Can you specify who McKay sent this letter to?

Who's Nadar?

I presume he probably meant "Nader" as in Ralph Nader.

This staffer strikes as one of those overly ambitious capitol hill types who's it in for the career, not the cause. Someone send him a copy of "What's the Matter With Kansas". He needs a little populist enlightenment...

As much of a cretin as this guy is, there is something he understands which we, in general, do not, and that is that politics is fundamentally about power. Press releases, in fact, don't matter very much unless they are combined with the ability to speak to Meeks in the language he understands, and that is the language of political force.

While challenging Meeks's committee assignments might have some effect-and I'm a bit dubious as to whether the threat has any teeth-what really matters is the ability to put into question Meeks return to office, and here McKay is right. Meeks will almost certainly waltz back into office with his usual 90+ percentage margin.

So essentially, the challenge McKay is making to us is the same one which Clint Eastwood makes in "Dirty Harry":

"What are you going to do about it, punk?"

Unless we have an answer to this question, we're blowing smoke and they know it.

That being said, I agree that it is kind of fun to watch these guys wig out.

That must be some kind of a record...calling someone a racist 5 times in the space of one paragraph. I'll just be polite and say the author of this response is woefully inadequate and he must have more ability to communicate his point than this.

I do like your calling him out and soliciting a response JT. If Mr. Mike McCay can get past his childish outburst, maybe he can enlighten us all by answering those simple questions in easy to read non-threatening statements.

Alas, i doubt you will hear from him. I'm sure he is way too busy reading the press clippings from the business writers at the newspapers, the backslapping from the Chamber of Commerce and the right wing republicans courting him.

Whata putz.

I'm surprised that Congressman Meeks would allow such comments to be made public. Not only that, but I think this staffer is completely missing the point on how critical CAFTA is to future trade agreements and jobs here in the US. I'm embarrassed for Meeks, and the constituents in his district--this is NOT the way to respond to critics.

These comments are not even worth addressing...it clearly shows ignorance and misguided anger for the wrong reasons.

this guy is nuts. but we do need to be more politically calculating. the anti-meeks/towns forces have already made a political blunder. that is calling on nancy pelosi to oust meeks/towns from their committee assignments.

now that labor publicly wants pelosi to oust the congressmen from their posts she will never do it. she will be seen as a tool of labor.

however, pelosi must be angry at them to begin with, since cafta was an issue of great importance to the dem caucus. with behind the scenes pressure we could have gotten meeks and towns kicked off their committees. most likely fairly easily. however, now it probably wont happen, as it would reflect poorly on pelosi's strength and command.

as we go forth with the important task of beating these worthless politicans in '06, we must not let our reactive anger and immediate outrage get in the way of the objective calculations that must be made.

As a african american I,ve been called many things, racist is not one of them. Meeks is dead wrong on this one & this McKay is an idiot!!

According to the letter sent by Meeks' staffer, he won his last election with 94% of the vote, yet my information shows he ran uncontested. One would think if someone runs uncontested, that person really should win 100% of the vote. (LOL) Also, is Congressman Meeks proud of that 51% unemployment number for NYC black males? What was the number when he took office, and is this an improvement? This is his SIXTH term, and he still can't get unemployment below 50%? This would mean to me that he hasn't done his job at all in his six terms, and that he may be right that CAFTA isn't gonna hurt his district, because there aren't many people left from whom to take jobs. Just my viewpoint. KFD

Brother Tasini, I saw your reference to a congresswoman french kissing. You wouldn't have used that kind of image to attack a male member of Congress. It's sexist. She's wrong not because she's a woman but because she's wrong. Leave her gender out of it.

As far as black members of Congress selling out to business (the other current example is members of the Congressional Black Caucus selling out to Wal-Mart), they don't feel heat from black constituents back home because after all unemployment IS a huge problem and unions and the Dems and so-called progressives are not seen as offering some alternative. So people grab onto the only thing being pitched as a jobs strategy, even if it's actually a strategy that destroys good jobs.

It's a mistake to sit around hooting at this guy or at the CBC for Wal-Martgate. It's like sitting around hooting at how dumb Bush is. Look in the mirror, instead, and be part of figuring out how the fair trade movement and its various components can become relevant in the lives of those 51% black unemployed the staffer talks about.

LaborVet hit the nail on the head. Let me take it a bit further. In New York City, the so-called labor community is racist in that they out and out refuse to hire African American males (this excludes municipals). In fact, everyone knows, they in-source from Ireland and Poland and get green cards for people instead of allowing African Americans to participate. The unemployment rate (which is actually 48.3 percent) is a reflection of this policy. Not to mention, many of the people who do belong in these unions live in the suburbs. People in the labor community need to check their own houses. As for Walmart, again, African Americans get hired at Wal-Mart. If it becomes unionized, that will probably slow down as well. For all of the supermarkets in the urban areas, the one where poor blacks live have no union. The outburst is uncalled for, but the issues are real. And, if you ask today if African Americans get a fair shake from the majority of unions, the answer is no. Additionally, the labor community does need to look itself in the mirror. 38% voted for bush, 11% of African Americans voted for Bush. Who is truer to the cause? The largest bloc of consumers at WalMart are union members. Stop the double standard, give equal opportunity at home if you expect fairness.

I'm not being a smart ass but is unemployment 51% in New York? No. But its 51% among black men? Why? Becaue there are literally no jobs for them? No. I just did an internet search and found dozens of entry level service sector jobs in New York that are open right now (assuming this 51% are not college grads). Are they applying for these jobs and not geting them? That's a discrimination problem, not an international trade issue.

I'm not even on the federal level.. and let me be clear: I would be fired- hands down - if I did something like this. Fired.. 100% no questions asked...

I can say, however, I am torn about whether or not to screw this guy (simply for defending CAFTA) or say 'well, I understand... sometimes people annoy you and you have to respond a little rudely (never on the record, though)!'

Shit.. I was working during the entire Schiavo fiasco was happening.. I was called much worse than 'racist' and never reacted like that.

If this guy still has a job, his boss shouldn't after the next election.

First, let's be clear about McKays background. He was on the board of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and some board at his alma mater business school back in NY. That should tell you his stripes right there. next logical question is, what on earth is he doing serving as Sr. Policy advisor to Rep. Meeks?

Nuts and bolts ladies and gents- I'm not sure how familiar any on this board are with the intracacies and data surrounding the CAFTA, but every model run using non-biased assumptions (read: real economic data and models) showed America losing jobs once again as we did under NAFTA. Rep. Meeks was told this and I know this for a fact because I told it to him. Rep. Meeks had no clue what he was talking about and kept bringing up Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, which, consequently, wasn't included in the CAFTA agreement.

McKay is ill informed or just ignorant. After NAFTA, just on a quick search of ther DOL website, over 525,000 trade ADjustment Assistance cases were filed. CAFTA is a worse trade agreement than NAFTA- do the math.

As far as some stating that Union members make up a majority of Wal Mart shoppers, where on earth did you get that stat? I suspect it's something that was made up as how do you measure that? Second, as far as Labor not representing people of color, I would point to the VP and Sec Treasurer of the AFL-CIO- both Hispanic...Robert Roach at IAM, African American..it's insulting to have to even name these off because someone hasn't done their homework. I would also point out that Labor walked arm and arm with our brothers and sisters during civil rights marches with great men like Rep. John Lewis. Why aren't more people of color represented by unions? It's a complex answer.

1) Before the aforementioned civil rights movement, people of color weren't really even in the job market so to speak. We're talking roughly 40 years ago and we do still live in a society which is predominantly white. So, if you're going by strict percentages, as African Americans make up around 12% of the population...I think its safe to say that union representation is higher than this as overall population represented by unions is around 13%.

2) It is becoming harder to form unions. (See Employee Free Choice Act) www.aflcio.org Unions are under the most intense attack ever faced. 3 anti OSHA bills passed the House recently, overtime regulations last year...etc

As for Brother Kevins post- yeah, that's a great strategy, just latch onto any job..worked well before the great union movement duing the early part of the 20th century. talk to some Flint sit downers about that strategy, I would be interested to see exactly how hard a 100 year old man can hit someone. Go down to Long Beach and say that to some ILWU guys..have a nice swim.

Labor vet makes one good point or accurate one- over 30% of union members voted for Bush. So, my question is, what do you plan to do about it? Get out there in 06 and make sure your brothers and sisters don't do this again. Volunteer..run for city council or dog catcher or something. WE win when we get active. The other part about union members living out in the suburbs is because they can afford to because union members are paid about 26% more than non union employees. Tell that to people of any color and see if we can get them to join and build or power.

Summary- Meeks screwed us, his party, his leader and all working families. So did 14 others in the House and 11 in the Senate. So we, stay out of those campaign headquarters and those campaign coffers. Simple. In closing, McKay needs to go. Anybody that ill-informed to call the NAACP racist (NAACP opposed CAFTA as well) is just plain foolish. I don't take kindly to being called a racist by a foolhardy imbecile. His first line tells you exactly how politically naive he is when he says that labor is politically ignorant. WEll bucko, your boss just made it easier for one more embattled Republican to save his/her butt in 06 by allowing them to vote against CAFTA in states like PA and OH. So...15 GOP were let off the hook..Dems need exactly that number to take (231-202) a 1 seat majority in 06...who's politically stupid?

Real Moral majority | August 9, 2005 05:32 PM

A masterful commentary; so succinct and information-rich that it needs to be read more than once. Wow.

Majority - just a couple of points:

The AFL-CIO themselves readily admit the union-sponsored credit cards have more charges at WalMart than anywhere else.

In my post, I specifically said, exclude municipal unions because they are usually governed by civil service rules for hiring, which make it harder to discriminate. I also specifically said New York City. Being able to point out one or two leaders as minority is like saying "what do you mean I'm racist, one of my best friends is black". You just can't walk up and join unions, believe me, I tried and was denied admittance. I notice you didn't question the green card issue.

During the civil rights movement, labor was pivotal in its success. That's a fact. It's also a fact that African Americans had to form separate unions before they were aceepted by the overall movement. Read up on A. Philip Randolph. Also read up on how locals discriminate, and internationals when alerted, have to come and correct the problem.

I don't agree with Meeks' vote, but I understand his angst.

Hmmmmm...a few quick thoughts:

I do agree with John Halle--opposition to the CAFTA 15 (and also, as some have pointed in my previous posts) Republicans who went bad and shouldn't have) has to be shown to have teeth. At least for those of us in the labor community, to get there means a lot of people keeping the pressure on union leaders to hold these people accountable in 2006. But, compared to the post-NAFTA environment (when very little was done to the 100 or so Dems who voted for NAFTA), the letter to Pelosi is almost revolutionary.

I don't think the issue is whether McKay defended CAFTA--he has every right to do so, on his own behalf or on his boss' behalf. But, the question in my mind is: what's acceptable language? We have to set a standard that when there is disagreement within the progressive community (broadly defined), those disagreements can be open and even vigorous--but not cross a line, which, for me, means, for examples, you can have a legitimate criticism of the labor movement and not be a union member but not be immediately tarred as "anti-union." It's a mature environment where we support the general but criticize the specific.

Re: Wal-Mart--I don't know about the entire make-up of Wal-Mart shoppers. But, I do know that about 30 percent of the charges on the AFL-CIO credit cards are purchases made at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart preys on poor people.

That's outrageous. I dropped an email to Meeks' office to get the scoop. Defenders of this wingnut need to just stop. Playing the race card whenever someone disagrees with your position is an abominable practice.

John Lewis takes a brick to the dome so some DC half-wit can call people racists? Hellllll naw - that dog won't hunt.

NYAA

First, thanks for the recommended reading. I do not know a lot about A P Randolph, what I do know is that I think his heart is in the right place.

In response, again, I named some of the highest ranking people in the labor movement and they are people of color- that was the point. I wish I had enough time to look at every local labor leader all around the country. I do know what I have seen and I would ask you to once again look at the conclusion I laid out regarding percentages. Is it right? Not sure, but it's a safe assumption I believe. There are also many unions like UFCW, UNITE HERE and UAW who have a very high porportion of their memberships as people of color.

The NY situation- you know better than I as you live there. If that's the case I don't agree with that. But I must plead ignorance on this one brother as I am not that familiar with the NY labor scene.

I did read your post and noted your exclusion of municipal unions. Two points- Unfortunately, Labor doesn't do the hiring and firing so I believe the racial makeup of locals is out of the control of said locals. That's a company racist policy.

Another sad point is that racism does exist and will exist for some time to come. I believe it has and will get better. As I noted, the civil rights movement was a blink ago..40 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things when your talking about racial harmony. It's less than one generation and let's be real- shit like that can get ingrained into a young persons head regardless of his/her race. Education is the key that will unlock those ingrained images taught daily to youngsters by adults who grew up in a much different era. In my opinion, the civil rights movement is still young and there's more work to be done.

The credit card thing..that's shameful. Can you provide a link or story, I would like access to that.

I don't see how one can empathize with Rep. Meeks. NYAA, if yo usaw what I saw and heard what I heard, I believe you would feel much much different. This guys was shameful in his actions. He's no dummie, he has a JD from Howard. He was presented with cold hard facts. Never refuted any of them. He voted for political contributions over people NYAA. I would look at his next FEC report and see who's giving. Friendly wager of a slice- you'll see DHL, UPS, FedEx Wal Mart, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, some rail companies, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Adobe and NY Chamber of Commerce and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce..to name a few.

yes, but didn't you read "the numerous newspapers articles and editorials praising Rep. Meeks"? don't you know that you should be deferring all of your political judgments to the superior opinions of newspaper editorial boards?

Good thread. Who can we run against him in 2006? is a strong primary challenge on this issue the way to go? I know there'd be netroots support, and if the mofo ran unopposed, it's not like there's going to be a Rethug to take our (new) guy down after he or she wins the bloody primary?

But a guaranteed Dem district is probably the best place to run a strong left candidate. Let these pro-business anti-worker types move someplace virtually red and run their traitor ass there.

The districts in question in Brooklyn snake all over the place. They are perfect examples of gerrymanderism to keep someone in office even though they represent no one.

This childish jerk McKay needs to be FIRED.

Then Meeks needs to be replaced with someone who WON'T sell out the people he represents. Any congressman who lets his staff act out in idiotic temper tantrums, like this clown McKay did, has terrible judgment anyway.

I am a SEIU organizer. So obviously you know where my loyalties lie. I will get to that traitor, Meeks, in a second.

I am bothered by people who claim that labor unions are racist. WTF?! Obviously you've never been to an organizing meeting or an action before. I have worked at a number of non-profits over the years, and I can honestly say that Labor is the most diverse institutions in America, except for maybe the US military.

I think some of you [e.g. NewYorkAfricanAmerican] are saying false things about the labor movement when you don't know what you're talking about.

As for Meeks the Weak. He is absolutely pathetic. Can someone please explain to me how CAFTA will help bring jobs to the 48% unemployed black men in his district. It's preposturous!!!

I have come to expect this kind of delusional up-is-down, black-is-white talk from Republicans, but coming from so-called Democrats, it's silly.

I suppose all the other members of the CBC who voted against CAFTA must be racist as well.

Lord, this ship we call America is gonna sink fast if people do not stand up to clowns like Meeks and McKay. [as well as the other 14 who voted for CAFTA, and the Republican party]

That's outrageous. Do you have the original release which this was a comment on?

To allege that opposition to a bill, which was unanimously opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus, is racist is an absurdity beyond belief.

Now, on to finding a decent opposition candidate in '06...

If folks are serious about taking Meeks on in 2006, a couple of factors need to be though through.

First, a primary challenge is probably not viable. Now that Meeks has sold out to the corporations, he's actually worth more to the party rather than less in his ability to bring home the bacon-i.e. money. So it is unlikely for this reason that that the higher ups in the NY state DP (e.g. HRC, Schumer etc.) will make any move to dump him. Hell, they're corporate whores as bad or worse than Meeks. In any case, I'd be glad to be shown to be wrong on this, but I don't think I am. Also, anyone who lives in Harlem, as I do, would be blind if they didn't recognize that there is a lot of truth to what NewYorkAfricanAmerican is talking about. There is a lot of resentment among folks in my neighborhood towards unions, not the least generated by getting harrassed and assaulted by racist union members in blue uniforms. So a union based primary challenge won't have a lot of traction in my neighborhood or neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are a lot like it. I wish that weren't true, but that's the reality.

As for a third party challenge while I would be thrilled if somebody serious stepped up to the plate to run with a third party I think it's pretty unlikely that a figure with sufficient name recognition and credibility will do so. As far as parties themselves go, I read on another thread that even the WFP hasn't committed itself to fielding a candidate so that leaves the Greens and the Labor Party, the former lost their ballot line in NY (mainly due to the WFP) and the latter is completely moribund, to my great displeasure. (What the hell is wrong with those guys?)

The bottom line: we're now paying the price for our failure to organize a viable alternative to the Democrats. And we can expect more of the same in the months and years ahead. It will keep going on until we recognize the reality that developing a labor based third party is the only hope for taking on or at least putting the fear of God into sell out Dems.

If there's any other way, I'd be glad to hear.

While the unions writing letters to Nancy Pelosi is an improvement, as Jonathan says, its not even close to going far enough.

According to the letter sent by Meeks' staffer, he won his last election with 94% of the vote, yet my information shows he ran uncontested. One would think if someone runs uncontested, that person really should win 100% of the vote.

Sounds like someone needs a primary opponent.

I nominate Steve Gilliard.

"racist union members in blue uniforms"

I'm all for pan-union solidarity. But Please. Don't you DARE try to project issues of the NYPD onto struggling women who work in NY's nursing homes and clean up NY's offices.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

First, a primary challenge is probably not viable.

And OH-02 is so deep red that no Democrat can get more than 30% of the vote. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Not anymore.

If we could take Paul Hackett in six weeks from unknown underdog to within biting distance of nabbing the reddest Congressional district in Ohio, we can put the fear of God -- or of Blog -- into Meeks.

I nominate the anonymous individual who got the 6% last time Meeks ran. If he/she can get six percent and not even be on the ballot, I think they stand a great chance.
(LOL - sort of). KFD

Having grown up in NYC and knowing full well the issues between the NYPD and the African-American community, I see your point, however I have never read any complaint by the African-American community when addressing the issue of their treatment by the NYPD that also includes the fact that the police are union members, so I think that it is a very far stretch that African-Americans are anti-union because the police are union. They may be anti-NYPD, and they may be correct, but I am not sure that the union affiliation ever raises it's head in that debate. There are many more issues, brought up in an early post, including the importation of labor from foreign countries, that would be a much more valid argument as to why that community is not pro-union. KFD

Ok, my fingers are tired. Real Moral Majority = RMM from now on. John, to my knowledge, NYPD are Fraternal Order Of Police..not a union; an order with no labor union affiliation. Communications Workers of America does represent some officers and they are an AFL affiliate. The comment on Schumer is a little out of whack. Not the biggest fan here, but both NY sens voted against CAFTA..even with Wall Street breathing down their necks. I think they have learned from the past. I hope Hillary is rubbing it in Bills face honestly and he's telling Rahm how wrong he is/was.

Your comment on viability holds some water. But, no labor money to Meeks means all labor unions safely double max to an opponent. There are approx 60 unions in AFL..3 or so cycles left 15g a pop..there's around 900g plus other organizations as well...Meeks raised about half a mill last election..instant advantage. Back to the original post by Mr. McKay...now who's politically stupid? Add to this, no ground troops for Rep. Meeks from Labor and I think you have a show. Shit, Solis did it..Ryan did it on trade issues. Bring in the right people and he's in the race of his life. I think he may have sufficiently pissed of the NAACP, who by the way, did an outstanding job on this issue and I'm wondering how they will respond to being called a klansman and politically stupid..it's doable.

To steal a quote from Bull Durham.." It's an easy game..you catch the ball, you throw the ball and you hit the ball" CAFTA is the ball. Solis and Ryan recognized this and won when they weren't supposed to and Dems are a stronger party for it.

So, if anyone knows any good local presidents in NY 6....form an exploratory committee and see what turns up.

RMM,
thanks for the NAACP heads up. I went to their website to find their presser on CAFTA, and found this speech instead:

“Minority Americans have better lives because of labor's struggles. Labor supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. We know labor will be with us when we fight for renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The interests of minorities and labor are inevitably bound together; as Martin Luther King said, when you are cut, we bleed.”

And this:

"In 2003, black workers made up 16.5% of the unionized workforce, a greater percentage than their portion in the population. Numerous studies show that blacks, particularly black women, are more likely to vote pro-union in certification elections than their non-black counterparts.

Bond told the labor leaders: “Organized labor's agenda helps non-unionized blacks too. A high percentage of blacks are minimum wage and low-wage job holders. Labor fights for them when it fights for a raise in the minimum wage; that's why the NAACP has endorsed the call for an increase and why we’ve supported legislation that will boost the present, inadequate minimum wage.”

I hope McKay put's this in his pipe and smokes it.. I mean chokes on it.

Link: http://www.naacp.org/news/2005/2005-07-25.html

>Who's Nadar?
a famous 19th century French photographer. I'm really disappointed to find out he was in the klan....

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+site:www.getty.edu+Nadar

I am in the labor movement in NY and want to weigh in on this. Meeks' staffer's comments were not appropriate at all. However, I've seen the original email. It was sent to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen. She then forwarded the email to the Working Families Party and that's how it got circulated. Just so everyone knows, Lori Wallach is the Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in Washington, DC. She has been smearing Meeks' in the press since his vote on CAFTA -- things that I am sure none of us in the Labor movement should be proud of or associate ourselves with. Look at their website: www.citizen.org. This has been very distirubing for many of us in the labor community because Meeks has been a very good friend to all of us throughout his entire political career. His staffer's email was sent to Lori Wallach not to anyone in the labor movement or anyone who opposed CAFTA. While his tone in the email message was inappropriate, can anyone reasonably expect him not to respond to the smears put forth by Ms. Wallach? His job is to defend his boss. Any of us in a similiar situation would have done the same hopefully using different language. But again, his email was a reply to a message sent by Lori Wallach. In this context is how Meeks staffer's unfortunate remarks should be viewed and not the incorrect tone that many posters are stating. Finally, his reference to Nader is Public Citizen's association to Nader. While I didn't agree with Meeks' vote, I can accept his reasoning. Reasonable people can disagree. But our anger should not be at a Member of Congress who has a 93% lifetime voting record with the AFL-CIO on the issues that are of real concern to working families. And if any of you believe that Meeks is vulnerable, you do not know his district. He is well liked not only in his district but in New York and by labor. And as a labor organizer in NYC, I can tell you that he will be reelected again. Anyone that says differently obviously does not live in NY nor knows NY politics.

This is exactly why the labor movement is on a downward spiral:

"While I didn't agree with Meeks' vote, I can accept his reasoning. Reasonable people can disagree."

Do we stand for anything any more??? Have we lost sight of our mission of protecting working standards? Can "reasonable" people disagree on whether workers matter at all?

how do we know that Nyer isn't someone from Meeks office trying to do damage control?

Just asking

Congressman Meeks on the Defensive


On July 27, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed CAFTA by a vote of 217 to 215, thanks to 15 Democrats who went to the other side and voted with the Bush regime for multinational corporate interests. My representative, Gregory Meeks was one of the "CAFTA 15".

Like any good citizen, I called his office before the vote to express my opposition to the bill. Now that the bill has passed, I have a new card to play. I have recently been hired to write a new bi-weekly column for the Times Ledger newspaper group in Queens (Queens' largest community newspaper, with over 50,000 paid subscribers). My first article should appear either this Thursday or next and will focus on the fallout from Meeks' vote.

On Sunday, I attended a press conference organized by the Working Families party, and attended by representatives of labor unions in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win. After the press conference, when I was done asking a few follow-up questions to Brian McLaughlin, I was approached by Rep. Meeks' Communications Director, who was apparently hanging out in the back of the press conference to make sure that reporters came away with Rep. Meeks' position. I've received his earlier statements, but I accepted her new materials and incorporated part of Meeks' justification in my column (the particularly lame complaint "Despite the fact that CAFTA is by no means a perfect agreement, voting it down was not a valid option because it would not subsequently be replaced by a perfect agreement"). She wanted to get me more material, but my deadline was essentially later that night.

This morning, Jonathan Tasini posted a shockingly indecorous e-mail from Rep. Meeks' senior policy advisor on his blog (quoted below):

You're so politically stupid, it is not funny! You send out a press release, and get 1 or 2 media outlets to cover it, and then put it on your blogs as if it some big deal believing your own hype! Please. We welcome your racists campaign. Keep it up. Instead of the 96% of the vote we got last cycle, you racists will help us get 100% for sure! By the way, I hope you saw the numerous newspapers articles and editorials praising Rep. Meeks for his courageous vote and standing up for his district and NYC. Congressman Meeks will continue to fight for the 51% of unemployed black males in NYC and working families regardless of the lies put forth by your racist campaign. I bet you couldn't find our district if you were standing in it. By the way, since your last email cited Crain's NY, I hope you saw their editorial today regarding Cafta, along with the many others.� So keep up your racist campaign. But just a warning to you, when we respond back, you better be prepared. Because we will fight back your racist campaign of misinformation. And it will be just as ugly and nasty as you and your fellow Nadar klansmen. Put that in your elitist pipe and choke on it!

After reading that letter, I decided to reach out to Rep. Meeks very friendly Communications Director. At a quarter to 11, I sent the following message:

Hi Candace,

I appreciate the materials that you gave me on Sunday. I incorporated some of Rep. Meeks' position in my column, but I haven't received any follow-up material from you. My deadline was yesterday, but I may be able to open it up again.

Specifically, I may want to address this e-mail quoted below that has apparently been circulated by Mr. Mike McKay. I find the vitriol and language shockingly indecorous for a Congressional aide. Was Mr. McKay speaking for Rep. Meeks when he sent this e-mail?

Four hours later, I received a personal phone call from Rep. Gregory Meeks. Unfortunately, I was at work when he called.

I must say that I'm rather surprised that my little old column (not yet published) and blarg have elicited a prompt, personal response from a United States Congressman. I suppose it's safe to say that Rep. Meeks is feeling the heat from his support of CAFTA.

I look forward to speaking with the distinguished gentleman as soon as possible.

NYER

If the email was sent to Lori, then it was sent to someone who opposed CAFTA..not to split hairs, but Public Citizen lobbied against CAFTA so you either misspoke or were not aware of their position.

Unfortunately, 93% isn't good enough in this instance. First of all, CAFTA is a terrible deal, worse than NAFTA, for American and Central American working families. If you haven't noticed, labor has been under relentless attack by GOP since Clinton left office..even before that but we had a stopper (on most occasions). labor doesn't have a stopper right now and stopping CAFTA with unanimous Dem support could have given us one. It would have made vulnerable Republicans more vulnerable in these midterm elections. Every Dem who voted for CAFTA made it easier for vulnerable Republicans to win office again and therfore thwart an effort by Dems to retake one of these chambers of Congress and hand a defeat to Bush, DeLay and Hastert in a time when it would really mean something. The political and elecoral ramifications of this vote are not to be outweighed by the terrible trade policy CAFTA represents.

Given the demonstration in NY last week and the subsequent letter from NY labor leaders to Leader Pelosi, I don't think that Rep. Meeks is well-liked by labor at this time.

As a person in the labor movement in NY I would think that you would be a bit more upset that you are referred to as a racist for your opposition to CAFTA. The fact that the original email was sent to someone at Public Citizen, a non-partisan consumer rights organization, makes it more upsetting. This group, even though I have a hard time with their leader right now and am not a fan stands up for people and the advancement of people..ordinary people- period.

To put things into perspective- Rep. Meeks sold working families out. 93% doesn't cut it for the GOP backers, look at what they did to Sen. Specter last cycle. They play no-holds-barred, cut your kneecaps hardball NYER. If we, Labor, want to promote working families agenda, we have to do the same. The inability to realize this rreality is not healthy. The inability to not be angry and stand up against these types of GOP attacks on Labor is baffling. Labor was called a bunch of racists by someone, McKay, who is a member of the Chamber of Comemrce who supported CAFTA. He is not guilty of "unfortunate comments" he is guilty of accusing you, me and everyone else in the Labor movement who fights for working families, REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED or RELIGEON of being a racist NYER. I am left wit hthe thought that you either don't care, don't understand or don't get it. His comments were worthy of being used by the GOP attack machine and doughnuts to dollars will be used in 06 against Labor endorsed candidates. CAFTA was a wakeup call. It set the tone for FTAA. Now, FTAA will include the same anti-working family, anti- working class and meaningless labor enforcement mechanisms of CAFTA. Let any of them off the hook? I hope not. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, purple or polka dotted- they must be held accountable.

Oops. I definitely should have just posted a link. I just enjoyed that voicemail recording of Meeks too much, I wanted to share. Anyway, I apologize for the lack of netiquette.

As a union member, I have to simply say, the correlation between unions and everything else people want (vs. inhuman corporations) is so enormously high that anyone questioning the worth of unions is themselves questionable on the face of it.

Even things some conservative unions don't care about, like environmental protection, fare better with lots of strong unions. Because there is more democracy and that leads to more people's issues winning out.

And if you haven't figured out NAFTA and CAFTA and (especially) the GATT yet, study up more.

Marion is absolutely correct. I was looking at Daily Kos and couldn't belive this hasn't picked up steam..so I posted it and included a link to the website.

Bonus fries to Marion for bringing up GATT. Great to see some old school being fried.

My fellow labor colleagues, you are not seeing the bigger picture here. Anyone can say anything on a blog on the web. Yes there was a demonstration against Meeks and Towns on Sunday. But many of us in the labor community stayed away from the rally because we saw it as going after two of our own. For much of the hype about this rally, it was no big deal. While I was not there, I did get the reports of the event. And it was organized by Working Families Party. They are not what some here think. And again, the email was sent to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen not to anyone in the labor movement or anyone else opposed to CAFTA. I think his staffer's email was stupid. But I am not offended by something that was not meant for me. And being in the labor movement in NY, I am not going to attack any Democrat who has pro-labor records like Meeks and Towns.

"...you racists...When we respond back, you better be prepared." - Mike McKay, Sr. Policy Advisor for Rep. Meeks

"[S]ome of my friends cast their votes for special interests." - Rep. John L. Lewis, civil rights hero who was arrested more than 40 times and physically attacked and injured in the fight for freedom, CAFTA opponent, commenting on the CAFTA 15

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/28/17323/9106

When it comes to deciding what's racist, I'll rely on Congressman Lewis.

Question for RMM,

When you said,
"Rep. Meeks had no clue what he was talking about and kept bringing up Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, which, consequently, wasn't included in the CAFTA agreement."

Why the heck is Meeks worrying about Hugo Chavez? What the heck does he have to do with unemployment in New York City?

Gees if anything Hugo Chavez is showing that there is an alternative way to development in a country besides the neo-liberal Grover Norquist/ Wall Street model.

Very interesting, friends. I'm only going to provide a little info on the Working Families Party (WFP) for those who might be wondering about some facts (and say right off that I'm a member): WFP is now the third-ranked party on the ballot behind the Democrats and Republicans. It's line is actively sought by candidates, and is particularly valuable in PRIMARIES (hint, hint). It's widely considered a significant player statewide, and is pretty much acknowledged to have been behind the successful campaign to raise the state minimum wage.

As for Mr. Meeks' wonderful record on behalf of people, aside from NAFTA, he also voted in favor of the credit-card company-backed bankruptcy bill. I wonder how his constituents feel about that vote? Both he and Ed Towns have taken tens of thousands of dollars in corporate donations. These two guys have turned--it just may take a little education of voters to make that clear.

Opppppsssss...Freudian slip at 6:22 a.m.
I meant CAFTA, of course--though it makes me think of the movie "Aliens," you know, with the big mother (NAFTA) deposting all those pod-like things that breed new monsters (CAFTA).

To be clear, I would be thrilled if a labor backed candidate were able to mount a serious challenge to Meeks either in the Dem primary or, even better, in the general election as a third party candidate. And I'll commit myself right here to contributing $100 to his or her campaign.

My point was that, while I would very much like to see this, for a variety of reasons I'm not convinced that it can or will happen, and I have yet to see any convincing arguments for why I'm wrong.

Among the reasons is that I don't think that labor has as much influence in Meeks' community as some would have us believe, and there are reasons for unions lack of influence-possibly though surely not limited to the ones I mentioned. That some think I should be ashamed of myself for mentioning what is likely a matter of numerical fact (one indication is, despite all of labor's huffing and puffing, the pitiful rates of voter registration and voter turnout) is indicative of part of the larger problem. Not being able to face the reality of its own powerless, labor is, not suprisingly, unable to come up with a viable strategy to do anything about it.

And because labor is as weak as it is among his constituency, Meeks can vote the way he does and his staffer can insult Lori Wallach and the WFP with get away with it. Again, his attitude is "what are you going to do about it, punk."

That get us back to the strategic question were discussing here. One basic strategic principle is that you go after low hanging fruit, you fight battles that you have a good chance of winning or having an influence in. Now if folks think that knocking of Meeks is in this category and are willing to put as much energy into doing that as they seem to be based on the rhetoric here, great.

My point was that there is, in fact, a CAFTA 15 battle that labor can engage in that it is sure to have an influence in and insodoing a draw a line in the sand and that is the Melissa Bean race in Illinois. Run a labor backed third party candidate against Bean in November of 06 and Bean is toast. That, it seems to me, is a sure thing whereas trying to knock off a well established encumbent who likely has the support of his community (such as it is) and the party leadership (who, as I said, their CAFTA votes notwithstanding, is mostly as pro-corporate as Meeks is) doesn't seem like a good bet.

Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. Make my day. Prove me wrong.

New York is a different animal when it comes to labor and politics. Saying that the membership is equitable is simply hilarious. A primary challenge against Meeks is a joke, because the labor "movement" has shown that it doesn't care about people in Meeks' district. Let's go through some facts:
Many labor locals endorsed Rudi Giuliani when he was mayor.
Many unions endorsed George Pataki - including UNITE and the UFT, the Teamsters, the Laborers, etc. I don't remember this kind of uproar. New York City is majority minority, and yet the trade unions are lilly white. The leadership is worse, and internationals are worse. SEIU 32BJ just endorsed Mayor Bloomberg, the UFT has not endorsed a Democrat, the Working Families Party willingly praises Mayor Bloomberg every chance it gets. Did you know the Working Families Party endorsed a Republican State Senate candidate that won by 18 votes? This is why I say people in glass houses should throw stones, and people need to check their own houses before they say anything about Meeks. Labor in NY State has been buddy buddy with Republicans for a long time, and have distanced themselves from Dems. As a matter of fact as well, the NYPD is represented by the PBA. The PBA's stance on African AMericans is clear. They religiously beleive that African Americans a lesser beings. Most African Americans remember them staging a rally against their own Mayor Dinkins yelling "Get that N-gger out". Mind that Giuliani pimped them and never gave them a decent wage, and Bloomberg cut the salaries of recruits this year. Get real people, unless you live here, you don't know the disarray of the labor movement and the inherent inequities. I say all of that to say that the Labor movement in New York needs to check itself before it checks members of Congress with 92% voting records. Again, I don't agree with Meeks' vote at all, but if labor wants to cry foul, then they need to start allowing more African Americans, particularly in Meeks' district to shape jobs, and get apprenticeships. Presently, they are denied access. And don't blame the employers, they only hire people with union cards in New York.

Please forgive the misspellings in my previous post.

Whatever our differences with Cong. Meeks are at the moment and they are serious, we should keep in mind that he is a member of congress who has worked with us on many issues. Mike McKays statement is not reflective of how Cong. Meeks has engaged organized Labor or any other group.

i agree with ed ott's appraisal. it is counterproductive to plan political action based on one asshole staffer's nasty remarks.

for my part, id say that worrying about meeks is probably futile. not only has he been a good friend of labor's overall, but he is very secure in his district.

lets focus on towns who is an ineffective congressman unresponsive elected official and very beatable.

Excellent and informative exchange. Michael McKay's original post was like the little boy who peed in his pants and began crying, looking for someone to blame. But it did provoke some interesting answers.
I especially like winning by 93%, although unopposed. How'd he manage that?
The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is like the famous distinction without a difference.

Excellent and informative exchange. Michael McKay's original post was like the little boy who peed in his pants and began crying, looking for someone to blame. But it did provoke some interesting answers.
I especially like winning by 93%, although unopposed. How'd he manage that?
The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is like the famous distinction without a difference.

I hate to stick a pin in this discussion, it is/has been/will be great fun to follow. My compliments to JT for a great site and an even better exchange of ideas and emotions. Just proves how good the internet could be for driving issues.

Let's start with Meeks 94% voting record; cool, but what has it gotten us? How about the late great Sentator Wellstone's 100%. Another simply awesome voting record. Hell, he never caved like Meeks did in the face of huge political contributions.

Point being, the voting records are meaningless until those votes equate to outcomes that help workers or organized labor become more successful. You have to ask yourselves; will this battle to remove Meeks result in growing a labor movement?

I've asked before, and i know the reaction, but why are we involved in politics? It would seem to me far more important to be spending both the financial and emotional capital we have on the issues that are important to workers. Imagine if we had workers (black, white; union and non) understanding why CAFTA, NAFTA and the other crap the right is feeding us. Politicians wouldn't be able to sell them a bill of goods, and the results would speak for themselves.

The stupidity of McCay's statement is second only to our inability to use the limited resources we have to grow a legitimate labor movement. Measuring meaningless voting records and arguing over which worthless politician deserves our support insures we will never change the mess we are in.

Again, my compliments to JT on one of the better exchanges i've read on the net in a long time.

Actually, compliments to the many posters--though I don't agree with some of the points made, I think, generally speaking, people have made fair arguments and enriched the discussion. Thanks to all.

From my point of view, the value of this discussion is not whether we decide to take on Meeks or Towns (or Melissa Bean in Illinois or...); that's an on-going tactical discussion. What's valuable is the broad sentiment that SOMETHING must be done--and that's a step forward. I, for one, intend on keeping the discussion alive.

Some random thoughts – first of all, let’s remember to keep McKay’s comments in context – they were said to Lori Wallach, Public Citizen, not anyone in the labor movement or to anyone on this blog. McKay is clearly pissed about misstatements made about his boss, and he has a right to be pissed. Even this blog, well meaning though it is, contains plenty of hyperbole and misstatements (such as, “CAFTA is a worse trade agreement than NAFTA- do the math” – which is either a gross misreading of the facts, or a massive overstatement: the non-partisan International Trade Commission pegged job losses at “minimal”). So too, comments like Justin Orndorff about unanimity by the CBC against CAFTA is clearly inaccurate: see Yes votes on CAFTA by African Americans: Meeks, Towns, and Bill Jefferson.
I made special note too of other comments on this site about where Meeks may get support, companies like “DHL, UPS, FedEx WalMart” – all employers in Meeks’ district, which includes Kennedy Airport, a major gateway to Central and Latin America – and all of whom may actually ADD jobs in his district.
While trade may be an issue that galvanizes Organized Labor (and let’s be honest, that is what this is about), trade is not, and has never been, an issue that galvanizes voters. Read an article in this week’s Roll Call by Stuart Rothenberg, a non-partisan political analyst, that “there is precious little evidence that high-profile Congressional trade votes have much electoral impact.” With only one exception (Tom Sawyer, D-OH), trade has never cost anyone their seats, and just to point this up, Jim DeMint (R-SC), an avowed free trader, recently won the seat of Fritz Hollings, despite the best efforts of the Roger Milliken crowd (btw: the investigative types on this blog might read up on the connection between the unholy alliance between the avidly anti-union anti-trade Milliken and Public Citizen. Link below) – bottom line is that Meeks’ 93% union record is what matters to working people, not some academic debate amongst well meaning people about the relative costs/benefits of a VERY MINOR trade agreement. In fact, Organized Labor should be swinging from the chandeliers in happiness. They got 93 percent fealty from Democrats in support of their position on a minor trade deal (again, read the ITC report). They have proven that they can keep the House minority in line.
Lastly, I think this site (and others) needs to look carefully at itself in targeting two African Americans from New York, before all others, for vitriol and retribution.

http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3717.pdf
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Milliken.pdf
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/4668F61591FA2AC38525702A0078354C?Opendocument

Friends told me that my name was pulled into this blog.

To set the record straight, Mike McKay's August 8th email that this blog posted was one in a string of inappropriate emails that Mr. McKay had been blasting out via his official House of Reps email to CAFTA opponents. These emails were sent by McKay to a rather broad list that included the legislative and political directors of several national unions, a dozen other anti-CAFTA activists and bizzarely even to at least one national journalist.

These emails have all been of the same nature: rather than addressing the substance of the CAFTA issue or the politics of Rep. Meeks' vote, these emails were all name calling and then eventually sunk to race-baiting.

What started Mr. McKay's attacks was my simply posting to my large (200 people) congressional hill trade staffer and CAFTA activist list a Newsday clip containing a quote that Mr. McKay claimed did not exist in a blast at my organization, which among other things labeled me as a "godamn liar" for having made up a Newsday quote that did not (but in fact did) exist. (Someone asked what started this - it was circulating the mid-July "Meeks in the Middle" Newsday story )

Maybe some folks reading this are on my CAFTA list. Since the vote, I've sent out ALL of the clips on accountability actions taken against those who supported CAFTA: GOP LaTourette skewered in the Plain Dealer for being duped or lying on why he supported CAFTA; Dem Bean has had her person-of-the-year labor award pulled; Dem Cooper was picketed; GOP Hayes was lambasted in his local press for flip-flipping again; GOP Cuellar has a 6-person CAFTA accountability canvass starting in his district labor day and two primary challengers announced, etc etc etc.

I have also used my CAFTA list to circulate the news releases fr our CAFTA Damage Report, a project we launched the day after the vote to track not only the Democrats who went wrong, but a list of almost 30 members - half of whom are GOP - whose yes on CAFTA votes stood out as especially egregious.

Our CAFTA Damage Report news release regarding Rep. Meeks is the same format, containing the same information about his campaign financing sources and debunking his claims of how CAFTA could help his district or Central America that we have researched, prepared and released for over a dozen House members so far. (The CAFTA Damage Report is at tradewatch.org. Pl pass on any information that might be useful to its goal of tracking the outcomes of CAFTA, the deals made to pass it and the political fall out for politicians who supported CAFTA.)

Holding politicians accountable for their claims and votes is an essential aspect of a living democracy. We have tracked NAFTA's outcomes continually since its 1-1-94 inception and used that info in a targeted manner to hold those who voted for it accountable for its damage - which in part helped persuade some of those many NAFTA "yes" votes still in Congress not to support CAFTA NAFTA expansion to six more nations.

One key item which our CAFTA Damage Report news release regarding Rep. Meeks includes amd that needs to be tracked is Rep. Meeks claim that CAFTA will create jobs at JFK. Please get in touch with me if you are interested in helping with this aspect of CAFTA tracking. Before the vote, Rep. Meeks was presented with information that in fact there is almost no cargo shipping by air from Central America into JFK and that the vast majority of trade with CAFTA countries is transported via ship to Florida, Texas and Louisiana ports and then trucked to NY and is expected to continue as such under CAFTA.)

Finally, I had no interest in having Mr. McKay's August 8 email go public. All of this hoopla about it is a distraction from the substance of the very real threats CAFTA poses here, in Central America and the DR. If making the email public was my intent, I would have sent it out myself to the myriad political, press and others folks who would have had a morbid fascination in such a meltdown - something I did not do with any of Mr. McKay's inappropriate emails. I fowarded the Aug 8 email to four NY and DC labor friends to whom McKay had not sent the Aug 8 email because I found the threat in it disturbing and wondered what anyone knew about this man who I did not know, but who seemed scarily out of control and who was now issuing threats directed at me singled out from the larger list he had been blasting the week before.

Until I felt that I needed to set the factual record straight, I have stayed out of this exchange because Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch's focus regarding CAFTA is on tracking CAFTA's fall out and holding accountabile the actual Members of Congress who have brought us this avoidable damage. I hope folks on this blog will join in that CAFTA accountability pursuit.

Does anyone have a link to the Cuellar accountability canvass article? That's a great idea by the way. Norm Dicks and Jim Moran are both within distance of Working America canvasses if someone wanted to scratch up some funding.

Carl

Unfortunately Lori, the email directed at you was posted. As part of fair play, you should also post Congressman Meeks' subsequent email to you,which denounced McKay's statements. I think you should have sent any and all emails that McKay sent to you back to the Congressman if they were of concern. Sending the email to others prompted this hoopla because it started to circulate. Out of the many emails you claim have been sent, this is the only one that went out publically. If I were you, I would urge anyone who received such an email to address them to Congressman Meeks, as he is one of the most accessible Members of congress. He has been a friend of labor, as well as a supporter of trade. I would argue that labor has been inconsistent on trade issues, as many free trade bills have come and gone without anyone hearing a peep from labor. Maybe CAFTA will help galvanize a consistent message on trade, and more consistency all around. You should not only monitor CAFTA, but also monitor the Jordan and/or Austrailian free trade agreements as well.

Lori's post describing McKay's emails is not correct. I've seen the emails. McKay's responses where always a reply to a message sent by Lori Wallach. Lori claims he emailed others. What she doesn't say is that when she emailed McKay, Lori cc about a dozen people at Public Citizen and two members of the labor community (teamsters and unite). Anybody who got the email was brought into it by Lori Wallach. All McKay did was hit "reply to all" recipients from Lori's original message.

I've had the opportunity to read and review the email exchange and let me offer my oberservations:

1. Lori Wallach has emailed Meeks' staff at least a dozen times since August 2nd. Not all messages were responded to. In some cases, as I said, Lori brought others into the email exchange. Meeks staff responded exactly how the original message was sent.

2. McKay's anger at Lori and her organization (Public Citizen) is that they have attacked Congressman Meeks publicly in the press with false allegations/motives and baseless claims since his vote on CAFTA. McKay was doing his job defending his boss against these nasty attacks.

With that background, I have some questions that Lori hopefully will answer:

1. Isn't it true that your August 1st press release attacking Congressman Meeks had quotes made up by you or someone at Public Citizen which drew the anger of Meek's staff?

2. McKay's anger about the Newsday story is because you useda quote from a Newsday story 10 days before the vote but told reporters that Meeks told the Teamsters a few minutes before the vote that he was going to vote No on CAFTA but changed his mind when he reached the House floor a few minutes later. You implied to the press that Meeks made a deal on the floor for his Yes vote. The Teamsters have publicly disputed your baseless charge that Meeks ever told them that he was voting No on CAFTA, see the Hill Newspaper, 08/10 "Anti-CAFTA Groups suggest inside deals swayed votes." How do you expalin this?

3. How come the quotes in the Roll Call story does not match what is in your press release? See Roll Call July 28th story by Erin Billings "Pelosi Calls Steering Meeting to Review Defector's Votes on CAFTA." Everyone should pay particular attention to Public Citizen's press release footnote #2 compared to paragraph's 5 and 6 in the Roll Call published story. Lori tried to attribute quotes at Congressman Meeks by altering the original version. How do you explain this?

4. You said that McKay "oddly enough" sent information to one national journalist. The truth is the journalist -- Warren Veith of the LA Times -- contacted McKay after Eliza Brinkmeyer, a Press Assistant at Public Citizen, sent your press release (filled with baseless charges and motives against Congressman Meeks)to Warren Veith on Tuesday, August 2nd at 7:18 AM. McKay was doing his job responding to Veith's press inquiry. How do you expalin this? And please don't deny it because I've seen the emails. Mr. Veith forwarded Ms. Brinkmeyer's 7:18 AM email to Mr. McKay.

Being in the labor movement, I know where Meeks and his staff have been for labor. I take exception to what you and your colleagues at Public citizen are doing to a Member of Congress who has been a great friend to Labor as others have posted.

Lori and Public Citizen's actions are dispicable. She is trying to lump us in the labor movement into her attacks on Congressman Meeks. As ianKenny posted, McKay's comments were at Lori Wallach and Public Citizen only. Lori is trying to cover her behind. We (the Labor community) should run away as fast from her and Public Citizen as possible. Becasue as ianKenny posted in his last paragraph, the actions of Public citizen targeting two African Americans, friends of Labor, can have a negative impact on us in the future. And we have enough problems already. Besides, I am convinced that Lori has an agenda here based on the many misrepresentations put forth by her and Public Citizen. When someone does things like she is doing, her motives should be brought into question.

I tend to agree with those who say don't waste your time on Mike McKay unless you can think of a worthwhile and achievable goal, e.g. get McKay fired (why bother, he'll do more damage staying), threaten Meeks's re-election (fat chance), or ... I dunno, what?

It would be more interesting if a genuine progressive would run against Meeks and use his CAFTA vote as a campaign issue. Likewise for the rest of the CAFTA 15.

If Lori Wallach feels she was threatened ("just a warning to you, when we respond back, you better be prepared. Because we will fight back your racist campaign of misinformation. And it will be just as ugly and nasty as you and your fellow Nadar klansmen") she should use legal means to press charges against him.

I imagine there are some nice federal ones she could use since he was using e-mail, and from a government server to boot. Or maybe there's some House office she can file a non-legal complaint with--this kind of thing makes Congress look bad.

But I'm sure Lori has much better ways to spend her time.

Just remember Lori Wallach emailed Mike McKay. He just replied to her message. And, once again, if you think you are going to beat Meeks in his district, you obviously don't know anything about his record as a Member of Congress nor his district. I am in the Labor movement in NY and will support the Congressman regardless of what some of you bloggers say.

I saw the letter Rep. Meeks sent to Lori about McKay's email because it was also sent to some labor people. I was pretty shocked to see that in fact Rep. Meeks did not ‘denounce’ McKay’s statements. Meeks' office should post it so everyone can see what the congressman actually said. Rep Meeks' makes clear that McKay was not speaking for him, but all he says about the email is that it was ‘unbecoming’ and from a “passionate" staffer. If anyone in our office has sent an email like that, they would have been fired and a public statement issued that denounced the staff's conduct.

As far as who McKay is attacking, its not just the emails. McKay has been mouthing off against labor since the CAFTA vote – calling labor people upset about Meeks CAFTA vote labor goons etc.

That said, it would be dispicable if Public Citizen was making up quotes and saying they come from news stories. But, having checked out the quotes, I don’t get the point in that anotherfriendofmeeks’ message. If you look at the news release PC did on Meeks (its on their website - and by the way the Meeks release is just one in a series that are almost identical as far as language, issues raised that question why a whole list of Representatives voted for CAFTA) and the Roll Call story anotherfriendofmeeks sends us to, the quote in the news release is identical to whats in the Roll Call story. I guess Public Citizen could have put more stories in the footnotes. The Roll Call one says:

"Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats, who voted for CAFTA.

"There's going to be a lot of discussion at the meeting, however it's going to focus on a certain group of Members who have no explanation for their votes. That's what it's going to focus on," said a senior Democratic aide. "There are a handful of members who have explaining to do."" (Billings, “Pelosi Calls Steering Meeting to Review Defectors’ Votes for CAFTA,” Roll Call, 7/28/05)

There was also one I googled from the Hill. "This time, Democratic ire fell on those among the 15 who did not face pressure from their districts to back the measure, focusing on such members as secure New York Democrats Greg Meeks and Ed Towns." (Hearn, “Reverberations from CAFTA vote are still being felt on Hill,” The Hill,8/3/02)

But the bottomline is that these stories say what the Public Citizen news release did - that Democratic House leaders were especially upset about Meeks and Towns votes. What are the made up quotes? Everything in quotations in the news release anothermeeksfriend says is fabricated is accurately footnoted to a newstory or is a quote from Wallach or another Public Citizen person named Raul Islas.

If you ask me, anotherfriendofmeeks is probably McKay trying to cover HIS butt - not someone from labor. Who else would know the exact time of an email anotherfriendofmeeks says was forwarded to McKay by a journalist? And if I am right, then it's sad that McKay thinks that including a reporter in a reply all on a nasty email is ‘doing his job.’ If McKay keeps his job, he’d serve his boss a lot better by praying hard that some factory in their district does not move to a CAFTA country.

Neyer's comments are the exact reason the labor movement ought to run as fast and as far as they can from politics and politicians who are beholding to the highest bidder.

Buying votes and playing politics insures we will always be left holding the bag...a big empty bag. Let locals and internationals dump as much as they want into this failed process. Hopefully the ones that understand we can only grow a true labor movement by reaching out to workers will be the ones who save this sinking ship.

Getting folks to agree on these kinds of issues and who to vote for has done nothing for us for years. Given the shift to the right, our salvation lies in being able to work together on the things we cab agree on.

What I want to know is why this McKay guy only went after one person who has called out Meeks inexplicable vote for CAFTA - and that one person is the only woman visible in the upset buzz about Meeks CAFTA vote? More people see David Sirota’s blog – where he slammed Meeks and the rest of the bad CAFTA voters – than anything Public Citizen puts out. Meeks was one of only 6 targets of the Campaign for America’s Future Help Find the Missing Democrats campaign thing sent out by Robert Borosage (that is a call to action to contact 6 Democrats who keeping voting for Bush and against working people on a list of things like the bankruptcy-credit card thing, CAFTA, etc.) Have you seen the webphotos from that protest against Meeks and Towns CAFTA votes that was reported in the New York Times? It’s a group of NYC union presidents from all sorts of different unions in Meeks district – mainly men. Why isn’t McKay attacking all of them with that same threatening, nasty tone? (I guess he could not do the racial stuff on the union leaders in the photo, because a lot of them are Black.) Also – Ian Kenney says this blog should be careful not to single out two black congresspeople for retribution on CAFTA. Do you figure the reason why Meeks and Towns are the target of NY labor wrath is because they are the ONLY Democrats in the entire NY state delegation, including the Senators, who voted for CAFTA? Seems to me that is the explanation not something racial. Certainly no one thinks that an offcial’s race, gender, sexual preference etc is a reason not to hold an elected representative accountable for a bad vote?

Tasini:

Why did you change your column title from "punishing the CAFTA 15" to "spanking the CAFTA 15"?

Please tell the collective audience how inserting an independent ILO monitoring and reporting mechanism in DR-CAFTA -- the first time ever in a trade agreement and considered an astounding step forward by the ILO -- is a bad thing. Are you stating the ILO is wrong about this?

Please tell the collective audience why providing labor capacity building funds for the DR-CAFTA countries -- the first time ever in a trade agreement and considered an astounding step forward by the ILO -- is a bad thing. Are you stating that the ILO is wrong about this?

Please tell the collective audience what an acceptable trade agreement would look like to you, and how you feel an ILO presence in the DR-CAFTA countries makes things worse for workers there.

Just curious, since your previous postings on the "punish the CAFTA 15" column suggested you had no clue whatsoever what was really was part of the "DR-CAFTA deal", and never once made reference to whether you believe the ILO to be part of the corporate plot you keep talking about.

I look forward to specific answers, not more ravings.

Karissa,

You can answer your own questions by reading AnotherfreindofMeeks post or some of my previous posts too. Lori Wallach has made public statements that were not true about Congressman Meeks. She has used Public Citizen's resources in this effort and they are part of this too. Do you don't think she can falsely accuse a Member of Congress' motives and actions and not be taken up on it? Reasonable people can disagree but when someone makes things up that are not true, that crosses the line.

AnotherfreindofMeeks, ianKenny, and some other have written posts that shows what Lori has done. Doesn't anyone find it strange that Ms. Wallach is yet to refute the information from AnotherfreindofMeeks posts. Instead of the silly ranting that many are doing, AnotherfreindofMeeks and ianKenny document who the email was sent to and other actions by Lori Wallach that shows why she has caught the ire of Meeks' staff. It gives names and even the time emails were sent. The reason no one else is treated like that is because they have not made false public statements smearing Congressman Meeks. Only Lori Wallach and her colleagues at Public Citizen have done that. Look at Public Citizen's web site and see who they have "selectively" targeted. I don't see any press releases attacking white Democrats for supporting CAFTA. Why is that? And finally, remember, Lori has been emailing Meeks' staff; he just replied to her message and slammed her in the process. Good for him....his job is to defend his boss. Although he should tone it down.

I think you, and others, need to stop the silly ranting and look at the facts. Because if you did so with an open mind, you would run away from Lori Wallach as fast as possible. I am in the labor movement in NY and don't like what Public citizen is doing. And just so you know, you should ask people like myself who are in NY how many people were at that protest last week. Pictures do lie. And you have your facts wrong. There was only one President at the protest -- the CLC President. It is amazing how many of you are just wrong with your facts and misstatements.

Good for you NYer. Right on the money.

The realdeal item defending the CAFTA labor provisions is unbelieveable. No one but the Bush Administration and the Business Round Table even bothered with those arguments. No one serious tried to say that the CAFTA labor provisions were good when every union, not only in the US but also all of the independent unions in Central America and the Dominican Republic attacked those provisions as a major roll back of the status quo. Check out the AFL-CIO website for the details. The basic facts are that currently, US trade with CAFTA countries is regulated under two programs –the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and a Caribbean Basin Initiative and a more recent version of CBI called the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. Under the status quo, for goods made in the CAFTA countries to get duty free entry into the US, the countries have to meet or be working to meet the ILO core labor standards (right to associate etc) These were the labor rights programs that US and Guatemalans unions used to pressure Guatemala to stop killing labor leaders during the Clinton Administration. They work because the elite – the business owners and government officials - have an interest in fixing the problem because if they do not, their duty free access to the US market gets cut off. At the very end of the Clinton Administration, there was a free trade agreement all the US unions did support – which I guess answers the question of what a good agreement contains on labor rights. The US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement labor provisions are what the US unions said needed to be in all future agreements. But Bush, surprise, surprise, told labor to go to Hell. Among all of those Clinton labor rules and policies Bush dumpedwhen he came in, rolling back the traded agreement labor rights was on the top of the list. (Pretty in their face too, because it is not like the Jordan agreement labor rules were so terrific even if they certainly beat all past versions.) The Central American and DR unions said that for them, they needed CAFTA to have the same elements that are in GSP and CBI: that countries have to meet the ILO standards and that the obligation has to be enforced with trade sanctions (ie the elite lose their special trade privileges if the ILO rights are not met.) That standard was also the US labor bottom line. CAFTA certainly does not meet that standard – instead it rolls back the status quo: the substantive standard is just that countries can’t repeated fail to enforce their own laws. A special ILO report on the CAFTA countries labor laws noted several dozen ways their laws don’t meet ILO standards – but under the pathetic CAFAT labor standards, as long as those weak laws are not repeated flaunted, there is no CAFTA violation. Plus, CAFTA’s labor rules let the countries get rid of labor laws or weaken them any time – that is not a violation either. Plus, while the whole rest of CAFTA is enforced with the same system as CBI and GSP – ie trade sanctions – the companies get hit with tariffs and other trade sanctions if they violate the other CAFTA rules, for labor violations (and I have no idea how you could ever prove a violation anyway given the CAFTA standard) all that happens is that the country is supposed to pay a fine – to itself. I am serious – the money goes from one government account into a ‘labor enforcement’ account. (ie. The country just cuts the labor budget by that much and moves money from somewhere else into the same place.) And the fines are capped at $10 million per repeated violation. Given how much money the companies make on sweat labor, a small set amount fine can just be written off as a cost of doing business. CAFTA’s labor provisions are a real screw you to working people in the US and in CA and the Dominican Republic. Its not like the CBI and GSP standards were strong enough to start with and then CAFTA rolls those back. I was surprised realdeal even mentioned the labor capacity money. People watching CAFTA thought that the Bush Admin might actually offer real money to try to sway Democrats. Ie. They bought some GOP textile votes by offering $100 million for more Customs inspectors. But in the end, it was only $3 million per country for BOTH labor and environmental capacity building and a chunk of that is required to go to the ILO to do what the ILO already now does using UN money – document the labor rights violations. There is nothing new with the ILO reporting on CA or DR. They do an annual report as it is. Even if the countries got the full $3 million per year, it is an insultingly low amount when you consider what it would cost to do anything real to help improve either labor or environmental conditions in some of these incredibly poor countries with terrible labor rights records. Oh, and even that tiny amount of money was not in the Bush Administration budget, so like the promised NAFTA labor and environmental money, it probably wont be paid out at all.

I hit post instead of preview - here's the rest of what I wanted to say:

I read nyers comments to Karissa who questioned why McKay only went after a woman in that offensive way - although I dont suppose nyer characterizing the contributions of everyone on this blog as "silly rants" (except the few defending Meeks)helps anyone take it too seriously.

First, Nyers seems to think that if Lori Wallach "made public statements that were not true about Congressman Meeks" a personally threatening, race-baiting attack is an appropriate response?

Second, nyer's email made me want to see what Public Citizen did say about Meeks. Nyer - what in the Public Citizen news release was untrue? I pasted it below. Everyone check for youself.

All I see is Public Citizen asking the same question everyone else I know in NY labor is asking: why did Meeks vote that way? The Public Citizen thing does not have an answer - although some of the other ones in that CAFTA Damage part of the website does actually describe and take apart the deals other members they are criticizing say they got. But, they really don't "say" anything difinitive about Meeks that you could call untrue. The Meeks one is identical to some of the other ones where they just question why the congressman voted that way and list the same three question with some specific stuff on cmapign contribution for each congressman. But don't actually say anything one could say is untrue. Check it out:

With N.Y. Jobs at Risk, and Dominican-American Constituents Opposing, Did Rep. Gregory Meeks Trade Deciding Vote for CAFTA-NAFTA Expansion in Exchange for Corporate Campaign Cash, Pork Barrel Funds or Other Empty Promises?

Public Citizen Launches CAFTA Damage Report to Track Results of Misguided Meeks Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Against the grain of his self-proclaimed concern for economic justice for New York workers and Afro-Latino interests, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) voted in favor of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), casting a deciding vote as the controversial trade agreement eked past the U.S. House of Representatives 217 to 215 on July 27. CAFTA was opposed by all but 15 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, including New York’s senior Democrat, Rep. Charlie Rangel, who represents Harlem.

As Newsday reported, shortly before the vote Meeks told International Brotherhood of Teamsters representatives that he had “serious concerns about this bill, concerns about losing jobs in America,” before turning his back on those concerns with his eventual vote.1 A senior Democratic aide said of Meeks’ and other Democrats’ pro-CAFTA vote, “there are members who don’t seem to have any sort of reason for voting the way that they did.”2

New York working people have been hard-hit by the NAFTA model that CAFTA will expand. Since NAFTA, 219,700 New York manufacturing jobs have been lost,3 and under just one narrow assistance program, the Department of Labor certified at least 61,435 New York workers as having lost their jobs to plant relocation overseas or import floods.4

“Given the strong opposition to NAFTA expansion in his district, the known threat to New York jobs and the unwillingness of any businesses related to JFK airport to pledge that CAFTA would increase jobs there, many people were disgusted by his deciding vote for CAFTA and now wonder, for what could he have traded this important vote that could possibly make up for the damage NAFTA expansion will do?” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

To track the damage Meeks’ flip-flop vote will cause his constituents, Public Citizen announced today a new initiative, the CAFTA Damage Report, to monitor CAFTA’s effect on working families, consumers and the environment in the United States and CAFTA target countries.

Among the issues the CAFTA Damage Report will track include:

• The implausibility that CAFTA will increase employment levels at JFK airport. Meeks claimed that a vote for CAFTA would be a vote for workers in his district, thanks to increased volume of trade through JFK airport, which is in the 6th District. Transportation experts had questioned this Meeks’ claim before the vote, given that JFK handles little shipping from Central America. Almost all high-value traded goods coming in and out of JFK are moving to and from Europe, not Central America. The sorts of goods traded to and from CAFTA target countries are minimal in volume and value, and more likely to be shipped by sea to Florida ports than by air to New York. Thus, CAFTA is not expected to have a substantial effect on trade and employment at JFK.

• Did Meeks get corporate campaign funding pledges for his CAFTA vote? “Some of my friends cast their votes for special interests,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Democratic Senior Chief Deputy Whip.5 Meeks received significant campaign contributions during the last election cycle from Pfizer Inc. – part of the pharmaceutical lobby that made
passing CAFTA a major legislative priority, because CAFTA contains intellectual property rules that would cut off access in Central American and the Dominican Republic to cheaper generic drugs. The pharmaceutical companies hope that eliminating competition from generic drugs will force more purchases of expensive brand name anti-retrovirals for treating HIV-AIDS, and antibiotics used for treating malaria and tuberculosis, which also plague Central America. However, according to Doctors without Borders, Oxfam and ACT-UP, CAFTA’s patent provisions would simply make it much more difficult for impoverished Central Americans and Dominicans to obtain affordable medicine, including dooming the hundreds of thousands who have HIV-AIDS to avoidable deaths. CAFTA Damage Report will track and publicize Meeks campaign contributions from corporations who were pushing CAFTA.

• Did Meeks buy a meaningless promise from the Bush administration in exchange for his CAFTA vote? In a statement issued by his office following his vote for CAFTA, Meeks claimed that CAFTA would improve worker rights in Central America,6 thanks to a promise from the Bush administration that Meeks called “a very definite step in the right direction.”7 The independent labor unions in the Dominican Republic and Central America opposed CAFTA because it would roll back existing labor standards now in effect under existing U.S. trade law with these countries. Meeks noted that the Bush administration promised to provide $40 million per year for labor and environmental capacity building in the six affected nations. Yet, the actual funding behind this promise has not been appropriated in the U.S. spending bills that are being finalized now, nor does such a commitment appear in the CAFTA’s implementing legislation, much less the CAFTA text itself. However, even if $40 million per year were to appear, $6 million per CAFTA country per year for labor and environmental capacity building has been dismissed by development experts in the United States and Central America as insultingly inadequate. For example, $6.25 million is set aside in the House transportation bill for graffiti removal in the New York City metropolitan area, including Meeks’ Queens County. If $6 million cannot even pay for graffiti removal in a single city, it is ridiculous to think that it could substantially improve both labor and environmental conditions in an entire country.

“We will track and publicize how Rep. Meeks has helped inflict damage on his district and his state by voting for CAFTA,” Wallach said.

Meeks has a long history of interest in Afro-Latino and Caribbean nations, particularly Haiti, calling for humanitarian aid and civil and human rights reforms. However, his vote for CAFTA goes directly against these interests, as the agreement is opposed broadly in the Dominican Republic and Central America, where mass opposition rallies and marches have been suppressed by the governments with increasingly violent tactics. CAFTA is also opposed by all major U.S. African-American and Latino civil society organizations, who have concluded that CAFTA would be an economic and social disaster for Afro-Latinos, especially since Afro-Latinos suffer disproportionately from HIV-AIDS, the treatment of which will become prohibitively costly under CAFTA.

In his post-CAFTA press statement, Meeks claimed that a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. guided him in his decision to cast the crucial vote to pass CAFTA. “One wonders if Dr. King would really have approved of a vote in favor of a trade agreement that will disproportionately hurt minorities,” said Raul Islas, Public Citizen’s chief organizer for New York City. Updated Aug. 3, 2005

Background: Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch has studied over 90 deals taken by members of Congress for trade votes during the period 1992-2004, and found that over 80 percent of promises on such deals were not kept or were reversed by subsequent events. We divided these deals into pure pork barrel promises, of which 70 percent were broken; and ameliorative policy fix promises, of which 90 percent were broken. For our full report, “Trade Wars – Revenge of the Myth: Deals for Trade Votes Gone Bad,” please visit http://www.citizen.org/documents/tradewars.pdf

1 J. Jioni Palmer, “Meeks in the middle,” Newsday, July 17, 2005. 2 Erin P. Billings, “Pelosi Calls Steering Meeting to Review Defectors’ Votes for CAFTA,” Roll Call, July 28, 2005; Susan Davis, “House Dems Take Stock After CAFTA,” Congress Daily, July 29, 2005; Josephine Hearn, “Reverberations from CAFTA vote are still being felt on Hill,” The Hill, Aug. 3, 2005. 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey, All Employees, Manufacturing Super Sector. 4 Bureau of Labor Statistics Trade Adjustment Assistance numbers, available on Public Citizen’s website. 5 Erin P. Billings, “Pelosi Calls Steering Meeting to Review Defectors’ Votes for CAFTA,” Roll Call, July 28, 2005. 6 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), “U.S. Representative Gregory W. Meeks Supports the DR-CAFTA,” Congressional Press Release, July 28, 2005. 7 “Thomas Sees China Action Before Final House Vote on CAFTA,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 1, 2005.

Thats the only thing on Meeks I found. What can be called uuntrue in there? Per that contribution a few items above, the quotes seem to all check out.

Unionmaid -- You repeated the same criticisms a number of people have thrown out over time, but one could honestly disagree with most of your readings of the text and the potential outcome of the agreement, including all the funds and such included during the final negotiations with the Admin. And on several issues -- the labor capacity building one for example -- you are simply wrong, and as a result those reading this shouldn't be quite as receptive to accpeting your criticisms as they might otherwise be. In fact, they should question all the criticisms you have thrown at the wall and see if any of them actually stick.

Check the facts: its $40/m/year for five years for labor rights capacity building (new money, included in the Bush Admin budget, never done before, ever), with $3m of that for a dedicated labor rights report, published in Spanish and English, and includes access to facilities (like export processing zones)that were not inlcuded before. Mimimize the amount all you like, but it doubles the funding that went to the DR-CAFTA Labor ministries before. Is that enough? Nope, but I suspect workers trying to take their cases to courts -- and they will be taught what their cases might be under this agreement -- might think otherwise.

GSP had tougher enforcement mechanisms, no doubt, but the Bush Admin hasn't and won't use them, and there was no ILO mechanism to speak of. As such, labor violations could be easily hidden, and were, as you know. Transparency will change this equation -- in my view. You are predicting failure, lots of folks have no doubt, but one could easily predict success. The ILO is, not that this apparently matters to you. They consider it a huge step forward and an unavoidable precedent for future trade agreements. You make claims for outcomes you simply don't know will occur, you just expect will occur. I just say the ILO is extremely pleased that this precedent has occurred and they have full access to the DR-CAFTA countries. They would not have taken on the job without the belief that they could in fact change the equation for the better in those countries. But at the end of the day, we will both see, won't we? One of us will be right, and one of us will be wrong.

And as I have said in previous postings, at the end of the day, this is about increments, because all legislation is. You aren't happy with the final agreement, and either am I. But you see frequent comparisons on these postings to NAFTA, and recall NAFTA had a side letter for labor, and that was it, and a couple of Texas Congressmen had to fight for that. Labor rights have moved from nowhere to somewhere. Its not enough for you, but since the revolution isn't coming next week as far as I am aware of, you take what you can get and move on to fight the next battle, hopefully with a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic President. Unless, of course, you punish all the ones that disagree with you on this, vote with you on everything else, and you get R's elected instead.

But clearly your answer stated your opinion on my question: you feel the ILO assessment is wrong. That was all I asked.

This has been a great thread, but there are some points of view that I agree and disagree with.
I agree 100% that it's not really relevant how good a labor rating any particular legislator has when it comes to what they do on these types of defining votes. CAFTA is not the run of the mill piece of legislation which in some way affects labor. It really is another major blow to keeping jobs with decent wages in our communities like NAFTA has been. This was the kind of vote where irrespective of previous stances we needed congress members to stand up to corporate power and greed on behalf of American working families.
The idea of going after two African-American congressmen should not be the issue. Their taking sides against working men and women should be. I'm all for the black community, but I'm not gonna let folks play the race card to cover up foolishness.
And the idea of Meeks being secure in his district shouldn't be the issue either. If we're serious about our cause, then a candidate must be fielded against Meeks whether there's a chance to beat him or not. Meeks will be forced to fund-raise, campaign hard, and constantly speak to his vote on CAFTA if he has an opponent. Anyone who knows anything about elected officials knows that they hate challenges more than anything else because it makes them work when they'd rather coast. All the apologists in the world won't be able to protect Meeks from having to defend CAFTA. It'll also allow us educate his constituents about what he's doing in DC. Working people are taking it on the chin out here and they need to know where the Meek's of the world stand when these issues come up.
Just the act of running someone against Meeks will serve to hold him accountable on this issue and put other fair weather friends on notice as well.