This is a picture I'd turn into a "Wanted" poster, maybe circulate in every election district in the 13 states represented by these folks. It says it all--thanks to the AFL-CIO.
As I
wrote yesterday, these 13 Senators voted to let fast track proceed to a debate and, by doing the business of the Chamber of Commerce, they've assured ultimate passage in the Senate.
This isn't some run-of-the-mill piece of legislation.
Fast track--or its other Orwellian counterpart "Trade Promotion Authority"--is a nice-sounding, poll-tested phrase that means fairly simply: do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce, screw workers, destroy more decent-paying jobs, allow the exploitation of a lot of workers in other countries and, as a side benefit, take away the rights of your elected representatives to have much of a say in how the trade deal looks. Message to Members of Congress: just swallow the whole load, don't spit it out.
Each of these people deserves a primary opponent. Just to pick one, first among peers, is Ron Wyden--he's up for re-election in 2016 and the state, and the country, would be a lot better off with another Jeff Merkley.
Certainly, I am hoping that the AFL-CIO follows through on its threat to withhold money from any Democrat voting for fast track. In my opinion, had the labor movement taken out some of those who voted for CAFTA–which passed by only TWO VOTES in the House including 15 Democrats–we might not be facing the votes we face now on fast-track and the TPP. Not to mention had unions went after the Democrats who took Bill Clinton and Robert Reich’s bribes back during the NAFTA vote, we might have avoided CAFTA as well (I mean “bribes” in the sense that it has been well-documented that Clinton-Reich bought votes with promises of a variety of appropriations and goodies and phony retraining programs to get votes).
To the observation that it's not fair to use the votes on fast track and/or the Trans Pacific Partnership as a sole test (some call it "purity test), I would answer: at some point, in a Democratic Party debate, in a primary, some votes stand out beyond others and define the very nature of who a person is on the question of class warfare and workers rights. This isn't the naming of a post office, or a particular level of funding for a program.
If we keep arguing that every elected official gets a pass on the fundamental principles you want a party to stand for, then, at the end of the day, what does the party stand for? You can, then, drive around and eat at Chipolte, take no real stand on whether workers should get hammered again by big corporations--you can simply say, oh, my poll-tested position shows yes, "inequality is a naughty thing" (and, as an aside, slip in, and get a pass without any real examination, your naughty little "mistake" voting for an immoral war).
Some votes matter more than others.