The CAFTA 15--Black Teamsters

    Sorry, fans, for the late post (why I feel the need to apologize says something...) but was out early for my speech to the Teamsters National Black Caucus meeting in Chicago (where, yes, it's 90 plus...again).  You can read the speech if you feel like (as they say, the prepared text is not the precise way it was delivered).  But, more important, I can tell you that the several hundred people in the audience are very cranked up about the CAFTA 15.

    Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), who voted no on CAFTA, was here to give a few remarks before my turn. In introducing him to the audience, the chairman of the caucus, Chris Silvera, turned to him and said, "you have got to kick Meeks out of the Congressional Black Caucus," referring to Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), for his vote in favor of CAFTA. Davis smiled and said, neutrally, "I'll tell him that." But, more important, the audience went wild with support for Slivera's remark.

    And in my speech, the following brought many people to their feet: "And let me be as clear as I can be: any politician, Democrat or Republican, who voted for CAFTA, should not get a dollar of our money or a minute of our time come election day in 2006. And, for the CAFTA 15—the Democrats who sold us out—we should find real fighters for workers to run against the CAFTA 15 and give them a one-way ticket back home."

    So, let's get on with it,

Comments

[Matt H]

I like your comments about opposing the CAFTA 15: my only question is how do you keep this issue alive in a year or so in time for Election Day?

I am a Democrat and a Union lawyer living in No. Virginia and I have seen time after time a forgive and forget attitude with Jim Moran. I conclude that the so-called leaders in the labor movement are too chummy with the politicians to actually demand good legislation in return for the millions of dollars we pour into their campaigns. If we are accepting of such reprehensible acts from the Democrats (with really no or little penalty) how can we (labor) ever be expected to win the respect of the workers?

[hmmm]

Tasini, where are you getting your money? And what ties do you have to the CTW unions? Why won't you even acknowledge these questions? It's fine for people who post here to be annonymous and to not disclose our affiliation, because after all, we're not profiting from this and we're not pretending to be journalists. But you are. And you need to fess up.

[Ben]

Yeah, Tasini, you spoke to Black Teamsters. That means you are in the pocket of Change to Win AND Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton! And the way you posted that letter from all those CLC people supporing unity and all that, just a ploy. Just like having advertising from the AFT on your sight. I bet they didn't even pay for it, you just put it there to make it look like your neutral. You're sinister Tasini...

[NathanHJ]

Hmmm,

Clearly you don't actually read the comments sections of the various postings, or you would have seen this posted in topic "The Estate Tax and Slippery Dems" on Wednesday 8/17 at 6:27 pm EDT.

Posted by JT:
Thanks, Leighton, for pointing out the AR/AK thing--you'd think I'd not make that mistake since higher up I got it right but it's corrected.

Seems to me people like Leighton, who is a new commenter, are kind of interested in the topic of this post: the repeal of the estate tax, which will cause great distress in our society. It's a trillion dollar hit on our budget--I can't imagine what this will mean to the millions of real people down the road.

I notice, by the way, that this post has been linked to from the Club For Growth, which, though obviously taking the opposite view point, thinks it's a subject worth discussing. I'd welcome posts from its viewpoints.

And that's a round about way at arriving at the other nonsense that's taking up this post. A number of people have already pointed out what I would have said: my views are well-known and they have been for more than a decade so it's kind of humorous that people think money would dictate what I would say (truth be told, I'd probably have made a whole lot of money over the years if I had just kept my mouth shut...my mother always tells me that).

I'm not forcing anyone to come to this site nor do you pay for the privilege. I post what I think is information and opinion. Lots of the time I post my opinion and get out of the way because I'm more interested in generating the debate and exchange of ideas--and maybe some action. I particularly appreciate the people who post with their names because that shows some courage and willingness to stand behind what you have to say. I also understand why some people post anonymously when we're discussing issues, not innuendo, and I respect them, too.

As for bias, on many of the issues, I have, in fact, been in the middle (being in the middle is not "neutral") and a lot of the time I have opinions. The beauty of this place is that a lot of people disagree with me--and they have a place to say it. This is not analagous to the MSM. I think the more relevant issue for 99 percent of the people who are reading these posts is to look at my bio, which certainly outlines exactly my experience, from which you can get a sense of my vision/views.

As for money, the blog is supported by advertising--the support will come from "bi-partisan" sources (The AFT was first, and a few more are in the works) because a lot of people see the value of this blog in expanding the discussion on labor and the economy (hence, the focus on CAFTA 15, estate tax and more on pensions in the future). Since I've worked on union organizing, political and legislative campaigns for the past 20 years (and received compensation from unions all over the map--geez, I received UAW money which must explain why I quoted Ron Gettlefinger), I assume I might work on specific labor campaigns in the future--if AFL-CIO unions or CTW unions want to use my expertise, I'd certainly consider doing so (and, for the record, I am not being paid by the CTW coalition--maybe I should ask this anonymous person though to send my resume in? S/he certainly thinks enough of what I might offer to assume that I'm about to be on retainer/staff...my mom, BTW, would love you for that).

BTW, I have to confess: I guess I should also say that I went on a date recently with someone who works for The New York Times and she paid (I paid the first time) so look for me to be really soft on The Paper of Record.

I'm done with this topic--and I hope we can return to substance.

[Ben]

BTW, Hmmm... I'll take 100 to 1 odds that you are drawing a pay check from either the AFL and or one of the Unions still in the AFL, so you are profiting from this, aren't you?

[Hmmm]

Ben,
No, in fact, I work for a CTW local. We did not want to leave the AFL, that's true. I guess that makes me biased. Of course only people who disagree with the CTW view point are biased. But then again, this blog explains exactly why we are where we are today.

[Ben]

I work for an SEIU local, we did want to leave, and I am biased as well. Never said I wasn't. As for this Blog being responsible for the current sad state of the labor movement, that's laughable.

[Kevin F Droste]

Now I get it. Boy was I stupid. There are people out there who don't want to discuss the issues, so they get us all off track on this "Who's pocket is JT in thread?" I fell for it. Please don't be as stupid as me. Take this topic: Comments (7), in reality comments (1), and six BS comments. Please just ignore the non-responsive posts, and move on to your ideas about the thread. DO NOT LET hmmm and truth and others SILENCE YOUR VOICE.

I hope there will be more about this topic posted by JT in the future, but for what he did post, I think we need to look long and hard at the CAFTA 15. I remember the thread on Meeks and his employees outrageous letter, and there was a lot of defense for Meeks based upon his 93% voting record. I haven't had time to look through that record, but i would like to see how many times his vote actually counted toward a decision. It is easy to vote on one side of an issue or another when the outcome will be so lopsided as to not matter. If the rumor mill shows that 100 Dems support a Republican bill, than voting with us is easy as it won't matter in the long run, only in that it will boost your record when it comes time for election. I think the issue here is that it was quite well known when the vote was called that CAFTA would be very close, and this is when people needed to show which side they supported, the CORPOS or the PEOPLE. In this case it was quite obvious that the CAFTA 15 had the ability to support working people, defeat CAFTA, and show where their allegiance lies. As they made the decision, we need to make ours. I agree with JT and Chris Silvera that no only should their be reprisal by working people, but there should be some shake up within the beltline amongst Congress as to what the vote by the CAFTA 15 really meant for the Democratic party.

[Annfromdc]

Check Greg Meeks' record at www.vote-smart.org (check anyone's actually - even local elected officials). On trade, he has almost never been with workers. On a lot of other issues as well.

What seems to save Moran every two years is that he has a lot of federal workers living in his district and he takes care of federal workers. He could be beaten. He needs an appealing, strong, worker-friendly opponent. Any volunteers?

[NYer]

Annfromdc,

Who is vote-smart? And if Meeks is not with workers, why is his voting record with AFL CIO so strong? This is just another example of why this site/and many of its posters are so over the top. Learn to separate fact from fiction. It will do wonders for your credibility!

[Bill Pearson]

Ya gotta love this comment; " Learn to separate fact from fiction. It will do wonders for your credibility!" The entire political support matter is one that need be reduced to its lowest common denominator...what has organized labor gotten for is billions of dollars of financial support and gazillions of dollars of people power?

Answer...squat. Oh wait a minute, the AFL-CIO voting records can be trotted out as proof positive; there have been thousands of meaningless votes on bills that never passed, agendas that were never met and hopes that were invariably dashed.

Give me a break, the price of playing politics has cost workers and organized labor their future. The photo ops with the political power brokers may play well in the union journals, but for workers losing pensions, having their health care dismantled and wages not coming close to keeping up with inflation it's been a costly venture with little or no return on investment.

Fact from fiction...that's a good one.