Paul Rosenberg posted a
diary here last night (cross-posted at
MyDD today), on how Bush-friendly, NSA wiretap-enabling, pro-war "Blue Dog" Democratic congresswoman
Jane Harman (
Wikipedia entry here) will be facing a primary challenge this year from
Marcy Winograd, President of
Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles.
Given how shamefully weak "Democrats" like Harman have been in standing up to Bush and the GOP's massive and numerous lies, terrible crimes and gross incompetence, I'm glad to see a real Democrat taking her on. The "Joe Lieberman" wing of the Democratic party has got to either shape up or go.
More below the fold.
From Rosenberg's diary:
Marcy Winograd Challenges Blue Dog Jane Harman's Seat
by Paul Rosenberg
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:24:56 PM PST
I just found out today that Marcy Winograd, President of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, has stepped up to challenge conservative Blue Dog Democrat Jane Harman in the Democratic Primary for the 36th Congressional District in California.
Not only is Harman pro-war, as Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee, she was one of those briefed on the illegal NSA spying. She is fully complicit in a wide range of Bush Administration policies, and can only credibly criticize him on narrow tactical grounds at best.
In contrast, Winograd's website paints a very different picture:
As a congresswoman, Marcy would immediately join the "Out of Iraq" caucus in Congress, vote to defund the war, and lobby to spend the war billions on social programs for education, health care, housing and the environment. "The best intelligence, the most effective defense against terrorism," says Winograd, "is to craft a sound foreign policy and build strong social networks that unite, rather than divide, the world community. Pre-emptive wars that kill and maim thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis will only create more terrorists and undermine our security. It is time for a new vision and a new leader in the 36th Congressional District."
...
I will not pretend that Harman is as bad as Lieberman. But, then, she doesn't have as a high a profile, ergo she doesn't have the position to be as bad as Lieberman. But she's bad enough, and her position is high enough. At the very least, she should be challenged, and forced to defend her record to the Democrats in the district she is supposed to represent. Marcy Winograd represents that challenge.
I posted an open letter diary to Harman last month as a response to her own diary the same day, in which I strongly criticized her very weak to nonexistant opposition to the NSA wiretaps, which she made blatantly obvious in her weak and shameful Meet the Press appearance the previous Sunday (transcript here) with former senator Tom Daschle.
Her position on the wiretaps is that it is absolutely necessary and legitimate, and merely needs to be brought under congressional oversight. I.e. she'll rubber-stamp the wiretap program so long as she's kept up to date on its operations. She has not, though, accused it of being in violation of both FISA and the constitution, nor Bush of having broken the law repeatedly, as an overwhelming majority of legal scholars have contended.
From her Meet the Press appearance:
...I support the program, I've never flinched from that.
...I still support the program, but it needs to be on a sounder legal footing.
...This is not a covert action program, this is a very valuable foreign collection program, and I'm--I think it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers.
Is she even a Democrat? And she's a lawyer! What is it with these weak-kneed, pro-Bush "Democrats"? Do they really believe what they're saying, or is it all just political posturing to protect their seats, even if it's at the expense of what's best for the party and nation? Or am I being too harsh on Harman?
I'm not sure how good a chance Winograd has of defeating Harman, and if she does, of then winning the seat. But as Kos and others have been emphasizing repeatedly, we need to apply massive pressure on Democratic incumbants who either will not lead and do the right thing, or who actually support Bush's horrible policies. If they won't shape up on their own, we've got to either force them to shape up, or replace them with better candidates.