Brooks Brings in Big Name to Dole Out Criticism of Harman’s Record

BIGWIG FOR BROOKS: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole(R-Kan.) stumped for Rancho Palos Verdes Councilwoman Susan Brooks last weekend in her campaign for Congress against Rep. Jane Harman (D-Rolling Hills).

At a fund-raiser Saturday at Manhattan Beach Country Club, he tied Harman to President Clinton, a favorite theme of Republican challengers across the country this season as Clinton’s popularity sags. Dole cited a survey from Congressional Quarterly, which showed that Harman voted with Clinton 90% of the time in 1993.

“If you support President Clinton 80, 90% of the time, 90% in this case, you are on the endangered species list all across America,” Dole said. “I don’t think the American people support President Clinton 90% of the time. In most states it’s 25% or 30%.”

Dole held up a Time magazine photo of a smiling Harman and Clinton after the House narrowly voted to back his deficit-reduction plan last year. Brooks has started using the picture in her campaign literature.

“It’s bad enough you had to vote for it but don’t look happy about it,” Dole said to the crowd of 135 people, most of whom paid $250 per plate.

Many of those votes include programs helpful to the South Bay, including funding for the production of military aircraft, said Harman spokesman Roy Behr.

Dole’s appearance was as much to boost Brooks’ stature as it was to attack Harman. Dole gave Brooks a check for $2,500. On his way to the airport after the event he promised her campaign manager, John Perkins, that the National Republican Congressional Committee would give financial support to the race as well.

“Every party from time to time has a good election cycle, and this is a good election cycle for us,” Dole said. “If we don’t make the most of it, it is our fault.”

*

PUTTIN’ ON THE RITZ: Harman escalated her attacks on Brooks at a fund-raiser she held Friday with five other female members of the U.S. House’s freshman class.

Harman chided Brooks on several issues and questioned her commitment to abortion rights. Many Republicans say Harman gained crossover votes two years ago because her opponent, then-Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, did not favor abortion rights.

“My opponent in this race opposes federal funding of abortions for poor women, opposes the assault weapons ban, opposes the crime bill and was once quoted as saying that Congress doesn’t have any jurisdiction over abortion,” she said at the Ritz-Carlton in Marina del Rey. “She’s wrong on all counts.”

Brooks believes that funding of abortions is better made at the local level or by private groups, her campaign manager said. She also supports state funding of Planned Parenthood programs.

In the crowd of about 270 people supporting Harman were Nancy Daly, close friend of Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, and Ron Florance Jr., the son of Brooks’ challenger in the June Republican primary.

*

GAME OF CHICKEN: It was one of the few times Brooks and Harman have crossed paths: A town hall gathering of South Bay officials in Palos Verdes Estates.

Both were at the Malaga Cove Library to listen to Sally Katzen, a representative of the federal Office of Management and Budget, who tried to allay complaints that the federal government imposes laws on cities but doesn’t give them any money to implement them. A recent example is the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires cities to improve handicapped access.

There were few fireworks. Brooks asked Harman if her campaign paid for Katzen’s air fare. In answering no, Harman shot back: “This is not a campaign event.”

But participants needed only to look outside to see electioneering. Just out a window, someone dressed as a chicken paced back and forth.

The faux-poultry is the Brooks campaign’s way of saying that Harman will not agree to a one-on-one debate, as opposed to a League of Women Voters forum scheduled for Oct. 2. Harman’s campaign says the upcoming event will be debate enough.

As for the chicken, Harman spokesman Roy Behr just laughs.

*

WHO’S THE NRA?: South Bay lawmakers who supported gun control legislation could have a new political action group to reckon with: a local chapter of the National Rifle Assn.

Gun rights advocates formed the NRA Members Council of the South Bay several months ago to become more active in local politics. (It also plans a community program to teach gun safety).

A possible target: Rep. Harman, who backed a five-day waiting period for gun ownership and voted last month for the crime bill, which includes a ban on assault weapons.

“It will not be difficult to get anyone to volunteer against Jane Harman, I can tell you that,” said Ed Worley, coordinator of NRA Members Councils in California.

But the new chapter’s parent group has not not endorsed Brooks, who opposes attempts to restrict gun ownership, with conditions.

“She doesn’t see a need for the proliferation of weapons of destruction,” said Brooks’ campaign manager, John Perkins. Brooks “would not turn away” NRA support, Perkins said, but, he added, “we want to make sure that they know her position.”

*

BOILING POINT: In most years, the campaign for a seat on the board of a water district captures very little interest. Candidates rarely campaign. Incumbents often go unchallenged.

Not this year in the West Basin Municipal Water District. Recently, incumbent Charles Stuart and challenger Robert Katherman went to Torrance Superior Court to put an end to a dispute over Katherman’s ballot statement. Three other candidates for the seat were not involved.

Judge William C. Beverly ordered the registrar of voters to remove a paragraph in Katherman’s statement that charged that Stuart received $16,000 to attend meetings, water conservation ceremonies and out-of-town conventions. Katherman quoted a local newspaper as his source.

Stuart, who has been on the board since 1987, said the passage distorted the truth. He said his $16,000 pay was not only for his work with the West Basin district, but also as a director on the Metropolitan Water District and other committees. He denied that he went on junkets or luxurious trips.

“I was very pleased,” Stuart said of the judge’s order.

And surprisingly, Katherman agreed. He said he is now convinced that Stuart was fairly paid, and that it would have been “inappropriate” to include the paragraph in his statement.

Katherman tried to get his name taken off the ballot, but it was too late. He now says he is endorsing Stuart.