Sunday, March 15, 2009

Some Unions Their Own Worst Enemy In Florida Senate Race

>

Meek, along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz declares he won't support Miami Democrats against Republican incumbents

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.

That said, it should come as absolutely no surprise at all that several big unions have lined up behind moderate and tepid Democrat Kendrick Meek, who is the very picture of a non-leader and certainly an untested quantity who has virtually no chance to wrest the Florida U.S. Senate seat being abandoned by Mel Martinez from the GOP. A scandal-plagued mediocre rubber stamp, Meek is a blue print of what the Democrats don't need more of in Congress. But he's a loyal Insider and the Beltway Establishment is rallying round the flag, regardless of the fact that there is a proven progressive leader with a real chance to actually win the seat in the race, longtime labor ally, state Senator Dan Gelber. Here's a perfectly pathetic example of organized labor shooting itself in the foot again with absolutely execrable political decision-making. Of course only Meek is the godfather of one labor leader's son. What will they do next-- start supporting Republicans against Democrats? Why not; it's not such a big step from supporting Blue Dogs and other non-progressives over progressives.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

1 Comments:

At 4:48 PM, Blogger Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

The problem is, as always, that the USofA does not have a 'labor' party.

It has, instead, two competing wings of the party of property and privilege, the essential aims and goals of which are mainly indistinguishable except along artificially inflated fault-lines called wedge issues.

It is beyond ironic that a nation which preserves in its population the descendants of the slaves upon whom the earliest prosperity of the Nation was founded, alongside the drescendants of indentured servants, and captive laborers cannot--or will not--support a Labor movement.

If you have a boss, you need a union...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home