Send Barrow Home-- From A Labor Perspective

A re-match could come out very differently in 2010

Louie is a union member (Millwright, Local 256) in Savannah, Georgia and reader of DWT.  After experiencing the political betrayal of working Americans, he has resolved to expose corporate politicians posing as friends of labor, supporting candidates whose actions don't contradict their words.  He is active in the Savannah Regional Central Labor Council, and maintains their website. We've been corresponding about his congressional district's heinous Blue Dog, John Barrow, and in honor of Labor Day, I asked him if he'd write a post about how local Democrats and union members are seeing Barrow these days, after he was rescued from a tough primary battle with help from both Obama and labor unions only to turn around and stab the president's agenda and working Georgia families in the back. Just looking at substantive votes for the current session, Barrow is one of only 2 Democrats from strongly Blue districts to vote overwhelmingly more with the Republicans than with his own party. With that in mind let's hear what Louie has to say about his Representative:

As each day passes, more and more Georgians are finding themselves in agreement on one thing: John Barrow cannot be trusted, and needs to go.  And as each day passes, time is running out for a successful campaign against him.  Somebody needs to step up to the plate and run. Now.

At this point, he's sweating. He wants to be everything to everyone, trying as hard as he possibly can not to say anything that can be used against him in a television commercial.  When your bottom line is staying in power, and two of your big supporters are the opposing forces of big business and organized labor, picking a definite side can be tough.

For evidence of this, look no further than the Employee Free Choice Act, HR 1409. This is one of those issues where a politician's just got to pick a side.  In this age where news travels as fast as youtube or a blog allows, this is no good.

Diane Feinstein found this out earlier this year when she reportedly came out against the EFCA.  She was quick to back peddle, revealing she was not "completely" against the bill. Thanks, Dianne, glad to know you've got our back!

When Barrow refused to co-sponsor the same bill he promised a Georgia labor group he would support "in any form," the group's leadership was not pleased. Without Barrow's unconditional support of EFCA, "not one dime" would go to his 2010 campaign. Mr. Barrow spoke of possible "improved language" for the bill (i.e. removing its effectiveness), and tried to console the angry union members he would indeed support the bill, once again "in any form" it took. He could say that to a room full of union members without fear of offending his friends at the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC).

Arlen Specter recently encountered the same situation in Pennsylvania.

This writer wasn't consoled. 

As far as Barrow's behavior on the EFCA, let's look at the good and the bad of it.

In 2007,  Barrow kept his promise and voted for HR800.  He also voted against the 3 Republican attempts to amend the it (Though it is interesting to see where Feinstein and other Democrats stood):

King (Iowa) Amendment

Foxx (NC) Amendment

McKeon (CA) Substitute Amendment

Info on the Amendments are here

Despite his "Yes" vote on EFCA in 2007, (as reported in this blog) Barrow voted for a "motion to recommit" on the EFCA, which would have killed the bill.

House Committee on Rules on The Motion To Recommit. From the site: "This motion is traditionally the right of the Minority and gives them one last chance to amend or kill the bill." And here's Barrow's vote on the record.

In researching the matter, I came across this blog. Specifically:

I remember last year when Blue America was trying to help Georgia state Senator Regina Thomas oust reactionary Blue Dog John Barrow, we ran into some surprising difficulties. Here was a politician who has shown again and again that his sympathies are, at best, very conflicted between the special interests and the interests of working families and yet he has always counted on easily duped and somewhat politically naive organized labor to underwrite the part of his campaign that the special interests don't.

For example, in 2007 Barrow signed on as a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act and, in fact was among the 228 Democrats who voted for passage on March 1-- all but two Democrats. However, Barrow didn't totally let down his Chamber of Commerce anti-union supporters either. Just moments before the final vote, the House Republicans tried killing Employee Free Choice with a motion to recommit. Barrow and a dozen other reactionaries joined 189 Republicans in voting for that motion, which would have killed the bill. This year Barrow and most of those reactionaries, at the urging of the Chamber of Commerce and other Big Business interests, have refused to co-sponsor the exact same bill. The other anti-union Democrats who voted to recommit in 2007 and refuse to co-sponsor this year, are Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) and Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS). Counting Barrow, that's just 10. What about the other 3? The other 3 Democrats who voted to kill Employee Free Choice, Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL), Nick Lampson (Blue Dog-TX) and Nancy Boyda (KS), were defeated at the polls in November-- no thanks to organized labor, which cluelessly supported each of them-- $239,250 for Mahoney, $245,000 for Lampson and $193,800 for Boyda.

And last year labor unions donated $231,500 to Barrow, one of the most reactionary, anti-working family Democrats in Congress, who, although he represents a reliably Democratic district, regularly crosses the aisle on core issues to vote with the GOP. What was especially frustrating is that Regina Thomas is a staunch supporter of organized labor, not just in words but in deed. She wasn't given one thin dime by an Inside-the-Beltway labor movement thoroughly co-opted by the Democratic Party Establishment incumbent protection racket. Barrow, as well as other reactionary special interest Democrats, were also collecting money, quite openly, from one of organized labor's bitterest political enemies, far right Republican Party front group, BIPAC.

Despite winning by narrow margins in each of his elections, its clear Barrow's money (literally) is on business.  If he is forced to vote for a toothless, watered down version of EFCA, he may and then use that to sweet talk the donations and campaigning out of labor in 2010.

After multiple, (unacknowledged) hand written letters, emails and phone calls, his Washington, DC office dropped a bomb.  When asked if a vote on "that card check bill, about the unions" came up today (this was on September 1st)

You probably won't be surprised to know that Barrow's Washington office confirmed that he will "definitely not" vote for EFCA "without a compromise."  When asked how he would vote if the bill came to the floor today, the spokeswoman said he would vote "NO".  Really?  "That's right, sir. He would vote no."  That was yesterday.

I saw Mr. Barrow at a business group-sponsored town hall on health care.  He reaffirmed he was against any type of 'public option,' among other things like clean energy.  Afterward, I confronted him about the flip flop on EFCA.  I told him he had not responded to several hand-written letters, emails, calls I made about the issue.

He put on his dancing shoes and his nose grew too.  "I'm trying to get a compromise where the secret ballot is preserved," he said.  He implied his interns could make mistakes, and denied his interns would "phrase it like that. (i.e. "he would definitely vote no""  Not to be bullshitted further, I cut him off. 

ME: "1409, as written.  The same bill you co-sponsored in 2007.  If it came up today, YES, or NO."

Barrow: "well.... that depends on if it really came up today,"

Me:  "yes or no?"

Barrow:  "We are working to make a compromise that can pass the senate that preserves the secret ballot..."  (Count Barrow in the "EFCA destroys the secret ballot" camp).

He then turns to another questioner.

Me:  "So as written, you would vote yes or no?"

Barrow:  "I think I answered that... if there was no other choices.... and the vote really did come up today... I probably would be inclined to vote yes"

And there it is, as clear and direct as ever.

If a Democratic challenger needs any more ammunition against Barrow, look no further than his own voting record against his own party.

So Georgia:  The rumblings against Barrow are rising, but need to evolve into a progressive candidate to challenge him. Tighten up, because time's wasting!

-Louie
Local256news@gmail.com
Savannah, Georgia

I've been staying in touch with Sen. Thomas and gently urging her to run again. Until there is a Democratic candidate in the race, we're promising to use our Bad Dogs ActBlue page in the fight to retire John Barrow.


UPDATE: Louie Isn't The Only Workingman Speaking Out Against Blue Dogs Today

A union pipe fitter in Baton Rouge, Michael Day, published an OpEd in the Louisiana Advocate about the Employee Free Choice Act and what the political impact is likely to be for Blue Dogs.

These so-called “Blue Dog Democrats,” who are riding the fence on this issue thinking that they are helping themselves politically, I think are mistaken.

What good is a blue dog if it growls and barks the same bark as a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabies-infected red dog?

I vote Democrat primarily because of the party’s strong commitment to collective bargaining and other workplace issues.

I can’t understand a good Democrat having a problem supporting a bill such as the Employee Free Choice Act that levels the playing field between employees and corporations and puts the choice of joining or not joining a union in the hands of working men and women.

Americans voted Democrats into a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House, and what good are they if they can’t use the power.

I voted for change that I could believe in, not change that I can’t notice.

The Blue Dog Democrats should understand that the Employee Free Choice Act is about jobs, mostly theirs. I would never vote for a Bill Cassidy or, God forbid, a counterfeit David Vitter, but I can go fishing on election day.

And, in case you're unaware of the Senate race shaping up in Louisiana, that was a shot against hack Blue Dog Charlie Melancon.