Which of the 15 Dem Sellouts Should Start Looking For Another Job/Party?

[Douglas Carpenter]

by David Sirota

link at: http://www.davidsirota.com/

posted by permission of Mr. Sirota--Be sure to subscribe to his
E-mail newsletter

Which of the 15 Dem Sellouts Should Start Looking For Another Job/Party?

We now know who the 15 Democrats are that each undermined their party and America's middle class by casting the deciding vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill passed by one vote, meaning each of the 15 Democrats cast the deciding vote. When 27 Republicans vote against their own party leadership as they did on CAFTA, Democrats have only these 15 sellouts within their ranks - and groups like the DLC that pushed CAFTA - to blame for the fact that the Democratic Party has been relegated to permanent minority status.

The 15 Democratic sellouts were:

Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
William Jefferson (LA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Vic Snyder (AR)
John Tanner (TN)
Ed Towns (NY)

Let's be clear - all of these people should never get a red cent from labor unions or the progressive community again, and that goes even for the ones who represent marginal districts. The idea that this was a "tough vote" for a Democrat who represents a swing district doesn't hold water - no one is getting voted out of office over voting against CAFTA, and voting for American workers. Remember, polls show that Americans are sick and tired of Congress passing these corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out ordinary workers.



But, let's further break this down. Which of these 15 Members has CONSISTENTLY been selling out the Democratic Party and America's middle class? The way we find that out is by looking at other recent votes on key economic issues, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, and the bill to limit citizens' legal rights and protect corporations that abuse Americans.

Starting with bankruptcy, we get the list whittled down to 12: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton and Tanner.

Moving to the bill that limits citizens' legal rights and protects corporations that abuse ordinary Americans, the list gets whittled down to 9: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner.

These are the 9 Democrats who are the difference between House Democrats being in the majority and the minority - they are the people who undermine the vast majority of honest/courageous Democrats who fight for ordinary people in Congress everyday. They are the ones who make it consistenly impossible for Democrats to deliver a message that they are the party that stands up for ordinary working people in this country. The fact is, if Democrats are going to be in the minority for the forseeable future, it would be better if these folks were defeated, because they do more harm than good to a party that desperately needs unity to let America knows what it stands for.

Again, while I have described why it is ridiculous to give a pass to any of these 9 because they represent marginal districts, even if you sort out for that the number barely changes. Winning with 55% or more of the vote is considered crushing an opponent - and only Melissa Bean falls under that threshold. The 8 others win by 55% or better, meaning they don't even have the pathetic/dishonest "I'm a marginal Member so I have to sell out American workers" excuse: Cooper (69%) , Cuellar (59%), Hinojosa (58%), Matheson (55%), Meeks (100% - unopposed), Moore (55%), Moran (60%), and Tanner (74%).



In an earlier post today, I mentioned that Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) ought to be frightened of the Working Families Party and the progressive community in New York City. But he's not the only one on this list that better be nervous about their job as an insulated career politician. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), for instance, has been dogged by controversy throughout his career, including actually personally profiting from his previous sellouts to the credit card industry. Maybe this will be the vote that draws him the strong primary challenger needed to defeat him in his solidly progressive district.

To sum up - each of these 15 Democrats ought to pay a price at the polls for their brazen sell out tonight on CAFTA. They undermined their party and America's workers. And the 9 Democrats of these 15 that have been consistently stabbing the Democratic Party in the back - well, they have shown an unfathomable willingness to disregard anything other than corporate campaign cash. They are the reason why Americans are so cynical about the political process, why Democrats can't win key states like Ohio, and, in general, why Democrats are currently in permanent minority status.

________________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[izzie]

1. Morin? Now who in the GOP voted no?

I do think we are in the middle of a world wide revolution on all this stuff but I still think things can be done better than Congress is doing. It is like we have the same old thinking coming out of these people in congress from the same old colleges and way of life. We could look at other things that are going on in this world. Like why is Finland and Ireland going so well. People had new thoughts at one time. We all still do not live on farms and make carriages for horses.

[zapp]

3. Republicans voting no:

Republicans voting against CAFTA:
Boustany Capito Coble(NC) Cubin Garrett (NJ) Goode Miller (MI) McHugh McHenry Mack LoBiondo Jones (NC) Jindal Hunter Hostettler Gutknecht Ney Norwood Otter Paul Rehberg Simmons Simpson Smith (NJ) Tancredo

[greymattermom]

2. Dennis Moore

The problem is his district, where I live. He's probably the best that district can do.

[Thrasybulus]

4. Vic Snyder of Little Rock is no sellout.

He is by far the most liberal member of Arkansas' congressional delegation.

He was the only Arkansan-Democrat or Republican- to vote against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

He was the only Arkansas congressman to vote against the flag burning amendment.

He was the only Arkansas congressman to vote against the partial birth abortion ban because the Republicans refused an amendment to protect the health of the mother.

He is an MD and Vietnam vet.

I don't know what his reasons for voting for CAFTA are, but the guy has an established track record of doing what he thinks is right in a district that leans Dem but has had 2 Dems and 2 Repubs the last 20 years.

I wish he was my congressman.

[wli]

5. I say zero tolerance; call for all their resignations

[geek tragedy]

6. Moran is an anti-Semite as well. He's more of a Pat Buchanan Republican

than he is a Democrat.

[paulk]

7. why doesn't Sirota write about the Republicans

who voted for this?

[K-W]

8. Why didnt he write about vacationing in Venice?

I think he makes it pretty clear in the article why he wrote it.

[paulk]

9. oh, I understand David Sirota's motives well enough

he's a self aggrandizing opportunist gunning for his market share of the reactionary pundit crowd.

[K-W]

10. If by 'understand' you mean 'completely made up'...

Why don't you argue against the points he made if you disagree. Your attempt at character assassination is a little obvious.

[paulk]

12. I don't consider Sirota's "we must purge the party" nonsense

even worth discussing.

Sirota is a liar, willing to just flat out make things up if it fits whatever theory he's pushing at the time.

case in point

http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html

Sirota has found his audience, the reactionary left, and set about cultivating it with a constant stream of attacks whose purpose is to divide the Democratic Party.

With the Rove/Plame story and the Roberts nomination happening, Sirota's diversions warrant only contempt.

[K-W]

13. If it isnt worth discussing, why are you posting on this thread?

If you arent willing to discuss the topic of this column, why dont you go start your own "I hate David Sirota" thread.

[enki23]

11. wow. new meanings for words?

re·ac·tion·ar·y
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

n. pl. re·ac·tion·ar·ies
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

pun·dit
n.
A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
A learned person.
Hinduism. Variant of pandit.

i have to assume you mean political critics, generally media figures as the term is generally used here in the states. (that is, rather than a learned brahmin)

now... "gunning for" usually means something fairly hostile. you don't "gun for" people you like. so, i suppose you could have meant that he's an aggrandizing opportunist who is going after the arch-conservative pundits. sometimes, i suppose, it could be meant as "aiming at." i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

so then, i have to translate your post...

he's a self aggrandizing opportunist aiming his market share of the ultraconservative political media personalities crowd.

apparently, he's trying to impress sean hannity?

makes perfect sense, so long as you don't get all stodgy and actually require words and phrases to mean things.

[paulk]

14. well, I meant reactionary left, which I did use in another post on this

thread - and by that I mean that point where the extreme right and the extreme left meet.

does that help clear things up?

[K-W]

15. There is no such thing as the reactionary left.

That is what the post your replied to was explaining. Reactionaries are conservatives.

Nor is there a place where the extreme right and extreme left meet. The two extremes are in fact extremely different.

You obviously know very little about the left.

[paulk]

16. to be "gunning for something"

is commonly used slang for trying to obtain something. It does have a negative connotation, which is why I used it.

but, you knew that, didn't you?

[bemildred]

17. All. More is better, Let's have primary challenges for all.

And let them know why, too.

[silverweb]

18. Where's Feinstein?

Why isn't her name on that list of traitors? She voted for CAFTA, too. Even her own website says so.

[JPZenger]

19. Some Dems Have to be Moderate

We have to be tolerant of different wings of the Party. There are many parts of the country where we are very lucky that any Democrat has been able to be elected. For example, Senator Bayh is a moderate, but no one other than a moderate could ever be elected in Indiana.

In Pennsylvania, we tried to get some solid liberal candidates elected to the Senate, and they were slaughtered in the November elections. Now we are working with a moderate candidate, who is ahead in the polls.

[K-W]

20. Nobody will lose votes opposing unpopular trade agreements,

all they would have lost is corporate support. Or in the case of the republicans, party support and corporate support (like there is a difference)

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

Democrats may loose some votes over all kinds of social issues and the gun issue and undoubtedly other issues.

But they do NOT loose votes because Joe Sixpack can't stand the Democrats standing up for him.

I grew up in Western PA--nobody buys the so-called "free-trade" (an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one) baloney there. I have lived most of my adult life in developing countries. Nobody buys that "free-trade" baloney there either.

I wonder sometimes what planet some people live on.

People who support these policies are not serious about building a progressive majority.

[JPZenger]

22. The Positive Side of CAFTA

Let me play devil's advocate for a second on CAFTA.

The low-wage low-skilled manufacturing jobs have ALREADY left the U.S. In fact, they are leaving Mexico because it is cheaper in Asia. Many factories have moved out of the Mexican border cities, in particular.

If these are jobs that the U.S. is unlikely to keep anyhow, then our best approach is to have the jobs go to Latin America. This is because:

1) We are not supporting the Chinese Government, which could be a military enemy in the future,

2) By promoting the economies of our neighbors, we are discouraging the demand for illegal immigration to the U.S.,

3) We are promoting political stability in our neighboring countries by strengthening their economies.

4) U.S. companies are more likely to be able to directly invest in Latin American factories than in China. Therefore, Americans are more likely to keep the associated design, marketing, engineering, finance and headquarters jobs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. why then are the people these countries so strongly against it?

I have lived most of my adult life in the developing world--and frankly the question of why the masses of ordinary people so vociferously oppose so-called free-trade used to confuse me. Don't they understand that "free trade" is for their own good. Don't they see that new shopping malls, five-star hotels and fine boutiques are going up everywhere and these will provide needed jobs? Don't they know that there will be new factories also providing jobs? Are they uneducated? Is that why they don't want this "free trade" ?

Well simple reality, does not match the la-la land world of "free trade" proponents.

I really don't know where to start when talking about free trade. I suppose--One has to listen to the voices of dispossessed peasants, the destroyed local economies in the countries where the main supposed benefactor actually live--this is a world far from the country clubs and fine cafes where the elites of these countries live.

There is a multitude of research on this subject.

But why is that necessary when in the entire history of the world there has never, never, never been a success story of "free trade".
That it is if you define free trade as the principles of CAFTA, NAFTA and the WTO. That is if you define success as something that improves the quality of life for the vast-majority of ordinary people--not just the elites.

Maybe the people of the developing countries are not so stupid after all.