| Through the Progressive States Network, I am helping the national campaign to pass resolutions against President Bush's request for "fast track" authority - the authority that allows presidents to strip basic labor, environmental and human rights provisions out of trade accords. In doing some research for the campaign in the wake of the Montana Senate's resolution passing, I came upon this recent press release from Baucus's finance committee staff:
March 2, 2007
CHAIRMAN BAUCUS HIRES AMBER COTTLE AS INTERNATIONAL TRADE COUNSEL
The Senate Finance Committee issued the following news release:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, today announced that Amber Cottle has joined the Democratic Staff of the Senate Finance Committee as International Trade Counsel. Cottle most recently served as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Investment at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
...Cottle will focus on, among other things, issues related to trade enforcement, trade remedies, fast-track, U.S. FTAs with Latin American countries, the WTO, investment, services, and intellectual property.
Cottle joins the Finance Committee staff with almost ten years of experience in international trade law and policy. In her most recent job, Amber served as the chief investment negotiator at USTR, where she negotiated the investment provisions of the Korea, Thailand, Morocco, and Oman Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and supervised the negotiation of the investment provisions of several other FTAs and bilateral investment treaties. Prior to that, Amber served for two years as Assistant General Counsel at USTR, where she represented the United States in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings relating to softwood lumber from Canada. Cottle also worked for four years in the International Group of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.
Cottle appears to have given a few contributions to Democratic candidates very recently, which makes me wonder whether she is some sort of Clinton holdover - though that doesn't really make a difference, considering the Clinton administration's record on trade (more on that in a second). Also, corporate lobbying records suggest she wasn't a Clinton holdover. She was lobbying for a huge stable of "free" trade-advocating multinational companies at the end of the Clinton administration. She even lobbied for the Business Roundtable - one of the most powerful Republican Party organs in Washington.
Now, I understand that Baucus has said that he thinks job outsourcing in America is just fine because "the world is flat." And I understand that he used the first day of his chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee to publish an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal reassuring the White House that he would support reauthorizing fast track, despite fast track's role in creating the unfair trade policies our small businesses, farmers and workers are now being hurt by.
But I was beginning to be hopeful that Baucus's recent tough language on trade was signaling a change. I'm genuinely curious to hear what the explanation for this personnel move is from Baucus's staff - because remember, this is no ordinary hire: putting a Bush USTR official and former Business Roundtable lobbyist as one of the top trade policymakers on the Senate Finance Committee in advance of the biggest trade debate in the last 6 years is no small matter. Maybe there is a legitimate explanation - I'm guessing there isn't, but let's wait to hear from Max, because we know his staff reads this site.
That same wait-to-pass-judgement sentiment should not apply to someone named Michael Punke, who published this op-ed today in the Helena Independent Record chastising Montana progressives for supposedly wanting to help elect Republicans - a charge based on no evidence whatsoever, and fairly strange since there are at least some current Democratic elected officeholders who signed a letter in support of the progressive group he attacks.
But then, a quick Google search shows who Mr. Punke is and why he may not like progressives so much:
Punke's professional career began with 14 years of legal and government experience in Washington, D.C. He first worked with the international trade group at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. In 1991, he took a position as International Trade Counsel to Senator Max Baucus (Montana), then chairman of the Finance Committee's International Trade Subcommittee. In 1993, Punke began two years on the White House Staff. As Director for International Economic Affairs, he held a joint appointment to the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. From 1995-1996, Punke served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the White House agency with lead responsibility for international trade negotiations. Punke's final position in Washington was as a partner in the international practice group at the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
Wow, how incredibly shocking that a corporate international trade lawyer who served as a chief trade negotiator for the Clinton administration at the time Clinton was pushing the devastating China PNTR trade deal has a problem with progressives. To be quite honest, knowing this guy's background makes his op-ed into a badge of honor for progressives.
In fairness, I have concerns myself about the "Progressive Democrats" group Punke writes about - though for much different reasons than Mr. Corporate Lawyer and China PNTR Negotiator. I don't think that progressive activism is bad, like Punke unsurprisingly does. It's not - it's great, but only if it is based on a strong commitment to issues. And in reading the initial press reports about the new group, I worry about whether some people in this particular crew (though certainly not all - there are some terrific people in this group) are more interested in being contrarians for egotistical or sour grapes-ish reasons than they are about pushing a progressive agenda. Perhaps its a clumsy press report, but perhaps not.
In working two statewide campaigns in Montana for one of the most progressive politicians I know, Brian Schweitzer, I found that some people purporting to attack Democrats in the progressive name were really just pissed off that they personally were not getting enough attention or love and that their complaints weren't actually based on anything even vaguely approaching ideological or "progressive" differences (such mis-targeting of activism is somewhat reminiscent of antiwar activists thinking its a great idea to spend huge amounts of energy attacking antiwar champion Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), though its different because the people attacking him are true "purists" while what I worry about in this situation is folks without any agenda other than their own need for attention).
The truth is - and maybe I'm just too "pragmatic" or cynical - I don't give a crap about attention or love from politicians or party officials - all I care about is what gets done with the power we as Democrats have, and whether what gets done is progressive or is a sell out. And when you look at the Democrats in the legislature, the record of Schweitzer, the positions of Tester, and even the strategic hiring of a top Wellstone aide (Jim Farrell) to serve as executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, progressives have very, very little to complain about. The only people who have much to complain about when looking at those three power icons are cranky Republican legislators or people who, for whatever reason, don't feel they are getting enough attention or love. And I don't have much sympathy for either.
If this new group succumbs to pressure from some to focus on process and personality and tearing down good progressives for no reason and absurdly meaningless complaints about which needy ego is appointed to what powerless advisory subcommittee - then it will be a failure. But if it focuses on real issues and on doing the hard, unglamorous, stop-whining-and-put-your-head-down work of electing progressive Democrats, then it could be a success. |
