The CAFTA 15: Is Melissa Bean a Liar?

    Back in December 2003, when Melissa Bean would do anything to get labor support (or, anyone's support for that matter), she filled out a questionnaire for the Illinois State AFL-CIO. Every candidate has to fill out one of these documents before being considered worthy of endorsement, particularly, in her case because she was a first-time candidate for the Congressional seat. I've been given a copy of that document and it does raise the question: did Bean lie when she answered the questions about trade?

    There are three questions on Globalization/Trade.

   Question Number 1: "Will you support or oppose efforts to ensure that global trade and international economic development promote workers' rights, good jobs and workers' well being?" Melissa's answer: support.

    Question Number 2: do you support or oppose the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), based on the NAFTA model that has created import surges that cost jobs and does not require enforcement of internationally recognized workers' rights? Melissa's answer: Oppose.

    Question Number 3: Would you support or oppose any further rounds of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that do not make substantial progress on incorporating internationally recognized workers' rights or fully protect U.S. trade remedy laws? Melissa weighs in again: Oppose.

    So, she gave three "correct" answers in so far as labor is concerned.

    How, then, to understand her vote in favor of CAFTA? She might try to make the weasel argument: well, you didn't ask about CAFTA. But, that is truly nonsense because CAFTA is a NAFTA-type model per question #2 and it certainly does not, per question #1, promote "good jobs and workers' well being," either here or in Central America or the Dominican Republic.

    So, there are only two conclusions: she lied or she flipped and broke her promise. It's obviously hard to prove she lied, unless someone can come forward to prove that she had completely different positions prior to signing the questionnaire in December 2003.

    But, her vote shows she broke a promise she made in writing, which included the pledge, "I certify that the answers provided in this questionnaire accurately reflect my positions on the issues and, if elected, I pledge to uphold these views." [I added the emphasis]

    Primary opponent, please?

    By the way, if anyone else out there has questionnaires or other evidence of broken promises by the CAFTA 15, send it along.

Comments

[RealityLib]

Calling her a liar is a stretch - at best. There is no controversy here.

There is a dispute on a) whether this agreement fails to promote "workers rights, good jobs and workers' well being," and b) that CAFTA is anything like NAFTA (other than it rhymes). The main critcism on CAFTA labor provisions is that they are dealt with differently than trade provisions (fines versus sanctions). It is a legitimate thing for progressives to disagree on and disapproval, disappointment, even anger are all reasonable given your strong views.

Agree with the Democrats that supported CAFTA or disagree with them. That's fair. But calling someone a liar because they see things differently than you, is kind of lazy.

[david mccluskey]

Melissa Bean will be very hard pressed to hold the seat that she took from long-time Republican Dan Crane. It is a Republican district. We need to shrink the anti-union Republican majority - not grow it by holding freshman Ds in hostile seats to an unreasonable standard.

Since CAFTA was ALWAYS going to pass in the House, she should have outreached to labor and asked to be released from her committment. I am much more understanding and supportive of a freshman Democrat in a Republican seat who votes wrong than I am of a multi-term House Republican in a Democratic-leaning district like Rob Simmons who only votes against CAFTA at the very last minute when DeLay has enough votes to pass it. Voting against something that you know will pass is not virtuous. Bean should be given some slack.

[Kevin F Droste]

David, call me politically naive, but how does a 218-216 vote in the House on CAFTA translate into "CAFTA was ALWAYS going to pass the house"? Please explain.

[RealityLib]

It was always going to pass because the Repugs would have required more of their ranks to vote for it. That is why the Dems wanted to keep the Democratic count to a minimum (which they did btw - this trade agreement past with the lowest number of Dems of any agreement ever). So if you had 6 less Democrats voting for it, then the Speaker would have forced 6 more Repugs to vote for it. The Dems did this because trade is the only issue where there are a large number of R's that cannot vote (textile, anti-immigrant, or sugar). But make no mistake, the agreement was always going to pass.

[Gordon Simmons]

Beg to differ, Realdeal. I actually do teach "Critical Thinking" on occasion, and its simply wrong to always treat argumentum ad hominem as fallacious (inherently weak perhaps, even frequently fallacious, but not inherently so). No point in going into a lecture as to why, because that's not really what's at issue here. Tasini is saying that Bean made certain assurances in order to secure the labor vote, and then voted opposite those assurances. Jeez, imagine that. A politician who is deceptive.

[Tasini]

RealityLib: I appreciate your tone of disagreement. Always welcome here. But, I disagree with your analysis that there is no controversy here and I find it odd that you would downplay this. I'm not aware of any progressives or any credible source in the labor movement who think that CAFTA was a good deal--and I think the way you describe the difference between sanctions versus fines is quite a narrow view of how one might interpret CAFTA (though I understand that people who work in this area tend to view that as the prism through which the deal should be evaluated).

That said, I think my statement raising the question, in the context of what Bean herself promised, is pretty straightforward--of course, if one accepts my analysis of CAFTA (which you are entitled not to). It's not simply that she disagreed on the substance (I believe most of her statements focused on her vote as being good for her constituents)--if Bean made the assurances in writing, she either changed her views or she did not tell the truth.

[trade warrior]

I think it is misleading to say the main objection to CAFTA was that it substituted fines for sanctions. It also falls far short of the Jordan agreement negotiated by the Clinton agreement and supported by the AFL-CIO and many of its affiliates. CAFTA requires only that the CA countries enforce their own laws (however weak or inadequate, and does not require that they HAVE any labor laws.

The fact that virtually all labor unions from each of the six DR-CAFTA countries, as well as Catholic bishops there, opposed CAFTA persuades me that it is a deal that benefits investment by multinational corporations and not Central American workers. No one could credibly argue that it helps American workers.

Melissa Bean made oral committments to many unions, both before and after her election, that she would vote against CAFTA. She may or may not be a liar (depending on your definition of "liar") but I believe she has demonstrated that she is someone whose word cannot be trusted.

[mouse]

I wanted to comment on realdeal's message because I thought it was wrong, but its not there anymore. Tasini, you aren't deleting views you disagree with, are you? I think that would be wrong.

[benton]

My own thought is that she is in a GOP leaning seat. She has business leaning on her. She's better than Dan Crane or whoever it was she replaced. I can cut her some slack. Although she's now used all of it. There are at least a half dozen other Democrats who passed that "this is the last straw" theshold that I want to make walk the plank more. Every single Dem in a safe seat who supported this should face a reckoning. And there are probably around 200 Republicans I'd like to try to get to before I get to her.

[RealityLib]

Tasini - it's a stretch but I give you an 'A' for effort. I believe Melissa Bean when she says she looked at this agreement carefully and determined that it would create jobs for her district and for Illinois.

Those questions from AFL are ambigous at best. Very subjective. It's like a pro-life group asking on their questionaire: do you supprt or oppose the turture and dismemberment of innocent children in order to promote the profligate lifestyles of teenage crack whores?

I mean, come on... Who on earth would answer those questions any differently? What you are saying is not that she disagrees with you on the merits or faults of this agreement. You are actually saying that she AGREES with you but chose to do something else - counter to her own values. Very Sirotta-ish - you know, corporate whore, sell-out, and now a liar in your estimation...

I agree with benton, this seat is in the best hands it has ever been and in the best hands it can ever be. And she has been kicking ass from what I've read on reaching out to constituents and also fundraising.

We need to be able to count to 218 (that is the number it takes to elect Pelosi Speaker). Believe me, we need to get to that. We will still have trade agreements (because we cannot put a wall around the country much as some would like) but they will be improved over CAFTA. They may even be improved enough to get most of labor to support them.

[Carl]

Bean could have voted the right way and forced one of the Republicans in textile districts to change their vote to yes. That would be a lot more help getting to 218 than voting for another trade deal based on a failed model that is pretty damned unpopular. We were doing canvassing on CAFTA in the 1st district in WA (Inslee). People got riled up when we equated it with NAFTA. We even fundraised on it.

I'm open to the argument that Bean isn't the best person to target, but I think that on balance CAFTA is a horrible deal. We need to be promoting deals like the Cambodian textile agreement with shifting quotas based on improved working conditions.

And a few questions:

Someone in a thread a while back mentioned the Steelworkers doing some canvassing on CAFTA targetting Cuellar I believe. Does anyone have any more info on that?

Does anyone have any readings on what labor's actual proposals are for international trade? I think its a fact of life that we are going to be dealing with both supra-state entities like the WTO and broader and broader free trade deals. So what are we proposing? The Cambodian deal seems to have a lot of moving parts - is that approach feasible in a broader system?

Anyways, just wanted to give Jonathan a shout out, I love the site - its become an addiction. Keep it up.

Carl

[trade warrior]

The post that Melissa Bean "looked at this agreement carefully and determined that it would create jobs for her district and for Illinois" must have been written by a Melissa Bean campaign worker or, perhaps, the National Association of Manufacturers. How could CAFTA create any jobs in her CD? It's an investment agreement. Folks in CA aren't buying anything made in Illinois.

The 8th CD is a Republican district and likely will be again, regardless of how Bean voted on CAFTA. But why is it better to have someone with a D after her name if she votes like an R? It's Dems like her who have led so many union members to conclude there's "no difference" between the parties. And those brothers and sisters don't vote.

[trade warrior]

The post that Melissa Bean "looked at this agreement carefully and determined that it would create jobs for her district and for Illinois" must have been written by a Melissa Bean campaign worker or, perhaps, the National Association of Manufacturers. How could CAFTA create any jobs in her CD? It's an investment agreement. Folks in CA aren't buying anything made in Illinois, no less her tony suburban district.

The 8th CD has long been a Republican district and Phil Crane lost it more than Bean won it. But why is it better to have someone with a D after her name if she votes like an R? It's Dems like her who have led so many union members to conclude there's "no difference" between the parties. And those brothers and sisters don't vote.

[RealityLib]

So let me get this right trade warrior - if I disagree with you or know a little bit about trade then I either have to work for Bean or NAM? That's kinda sucky.

CA does buy lots from IL - besides the obvious corn, the 2nd largest export is medical supplies and IL is headquarters to these types of companies. Granted, in full disclosure, I did get that information from the Governor's office. But I promise I don't work for him either (can't even spell his name!).

IMO, this agreement could have been MUCH better. The question is whether it was deficient enough to vote against. And that is the essence of this debate: the intellectually honest saw CAFTA as marginally good or marginally bad.

If anybody told you this thing was the BEST or WORST - they are liars!

[John Halle]

It's rather amusing that those who see themselves as hard headed realists almost always become hopelessly naive when they are dealing with the underlying motivations of politicians.

To be clear, the congressional votes in favor of trade agreements have nothing to do with appealing to constitutuents. Average people can see through the corporate smoke screen that free trade equals jobs. And that's why polls consistently revealed overwhelming opposition to NAFTA and GATT even in the face of virtually unanimous support by the mainstream media.

So, to state the obvious, politicians, particularly Democrats do not support trade agreements to get votes, they support them to establish "credibility" with those who finance campaigns and the operation of both parties. To claim that Bean "looked at this agreement carefully and determined that it would create jobs for her district and for Illinois" is exactly what she wants her constituents to believe.

If you believe that the interests of her constutuents had anything to do with her decision, there's a nice bridge crossing the East River which you might want to make an offer on.

[John Olsen]

Yes, Melissa Bean is a liar.
I posted this the other day.

http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/62241

John O. [member of Screen Actors Guild]

[Phil Hettarn]

Quoting Trade Warrior - "The 8th CD is a Republican district and likely will be again, regardless of how Bean voted on CAFTA. But why is it better to have someone with a D after her name if she votes like an R?"

Because that's entirely not true, and that's the problem we've been facing in the 8th district. Bean is a Democrat who unseated a 35 year republican incumbant in a district that voted 56-44 for Bush. Yet instead of getting her back for the upcoming election, a few Democrats are deciding that they think our upper-middle class republican district will go for a far left candidate.

That wouldn't even be bad except people are starting to listen to the folks who are trying to portray Bean as a right-winger DINO when she's really not. For example, this link was distributed by a "progressive" group in our district talking about Bean's voting record:

http://action.citizen.org/scorecard/scorecard.jsp?person_legislator_ID=102

Now it looks bad, until you realize that they totally lied about the majority of those votes. The first three bills are correct, the others are completely false. In fact, if they had told the truth, Bean would have scored an 86% on the Democratic scorecard.

I happen to be a Democratic supporter of CAFTA, and whether anyone else is or not, her record clearly extends past that one vote to support the Democratic ideals. Some people need to take some serious thought as to whether they want to lose that support to someone like Sweeney or Bartels come next round.

P.S. that link of yours didn't work for me John, it just goes to some Al Jeezera site.

[PolDr.]

First of all Melissa will do or say anything to raise money or get votes. During her campaign she never offered any ideas or goals she would try to attain in office, she only bashed PHIL Crane as being out of touch.

Bean had no prior experience before being elected to congress other than being the president of her homeowners association. If you look at her work record she has had an awful lot of jobs in the past 20 years which suggest a bit of instability. Now she has a high paying job, will get a pension and will get to keep whatever she doesn't spend of her $1 million campaign fund.

She ran as a Dem because she did not stand a chance of beating Crane in the primary. She is an R, albeit a centrist or moderate R but an R nonetheless.

Her business experience is limited and quite frankly I don't think she knows enough about business to determine what will or will not create jobs.

In 2002 she earned a BA in political science and 2 years later she is in congress??

What is truly scary is that not only is she a freshman congresswoman, but she has no clue about the working men and women of her district and she has no prior political experience and LIMITED business experience. She jumped from job to job every 2 years so how can one get any experience if you don't at least stay in one job for a while (you define what a "while" is) She lives in Barrington...one of the wealthier suburbs of Chicago and has lived a life of privelege.

She is in my party and when I was running for office and asked her to walk in my district with me (as they overlapped) she could not be bothered. She did not attend one of my functions, not one fundraiser or show any desire to work together with me or any other candidate...it was all about her. She is a phony and she cannot be trusted nor can her word. Her votes do not surprise me at all...what do you expect from someone who doesn't know S--- from Shinola. She will not get reelected and that's too bad because the only ones out there running are ultra conservative right wing Republican nut jobs.

If it wasn't for all of the help, both financially and from shoe leather, from the unions, she never would have gotten elected...there should be some loyalty and actions speak louder than words

[dan]

Interesting...I live in the district and all of "poldr's" statements came right out of the republican talking points last time around. I wonder, "poldr" were you really running as a dem or as a repug?

You sure seem to know a lot about Melissa that her repug opposition knew too...

I cant imagine people getting on here to disengenously post.

I also think its important to point out...did you win? You mention she didnt have time to help you. Maybe she was a little busy beating a 35 year repug incumbent with a 0% labor record...hmmmmm.

[AngryDem]

As a left wing liberal, I understand your concerns with several of Melissa's votes. Unfortunatly, The fact of the matter is that left-wing liberals make up an extremely small portion of our district. With so few like minded people it is impossible to get Democrats elected on a progressive platform. I would love to see a left-wing liberal in office, but we have NEVER EVER had a Democrat elected to the 8th district since it was created in 1935, until Melissa Bean won against Phil Crane. Obviously, we can't have a Dennis Kuchinich elected overnight in the 8th district. I am a Democrat and I don't agree with many of her votes. But, the fact of the matter is: the district is moderate and republican, liberal can even be a bad word outside of our few lefty groups.

Melissa is on our side though, she is working for the people and is actively representing our district.

Melissa recieves an F in voting with republicans, She has only voted with them 23% of the time!
Melissa supports civil rights such as gay marriage and civil unions.

Melissa supports the right to choice, in contrast to her opponents.

Melissa has the support of 14 unions, including the Northeastern AFL-CIO. They understand that even if she disagrees with them on some issues she will always listen to them, unlike Crane who worked against them for 35 years.

Contrary to popular believe she does not want to stay the course in Iraq, she never voted for the war, but now that we are in it she want's to see a new direction. Even Barak Obama shares her position, why doesn't he get critized by the "base"?

It seems that some have interpeted Melissa's votes to provide our troops with armor and food is "staying the course".

Like Barak Obama, she wants to see benchmarks set by congress and enforced by congress for the handling of the war.

Unlike both of her opponents, she supports stem cell research.

She has been an extremely strong supporter of the environment. Increasing fuel effeciency standards, opposing oil drilling in Lake Michigain and ANWAR.

And she has been EXTREMELY visible in the district, withbusiness and labor organizations.

I bet 90% of you commenting don't even live in this district. Go ahead run a Left wing liberal and win 14% of the vote!!!!!!!!! Stand on your principles, but no one will give a shit about what your saying.

[rj2001odyssey]

Here it is almost election day and Bean still has a double digit lead.

Support of a CAFTA agreement is better than no agreement at all. A good politician doesn't fight the battle she can't win and then lose the war.

If passed by the countries involved, tariffs on about 80% of US exports to the participating countries will be eliminated immediately and the rest will be phased out over the subsequent decade.

This supports the most basic of a workers rights, to actually retain a job!!!