many houses he owns

And then she mentions McCain bringing the POW subject up by falsely weaving it into some unrelated item to make him look good:

As Sam Stein notes in The Huffington Post: “The senator has even brought his military record into discussion of his music tastes. Explaining that his favorite song was ‘Dancing Queen’ by Abba, he offered that his knowledge of music ‘stopped evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile.’ ‘Dancing Queen,’ however, was produced in 1975, eight years after McCain’s plane was shot down.”

Remember, that's not the first time he's made something up out of thin air just to remind people of his POW experience. To get in the good graces of Pennsylvanians, he did a cut-and-paste on an important detail of one of his more moving POW stories.

But what does McCain do now that 'playing the POW card' has gotten so obvious that even Dowd weighs in on it?

He doubles down! He just used the POW Card again to counter Biden's 7-kitchen table jab from yesterday, and his campaign says that it's going to keep on doing it:

Advisors say if Obama gets "nastier" on that issue that opens the door for them. Advisors say the "Rezko deal stinks to the high heavens." They will be prepared to show McCain's "home" in Hanoi by using images of his cell. They claim they have not overused the POW element and insist they have "underused it." They say Americans think most people in presidential politics are wealthy and will point out that Obama "made himself a multi-millionaire after he entered public life."

Apparently, they have nothing else to counter the charge that McCain is out of touch except to go back nearly forty years to dredge up his POW status. Pretty bad news for them, I'd say.

So anyways, keep getting used to seeing these:

Two Highlights from Keith Olbermann's Show

2008-08-23T23:36:00.001-07:00

First is Keith's table-turning description of McCain:

McCain is so determined to convince working Americans that he's not a rich, out-of-touch, couscous-eating, cappuchino-sipping elitist that he woke up early at his 15-acre Arizona ranch, took a 9-car motorcade to Starbucks, and then, sipping his cappuchino, got to work. A large cappuchino.

I'm not making any of that up.

I think it's hilarious that Keith needed to point out that he wasn't exaggerating.

=====

Then, there's the bit from Eugene Robinson, which is a great bon mot about John McCain's house confusion, but also explains why I hardly ever listen to the pundits on the show and just fastforward right through them.

Here's Robinson:

The impression that has been created over the last 24 hours is that John and Cindy McCain buy houses the way you and I would buy an umbrella. You know, you kind of buy it on the spur of the moment and you forget where you left it.

OK, he's engaging in the DC punditry game of what matters, which is a lot different than what matters to everybody else. They care about the impressions that are impacting the campaign. Everybody else wants to know what's true and what's not.

Eugene Robinson didn't wade into figuring out whether this impression was true or not, apparently, he is just pointing out that it's been created. That sounds like it just as easily could be a false meme that's not supported by facts but has taken root. It's too bad all too often this crucial difference between BS claims and well supported claims is not one that the pundit class sees fit to look into.

If he had looked into it a little bit, he would have quickly realized there's support that this is in fact the way the McCain's buy and forget about their houses.

Taken part by part. First:

You know, you kind of buy it on the spur of the moment

Fair enough - is there any instance when the McCains bought a property on the spur of the moment, in a fashion much more like an umbrella purchase than a home purchase? The answer is Yes.

Cindy McCain discussed the timing of the second condo purchase in a June interview with Vogue magazine (not online) that's newly relevant in light of the explosive controversy over John McCain's inability to recall how many homes the McCains own.

And in another fun fact that could pour fuel on this controversy, Cindy told her interviewer that the reason they needed a second beach condo in the Coronado building was that the first was too crowded because her kids were staying there and as a result she "couldn't get in the place."

Cindy continued: "So I bought another one."

Here's the relevant passage, from the start of the Vogue piece:

It is a late Sunday afternoon in April, and I am sitting in a condominium in Coronado, California, taking in the view of the gorgeous San Diego Bay with Cindy McCain. She closed on the place just two weeks earlier, and the only things unpacked so far are the family photos that dot almost every surface. It's her family's second condo in the building. "I like the ocean, and the kids love it here, and I love that," she tells me, curled up on a nondescript couch that looks like it might have come with the apartment. "When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, 'Oh, this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go.' Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn't get in the place. So I bought another one."

Notice, it's not that she decided to sell the original place to come up with the cash to buy the new one. It was just decide to buy another one. 99% of people can't just decide to buy a new house (and I'm guessing without a mortgage) without selling the new one. But for the McCain's, getting another condo was the simple answer. Sounds very much like the purchase of another umbrella to me.

Then there's the second part of Robinson's comparison:

you kind of buy it on the spur of the moment and you forget where you left it

Is their any truth behind this impression - yes, in fact, there is. The McCains had their condo in La Jolla go into default because they didn't pay their property taxes in 4 years - and the only reason they started to is because they were notified of the default by the media. If that's not losing track, I don't know what is.
Too bad Robinson couldn't have figured that out.

Prime Time Convention Speech Uses McCain's Keys!

2008-08-23T19:03:00.000-07:00

I can't divulge how I got my hands on this, but what follows is a portion of one of the prime time convention speeches that picks up on joeyess' fantastic idea of the jingling McCain keys.

I think you'll be thrilled how *unbelievably* quickly this was picked up full force by the party and how much they're running with it. Joe Biden's McCain house jab on Saturday is just the beginning.

Speech below the fold (supporting links have been edited in by me):

Before I finish, I want to send out a message of compassion to Republican John McCain. Please hear me out. I know most of you out there in the convention hall and watching at home have concerns about balancing your family budget, dealing with unanticipated medical bills you have no coverage for, and keeping current on your mortgage payment or rent, and you blame John McCain for not lifting a finger to do anything about it and suggesting this bad news is just all in our heads.

But rather than blaming him, I think we should rather show him our compassion for his hardships. We ought to put ourselves in his expensive shoes and see what it's like before we criticize him.

To do this, I'd like everyone to pull out their keys right now and just hold them up. You probably have around 6 or 7 keys on there, one for your house or apartment, one for your car, your office, your bike lock, and so forth. But for a moment, I'd like you to imagine that every key on there is to a separate house that you own. I know that will take a really good imagination to do, but I'd like you to try anyways; we need to do this to understand the world John McCain lives in.

Everybody give your keys a good shake so we can hear all those house keys. [PAUSE FOR JINGLES]

That's a lot to keep track of. You know, people criticized John McCain for not paying property taxes on one of his houses for four years and only doing so when a media outlet asked him about it - but he wasn't trying to cheat on his his taxes - he just forgot about that house. Like him, I'm sure you would have trouble keeping track of all those houses too. We need to sympathize with his situation. Let's give those keys another jingle in sypathy for John McCain. [PAUSE FOR JINGLES]

Also, consider John McCain's burden in taking care of his multiple houses. Unlike you, John McCain has full-time servants who take care of his houses, and that is monumentally expensive. In 2007, he paid $273,000 for house servants to look after his 7 houses - that's a lot of money! Once again, let's jingle in sympathy for the hardships of John McCain. [PAUSE]

Finally, Americans have attacked John McCain for being out of touch on economic issues - they mention the time he told American workers that none of them would ever consider a wage of only $50/hour to work the fields picking produce - they say no sane person would ever suggest that Americans would decide to pass up $100,000 a year jobs.

His critics also bring up that he claims the fundamentals of the American economy are strong despite all the layoffs and home foreclosures. But, again, we must consider John McCain's situation.

If your concerns were figuring out how many houses you own, or what fancy car you drive - don't you think you would have a hard time relating to the lives of everyday Americans too?

One last time - let's jingle those keys in sympathy for John McCain's situation. [PAUSE]

I don't know which of one of his houses he's at right now, but whereever he is, I trust he appreciates the compassion we're feeling for him tonight.

Thank you.

Zing!

[editor's note: some updating was done to add in links and with some wording from the original posting.]

These Cards are Being Played a Lot

2008-08-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

Contrast in Life Experiences

2008-08-22T07:40:00.000-07:00

It's too bad USA Today put it at the very end of the article, but it's a good thing they pointed these facts out:

McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans. His income has increased from book sales since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Seems like the "he's rich too" charge is just going to cause the media to get into Obama's life history and contrast it with McCain's life of privilege.

How long will it be until McCain plays the POW card to fend off the criticism of his elite out of touch-ness?

Pricking the POW Defense bubble

2008-08-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

Great video

McCain's history of cheating on his wife

2008-08-21T14:10:00.001-07:00

CNN documents, unchallenged by McCain, so many of the things that are getting thrown around about him, which I'd never known had such solid sourcing. This is not the treatment he's getting now, obviously.
UPDATE: I stand corrected. Via the Jed Report, this is actually from today. I'm as in disbelief as Jed is that they "went there". It's about time he be held to account for the truth of his past.

What Makes Jane Proud

2008-07-14T22:27:00.000-07:00

This is from the signing ceremony for the FISA bill, which gave telecom companies retroactive immunity for illegally spying on Americans (something Jane Harman fought hard to get), and jettisoned Americans' 4th amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

She even wore a colorful orangy dress for the occasion.

Blue Dogs Threatening to Hold Up GI Bill

2008-05-07T22:52:00.001-07:00

Speaking of the Blue Dogs that Jane Harman is so proud to be a member of, it's really shameful that they're threatening to hold up passage of the Iraq war funding bill not because of the well over hundred billion to continue the quagmire occupation in Iraq that's not paid for, but over the couple billion for a GI Bill that's been attached to it.

Jane Harman is of course quoted in the article (is there an article about Blue Dogs where she isn't quoted?), and she doesn't seem to be very bothered. (Has she ever spoken out against Blue Dogs?)

“Hopefully, it will be worked out,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog member. “There are conversations going on right now.”

Considering she's got a press release supporting the bill on her official website in which she's quoted saying

Our troops should be welcomed back as heroes and provided the smoothest possible transition to civilian life. Free college education is the least we can do

you'd think she could at least muster up a little opposition to her fellow Blue Dogs subjecting this program to "pay-as-you-go" rules after giving the Iraq war and its hundreds of billions in emergency supplementals a free pass.

It's a foregone conclusion that Pelosi's going to give Bush what he wants on the war funding. At a minimum, veterans should get a real GI bill out of it. Why can't Jane Harman understand the importance of that?

Jane Harman & This Solid Blue District, What a Mismatch

2008-05-07T21:56:00.000-07:00

Harman's DCCC Dues Unpaid, from The Hill. You see, she's apparently angered that she was passed over by Nance Pelosi for the House Intelligence Committee, so she's taking it out on the DCCC.

But that doesn't mean she isn't supporting Democrats. According to The Hill, she's donating to Dems who fit her mold - Bush Dogs - namely, Heath Shuler and Melissa Bean:

The campaigns of Reps. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have received the most from Harman as of March 31, each taking in $4,000.

This is the same Heath Shuler who sponsored anti-immigrant legislation, pushed by anti-immigrant Republicans like Tom Tancredo. I wonder how well represented all the first and second generation immigrants in the country would feel about Harman giving all that dough to Shuler after that.

If you recall (use the Tags for Jane Harman on my previous points if you don't), Harman was the first Dem out of the box to argue for retroactive immunity for telcos for spying on us illegally, weakening the Democratic push against such a move by the administration. Well, she backed off when the winds were blowing against her. But low and behold, she's working in the background here, and it kind of sounds like she's still angling to give Bush what he wants.

While Pelosi is wisely in no hurry to "compromise" with the Senate, which has passed a version of the FISA bill that gives retro immunity...

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has stepped back from the FISA talks and let Hoyer spearhead House talks with the Senate and executive branch. Some Democrats say privately that she has not shown much urgency to reach agreement with the White House.

...Harman says she doesn't want to give "blank check" immunity, but is pushing forward with Hoyer on getting a reconciled bill with the Senate nonetheless, instead of insisting on a clean bill that only has the technical things that supposedly need to be fixed:

“A number of Blue Dogs are working on a compromise between the House and the Senate,” said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and the former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I’m working with Hoyer and working with others.

“Some other Blue Dogs are involved,” she added. “Blue Dogs are 47 votes; 47 votes will determine how this comes out.”

Harman acknowledged, however, that there is a split in the Blue Dog Coalition and that some members support a Senate-crafted overhaul of FISA while she and others say it gives “blank check” immunity to telecommunications companies that turned over customer data to intelligence authorities.

That last sentence is misleading, because in her mind, you can put nice-sounding but meaningless language to protect civil liberties in the bill as a fig leaf, and that prevents it from being a "blank check".

And note that she's thrilled that the Blue Dogs get to dictate what happens in the House. She so often runs to the press to brag about how the Blue Dogs can force Democratic leadership in the House to do what they want. Sadly for Democrats and the nation, what she says is true.

Getting more Democrats into the House and Senate is not enough. They need to be solid Democrats who will vote with the party when it really counts.

Doctor Who Does Night at the Roxbury

2008-05-04T22:18:00.000-07:00

Sorry if you're not a Doctor Who fan, as the below won't make any sense for you. (I'm actually figuring out how to upload pictures, but I'm using it as an excuse to put this up)

Now that I'm talking SNL, I have to link to this skit.

Let Howard Dean Go On Chris Wallace's Show Every Day

2008-05-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

There aren't many Democrats who are quick enough and willing to be fully prepped to do well in 'interviews' with Fox. Howard Dean has proved himself in the past, and he's done it again.

Here's the evidence:

Clip One

Clip Two

Chris Wallace wants Dean to admit that he's misrepresenting what McCain said. Not only did he not agree, but he backed it up with facts to show that was bull and he did so in quick fashion so that he'd have the rest of his time to pound McCain using his best material that might sway some viewers.

This is a game that Dean knows how to play: regardless of the question you're given, you deal with it in the first 5 seconds, and then get on to what you really want to talk about. Dean was relentless. I may be missing some of the interview from those clips, but I doubt he was not up to the task of parrying Wallace's garbage.

I'm trying to think who else would be up to the task of going up against Fox. As far as Democratic electeds/party figures, none come to mind. Of talking heads, I'd go with Cliff Schecter or Rachel Maddow.

Missing in the Discussion about Gas Tax Cut Proposals

2008-05-01T00:23:00.000-07:00

Of course Clinton's support of a temporary gas tax cut is a pander that will just enrich oil companies, and that's bad enough.

But what's really bad about it is that she's copycatting off of John McCain and she's taking his lead on his proposal.

If McCain never had this proposal, then there's absolutely no chance that Clinton would have suggested this.

That's what worst about what Clinton's doing: she's engaging in Republican-lite me-too-ism, and it suggests she's embracing the idea that Republicans are right and need to be copied in order to be successful.

Ugh.

North Carolina Democratic voter registrations: Wow!

2008-04-30T23:58:00.000-07:00

The increase in Democratic voter registration across the country during this primary season has been a great side effect of the competitive race. I have looked in depth at North Carolina's registration activity since January, and if the experience there is at all representative of other states, then Congress is going to be turning much bluer and some "red" states will be ripe for Obama to take.

Some highlights, made possible by the timely posting of voter reg stats by the NC State Board of Elections:

+ Between Jan 5, 2008 and April 28, 2008, Democratic registrations have increased by 4.0% and Republican registrations have increased by 0.7%.

+ During the same period, registrations among blacks increased by more than twice the rate of whites (5.4% to 2.3%). Hispanic registrations increased by 15.9%, although the number of registrations are relatively few (7,938 new registrations)

+ Of the 2,616,995 registered NC Democrats, one of every 200 of them registered between April 19 to 26. Stated another way, in the latest one week period, the Democratic party in NC grew by 0.5%.

Good Long Term News for Democrats

2008-04-30T23:52:00.000-07:00

Young people are identifying as Democrats a lot more, and as Republicans a lot less, than before.

Cenk Uygur Impersonation of a Pissy Joe Scarborough

2008-04-29T21:24:00.000-07:00

Seeing Rachel Maddow put Scarborough in his place was treat enough. Scarborough actually ran away. But then to have Cenk Uygur cover this on his show and impersonate a whiny Joe Scarborough complaining about how hard his life has become since liberals were allowed on MSNBC is icing on the cake.

I particularly loved these Scarborough thought-bubbles:

Anybody who's been in politics knows that you define your opponents if they are Democrats and we don't let you define your opponent if they are a Republican.

Well you don't understand: I'm the only one who used to be on this network and now we have liberals on the network and I don't know how to debate them. And since I don't know how to debate them, I'm going to walk off the air.

Here's the video from The Young Turks with the clip from the MSNBC show and Uygur's commentary:

Lifestyles of Rich and Famous: John McCain edition

2008-04-29T09:18:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of a great new website called McCain Source :

Billions for Halliburton and KBR - Bupkus for Our Servicemen

2008-04-29T09:06:00.001-07:00

Republican ideology means that money for weapons systems and mercenaries is A-OK, but spending a fraction of that money on our servicemen after they return from warzones is not OK.

Example 2,143,237:

What it's all about

2008-04-28T22:43:00.000-07:00

This piece by Kagro X at Daily Kos covers two issues in this one post better than I've seen anybody manage to. First, about what blogging is, and what it isn't.

Here's my rule -- and you can take it or leave it -- on referring to "the bloggers." You must keep in mind that blogs are communications tools, and that the people who use them aren't some new species from outer space. People who use blogs to communicate about politics are saying exactly the same things that they used to say, and that other people still say, to each other over the telephone, at the office water cooler, and over long lunches. This is just the first time that politicians and media types have ever had access to those conversations, because the tool we use puts them out there for them to see. (Yes, we are granting the media access to the minds of the voters. Where's the gratitude and groveling that politicians get when they grant access?)

So the bottom line is this: bloggers are just people who leave "paper" trails of their thoughts. If you have something to say about "the bloggers," try this simple exercise first to see if you might be talking out your ass: Substitute the word "telephone" for "blog." If your sentence still makes sense, you're onto something. If not, you're talking shit.

"The telephoners want us to get rid of him."

I really wish Jane Harman's office would figure this one out. As I've mentioned here before, I am no longer able to have anyone speak to me from her office because I have committed the crime of communicating over the web. Heavens to Betsy! Not joking here, I've been tagged as one who has a blog (I volunteered this information) - and since then have been given the shaft worse than any normal constituent who call their representative.

Second issue: how Democrats have ceded all power to the executive and as a result must get the presidency back and cannot brook anyone who prevents us from doing that. Except, of course, for Joe Lieberman who's actually endorsed and campaigned for Republican John McCain.

Does Harry Reid think this is some sort of quant game? I cannot figure this guy out.

The Obama Organizing Fellows

2008-04-25T11:00:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of effort that needs to be done to make real progressive change -- building the grassroots expertise amongst active young people. It's a win for Obama, because this will means lots of people working for his campaign. But it's also a win for progressive causes everywhere, because there will be tons of organizers who have the expertise to make a much bigger impact fighting against corporate interests that are often embraced by even our own party establishment. It's essential that we support this effort.

Here's Barack with the scoop:

The deadline for applying to the program is Monday, May 5th at 12 midnight Eastern Time.

If you're interested, apply.

Other ways to help:

* Invite others to apply.
* Host a fellow.
* Donate to the Fellow program. (This is specifically to the program, not the campaign generally)

And last, but definitely not least:

* Promote the campaign at college campuses. You can do this by putting up fliers [note: PDF files](full page) ,(4 to a page). (These print-ready fliers are on the FAQ page - just go down to the bottom of the page.)

I suspect there's been a lot of people on campuses are talking about it, but it could really help to get the word out there if we can.

*****

Just to close on the importance of this effort - Obama actually did an unpaid organizing training effort last year that paid massive dividends because these people who traveled to Chicago went back home and started up pretty impressive unofficial Obama campaigns in their states. I venture to guess that without the training efforts and Obama's recognition of the importance of grassroots activists, that his campaign would not have been able to get up to full speed in the early states in time to win.

The Power of Just Saying No

2007-11-02T00:50:00.000-07:00

As in, "Sorry Mr. President, we're not in any hurry to pass a FISA bill. The bad FISA law that you and your Republican watercarriers terrorized us into passing shouldn't stand, and if you're not going to work with us to make the narrow fix that's called for, then we'll just let it expire and let the prior law come back into effect. Unless you work with us, that's what you'll force us to do."

Why can't Jane understand this?

Come on Jane, at Least Make a Show of Engaging Your Critics

2007-11-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

Jane, I get it that you're trying to show that you're engaging with your online critics (1, 2) who have blasted your pre-capitulation stance on FISA. But if you're going to respond, don't you think it would be wise to ensure your responses aren't word-for-word identical to each other? Particularly since each writer is making a different set of points and claims?

As one of the critics that Harman responded to explains, Harman is saying something is rubbish, but she's not saying what exactly.

If Harman really wants to get credit for engaging, she'll stop the hit and run tactics, and will give a clear response.

The Spotlight's Now On Harman

2007-11-01T06:13:00.000-07:00

That Daily Kos diary I linked to below was responded to by Jane Harman on Daily Kos. She posted her own diary:

What rubbish! For those like me who insist that the President’s domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority. That's why I'm working with Republicans. Got a better idea?

I opposed the FISA-gutting Protect America Act last August and supported the much-improved H.R. 3773, which did not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. I call on the White House to do more than share selected documents with a handful of Senators – how do we know what the White House is not providing? In my view, the question of retroactive immunity cannot even be considered until Congress is fully informed about what happened and under what authority.

Now how's that for sound argument! She's not off of this bipartisan fetish where Democrats are supposed to pre-surrender to Republicans by lifting the bar on passing legislation to be a veto-proof majority.

Anyways, the original diarist had a great response to Harman which should be read in its entirety. Notice how he manages to respond in a reasoned, thoughtful way to Harman's emotional (and nonsensical) lashing out. I love the answer he gives to Harman's question "Got a better idea?" as to what she should be doing intead of surrendering to Republicans.You ask me if I have a better idea about how to proceed.

I want you to tell us what you know about whether the Government conducted illegal warrantless surveillance under the Program from 10/2001- 3/2004.

Then I want you to tell us that it was unconstitutional, anti-American, and wrong.

Then I would like you and the rest of Congress to stand up in public and say that illegal Warrantless Surveillance of Americans is wrong.

I want to see full investigations of the illegality of the Warrantless Surveillance program and those who authorized it, and a pledge that it will never happen again.

I want a moratorium on extra-FISA wiretapping and FISA-related legislation until the illegality of the program is disclosed and remedied, in full.

Jane Harman has focused even more of the spotlight on her Constitution destroying actions. Her rationales behind her actions are even worse. She did a public service by being frank about it though.

That way she makes it clearer than ever that she needs to be replaced by another Democrat in this district.

Exonerating Telcos Covers Up Harman's Own Complicity in Illegal Spying

2007-10-30T08:17:00.001-07:00

Jane Harman threw her lot in with Bush a long time ago, being informed of his illegal domestic spying program and doing nothing about it. She would certainly pay a price personally if the extent of the badness perpetrated on Americans became known. That is, to shut down these court cases against the telcos so we don't find out about all of the non-terrorism suspects who Bush has spied on. Namely Bush critics, journalists and even elected officials.

It's pretty simple: if the telcos are protected, then they don't squeal on Bush, and those complicit in this illegal activity - like Jane Harman - don't get taken down with him.

Check out this diary at DailyKos on the subject: Dems Implicated in Illegal Wiretapping Ready to Compromise

...emptywheel over at The Next Hurrah reviews Harman's complicity in this in a great post, and the sums up the problem with Harman very well:

How nice, that the one Democrat who gave approval to this illegal program is the one now negotiating immunity for them. Not a conflict of interest there, not at all.

Solar Thermal Power Is Hitting the Big Time

2007-10-28T23:15:00.000-07:00

Check this out: Venture capitalists are funding construciton of solar-powered steam generating power plants, utilities are signing multi-year contracts to buy their power, and the regulatory environment will sooner or later (hopefully sooner) make fossil-fuel based forms of electricity generation more expensive.

My guess is that the bottleneck will be on building the powerlines necessary to bring the power to where it needs to go.

This graphic on how solar thermal power generation works is very informative.

The real "game changers" it seems to me are that this technology doesn't require costly semiconductor material to produce electricity, it can actually store the heat generated so that power can be produced when it's needed, even if the sun has gone down.

Solar Powered Trash Cans?

2007-10-19T22:10:00.001-07:00

I noticed something interesting in front of the LA County Hall of Administration building today: two normal trash receptacles that had previously been there had been replaced with new tash bins that had a solar panel built into the top of them and a drawer to deposit the trash.

My curiousity was piqued - what the heck would you need power for? It turned out there was a compactor built in which I guess is intended to reduce the number of times the trash needs to be emptied a day. Perhaps this would be useful in some situations, such as for a business who would be able to lay off a maintenance worker or two to pad their bottom line. But since this is a muni government that's not chomping at the bit to cut employees, I'm trying to figure out if there'd really be any cost savings on the labor side, but I see from a quick search that Boston has employed these cans big time in that city, and it reduced the number of emptyings of the cans from 4 times a day to once every other day. Not bad.

And also, these locations have a lot of informal recycling taking place, where maintenance folks or members of the public take bottles and cans out of the trash to be recycled. With these new compactor/trash receptacles, the would-be recyclers wouldn't have access to the trash, and even the maintenance workers would have a devil of a time separating bottles and cans from the cube of compacted waste. The best thing would be for people to leave the cans and bottles by the trash bins but not inside - but people instinctiviely think that's littering, so I imagine they feel like there's no choice but to throw it away, which would make it unretrievable.

That's too bad.

...I think the BigBelly receptacle is what I saw today. The brochure for the product emphasizes the environmental friendliness in terms of reducing emissions from hauling presumably. I think they're missing an opportunity to facilitate informal recycling though. Attachments for depositing recyclable containers (perhaps not glass, though, due to safety reasons) sound like just the thing.

I think I'll make a pest of myself and bug them to make something like that.

...And this item is interesting too. A critique of the machine at an environmental site, and an informative response from the inventor of the machines in the comments.

How Telco's Can Get Off the Hook

2007-10-17T23:30:00.000-07:00

Jane Harman has been very anxious to get the telecommunications companies off the hook for all of its illegal activity. Rather than get on her case for it again, tonight I'd like to take a different tack and present a legitimate scenario in which the Verizons and AT&T's can get out of being held liable - well, a least partially. If a telco voluntarily turned over customer records - our phone calls and emails - just because the government made claims - sans warrant - that it was vital for national security (or some other grave-sounding reason), then they are necessarily fully at fault. They should have known (and I dare say would have known) that they were breaking the law. And courtesy of Glenn Greenwald (damn that guy's great), we know that the court had already rejected AT&T's argument that it acted in "good faith".

However, what if they weren't breaking the law without getting their arms twisted by the government? Sure, they knew what they did was illegal, but what if the government used its power to compel them to break the law. As we've seen with with Qwest, there was a large contract for $100 million that the government may have been holding out in front of the telco's to get them to play ball. See Kagro X's recent post for the skinny on this. It's clearly not far-fetched to think that extortion, threats of retribution for non-cooperation, and other types of coercion were placed on the telco's. It's quite possible that these telco's weren't willing lawbreakers.

Perhaps these telcos were more the victims than the perpetrators. It's possible. And to the extent they were, their level of liability for their breaking the law should go down -- the worse the coercion, the less the liabiity.

However, their liability should not be reduced at all unless they can show the government did engage in such illegal coercion and we get punishment applied to those lawbreakers.

If that happened, then it would be reasonable to reduce the liability of these corporations.

But not until then.

Jane: Telco's Acted in Good Faith. Not Quite

2007-10-12T18:34:00.000-07:00

On the issue of retroactive immunity for telcos that illegally turned over customer information to the government after receiving warrant-free requests: In her Politico article, Jane Harman wrote that the telco's were acting in good faith.

Though the new FISA law grants prospective immunity for telecommunications firms asked to supply phone records as part of the government’s surveillance program, it omits any grant of retroactive immunity to those companies that arguably complied in good faith with government requests.

A narrowly drawn retroactive immunity provision, coupled with the prospective stipulation that immunity requires a warrant from a judge, is a possible compromise.

That was a meme that could potentially hold water if it weren't for the fact that Qwest absolutely refused to comply with the illegal orders. If it was obvious to Qwest that what was being done was illegal and they were steadfast in refusing to comply, it's pretty much impossible the other telcos didn't realize they were breaking the law. If they all went along, Jane might be able to get away with this bogus rationale. But Qwest's actions put the lie to that argument.

Jane Harman's Talking Crazy on FISA "Fix"

2007-10-12T00:41:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry for the title, but I just don't know any other way to describe Jane Harman writing writing this about the FISA "fix" legislation:

The RESTORE Act is a good bill, but there are legitimate questions about how to deal with private sector partners. My hope is to reach a consensus in the House and for the House to lead the congressional effort to fashion veto-proof legislation restoring crucial checks and balances.

Jane's bipartisan-fetish has completely taken her senses, to the detriment of our Constitutional rights. The Democrats only have a fighting chance of getting a bill passed that restores checks and balances and our 4th amendment rights just dealing with our own caucus. To burden the legislation with a veto-proof majority means a boatload of Republicans would need to be on board. And, sad to say, but that 100% guarantees that the bill will not restore any checks, any balances, or restore the Constitutional rights that were taken from us in August. I know this would pain Jane Harman to hear, but if she wants to protect civil rights, she has to keep the bill as far as possible away from Republicans.

And what's with this automatic acceptance of a veto-proof majority as the requirement to pass a bill? Is that all Bush has to do is threaten a veto to get Harman to institute a two-thirds super-majority requirement for a bill? The self-censoring, auto-capitulating response to Bush is pathetic, and anti-democratic. The legislature is not supposed to take direction from the executive.

The reality is her position on the bill already puts her very close to the Republican position in any case: she's anxious to have retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telcos and umbrella warrants, so getting a super-majority to approve her dream bill could be possible actually. It's just that bill would give a free pass to the lawbreaking done illegally at the behest of the government and vastly expand the government's ability to spy on us with a warrant specific to us.

Shameful

2007-10-11T23:44:00.000-07:00

Truly shameful.

Harman flip-flops on Armenian genocide resolution

In the long, unhappy life of the congressional resolution to officially recognize and commemorate the Armenian genocide, there have been many moments (from the Armenian point of view, which I broadly share) of parliamentary treachery -- then-House speaker Dennis Hastert withdrawing the resolution at the last minute in 2000, both presidents George Bush vowing as candidates to officially recognize the genocide then dropping the pledge once in the White House, and so on.

Now we can add to that list ... hawkish South Bay Democrat Jane Harman! Even though Harman is one the bill's 226 co-sponsors, she nonetheless wrote a letter to House Foreign Relations Committee Chair Tom Lantos Wednesday urging him to withdraw it from consideration, and announcing that she will oppose the very resolution she affixed her name to.

FISA Question for Jane Harman

2007-10-11T23:39:00.000-07:00

If telecommunications companies did nothing illegal, as they and the Bush administration have constantly claimed, then there would be no need to protect them for their perfectly legitimate actions, right?

Seems pretty obvious. So why are you calling for immunizing them for their actions?

Iraq: Only Money for Funding Redeployment

2007-10-11T23:30:00.000-07:00

This is a letter every member of Congress should sign:

Dear Mr. President:

Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.

More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

There are now 88 (and counting) House members who have signed this letter, including even some DLC types like Ellen Tauscher.

Jane Harman is not a cosigner. She needs to be.

DC Office: 202-225-8220

Guess Who Found Time to Vote to Condemn

2007-09-26T23:35:00.000-07:00

MoveOn for their ad? Yep, Jane Harman. OK, so maybe they couldn't stop the Republicans from forcing a vote on this bogus bill, but they certainly had time to craft their response in explaining a No vote.

Listen to Bill Clinton's response. That's not so hard, now is it?

This cowering in fear by Congressional Dems when they have the upper hand is just so unseemly.

Jane Harman Speaks Out on Republican Fear Mongering,

2007-09-25T23:27:00.000-07:00

But she still is OK with giving them what they want. I saw her on Olbermann tonight and was quite happy to see her say, essentially, that the Republicans were hyping a terrorist threat against the capitol to force through their bad spy bill. She'll say the truth there, but why the heck doesn't that inform her decision when it comes to what to do. She even acknowledged that the administration has been and will continue to break the law to spy if it wants to, so even if there were a gap in intelligence that had to be fixed, it's not like Bush wouldn't just go ahead and break the law to spy as usual.

Either Keith didn't know or was just too polite to ask her - especially given what she just said - why she's leading the charge among Democrats to give retroactive immunity to the telco's for breaking the law and allowing Bush to spy on Americans without any warrants? And why is she so anxious to do away with the requirement to show probable cause for each person that gets spied on and doing "basket" warrants that make it easy to target who you want?

Keith had just minutes before gotten all over the White House for arguing on the one hand that telco's had done nothing wrong while arguing retroactive immunity was needed for them on the other. Do bad he couldn't put that to Harman.

I guess it doesn't fit into the narrative of her speaking out, which actually is useful to defeating the changes that Harman is actually advocating.

Harman Pre-Emptively Negotiates Away Our Constitional Rights

2007-09-11T23:28:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: The Democratic bill, I should have noted, also would also have damaged FISA. However, what Harman advocates would make things worse and tie up Congress to no end.

Jane Harman is fast out of the box on the "FISA fix" she wants to pass. She now has laid out her thinking in an article in Politico.

It starts good -- here's my summary of her points:

Republicans conducted a "well-orchestrated campaign" to talk up an imminent attack in the US, specifically a attack in the Capitol. This despite the fact the DC attack was discredited.

Republicans falsely claimed that FISA did not allow foreign-to-foreign communications by terrorism suspects. As part of this effort, the Dir. of National Intelligence lied about this directly to key Senate and House committee members and leadership.

There was a more responsible narrower effort offered by Democrats which would have solved the problems with FISA. The good news is that the over-broad law sunsets in six months.

OK, good so far. Dems were tricked into voting away Americans' constitutional rights, she suggesting.

Surely, then, Harman's going to say that the Congress should simply bring up for a vote and pass the responsible Democratic bill it was tricked out of passing in the first place, right? (She doesn't mention this, but this bill was actually negotiated to satisfaction with DNI McConnell before Bush and Republicans reneged)

Surely Harman would use the sunset provision to turn the heat on Republicans and Bush, right?

Sadly, no.

Harman instead advocates that Democrats should saddle themselves with the obligation of crafting a new bill that must get the Aye votes from at least 15(!!) Republican Senators and 55(!!!) Republican Representatives to overcome a likely Presidential veto.

Now comes the challenge: to craft a FISA law that enjoys overwhelming support and replaces the “blank check to Gonzo” that Congress provided just weeks ago. Can the White House be persuaded to negotiate a new law? Not if the wedge politics it played last month persist. But I believe Congress could be persuaded to [negotiate a new law] — and to pass it with veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate.

...

The Democrats’ challenge on FISA is to move promptly to a proposal we and enough Republicans can support, so that the White House, with or without Rove, cannot jam another wedge between us.

So Harman really thinks that by placing Democrats under the gun (remember, it's our responsibility to pass this, not theirs) that Republicans are going to do anything but delay on this to ensure it becomes another last minute crisis? Who's she kidding? And in any case, when you have only a handful of Republicans outside of the Bush Rubber-Stamper Club, this endeavor would be impossible anyway.

But in Jane Harman's mind, this is achievable because Republicans in Congress never meant any harm, despite their votes for the bill. Only the president and bogeyman Karl are worthy of blame here, not the lockstep support of Republicans in congress who passed this bill in the first place.

During the debate on FISA, numbers of Republicans expressed discomfort with the broad new grant of authority in the McConnell bill. [Ed: Yes, they shrieked in horror as they voted Aye on the bill]

As long as “foreign intelligence” is the standard, virtually any communications are fair game — the only limits being post-action audits in which the executive branch essentially polices itself. In other words, many Republicans now worry that they gave away the Fourth Amendment, a bulwark against the “big government” they so detest.

Really, I'm so glad that Jane Harman can share with us the thoughts of these troubled Republicans. They really are for the constitution after all and never meant to take away our civil liberties. It's bipartisan to assume the best about members of the other party even when they vote the worst, right?

Then we hear from Harman that Democrats would have been playing into Republicans hands had they not let this bill pass.

The Democrats’ challenge on FISA is to move promptly to a proposal we and enough Republicans can support, so that the White House, with or without Rove, cannot jam another wedge between us. Clearly, it was Rove’s intent to make the recent vote on FISA grist for negative campaign ads in the 2008 cycle, but Democrats denied him that ammo.

Ha Ha Karl, you thought we would defend the Constitution and defeat this bill, but we didn't. Tricked you!

And then we get to Jane Harman's proposal for this new bill she wants. Amazingly, her proposed bill, freely offered after due consideration on her part, manages to shred the Constitution even worse than the bill Republicans forced down Democrats throats under duress, through lies, betrayal and false threats of imminent terorist attacks on the Capitol! Quite an accomplishment, I must say.

Here's a summary of what Harman thinks the bill should have in it...

Congress should craft a bill that:

*provides "narrowly drawn" retroactive immunity to telcos from liability to illegally turning over phone records without a warrant (something not even the 'over-broad' Republican bill provides);

*preserves prospective immunity for telcos but requires a warrant from a judge (see note below)

*requires it to be made clear that the bill doesn't authorize indiscriminate data mining; and,

*requires that the Fourth Amendment still apply to all Americans

Note: An important note on the prospective immunity being forced to have a judge's warrant: Harman undermines that requirement by allowing warrants to be issued for very broad surveillance objectives instead of actual surveillance targets which would give the telcos "the clarity and legal certainty they desire", as Harman puts it, in turning over requested documents.

Isn't there any higher priority that giving immunity retroactively to companies who conspired illegally with our government to spy on us?

Complication for Partition Advocates: Iraqis Don't Want It

2007-09-11T00:02:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden, Jane Harman, and other partition advocates have something difficult to contend with: their recommended 'solution' for Iraqis is not one they want.

A strong majority of 62% of Iraqis believe Iraq should remain a centralized state with its capital in Baghdad.

How to continue to support partition when the folks you're doing it do don't want it?

"I am someone who supports an ongoing mission in Iraq"

2007-09-10T22:41:00.000-07:00

And I think many Democrats in Congress — I’m certainly one of them — don’t want us to leave Iraq. We want to change the mission in Iraq. Change the combat mission to a training mission and a counter-insurgency mission.

That's what Jane Harman had to say in April. There's a videotaped interview at the link, so you can hear her say it herself.

Does Jane Harman still believe that changing the mission will make a difference? Even Republicans are starting to get wise there's nothing good we can accomplish - when will she wake up?

Worried about ethnic cleansing and sectarian warfare? You've already got it. Worried about a massive refugee crisis? You've already got one.

How can we clean up the place, as Jane Harman so badly wants to keep us there to do, when every day we make things worse?

CA-36:Cook Partisan Voting Index of D +11

2007-09-09T23:26:00.000-07:00

I don't think I ever highlighted this fundamental statistic for CA-36. Perhaps I didn't realize there was such an index at the time of the Winograd challenge to Harman. But it's a very important statistic because it measures how safely Democratic or not a Congressional District is. The D +11 for CA-36 means this district is extremely lopsided Democratic. And here's what it's about:

The Cook Partisan Voting Index is a "measure of how strongly an American congressional district leans toward one political party compared to the nation as a whole", and it's measured as follows:

The index for each congressional district is derived by averaging the presidential election results in that district from the prior two elections, then comparing them to how the nation voted as a whole. The index indicates the more successful political party and how many percentage points higher than the national average for that party.

So, the PVI D +11 for this district (CA-36) shows that the Democratic pres. candidate received an average 11 percentage points more votes than the national average in the last two presidential elections. No doubt about it.

The reason I'd been researching this for CA-36 is that I had just gotten done reading about a great progressive candidate, Mark Pera, who is challenging a Bush Dog Democrat, Dan Lipinski in Illinois. And while I think having Lipinski in there is horrible, I'd prefer him to a Republican.

But a quick check of the PVI for the district,D +11.3, told me all I needed to know -- this district is super-safe Democratic. So I plunked some cash down for him without any qualms. If you want more and better Democrats, I recommend you do too!

By the way, the table from the diary referenced above has the PVI for all Bush Dogs, so this table should be an immediate reference when the issue of "the wisdom" of supporting a primary challenge of Bush Dog.

Jane Harman - positionless on Iraq Supplemental?

2007-09-09T23:10:00.000-07:00

After searching for press releases, articles, or other mentions on the web about where she stands on the $200B Iraqi occupation request that Bush wants, and I still come up empty.

As I mentioned last week, all I got when I called was the phone-answerer reading off a two-sentence response which said she's for timelines.

This is not some obscure issue that only a few constituents care about. Sure, if no one was dying, we weren't spending billions per week, and we weren't harming our national security interests through this policy, I guess there wouldn't be a problem not knowing what she thinks.

But instead we are talking about the #1 issue in this country. We deserve to know where our representatives stand.

Representative Harman, I anxiously await your position on providing more money for this disastrous occupation.

Being too hard on Harman

2007-09-06T23:28:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I shouldn't be getting on Harman's case for being silent on Bush's request to fund his endless war -- she could simply be emulating the two frontrunners for the Democratic nomination. Copying what the head of the presidential candidate pack is doing couldn't be a bad thing, right?

Clinton and Obama were totally silent until the last minute of voting on the last supplemental when the bill's outcome was already decided, and they have yet to say a peep to date on Bush's next $200 billion. So Harman is just taking their lead.

...It's only unserious candidates like Edwards or Dodd who stick their necks out with a clear position against blank checks for endless war before voting actually occurs and others haven't decided what to do yet. How silly can you be! Putting pressure on fellow legislators and/or making it easier to take your position by going first -- all that is for losers. No wonder these guys aren't the 'frontrunners'...

Whither Jane Harman on the Next $200 Billion for Occupation of Iraq?

2007-09-06T23:17:00.000-07:00

The key issue for every member in Congress is whether they will provide any money for military operations in Iraq without requiring them to go for safe redeployment out of Iraq. A phone call to Harman earlier this week gave me an answer that she was for timelines on this supplemental $50 Billion, but he didn't know if the same applied to the $150 billion.

So I tried the website. Nothing on Iraq in her press release section. However, she proudly displays photos, one of her standing behind Bush crony Michael Chertoff and another giving a briefing for the Blue Dogs.

I'm sorry, but that group is the reason why the Democratic leadership couldn't get through the current year's supplemental funding bill without dropping withdrawal timelines (one which Harman was going to go along with until the very last minute). Sometimes she breaks from going along with what they do, such as giving up our civil liberties on warrantless surveillance, but nonetheless she's a proud member.

Finally, the Electricity Issue Goes Big Time

2007-07-30T21:21:00.000-07:00

I've been amazed for a while that the pathetically small - and shrinking - amount of electricity that Baghdadis get everyday has gotten about zero airtime.

Finally, with our dear Ambassador disclosing in Congressional testimony that the daily average for electricity is just an "hour or two", as we reach the worst of summer, it just isn't being ignored any more. This disclosure coming after the government had simply stopped tracking the statistic a couple months ago on the theory that, like in a marriage, if you simply don't talk about a problem, that it just goes away. (H/T Colbert)

The LA Times ran a piece earlier this week about the obfuscation, and here's some good commentary from Americablog that I won't try to outdo:

Insurgencies depend on local support. That support dries up when people feel they are being adequately taken care of by the government. Electricity is near the top of that list. Iraqis look at the U.S. and think (and frequently ask), if you could put a man on the moon, why can't you get us electricity? And after a while, incompetence tends to get interpreted as malice. But don't take my word for it that it's an Iraqi priority -- Ambassador Crocker himself recently told CBS news that electricity was "more important to the average Iraqi than all 18 benchmarks rolled up into one."

And what's the official reason for ceasing to report this metric? "The change, a State Department spokesman said, reflects a technical decision by reconstruction officials in Baghdad who are scaling back efforts to estimate electricity consumption as they wind down U.S. involvement in rebuilding Iraq's power grid." Just as the summer starts to heat up and hours of power are plummeting to near-nonexistence, we're . . . winding down U.S. involvement in rebuilding Iraq's power grid.

..And as I was reviewing my previous blog posts for references I was reminded what my congressional representative, Jane Harman (D), had to say about this topic on June 15, 2006:

Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the Administration to develop an exit strategy. And I believe it is now time to begin the phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the US Congress.

"The U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem. Beginning to reduce the "footprint," while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success.

"I think we have 3-6 months to advance three objectives:

"First, helping the new Iraqi government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people.

"Second, supporting the Iraqi government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force.

"Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders.

"Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.

"The next three months are critical. We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy, but if clearly-defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear. So a change of course is urgently needed.

I wonder how Jane Harman can avoid thinking that prospects for success have disappeared, given that we're now thirteen months later and Baghdad gets around one-third of the power it did when she made that statement.

Leaving Iraq better than we found it means that we will never leave...

Dems in the Gang of 8's Speak on Meeting with Gonzalez

2007-07-24T22:52:00.000-07:00

I didn't point out before that the Gang of 8 had no authority on its own to authorize the warrantless domestic wiretap program even if it wanted to. However, the idea that Bush Co. could co-opt that group to get bipartisan cover for moving ahead is the problem, even though any supposed 'approval' by them would have meant nothing legally.

Josh Marshall at TPM sums up what the Democrats on the Gang of 8 had to say:

As Spencer Ackerman noted late in the day, three members of the group -- Democrats Daschle, Rockefeller and Pelosi -- said Gonzales' version of events isn't true. In an interview with NPR, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said the same thing -- though she was a little ambiguous, suggesting that her ability to discuss the conversations in question were limited because they were classified.

So all four Democrats say Gonzales' story is bunk.

Harman's interview with NPR (via TPM) is here: Interview (her clip is at 3:30).

The New York Times puts things this way:

Other lawmakers who were not at the hearing but who attended the meeting on March 10, 2004 at the White House, also challenged Mr. Gonzales’s account. Mr. Rockefeller and Representative Jane Harman of California, who in 2004 was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that there was only one N.S.A. program, making Mr. Gonzales’s assertions inaccurate.

“The program had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms. Harman said, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper.

But another member of the Gang of Eight — the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House and of the two Intelligence Committees _— supported Mr. Gonzales’s version. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he confirmed the attorney general’s testimony that the group reached a “consensus” that the disputed intelligence activity should continue and that passing emergency legislation would risk revealing secrets.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who attended the 2004 White House meeting as House Democratic minority leader, said through a spokesman that she did not dispute that the majority of those present supported continuing the intelligence activity. But Ms. Pelosi said she dissented and supported Mr. Comey’s objections at the meeting, said the spokesman, Brendan Daly.

OK, a few things can be said now:

1) Harman says Gonzalez is lying when he claims he was referring to some other program, but is ambiguous as to the claim that the group instructed him to get approval.

2) Harman's statement neither excludes her or includes her as being part of such a consensus on continuing the warrantless wiretapping and to not pursue legislation to properly authorize it.

3) Pelosi said a majority agreed with continuing the program, so unless a Republican objected to the program (not at all likely IMO), then at least one of the remaining Democrats gave the green light: Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller, or Jane Harman.

Political, if not legal, cover was apparently provided in this meeting. Had the Democrats of the group of 8 -- even just one of them, maybe -- simply walked out and said "No, I'm not going to let you get your fig leaf from me", then they not only could have prevented the "Gang of 8", by definition, from approving of the program, but they also would have avoided being gagged from discussing much of the matter due to it being classified. That could have blown away this as a potential cover story, but because they were all there, they area unable to discuss it, while the Bushies can disclose selectively with impunity. Much better to have simply walked out and not be there at all.

Alberto Gonzalez Claims 'Gang of 8' from Congress OK'd Domestic Wiretap Program

2007-07-24T12:00:00.000-07:00

in 2004. This is a new explanation that Gonzalez said this morning why he invaded Ashcroft's hospital room to get him to sign a reauthorization of the unconstitutional warrantless domestic wiretap program. (That is, the program allowing them to spy on anybody they want to - suspected terrorists, reporters, Democrats - without ever having to get approval from a Court or ever say who they spied on)

Jane Harman was on that 'Gang of 8' intel group from Congress at the time.

It'll be interesting to find out if they approved it or not. Her office just said to look for a statement of some sort in the next day.

UPDATE: Here's his testimony from today's hearings.

...And to add - there are two possibilities here:

If that group did not give its approval to the warrantless wiretap program, then all of them should immediately call for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez.

If that group did give its approval to the warrantless wiretap program, then they should all -- including Jane Harman -- immediately resign from Congress for breach of the public's trust.

Stephen Colbert Zings Ben Nelson

2007-07-17T21:40:00.000-07:00

I was rather surprised to see Ben Nelson, the Iraq-war supporting conservative Democrat from Nebraska, would be appearing on the Colbert show. There's really nothing to gain from appearing (he's not selling a book), and he must have known that Colbert would take him apart on the war.

Fortunately, Colbert didn't disappoint.

If you watch till the end, you'll see that Colbert closes the interview by cornering the interviewee with a trick question and then says "Thank you for supporting the president" in a tongue in cheek way. However, this time, the question was no trick and he definitely meant it when he paid Nelson that 'compliment'.

Giving Bush (and Rove) the Benefit of the Doubt, Even When There Is None Left to Give

2007-07-09T22:46:00.000-07:00

Starting from when they let Bin Laden slip away in Afghanistan in December 2001, to the diversion of military resources from going after al-Qaida to invade and occupy Iraq, to Bush saying he doesn't think much about bin Laden, the administration's consistent pattern is one of losing focus on getting al-Qaida. It's never been anywhere near the top of their priority list.

So what the heck is Jane Harman doing acting all surprised at yet another instance when the administration fails to go after al-Qaida?

Rove also faced questions from the audience on Sunday, from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and from Rep. Jane Harman, a Democrat from California who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Both Mitchell and Harman asked Rove about a report in Sunday's New York Times that the CIA was prepared in 2005 to go into Pakistan to capture or kill top al-Qaida members, but that the administration called off the mission so as not to upset the government of Pakistan.

"If the New York Times story today is true, it is enormously disturbing," Harman said. "Is this administration seriously focused on getting the top al-Qaida people or is it not?"

After all this time, and she still can't make a judgment on that. Apparently, until she gets a signed letter to her from Rove and Bush that says they aren't serious about catching al-Qaida, she'll still be unsure what to think.

Rain Distribution - Weather Gods, you need to work on that a little bit

2007-07-07T19:34:00.000-07:00

Clearly y'all are not doing a good job. Otherwise, I doubt we'd be seeing six times more rain fall in one morning in Marble Falls, Texas than Los Angeles has gotten in more than a year. (19 inches vs. 3 inches)

Bloomberg, the Nonpartisan Dream Candidate? Hardly

2007-07-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

It turns out he's about as much of a solid supporter of the NY state GOP as you can get. So much for the "third way" rhetoric.

The Benevolent and Reasonable Department of Homeland Security

2007-07-02T11:05:00.000-07:00

On the plane home last night returning from a family trip to New Orleans, I watched "The Last Mimzy", an interesting kids scifi fantasy movie. The sci-fi elements were a little far fetched, but that was nothing compared to the movie's portrayal of the Department of Homeland Security.

Let me set the scene: A brother and sister find technology transported from the future which they keep with them in their home.

One day, the kids activate the futuristic thingees and cause the whole northwestern US to have a power outage. The DHS traces the outage to their house, and immediately take the family in custody. So far, that makes sense.

The Fed's subsequently analyze the futuristic items and notice nanotechnology in them that the experts say humans are decades or centuries from acquiring. Not to mention they see the girl use the items to create an energy vortex of some sort right in front of them.

Then we get the wonderfully happy ending: The kids manage to escape, use the technology to create a time vortex to return 'untainted' genetic material (a girl's tear) to humankind of the future so that they can be saved from dying out from pollution. And the girl, who was almost pulled into the future, gets saved by her brother and returned safe to her parents.

And not only that - the family doesn't get locked up again, and is free to go, despite the Fed's seeing the unexplained time vortex and the use of unimaginable technology. That, under this government, is the most unbelievable thing about the movie. If only we lived in such a place.

Congressional Repub's Just Now "Speaking Out" on Iraq: Colbert Hits a Home Run

2007-07-02T09:14:00.000-07:00

Tired of hearing people applaud Republicans for vague language about bringing back troops, when these same Republicans opposed Democratic efforts to do things that would actually have caused that to happen?

Then you'll be glad to see this Stephen Colbert piece (via the excellent C&L) on Dick Lugar's recent words about reducing troops in Iraq.

If all it takes to get Democrats excited is a Republican who's going to talk disengagement in Iraq - but who won't vote Yes on Democratic bills that will make that a reality - then they'll continue to get a free ride.

When we hear these sweet-sounding words, the first thing out of our mouths should be, "Where the hell were you when it mattered?", followed up with a reminder of when the next Democratic bill to stop the madness in Iraq will be coming to a vote and an invitation to get on board.

Horrible Preemption Provision Dropped from Energy Bill

2007-07-02T01:12:00.000-07:00

While I wasn't paying attention, Speaker Pelosi got Dingell and Boucher to drop the language from the bill in their committee which would have forbidden the EPA from granting a waiver allowing California to put in place its own tailpipe emissions regulations. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

Back to CA-37 Special Election

2007-06-16T16:58:00.000-07:00

I kind of got away from this race to replace the deceased Juanita Millender-McDonald in the safe-Dem 37th district once it came down to Richardson and Oropeza and McDonald. I was getting a little excited about the possibility of Gerrie Schipske entering the race - but then she backed out. She'd seemed to be not just a strong progressive, but also a viable strong progressive.

Anyways, dday over at Calitics listened to the latest debate and provided a summary of it.

A few items of note:

Oropeza sounded stupidly hawkish on Iran, Richardson had times where she wasn't communicating well, and the moderator did pretty poor at asking questions that would help show differences between these Democrats.

A Strong Pro-Environment Message to John Dingell and Boucher

2007-06-14T00:44:00.000-07:00

This letter sent by Henry Waxman and cosigned by eleven other Democrats on the energy committee sent a signal that they mean business on enacting a green energy bill. The pre-emption provision has definitely got to be dropped - but the letter also identifies another harmful measure in the draft bill that's got to go: subsidies to coal-based liquid fuels. It also urges good provisions to be added.

Even somebody like the odious Al Wynn signed this letter.

It sure would have been nice to see Jane Harman as a signatory on that letter. She wasn't one - why the heck not?

"Harman Opposes Effort to Pre-Empt California's Energy Policy Indepenence"

2007-06-13T08:47:00.000-07:00

That's the headline to the press release on her website dated June 7th.

[...] [Harman said:]“I oppose any legislation that includes such a provision and will introduce an amendment to strike this provision from the Committee bill.”

A bipartisan group of Governors across the country oppose federal efforts to preempt states’ ability to set energy standards. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and seven other governors wrote yesterday that “states are at the forefront of the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our nation’s dependency on carbon-based fuels. . . . Congress must preserve states’ ability to fight greenhouse gas emissions now.”

“I couldn’t agree more,” said Harman. “It will take a partnership between federal and state governments to implement bold change. This preemption provision destroys that partnership.”

I had thought I'd checked her site for announcements on this issue (it might not have been online yet?), and when I called on Monday to ask about why she was saying Pelosi wouldn't have her vote for an alternative bill that didn't have the pre-emption provision in it - if it came to that - nobody referred me to that press release.

Anyways, there's a bit of a mixed signal going on here with her statement to the Sac Bee and in her press release. Perhaps things were in motion where she was on the issue and/or the Sac Bee interpreted things a little far. Both of these items happended at about the same time: The press release is dated June 7th, and the article from the Sacramento Bee is dated June 8th.

The article has Harman saying Pelosi wouldn't have her vote on an energy bill crafted outside the committee, while her very clear statement saying "Congress must preserve states’ ability to fight greenhouse gas emissions now" suggests that all cards are on the table for her, if you assume she believes an energy bill needs to be passed.

Looking ahead, it seems likely that the amendment will fail and the bill that comes out of the committee will still have the pre-emption provision. Meaning that the only way an energy bill will get done that doesn't pre-empt California's energy policy will be if it is drafted outside of Dingell's committee.

If the anti-environmental leadership of this energy committee -- Dingell and Boucher -- know that they've got a bunch of Democratic reps who:

1) will only vote for a bill that comes out of their committee, and
2) believe getting energy bill done is necessary,

then they will be emboldened in forcing the issue on this provision. They will see an end-game where they can get their bill passed because they'll be "the only game in town".

Hopefully Harman will walk back from her statement to the Sac Bee and give notice to those guys that she won't be one of those Democrats -- that is, that she's not taking "any options" off the table to get a good bill done.

California's Attempts to Regulate CO2 To Be Torpedoed with Jane Harman's Help?

2007-06-10T21:50:00.001-07:00

Per the Sacramento Bee:

The debate over legislation to curb global warming opened Thursday in the House, where one of the biggest battles will be whether to sacrifice California's landmark law to institute a national standard.

The opening salvos came at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's energy and air quality panel, which released last week a draft bill that is heavy on development of new fuels but weak on reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, which most scientists believe are the leading cause of global warming.

The most controversial feature of the draft measure is the pre-emption of California's tough new law to lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Pelosi's working around the committee:

The regional divisions over global warming legislation were an early frustration to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. Realizing that Dingell and the energy committee were likely to be a problem on enacting anything like the California law, Pelosi created a separate global warming panel headed by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

But there are a bunch of Democrats on the committee who are apparently going to let California's law get nixed because they don't want their committee to be pre-empted.

But there may be enough votes to pass such a bill out of the energy committee. Waxman wrote a letter to committee leaders chastising the bill Thursday, and it was signed by 11 other committee Democrats. But together those 12 critics don't add up to even half the full committee's Democrats, and represent only about a quarter of the 57-member committee.

Committee approval of the bill could present Pelosi with a huge political dilemma.

Even fellow California Democrat Jane Harman of Venice, who supports retention of California's law, said she opposes any legislative maneuvering that would constitute an "end run" around the committee -- a signal to Pelosi that she will not have Harman's vote for an alternative global warming package coming out of the Markey panel or the House Rules Committee that the speaker controls.

Harman's all big on her phasing out of incandescent lightbulbs, but she'll let Dingell stop California from taking the real lead on global warming? You've got to be kidding me. If she cares about the future of our environment, she'll accept Pelosi's offense of going around the committee as a necessary move for the greater good.

I hope this isn't about getting back at Pelosi for giving Intel Chair to someone else. Not with our environment in the balance.

J.Harman's Words to Klein on Iraq - Why They Matter

2007-06-09T10:11:00.000-07:00

As I discussed in my previous diary:
Jane Harman, despite not telling her constituents publicly before the vote, was going to vote FOR the Iraq supplemental up until the last minute. She'd voted Yes on a supplemental with timelines before. This one was the blank-check version that Bush wanted.

She voted against it in the end and put out a press release that said the argument that this vote was about sending the troops the armor and equipment they need "rubbish".

But the truth is she was for it until practically the very last minute, and she herself equated not voting for the supplemental to not giving the troops the armor they need.

And, to top it all off, even after having voted No, she said she hadn't changed her thinking on that.

Joe Klein's subsequent post leaves no doubt that Harman said what he reported her to say, because he goes on the attack against bloggers by citing them for doubting him on that point. Like his earlier posts, this post of his is disingenuous and deceitful in a lot of ways, but not on this point. Harman did give Klein the quote he says she did.

Klein's essentially saying: the fact that Jane Harman's words sound so outrageous and untrue given the way she voted is not my fault, it's hers.

Remember, Jane Harman accuses people voting against the bill as so uncaring for troops that they would not give them the armor they need to protect themselves from frakking IED's. And then she voted against the bill herself.

But that's not the worst of it. The situation isn't that she realized she was buying into pro-administration talking points and came to her senses at the last minute. That would be bad enough to have to admit that what you believed a few minutes ago is wrong, because people would use it as ammunition to attack the position you now support. That's not what happened here - she didn't "see the light" at the last minute. Exactly the opposite, in fact. She did what her anti-war constituents wanted; she didn't change her mind.

Even after her No vote and her press release that called such thinking "manipulation" and "rubbish", she said she still stood behind what she said to Klein [that no vote = denying troops armor]. I surmise that she must reconcile herself to how her thinking clashes with her vote by looking to the fact that the bill was going to pass despite her voting no. (There's no way she thought that her vote would actually cause troops to go without armor - nobody could live with themselves if they held that belief and voted No.)

Thus she has the luxury of having it both ways -- letting her vote and press release say one thing, and having her statements to Klein assert the exact opposite.

But why does what she say matter, you may ask, when she voted the right way on the supplemental and even on the rules for debate that could have scuttled the bill. The reason what she says matters is that it prolongs the war, despite her votes in this case

The fact is that a supplemental putting real restrictions still would have been needed to be passed through the House and the Senate even if this blank-check was torpedoed by the rules of debate, and there simply weren't the votes in the Senate to keep trying.

To change that, the terms of the debate themselves needed (and still need) to change. There never will be the votes to end this occupation so long as putting restrictions on funding = cutting funds for the troops.

And Harman isn't just not speaking out to counter that argument, she's legitimizing these talking pointsto this very day to "concerned liberals" like Joe Klein who make the most of them to beat down Democrats. The "facts" Klein makes up to support his view - like saying Obama and Clinton changed their vote on the supplemental for example - are not going to be damaging (other than to Klein's reputation as a journalist) over the long run. But when he's got a real Democrat - especially a high profile Democrat on military matters - endorsing his "Dems are irresponsible" narrative with her actual (not made up) words, then Klein gets the "proof" that this narrative is truthful. And that's a lot harder to overcome.

And because Harman can't bring herself to renounce this thinking even after voting No on the supplemental, then she's delaying the end of our occupation of Iraq instead of helping it to happen - no matter her No votes in this case.

Clear Difference Between Oropeza & Richardson on Gay Rights

2007-05-20T00:34:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: I originally used quotes around the words Clear Daylight in the diary title. To avoid confusion, I've edited it, as I believe the facts presented show there's clear differences between the two candidates - after all, only three years ago Richardson is saying she's against gay marriage, while two years ago Oropeza was the co-author on a bill to authorize gay marriage.).

The 37th district is extremely blue and it's clear whichever of the Democratic favorites wins (Jenny Oropeza or Laura Richardson), she is going to vote the way progressives would want her to vote most of the time. On most issues, they'd vote similarly.

On gay rights, though, there appears to be a clear difference between them:

Kuehl also noted that when Richardson was on the Long Beach City Council, she voted against a resolution to oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

At the time, in 2004, Richardson said she opposed gay marriage.

Oropeza, by contrast, was a co-author of the 2005 bill to allow gay marriage in California. The bill passed both houses of the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a race in which Richardson and Oropeza can be expected to agree far more often than they differ, the gay rights issue appears to create some daylight between them.

If this difference between them is being characterized fairly, I'd say that's reason enough to get off the fence and support Oropeza if gay rights are important to you.

UPDATE: L.B. Press-Telegram reports Oropeza gets endorsement of Democratic Party.

State Sen. Jenny Oropeza won the Democratic Party's endorsement for the 37th Congressional District on Saturday, demonstrating her strength among grassroots activists.

The party's backing is an important stamp of approval in a district dominated by Democratic voters, and could bolster Oropeza's crew of door-knockers and phone bank volunteers.

Oropeza took 119 of the 168 ballots cast by party delegates, or 71 percent, easily reaching the 60 percent threshold needed to win the party's backing.

Assemblywoman Laura Richardson, Oropeza's top rival, trailed with 45 votes in polling of party delegates at a union hall in Gardena.

Not sure if this is the state or national party giving endorsement.

In any case, most of the delegates are from out of the district, as the Richardson campaign points out, so it is not a good representation of the views of district activists or voters. The significance is in the resources which will go to Oropeza as a result - both officially from the party as well as from Democrats for whom this endorsement carries weight.

Order of the Ballot for CA-37 Special Election

2007-05-19T21:25:00.000-07:00

I noticed on the LA County Registrar-Recorder's helpful Calendar of Events (warning: PDF) for the 37th Special Election that the Randomized Alphabet Drawing by the Secretary of State had happened last Tuesday.

The results are here. (PDF)

Based on the drawing, the ballot order for the Democrats appears to be (major candidates bolded):

Mervin Evans
Ed Wilson
Laura Richards
Bill Francisco Grisolia
Jenny Oropeza
Lee Davis
Felicia Ford
Peter Mathews
Valerie McDonald
George Parmer
Jeffrey Price

I doubt it'll make any difference, since the people voting in this special election are already committed voters, not "just pick the first name I recognize" voters, but there it is anyways.

Earl Ofari Hutchison Gets It Right

2007-05-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

The black political power structure has been very involved in trying to determine the chosen black candidate. Earl Ofari Hutchison says what's been happening since Millender-McDonald passed away is disgusting:

The tragic and untimely death of California Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald ignited a raw outburst of political jockeying by local politicians to fill her seat that hasn’t been seen in years.

It was a near textbook case of unchecked ambitions, egos, opportunism, and pure naked publicity seeking run rampant.

The spectacle was appalling, disgraceful and totally disrespectful to the beloved congresswoman’s family members and legions friends who barely had time to mourn her passing before being stampeded by the pack of hungry wanna-be office seekers and climbers.

He follows by making a very perceptive observation that gets lost in all the jockeying:

The idea though in picking a viable black candidate is to insure that another black fills the seat held by Millender-McDonald.

The rationale is that blacks are so under-represented politically that the loss of that seat to a non-black would further dilute black political power, and also that a black officeholder best understands the needs and problems of black constituents. The real, but unstated, reason is the great fear that a Latino will get the seat and will tilt toward Latino interests.

But Millender-McDonalds’ district is a multi-ethnic district, and non-black elected officials have represented Los Angeles, state and congressional districts with a significant number of black constituents for decades; and in many cases quite effectively. If black elected officials are in any peril of losing offices, they must do some deep soul searching as to why that is.

The whole article is worth reading.

CA-37 - Do Gay/Lesbian Issues Differentiate Candidates?

2007-05-16T23:32:00.001-07:00

On support for the LGBT community, it would appear that there are differences between Laura Richardson and Jenny Oropeza, and it's starting to get noticed:

As far as MadProfessah can discern, Richardson is not a co-sponsor of any of the California LGBT community's major legislative priorities in the State Legislature: Mark Leno's AB 43 (Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) or Kuehl's SB 777 (Student Civil Rights Act) or John Laird's AB 14 (Civil Rights Act of 2007). A lack of such sponsorship does not mean that she's homophobic, but since most of the Democratic caucus is signed on to all or at least one of these pieces of legislation it is significant that Richardson's name is nowhere to be seen, especially considering she represents a district which is putting on the third largest gay and lesbian pride celebration in the country this weekend.

The diary just quoted was frontpaged enthusiastically at this major LGBT blog by the blogowner herself (as you can see by the introductory note in parentheses), and she called for Richardson to 'clear the air' on where she stands on pending LGBT legislation.

If it turns out that the LGBT community and straight allies supporting equal rights for LGBT folks sense some real differences between the candidates, they could play a big role. Speaking to that point, the lesbian blogowner Pam referenced above is of color herself.

Field Set; Schipske Pulls Out

2007-05-15T22:27:00.000-07:00

Per the LA Times, 19 candidates are in.

The ones that have the shot at it are Valerie McDonald, Laura Richardson, and Jenny Oropeza.

Right as the filing period closed, Gerrie Schipske announced she's not filing so she can focus on representing her LB district. The LB Press-Telegram thinks quotes one local campaign advisor speculating that she was pressured out by the black caucus to help clear the field for Richardson.

I don't know if that's spin or not, but I wouldn't presume that to be the case without more sources. Are people who would have voted for Schipske move to Richardson instead of Oropeza? After all, there is a little history between Richardson and Schipske:

Kuehl's letter underscores the continuing bad blood between the gay community and Richardson over campaign mailers that went out in a Democratic primary battle more than 10 years ago. Richardson's critics say her campaign crossed the line with anti-gay statements when she unsuccessfully ran for the Assembly in 1996.

In the race, Richardson lost in a Democratic primary to Gerrie Shipske, who is openly gay. And bad feelings from Richardson's campaign in that race continue to reverberate.

Kuehl, who is a lesbian, sent a letter out Monday denouncing Richardson and urging recipients to support Oropeza. Kuehl said "Oropeza has long been a friend to the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community," and that Richardson's earlier campaign mailers "were filled with homophobic hate speech so shocking that many of her biggest supporters withdrew their endorsements of her candidacy."

The mailer, sent by Richardson during her 1996 Assembly run against Gerrie Schipske, accused her opponent of being "committed to the radical gay agenda" and "strongly backed by ultra-liberal Santa Monica Assemblymember Sheila Kuehl, the Assembly's only openly gay member."

The mailer was so aggressive that it cost Richardson support, said Parke Skelton, a consultant to both Kuehl and Oropeza. "A number of [Richardson's] major supporters saw that and withdrew their endorsements," he said.

It's of note that the Schipske withdrawal from the race came after the filing period ended, so nobody else could jump in. Also, Sheila Kuehl's letter attacking Richardson for her anti-gay campaigning in a race against Schipske was on the same day Schipske dropped out. It'll be interesting to see if Schipske takes a hands off approach to the race or makes an endorsement.

More Local Coverage on CA-37

2007-05-12T05:46:00.000-07:00

The LA Times covers the race today, although only to talk about the maneuvering to decide on the black candidate for the race. Hopefully as the field gets determined they'll focus on the positions of the candidates.

The LB Press-Telegram reports more on Schipske and on the entrance of Ed Wilson into the race. They give a couple graphs on his bio:

Wilson became the first African-American to be elected to Signal Hill's City Council, and he later became the city's first black mayor.

"People want someone they can get excited about," said Wilson, who served as Signal Hill's mayor twice, once in the late 1990s and again two years ago.

Wilson moved to Signal Hill from Long Beach in 1993. He lived in Long Beach from 1985 to 1992.

He earned his CPA while working as an auditor for the accounting firm KPMG. He earned his degree in accounting from USC in 1984.

"People want change in government," he said, adding, "I would point to Signal Hill as an example. We're seen as one of the most fiscally sound cities in the state of California because we look at long-term planning issues."

I'm thinking the public effort to "narrow the field" to produce the one black candidate is backfiring - it's not just that you now have three bigger-name black candidates in the race; you also have a topic the press is going to glom onto at the expense of coverage of the black candidates' actual campaigns.

The "black community fights amongst itself to determine candidate" topic is really juicy and easy to cover and there's a danger that this fight will get all the ink (or air time). Today's LA Times piece is likely going to be just the first of many examples of this. We can't forget that the election is going to be in less than a month and a half, and absentee voters will be getting their ballots ahead of that. There's really no time to waste on getting the message out, and I'm sure McDonald, Richardson and Wilson would rather not be competing with this juicy angle available to reporters so that they can get coverage that will actually help their campaigns.

-------------

On the candidate front, the Press-Telegram breaks the news that LB councilwoman Suja Lowenthal is not going to run and that Richardson and Oropeza are the only Democrats to have officially filed.

Time's running short to file (I believe everything's got to be in on Monday), but I presume all these folks (Schipske, McDonald, Wilson) have everything lined up to file by the deadline.