Punish the CAFTA 15

    Enough. Enough. Enough. If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard.

    Not a single one of those cowardly 15 should receive a dime more of labor money. Not a single phone call should be made on their behalf. No labor endorsment should grace their re-election literature. They must pay.

    Not just on behalf of American workers. But, on behalf of the millions of workers who live in Central America for whom this is a bad deal, too. If we're going to talk about global solidarity, this is where we can practice it. If we're going to send letters to the Democratic Party and talk tough, we have to follow through.

    So, here is the roll-call of the 15 so-called Democrats, with their office telephone numbers. Print this list out and send it to everybody on your lists:

Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711

Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311

Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916

Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640

Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531

William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636

Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011

Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): 202-225-3461

Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865

Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376

Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742

Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876

Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506

John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714

Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936

    So, here's how to make it real:

1. Today, on the last day of the AFL-CIO convention, delegates should demand that a new resolution pass which states simply (with all the obvious "whereas" stuff): Resolved, no labor resources, financial or human, shall be expended on behalf of the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA.

2. Every CLC and State Federation should, at their very next meeting, pass a similar resolution, send the text to the pathetic so-called Democrat and take out an ad in the local newspaper which includes the text of the resolution and the reasoning behind it.

3. Look for people who stand up for workers. Let's find primary opponents to run against every one of the 15 so-called Democrats--knock off just one or two and watch the party tremble...you want to play in politics, it's time to get rough and bloody some noses.

Comments

[cris moreland]

you all missed the boat. you all should be talking on how to get rid of the trilateralist in both paries. search yahoo and google about trilateralism,oyu'll see how our government is ccomforming to the doctrines of trilateralism

[NathanHJ]

Bill:

I get where you are coming from and while my point was about the mechanics of connecting a core issue with politics, your's is about what are those core issues. And I agree with you. Very few workers who haven't gone through an intensive leadership development and political educatin process are going to name CAFTA as a core issue in their lives. From a movement perspective, punishing the CAFTA 15 would be a core issue, but, well, it ain't a movement folks! A more visceral set of issues are needed to mobilize workers. Things like raising the minimum wage, decent education for the kids, health care, etc.

Having said all that I don't want to seem like I'm selling workers short because I know if, given the propoer tools and context, they can and do make very sophisticated judgements and connections.

[Tasini]

I lean to Nathan's point. I've been pretty clear about the shortcomings in federal electoral politics. But, I think, while we're playing in the arena, the question becomes one of perception that can flow into organizing campaigns. That is, does organized labor have enough...ahem...balls to take out people who spit in its face? If I'm a non-union worker in the midst of an organizing campaign and I am surrounded by information that tells me that labor's own allies (yes, we here know that these politicians are whores) stick a finger in labor's eyes and I don't see labor making at least an effort to whack back, what gives me confidence that unions will go to the mat for me in a fight for my job?

BTW, to go back to points a few people have made--by all means, let's not forget the Republicans who voted for the deal. And, as for targeting the Senate Democrats who bailed on labor, I posted their names back when that happened. But, just to be practical, the Senate has always been far more pro- so-called "free trade", the changes were slim that CAFTA could be stopped in the Senate (unlike the House, where it was defeated on the merits but passed because of deal-making/bribery) and, finally, it's just a whole lot easier to target a single Congressional district--financially and organizationally--than an entire state.

[realdeal]

Tasini, now there is a great idea. Draw arbitrary lines in the sand on issues like DR-CAFTA that force Members to do what you feel is right ("poke you in the eye"), even if they do what you feel is right on 95% of other issues, and then "punish" them so you end up with more R's in office, who care less about your lines in the sand. The vast majority of the folks above on this string, who clearly have stopped logging in because of the sense of boredom that derives from baseless threats like this, had better ideas about what needs to get done.

Still no one even mentioning the ILO mechanisms included in the DR-CAFTA agreement, the first time ever the ILO has been invited in trading partner countries to ensure that labor rights are taught, protected, enforced and reported upon. Still no one even mentioning that the ILO -- you know, the group that is designed to monitor core labor standards in the global system -- sees this as a huge leap forward. No one even mentioning that if this becomes the norm of trade agreements, it will change the equation not only in every country that we have trade agreements with, but potentially will force US compliance with ILO core labor standards which, as everyone here surely knows, is under attack by the Bush Admin. Odd. Its like the little kid who covers his ears and screams so he doesn't hear what others are saying. Perhaps no one has actually *read* the labor side agreements? Maybe some of the 15 you want to punish actually see this as a substantial change in the status quo and might help labor?

I think DR-CAFTA is something that labor threw out there in a frantic attempt to try to gain coherence, coherence from a group of organizations that have no common goals or sense of direction right now. The issue that labor faces is far bigger than DR-CAFTA. And winning on DR-CAFTA would not have done a thing for the labor movement here or in the DR-CAFTA countries. But rave on, because its all you've got, until you think about how really to fix the problems you face.

[siggy]

Tasini, now there is a great idea. Draw arbitrary lines in the sand on issues like DR-CAFTA that force Members to do what you feel is right ("poke you in the eye"), even if they do what you feel is right on 95% of other issues, and then "punish" them so you end up with more R's in office, who care less about your lines in the sand.

That's correct realdeal - if you take the toys away they aren't going to like you anymore. The good news - incase your mama didn't tell you - is that you can always make new friends, better friends.

Thanks for the blog and the first hand look into the machine JT, normally I just get to submit dues and nothing much comes of it. I've learned much about why workers are literally dying all around me and where labour is while they're fighting for their lives. I will for sure tell two people.

[kristin_sz]

realdeal,
so exactly what good has the NAALC (NAFTA labor side agreement) done? let's see, it has no enforcement power. how many ILO inspectors have been sighted in the maquilas, the slaughterhouses, the electronics sweatshops? gee, none. the only bit of light NAALC has let in is that it is an opening for unions (independent ones--not the CTM in Mexico) to sue the Mexican, Canadian or US governments for violating labor standards. And these suits, while conducted in earnest, are in effect media activism--they've turned a bit of international attention to workers' (lack of) rights, but not one has brought about actual improvements for workers. The CAFTA side agreement is a bit different, but it's the same as the US-Singapore agreement--and it's unenforceable. There are no meaningful sanctions on employers. And do you honestly think that in, say, Guatemala, where trade unionists are still occasionally detained and killed by the government, labor laws that protect workers' rights are going to be enforced?

[realdeal]

Siggy, I think if you can make better friends that can beat R's, by all means, do it. But don't "punish" D's when you don't have a viable alternative, because you will be far worse off that you were before.

Kristin, reference to NAFTA makes no sense because DR-CAFTA isn't NAFTA. DR-CAFTA isn't stronger than Jordan (which should be your frame of reference), but none of them have ILO monitoring mechanisms or labor capacity building components like DR-CAFTA does right now. Do I believe there will be problems in Guatemala (as an example)? Yes, no doubt. Do I believe that there are problems in the US right now? Yes, no doubt. Do I believe the problems would be worse in Guatemala without the ILO mechanisms? Yes, no doubt. Do I believe that its better to provide some sort of mechanism that trains workers in their rights, that will inspect companies for violations, will train judges in enforcement, and so on than provide nothing at all? Yes, no doubt. Do I believe that this is about a long-term strategy to make things better for labor activists and workers in other countries? Yes, no doubt. Do I believe that commercial-equivalent sanctions would be better than $15m fines (which are, BTW, enforcement mechanisms)? Yes, no doubt. But NAFTA didn't even have that. The next agreements will have more. And you know what, D's are doing this in a Congress and with and Admin that doesn't want anything at all. Which is why you should think twice about the "punish the 15" approach to life, because some of those folks -- not all, but some (Meeks as an example), thought through this and saw all kinds of possibilities if we keep our eye on the prize. And the prize is ILO mechanisms in every country, capacity building in every country, and strong enforceable labor provisions. In DR-CAFTA, we got two out of three plus fines. Recall fines were an anathema to big business before, and now they had to chomp on it. Progress is being made. Not the totality of progress lots of folks want, and I want, and workers in other countries deserve, but when one alternative is impossible (everything we want), and the other alternative is nothing at all (which makes deaths squads even more likely than before), then it seems to me that you keep struggling to make a difference in small, incremental, and important ways.

[Bill Pearson]

We are on the same page Nathan, the idea is to start with issues, workers and education, and allow the issues to drive the movement. I have always advocated the members should be involved and a bigger part of the process.

In fact, it is why i have been harping on how organized labor will never see a rebirth until it becomes more bottom up. We can change the shape of the bureaucracy a hundred times, but if workers aren't at the center of the equation it will not gell.

Look at the arguments above. Well written, articulated and on point. Who's right? Who's wrong? The answer...who knows? Politics is a game for players who wanna be important. As much as we should punish those who snubbed us, what is the payback on that kind of investment in time and energy? Will we suddenly see democrats (or republicans) giving us labor law reform?

I can almost buy JT's argument we need to prove we can punnish them. I just don't think now with the divided house of labor and clear challenges to our future we can afford to waste any time or money.

The differences in the AFL-CIO and the CTW aren't all that great, with one exception. It appears the CTW have chosen people and the Sweeney folks are into politics. For Stern and company to succeed, they need to keep that differentiation alive. Grow the difference and the strategy and they just might pull this off.

[Tasini]

I agree, Bill, it's tough and I think that we might want to target one or two of these folks.

Folks, labor provisions have been a farce and joke going back to NAFTA; I've unfortunately read this stuff going back to NAFTA. Side agreements make a few liberals happy because they can feel good that they've tinkered around the edges (a company like Wal-Mart shrugs off fines, it's just a cost of doing business). It doesn't alter the basic framework of these deals--so let's say , for fantasy-sake, that labor provisions stop the worst abuses, they are still written as after-thoughts to the driving force of the deals--to allow global corporations to set the rules they choose and encourage the shopping for lowest wages. Actually, I think "labor provisions" are far more a comment on how little we are willing to accept.

Siggy is right--a few people here (and not a few Congressional staffers who have written me privately...probably because they worry about their jobs) wring their hands about having fewer Democrats. I think that I said from the beginning I'm for finding primary opponents to challenge each of these folks--a process that I understand is already under way for some.

[siggy]

I can't/won't debate differences between nafta and cafta - which one is better and for whom is really a major distraction - good on them eh.

I may be way out the water here but - as far as I can tell - neither have or had labour's best interest as the core purpose. When you strip away fta sells they're nothing more or less than political vehicles of capital.

I think the airlines have been dead on all along - first you place the oxygen mask on yourself and then you help others. I really struggle with our decision(s) to lend our expertise to struggling democracies when we've not done so well for ourselves here at home - it could be it's more damaging than helpful in the long haul (or short haul if we really dig).

I struggle too with the notion that it's possible to build anything positive from a capital perspective, or build on foundations not ours and then expect to call shots on governance - crumbs not withstanding - it's not exactly been a successful strategy thus far. Long story short - labour looks stupid chasing corporate tail.

[Dr. Arthur Ide]

I support Labor 100%. America grew strong because of organized labor. Labor must dump the CAFTA 15 and Senator Ron Wyden. They are obviously opposed to all the pain and work that organized labor has endured. I will not send any of them 1 cent. Organized Labor must send money to individual candidates--NOT to the Democratic National Committee, as it will fund the evil 16.

[realdeal]

Sorry, side agreements are not designed to "make liberals feel better", they are designed -- like the ILO mechanism in DR-CAFTA -- to make the agreement work better. I repeat: the ILO feels this, combined with the hundreds of milliosn provided for capacity building, is a major step in the right direction in terms of applying core international labor standards. Clearly lots of folks feel that the agreement isn't as good as it should be, well, not a whole lot in this world is, and therefore the goal is to focus on what can be achieved, achieve it incrementally, and then take the next step. Now, I haven't heard anyone criticize the ILO yet, and maybe they are part of the capitalist-corporate plot I keep reading about here, but I have always understood that they are designed to protect and promote core labor standards and are very respected as a result. They don't see what was achieved in DR-CAFTA to be a "farce" or a "joke", although clearly others are entitled to their opinion. The fact is, the ILO mechanism combined with capacity building will now offer a real opportunity to see if DR-CAFTA can create an environment in the DR-CAFTA countries where labor rights will be accepted and protected. It could be I am wrong, it could be you are wrong, but the fact is, everyone -- the ILO included -- knew that nothing was going to be attained if there was no effort to try. No labor provisions would have left the status quo, and allowed everyone to say how bad the situation is in Central American, and gee, we really should do something. But then there would have been much wringing of hands about what could be done, which would have been nothing at all, because there would be no vehicle to make sure something was done. Contrary to comments here, labor provisions were hardly afterthoughts in this process. They were part of the agreement (and other agreements) when they were once, recall, only side letters. They used to be afterthoughts, but now they are not, and that again is an indication of real progress. Is it enough progress? Nope. It never is.

As far as who to worry about first, which oxygen mask to put on, us or them? I say both. I worked in Central America in the 1980's, and these folks deserve a chance as much as we do. Maybe more.

[siggy]

JT is on the money when he suggests tough love. Except, why stop at a few undeserving political keeners. Ok here's where everyone's hiss_da_means may kick in; labour could put some choke on wall street as well - cajones anyone? Think about it - that's our money they're beating us with.

Labour isn't poor, for the most part the resources are mismanaged, misdirected, missing. It's been handing them money hand over fist like there's no tomorrow (which there may not be) and not much - if any - in the way of return guarantees. Geez how much does labour fork out just to have one of our boys invited to sit at the end of big table?

If this thing called the labour movement is really about people and improving standards, then an alternative economy would be in the making, on labour's agenda 24/7, in rough draft, an intregal part of the discussion wouldn't it? It's not. Why not?

That's something a majority of people could get excited about. Of course that's assuming it's the majority we're trying to reach out to and not just the minority in the middle who are indebtedly hogtied to the sinking ship and are afraid to let go. -> Tough love and - turning the spin on the bastards, wanna'?

[Colocho]

It's unbelievable to see democrats vote for such things. That proves that neither republicans and democrats are good for the people, as both stick to corporate money instead of listening to the voice of americans. "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!" -Bob Marley

Lâchez pas!!!

A fellow canadian

[DC Clipmonkey]

You moronic, cannibalistic idiots. Please shut your whiny, traitorous asses up and help Democratic candidates win elections rather than pushing us further down into the miserable status of a minority party.

[Pam]

Well, I'm just a poor working nurse. Too stupid to save my money so I'm still working for low wages and questionable conditions in a psych rehab in northern california. Oh, I just turned 64. I am not educated in macro-economics nor are most of the people who listen to the readily available right wing line of bull on talk radio. But I do vote!
This CAFTA thing is important because of principal..values..It's immoral and inhumane. No treat those Central American workers nice will have any teeth. It's a small planet and "them" are "us" How in bloody hell can you be pro-life and baelieve in capital punishment, pre-emptive war and please, Dick Cheney an American patriot? He's a corporate internationalist! His loyalty is to the corporations and I'll bet he doesn't give one damn who owns them so long as they're all getting richer and more powerful. It's all so unreal. Strategy, power control of resources and control of the collective unconsciusness of the US at least. We are like voices in the wind. The liberal media. God in heaven, how that gauls me. Do you see all the war shows on? Do you see the distractions? Jacko, Natalee, and the weather? I heard one right wing talk show guy say that the tsunami was god's punishment for the homosexual resorts in Thailand!
To get our point of view, I have to go to the Borders in my town and buy a copy of the Nation, I have to go on line, have enough cable to watch the daily show, tune into Amy Goodman.etc. etc. And then we do all these words. We're funnier but are we really smarter? THey've been plotting this since NIxon! The Catholic vote put George back in the White House! That's rigjt 28% of the voting block. Religous principal? The Evangelicals hate catholics! People you've been used by them. I don't recognize this new jesus, he doesn't give a fuck about the poor, he loves war and state executions are just great! There isn't any middle class here anymore..I'm the working poor! With five years of college. It took me that long to work and get a nursing degree. I can't afford to buy a house. I can't even get my teeth fixed. I have health indurance but it sucks so bad I can't afford the deductible to get a yearly mammogram! Now I make $18.20 an hour. What do all the real poor do? The zillions working for minimum wage or less than $10.00 an hour.
I'd say we need to secede from Texas except for Molly Ivins and the now silenced Bill Moyers. I donno, Hillary?

[NathanHJ]

DC Clipmonkey: These are PRIMARY challenges to Democrats, not general election challenges, so it's not about changing the seat, just who within the Dems sits in it. At least that's what JT is talking about. Others have said 3rd party, but I think that's just unrealistic in the current political system.

[siggy]

You moronic, cannibalistic idiots. Please shut your whiny, traitorous asses up and help Democratic candidates win elections rather than pushing us further down into the miserable status of a minority party.

Why so angry DC?

It is just musical dems at this point, political posturing or a slap upside the head if you will. If it makes DC feel better - I think we can all agree in part - the democrats are a minority. To make everyone feel better - the repubs came in a close second, hardly a majority. Have you ever wondered who will win when everyone casts their voice - and they will.

If a movement is truly representative of people - it would first have it's resources the hell out of the political circle maze and into the communities in a big way. Interactive websites, newspapers, tv spots - visibility a key component. That's where the power is, that's where our future lies and most importantly - that's where the people are. I think it's a common theory that when you're failing - the most expeditious, effective method to regain the ground is to redo the basics - you begin again at the beginning.

[Pam]

But why can't we get on the radio? This vast right wing conspiracy works off sound bites and buzz words...they repeat them over and over again even if they're bold-faced lies! There are at least six different right wing talk show thugs on national radio. You don't have to go on line, you don't need to read... Just turn on the radio on your way to work! We have nothing that accessible. Our voices are all cached in elitist forums.They change their buzz words and phrases arbitrarily ...the war on tearrrr becomes the struggle against extremism. The mission accomplished majically changes into something else. Or four more years..It's endless. These are days of infamy. We have to find a consensus, some unity. And some red hot PR people. No, Cueball doesn't equal a Karl Rove. What is it we can all agree on? I say it's principals of fairness and true compassion and thoughtful foreign policy. Not this wolf in sheeps' clothing. We need to find a few simple things we all agree on and learn how to communicate them in a few words and repeat them over and over again like the enemy. And never stop or argue about our issues and differences until we win!
I could call those congressmen but what real good will it do if we don't have a consensus...and if we don't unify as the new Democratic party.

[Mr. Mike]

I appreciated the early comment re my Senator, Ron Wyden. Wyden's seat is completely safe, so he can basically vote any way he wants. Supporting CAFTA, in spite of many constituent contacts asking him not to, is beyond mysterious.
The CAFTA 15, and Sen. Wyden, need to understand that unless they put the interests of working Americans first they will risk losing their jobs. Norm Dicks in WA really disappointed me, and those three Texas Dems seem to be voting Republican on just about everything.
Serious primary challenges need to be mounted against these people, including a fairly powerful Senator like Wyden. They cannot continue to dis working people after taking our votes--and money--to "represent" us.
Being right "most of the time" just won't cut it any longer.
No Dem worth a nickel should ever, EVER, give the Bush regime one ounce of support.

[Tapsearch Editor]

The main editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on July 30,2005 is titled "Welcome, CAFTA" with the subtitle saying, "After an undeserved battering from interests groups, free-trade deal survives to move the Americas forward".
The Plain Dealer apparently is blind to one of the causes related to the fall of Cleveland Ohio. Once Cleveland proudly had many worldwide corporations headquartered in Cleveland. For the most part they are gone. There are now miles of streets with boarded up stores and empty factories. Some city leaders wanted to put a Wal-Mart Shopping Center where steel was once made. Still is the only answer Cleveland has to the most massive dislocation of jobs in U.S. history due to unfair Free Trade. Cleveland has been rated first in the nation in terms of povery.
Free Trade is not Trade. It is based on moving production from place to place based on the cheapest labor markets of the world. Factories become portable ready to move again and again to lower and lower labor costs. The workers are the main commodities and not products.

Some of the groups who are the so called interest groups who are accused of undeserve battering are the millions of workers who have no voice in the matter. Also there are advocates like Bishop Alvaro Ramazzini from Guatemala who spoke against CAFTA in the U.S. House of Representatives and at Berkley. He has a $50,000 price on his head for trying to help the impoverished workers of this Central American country. Bishop Juan Gerardi was assinated seven years ago when he led the way for the working poor and destitute workers. The Cleveland Plain Dealer and other media channels ignored the fact that at least two people were killed and many more injured in protesting CAFTA.

All should note too that Free Trade is not something new inspite of what the free traders say. Reportedly the U.S. Government start funding the moving of factories to Mexico and Central America starting in 1956. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to help the Mexican economy. Later on, the U.S. supported the maquiladora factories in Mexico and many more U.S. companies moved their production outside the USA. Reportedly 2,000 U.S. factories were moved to Mexico by 1994 and prior to the passing of NAFTA. After NAFTA passed, the number of U.S. factories in Mexico quickly doubled to 4,000. Shortly after NAFTA passed, President Clinton had to rush billions of dollars to Mexico to save the Peso. There were also bloody revolts by farmers who could not make a living farming any more due to foreign giant subsidized agricultural companies dominating farming.
This is the history of Free Trade. It has a history going back to 1956 and it demonstrates years of failures. Why would anyone want this terrible economic disease to continue. ( It was Frankin Roosevelt who said economic diseases are highly communicable.) Today it is an epidemic across the world breeding wars and terrorism.
(Teddy Roosevelt said the major threat to our country is corrupt politicians tied to corrup businesses. ) The latter was obvious as CAFTA was passed by strong arm tactics in Congress.
For more information see Tapart News and Art that Talks global issues at http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews or search on Google, Yahoo, MSN or all at one time at Donkeydo for thousands of more references under Tapart News. See especially http://www.aboutglobalization.com Other related sites include http://tapsnewstory.filetap.com http://clintonart.filetap.com http://pages.zdnet.com/arklineart/tapin http://www.graphicsforums.com/public/list.asp?id=1250 View the Cross 9/11 Tangle of Terror artwork by Ray Tapajna asking who will now untangle the terror Globalism and Free Trade have bred at Tapart News.

[iankenny]

"These are PRIMARY challenges to Democrats, not general election challenges, so it's not about changing the seat, just who within the Dems sits in it. At least that's what JT is talking about."

Nathan et al: please look at the districts your “targets” represent – many are Republican leaning, and the only Democrats who can win there are centrists. If you take them out with a left leaning Democrat in a primary, we will LOSE the general to any sort of reasonable sounding Republican. Bean didn’t beat Phil Crane because she got more votes from the left and organized labor, she won because centrists and moderate Republicans voted for her. You put up a liberal Democrat in that district, and that person loses to a moderate Republican. Same goes for Dennis Moore (Kansas), and don’t even get me started about a liberal Democrat in Utah having a chance at that seat.

[NathanHJ]

Ian: As even Grover Norquist says, you only need to take out 1-2 of them to send a message. The Beans of the world are counting on labor having no where else to go so they can talk nice and kick us in the teeth when it suits the "needs of the district".

We take out Towns and someone else and the others will think twice, especially if labor starts cancelling fundraisers, like they should do with Bean.

[Tasini]

Ian: I hear what you are saying. But, I guess I don't look at this with the lens of liberal-conservative. I'd recommmend you read the recent article by John Nichols in the Nation on Bernie Sanders. Why does Sanders, an independent who openly calls himself a socialist, do so well in Vermont, which, contrary to some myths, has many conservative rural voters' Sanders does well with Republicans.

Why? Because people believe he actually core beliefs. His economic message resonates with Republicans as well as democrats and independents. I suspect that even in the districts you define as "swing" a candidate who actually has a message focused on the economic consequences of CAFTA and the power of corporations (who, every poll suggests, people across the political spectrum feel have too much power) would do quite well. And is it any wonder that Grover et al do so well? They have a message--and they are willing to make those who stray pay.

BTW, this has come up and I wanted to respond to it. I am completely unpersuaded by the argument that someone who is with us 90 percent of the time should not be taken out. Here's why: the 90 percent of the time are on issues such as the Employee Free Choice Act--which will never pass, much less make it to a floor vote, in the next decade or so--or the minimum wage. There's zero risk in supporting labor on those issues--all it does is get you up on the AFL-CIO tote board as being with labor. The votes where we should judge are the hard votes, where a vote or two makes a difference and where the corporate donors/companies really are coming down hard. That's when you find out who you can count on.

[Ian Kenny]

To respond to both Nathan and Jonathan: First of all, appreciate the thoughtful response.

As someone who watches these races closely, I just don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that a well principled liberal is going to win those seats. Bean’s district (and environs) includes Motorola, Caterpillar, Sears, Abbott labs, and a variety of other major companies – and employees. She has won praise from the leading newspaper in her city, the Chicago Tribune, which endorsed her in the last race – and which likely means more votes to her than a labor endorsement (though I’m sure she’ll miss the money). Utah? I’m sorry, but even a principled liberal isn’t going to win there, unless he or she is running against a convicted criminal.

The VAST majority of House Dems used CAFTA as a way to 1) stand up for labor, 2) get back in the good graces of the MoveOn crowd (for those who supported bankruptcy reform) and 3) poke a finger in the eye of the White House. But I’m sorry, there is a difference between a pro-business Democrat and a Republican. Democrats have a very different governing philosophy than Republicans. They believe that there is an important role government can play to make people’s lives better, here and abroad. So too, they will vote for a Democrat for Speaker – taking one or two out to prove a point, merely cements Republican control even further.

And on CAFTA – I reiterate what I said before – this is a minor trade agreement, with minimal job impact in the US (plus or minus). Labor targeted CAFTA as a surrogate for the Doha Round and the FTAA, and as an organizing tool– which is a much bigger issue, and at the root of the whole Stern-Sweeny breakup. To impugn the motives of the CAFTA 15, as some have done, is intellectually and morally dishonest. I guarantee you, not a single one of them took the vote lightly, or sold-out to corporate interests. Each of them weighed the pros-cons of their own local/electoral politics (same with the Democrats who voted No). Many of them concluded that it was good politics for them in their districts, and none of them thought they would get more campaign cash from business than from Organized Labor.