Winograd vs. Harman: A Choice, Not An Echo

by Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

This June, there is a real choice about the direction the Democratic Party should take in the 36th Congressional District. Whichever way you think it should go, you owe it to yourself to understand just what that choice is. That is the essence of our democracy.

In 2006, grassroots activist Marcy Winograd, a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America [PDA] challenged incumbent Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA-36) in the Democratic primary, primarily because of Harman's support for Bush's war policies―including erosion of civil liberties at home. She won 38 percent of the vote after a very short, 3-month campaign. This campaign cycle, Winograd started much earlier.

Last month, Harman's media spokesman, Harvey Englander told Politico.com that "Winograd and the PDA have no issues to campaign on”. We don't believe that's true, given Harman's relatively conservative voting record on the one hand, and the kind of support Winograd has garnered on the other. We believe there's a story to be told about the campaign. But when we tried to interview Harman along with Winograd, Harman refused, just as she has refused to debate Winograd. Thus, what follows, for the most part, are the questions we put to Winograd, with her responses (edited for brevity), followed by relevant aspects of Harman's record―including the most objective measures readily available of her voting record. The most objective overall measure, known as “DW-NOMINATE” is considered the gold standard in political science, but it only applies to roll-call voting records as a whole. Progressive Punch uses a similar―not identical―methodology for ordering legislators from liberal/progressive to conservative (as well as generating voting percentages), but it also generates measures for issue areas and sub-areas. As described below, both measures combine to provide ample evidence that Harman is significantly more conservative than her district's constituents.

We take this approach even though it is problematic, as San Pedro Democratic Club President David Greene―a Winograd supporter―explained: “Comparing records looking backwards can miss something important. Marcy has a real genius in terms of finding issues, such as getting stars and public officials to voluntarily stop using the Santa Monica Airport when the FAA wouldn't act. I think that's one of the things that's certainly appealing to me about her being a representative, is that she can kind of sense the pulse of community concerns and take creative action.”

Ultimately, it is up to you, the voters, to decide.

RLN: Four years ago, Harman's support for the war was a leading issue, but this time it seems there are a lot more issues, not less. What would you say are the top issues on which you disagree?

Marcy Winograd: I would say the top issue is how we want to invest our resources. Do we want to invest our resource in allowing Wall Street to hike our credit card rates, punish us for medical bankruptcy, foreclose on our homes, gamble with our pensions, attack our Social Security. Or do we want to invest our resources in our street, and our daily needs--housing, health care, education, and job creation.

Harman spokesman Harvey Englander told Politico.com on April 8, "Winograd and the PDA [Porgrerssive Democrats of America] have no issues to campaign on.”

Harman's DW-NOMINATE rank (with 1 being most liberal/progressive) was 143 for last year, and 133.5 for the last 9 years, averaged, slightly more conservative than the average Democrat, but hailing from a strong Democratic district. Political Punch ranked her 137 last year (159 for “crucial votes”) and 201 lifetime (168 for “crucial votes”). Compared to her district, Harman was rated -11.72 points, ranking her 184 (again with 1 most progressive). If she had matched her district, she would have ranked 105, and if she had been just as progressive compared to her district as she was conservative, she would have ranked 6.

RLN: How does your stance on issues of war and peace differ from Jane Harman's?

MW: Jane Harmen has been a virtual lobbyist for war profiteers. She took us to war in Iraq, voting against the majority of Democrats who opposed the invasion. She failed in her duties to provide oversight in the House Intelligence Committee as the ranking minority member. She either didn't read the intelligence reports that questioned that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or she ignored those reports. Either way it's not a good sign. She questions the effectiveness of the US occupation of Afghanistan, and yet she continues to vote for it. it. She has worked hard to get federal dollars to create more and more weapons. We have enough weapons to destroy the earth ten times over. What we need are federal dollars to expand the reach of aerospace, to create jobs in the new green economy. One of the other central issues in this race is we need to transition from a war economy to a green economy.

For every occupation there's a counter-insurgency, so, in that she has been a virtual lobbyists for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan--and now Yemen--she has been part of the problem of multiplying our enemies around the globe.

Harman's Record: On October 10, 2002, Harman was one of 81 Democrats who voted for to authorize the use of force in Iraq, 126 Democrats voted against. She was also one of 60 Democrats who voted against an amendment that would have required a second vote before invading without UN authorization. Since then, Harman's record has been mixed, sometimes voting for war funding, sometimes against.

Her lifetime Progressive Punch score on “all war & peace votes” is 77.48%, for a rank of 177. For “general military spending” her 65.31% record ranks her 210, and for “missile defense systems” her 34.62% record ranks her 230. According to Opensecrets.org, she has received $754,883 from the defense sector since 1992, more than any business sector except for FIRE (finance, insurance & real estate) and communications/electronics, the source of her family fortune.

RLN: Perhaps the dominant issue to emerge since you ran in 2006 is the economy. How do you differ from Harman in terms of what you advocate, regarding Wall Street, Main Street, economic recovery and ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again?

MW: Primarily I support transitioning from a war economy to a new green economy, expanding the reach of aerospace to create jobs building rapid transit, constructing solar cities, wind farms and fixing our failing infrastructure. In term of Wall Street, Jane Harman has had $1-5 million invested in Goldman Sachs. She voted for the onerous bankruptcy bill. She voted even more recently to make it impossible for bankruptcy court judges to modify mortgages for those facing foreclosure, and she voted for repeal of the estate tax. So clearly Jane Harman stands with Wall Street. She's a great ally for the banking institutions.

I consider myself a fighter for working families, I'm not taking a dime of corporate money, because I don't want to be beholden to any corporations. I want to work for the people. I challenged my opponent to stand with me in calling for even tougher financial legislation. I think that the current bill is a good beginning, or should we say is a start. But we could go beyond this. I hope that when I'm in Congress to be successful in pressing for even greater reform, specifically we should not allow any bank to have more than 10% of our national deposits.

I also question why didn't my opponent recuse herself from the bailout vote, given that according to her more recent financial statements she had more upwards of $1 million to $5 million invested in Goldman-Sachs?”

Harman has cast a lot of good votes, along with the stinkers that Winograd cites. The more recent bill Winograd refers to was House Amendment 534 to House Resolution 4173, a roll-call vote on December 11, 2009. Harman was one of 71 Democrats to vote with 170 Republicans (out of 177) to defeat the amendment, described by Thomas―the online Library of Congress guide―as “an amendment... to allow bankruptcy courts to extend repayment periods, reduce excessive interest rates and fees, and adjust the principal balance of the mortgage to a home’s fair market value.”

Harman has a Progressive Punch lifetime score of 85.17% in the category of “government checks on corporate power," for a rank of 181. For checking the power of the securities/brokerage industry, she scored 76.19% for a rank of 191, and for banks/credit card companies, she scored 82.28% for a rank of 188. However, she also had a perfect 100% score, tying her for first, in a number of areas: auto & truck renting/leasing, broadcast media, hospitals, lobbyists, military contractors, nuclear industry, railroads, telecommunications and tobacco.

Harman has received $1,129,059 from the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) sector since 1992, according to OpenSecrets.org―the most for her of any business sector.

RLN: On health care, people's reactions to health care reform passed earlier this still seemed rather mixed, as some of the most popular ideas never got a full hearing. There's clearly a sense that more will need to be done. What's your position on where we should go from here on healthcare?

MW: My position is that we have to do everything we can to protect the right of states to enact single-payer health care, and I hope that California will be one of the first to enact the most economical system of all, which is a publicly-funded, privately delivered system.

I think as time passes and this bill is implemented we may see even greater demand for a single-payer system. So I encourage those who are fighting for single-payer to continue, because our day will come.

Harman voted for the Democratic healthcare reform bill, as well as supporting a public option. But she did not support Kucinich's amendment to allow states to enact single-payer systems, as California's state legislature has twice voted to do. Local lawmakers who did support Kucinich included Laura Richardson, Diane Watson, Loretta Sanchez and Maxine Waters.

Harman's Progressive Punch score on “all health care votes” was 91.49%, for a rank of 159. Her score on “access to health insurance" was 95.65% for a rank of 189.

RLN: Labor and the environment represent two important progressive constituencies. What are the key issues or concerns you've focused on regarding each―and how have you combined them in your advocacy for a New Green Deal?

MW: If we want massive federal job creation in our country, we have to cut this ever-expanding military budget, which is now nearly a trillion dollars. If we want to create jobs for a sustainable future, we need to invest in alternative energy development, which will ultimately produce far more jobs than spending the same amount of money on new weapons. Job creation, which is one of the primary concerns of organized labor, and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. We can save our environment while creating more jobs building solar cities, rebuilding our bridges, maintaining our ports, and constructing mass transit to get us where we really want to go―sustainability.

Harman's Progressive Punch scores on labor and the environment don't seem that bad, until they're compared to other Democrats. She scores 87.55% on the environment, for a rank of 162, and 80.14% on labor rights, for a rank of 225. Although she's voted repeatedly against routine GOP attempts to undermine labor―such as rollbacks of prevailing wage provisions―she voted with the GOP on July 26, 2002, creating the Department of Homeland Security with restrictions on the labor rights of public employees in the department―rights they had previously had. She was a no-show for the congressional hearing on the Clean Trucks Program last week, continuing the pattern of letting Laura Richardson, a relative newcomer to Congress, carry the torch on pressing port issues.

RLN: Your professional background is as a teacher, and while education hasn't gotten a lot of attention in national politics lately, no one doubts how important it is. What do you think needs to be done on the education front?

MW: I would start by repealing 'No Child Left Behind', which is a test-driven initiative that has not worked. We see kids and teachers out of class who are not motivated by testing and retesting. Certainly we need accountability and clear expectations, but we don't need as system that is punitive in nature, and not joyful. Learning should be stimulating and exciting, not drudgery.

I would like to propose a new national educational initiative that would invest massive resources in early literacy. I also support Obama's efforts to set up small learning communities in high school. I want to reaffirm our national commitment to affordable higher education.

We are seeing the dismantling of public education in America, and that's tragic, because it has the potential to equal the playing field and to provide everyone with an opportunity to succeed. I do not think the answer is the for-profit charter schools, or faith-based schools, or military schools. Our youth deserve better.

Public education is not a business, it was never designed to be a business. It is an investment in our youth and our future.

Harman has consistently voted against funding vouchers for private schools, tying for a first place rank in that Progressive Punch subcategory, but her overall score for “all education, humanities, & the arts votes” is 90.59% for a rank of 169, and her score for general education funding is 90.54%, for a rank of 173. She voted for “No Child Left Behind” in 2001, and although she has objected to the subsequent underfunding of the program, she remains committed to the flawed test-driven approach.

RLN: Jane Harman is very closely associated with AIPAC―the American Israel Public Affairs Committee―but there's long been a significant difference between AIPAC and the majority opinion of American Jews. How do you think we can help accomplish a political resolution in Israel/Palestine similar to that achieved in Northern Ireland?

MW: I think we need to support ordinary Palestinians and Israelis who are working together and who want to work together for peace--be they educators, or entrepreneurs or or community leaders. Unfortunately, political leaders on both sides have failed us, have not bridged the gap.

I consider myself a Jewish woman of conscience. I believe in equality and justice for all, and condemn the Isreali settlements, the Gaza blockade, as well as, of course, as the rockets fired on southern Israel. I'm a realist. I'll support a peace agreement that both side can agree to in the future, but ultimately, I would like to see everybody live as equals.

Harman is so closely allied with AIPAC (the American Israel Political Action Committee) that last year it was reported she had been secretly taped offering to “waddle in” to influence an espionage case involving former AIPAC staffers. But a majority of American Jews disagrees with AIPAC's hardline views. Harman recently joined the vast majority of representatives signing an AIPAC letter saying there must be "no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space."

But a mid-March poll of American Jews found that 86 percent wsupport“the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with boththe Israelis and the Arabs”--a position directly at odds with the AIPAC letter, and identical to Winograd's evenhanded position.

Conclusion

Harman's positions described above reflect her actual record, but records tend to get blurred during campaigns, as David Greene pointed out: “What has been notable has been the movement on the issues. Marcy has broken new ground and addressed new issues, but also stressed the issues that mean the most to Democrats. And Jane Harman has moved left in response. Jane Harman's positions are being shaped by Marcy being in the race.”

Don't just take our word for it, unless we have already earned your trust over the years, and you choose to trust us because of that. If you have any doubts, by all means go and check the record for yourself. Democracy depends on an informed, engaged electorate. A free press can help to create that, but only the voters themselves ultimately have the power to inform themselves and vote accordingly.