E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSYou just knew this was coming...
In a private meeting currently under way with labor leaders, top White House officials are working hard to smooth over tensions in the wake of an anonymous administration's official's claim that unions had flushed $10 million down the toilet in Arkansas, and are stressing that they respect labor's decision, sources say.
The private make-up session is directly at odds with the tough tone the White House official struck in the wake of the primary, and is also at odds with Robert Gibbs' subsequent quasi-endorsement of the sentiment. In the meeting, a White House official asked labor to put the anonymous comment behind them, a source at the meeting says.
Representing the White House at the meeting, which is currently underway at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, are top advisers Patrick Gaspard and Jen O'Malley. On the labor side are AFL-CIO's political directors.
Leave a Comment:
It was a very callous statement to make. What is it about this country that wants to be anti-labor/anti-union? They're the backbone of this country for goodness sakes.
Having said that, I'm not sticking my nose into any other states this year. I didn't like it when the teabaggers were up here during Scott Brown's campaign. Lesson learned. Let the people in Arkansas decide on their own who they want as their Senator.
But I wish Blanche Lincoln luck. I do not want to lose that seat.
Pat, Boston, MA "What is it about this country that wants to be anti-labor/anti-union?"
I don't think it's anti-labor so much as it is the excessive demands that unions make that have caused businesses to fail (GM & Chrysler) and government expenses to soar.
It used to be that government workers were paid a little less in return for job security, but now government workers not only have job security, but union demands have driven unionized labor costs to be 60% higher than comparable private sector jobs. Our economy cannot sustain such largess.
What makes you think production workers make a company fail and not the ridiculous compensation and business decisions designed solely to protect that compensation that the executivesmake. The company negotiates and signs off on employee contracts, unions don't vote their own pay, only the board of directors can do that.
"Our economy cannot sustain such largess."
Yeah those cops and fireman and trash haulers their buying up Beverly Hills.
Grow Up - Get Serious - Get Organized.
Look Rahm or who ever made the statement told the truth. Since when are the heads of organized labor so sensitive, and unable to handle reality? Was the money well spent? What did Labor get in return for the millions spent to try and defeat a two term Democratic Senator from a conservative southern state?
Labor, and Move On spent millions trying to defeat Lincoln. She wasn't defeated, however had she lost the primary the seat would almost certainly have gone GOP in the general election. Anyone who thinks that Lincoln is no better than Boozman, and it would be better for Halter to beat Lincoln and lose to Boozman in the fall, because Boozman's no worse than Lincoln is either not being intellectually honest, has the intellect of a Glen Beck fan, or hasn't looked into Boozman's voting record.
If the WH DNC and Senate Democrats were quietly encouraging Labor and Move On to spend precious resources to defeat Lincoln it would have been wrong for the WH to state the obvious. However, all reliable reports are the WH, DNC and Senate Democrats with strong ties to Labor tried to encourage Labor to stay out of the race. But Labor and Move On wouldn't heed the advise and threw away money that candidates seeking re-election who already are strong labor supporters, or will be if elected, could really use in the general election.
With the Supreme Court's horrible corporate campaign financing decision Labor has to use its limited resources even more wisely than in the past, but instead Labor literally threw away money on a Democratic primary that if their chosen candidate (who wouldn't even commit to card check-Labor didn't get the commitment from Halter before its investment!) had won the race would almost certainly lose in the fall to a far right GOP congressman.
Please explain how labor didn't throw away millions?
roy wilson the unions and there wages aren't the problem its the 20 and 40 and 100 million dollar ceo without the unions the middle class would be slaves to the money people.the unions are the only thing that keeps us from being slaves .regan tried to break the unions with the air controllers firings .and he did take the unions power down a bit
hawkeyedemocrat. Agree with your thought.
My first reaction Wed was that the WH had a valild point; that the unions could have spent much less and encouraged the grassroots efforts allowing the progressive groups to raise cash which they were doing also. That said, anonymous should have chosen his/her words more carefully.
My guess is the unions are more annoyed at the fact they spent all that money (despite the DNC and DCCS etc. telling them not to) and lost than they are at anonymous's comment--so to save face, they're making a lot of noise. This will pass quickly.
Why do republicans hate America so much?
Nice, Pat-
An "anonymous" (I know you're there, Rahm...) White House source and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ridicule the labor unions' flushing of $10 mil in campaign money down the drain in the Arkansas DEMOCRATIC Senate primary...
In a failed effort to defeat DEMOCRAT Blanche Lincoln...
And you're blaming the Republicans?
Next time...try reading what Mark actually wrote, OK?
They (I won't consider myself a republican again until I see them sending some Soviet New York Bankers to prison) don't hate America. That's just something the communist traitors in this country projectile vomit out of their own dark souls onto everyone else.
The extreme antithesis of Communism is Fascism. Thanks for letting us know your position.
Since when are Communism and Fascism extreme antithesis of each other. In Communism the state controls all means of production, (i.e. no private property) while in Fascism there is extreme regulation over what individuals can do with their property. The two systems have both relied on dictators who have no regard for individuals rights of private property or liberty. The two system are far more alike than they are different.
What's next?
A retraction from Rahm Emanuel...sorry, I meant from "anonymous" about the wasted 10 mil?
In Gibby's case, all will be forgiven...he's allowed to accidently tell the truth once in a while.
I'm sure Obama will just purchase another corporation like he did with GM, or just have another stimulus bill that bails out the union members in all the states, and funnel much more of the taxpayer money to the unions then the $10 million labor spent on the Arkansas election. Face it, Obama is not talking with the unions to apologize for his staffers insensitive remarks, the unions could not care less about that. What the unions want is money, and Obama will rape the taxpayers once more to make sure they get it.
Gotta love unions. They make it possible for thousands of people to screw off and slack and still get paid, complete with undeserved raises and benefits. Trust me. I've seen it. The production losses cost billions of $$$ a year for those "evil" corporations.. And what party is in bed with them? The dems. What do they care if the unions flush millions down the toilet? They do that with other people's money every day. DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC*
*Expires 01-20-09
Having been a union member for nearly 20 years, your conclusions are far too sweeping, CU.
On dissent, though...you're on the money.
Since Inauguration Day 2009...
Political dissent has become race-based hatred.
Who knew...?
Lets see, government workers are slackers and don't get anything thing done, union workers are lazy bums that don't get anything done, hourly workers are good for nothing leeches that don't get anything done. All of them profitting at our expense. That just leaves CU Farley. How do you do it? All that work to make up for everyoe else and still have time to post here. What an Ameican!
Probably was "too sweeping" with that. My experience is based on the area and state where I live. It's very liberal and the name of the game is to get a job with a company that has a union, then skate by for year after year. Probably different in other areas of the country.
I always wonder how many layoffs occur for a temporary profit (and resultant executive bonus) boost, so someone can upgrade their mistress' condo or car. But, what the hell, at least it's NON-UNION!!
In my industry the union workers are paid well and they have to work their tails off for that good pay slackers are laid off or fired. The jobs pay well and there is always plenty of people who will earn that pay. You must have gotten your information on unions from an episode of the Soprano's.
BTW when you cut the union workers pay guess what happens to the non-union workers pay and middle management for that matter. They can say what they want but at contract time their both hoping we get a raise.
What bailout for union members, there was never such a thing, you just make up silly stuff, the bailout was for the banks and wall street. Chrysler closed two plants in my area and virtually every union worker was laid off. You tell me who, which union workers got bailed out. The wall street executive union, the financial white collar criminals union. You are absurd.
JoAnna you do know that the GM bail out began under Bush? Right you know that? But because he didn't want, or know how to finalize, or tie up loose ends the review of the 2008 auto bail out was to take place in 2009. Without double checking the date I believe March of 09. Bush also never appointed a Car Czar to over see the bail out despite the GOP insisting the auto industry bail out legislation include such a position. After insisting the bail out include the position Bush didn't even fill it.
You're reference to legislation that passed the House and Senate and was signed by Obama, which is how our Democratic process works being a rape, is not only insensitive to actual victims of rape, but ignores the reality that President Obama campaigned on passage of an economic stimulus bill, after the Wall St melt down, and the voters turned out for him in record numbers!
Once said, it can be forgiven, but not forgotten. What was the WH staff thinking? President Obama needs to make a sign for his staff. "DON'T BE DUMB'
Why was it a dumb statement? If they felt it was stupid to blow money that way, then they should say it. I guess it is allright for Unions to blow members money on Democrats but wrong for any corporation whatsoever to spend $2.00 on a Republican.
ITM: Go back to "Thoughts" as I responded to your comment. The original comment was a dumb statement because generally speaking labor unions support the Democrats. And smart people don't insult your supporters. I think you knew that ITM.
Gotta disagree with you on that one Ron! ;0)
ITM has no idea what the rules of etiquette are for insults...
Gibbs and presumably Rahm were specifically asked about what they thought. While it is usually preferred to avoid calling out a friends bone-headed move, the fact remains the WH, and Democratic Senators with strong union ties tried to get the unions to stay out of the race. The Labor unions not only wasted money that could be used to win an open seat or two in the fall, and prevent the loss of a vulnerable incumbent, but they ignored the sound advice of the WH.
While it's true people don't like to hear "I told you so", the head of the Labor unions who thumbed their nose at the requests by the WH to stay out of the race have absolutely no right to expect Rahm in an off the record comment (probably in response to a direct question), and Gibbs at his press briefly to lie so that the Labor union can save face.
The unions would love to end "Right to Work" in as many states as they can in order to force people to join unions or pay a agency fee if they don't. It's a crime that states like Massachusetts force employees to join a union or pay a agency fee or face firing if they don't. It's just a scam for the Unions to line their pockets with money for personal gain and to support any special interests/politicians that will funnel more money their way. They even want to end secret voting within their own ranks in order to maintain more control of Union matters.
The last I heard one doesn't HAVE to work for any of those companies or live in Mass. If they don't want to comply move to another state, Alabama for example, and get a super good high paying job like all those apparently offered there by non-union companies.
Nobody can be forced to join a union anywhere in the USA. Don't be silly.
It does not have to be state law you have the "right to work for less" in any state.
I live in a "right to work state", the unions are actually fairly strong, despite the inability to require membership, or payment of dues by all members of the collective bargaining unit. I wish Iowa law required all members of the bargain unit to pay their fair share for the benefits they derive from working at a union plant regardless of union membership, however opposition to this in Iowa is strong.
During the last two legislative sessions Democratic leaders in the Iowa House and Senate have been able to stop GOP efforts to put a constitutional amendment to ban same sex civil marriage before the voters. However despite having Democratic control of the legislature and a Democratic Governor the legislature has been unable to appeal the "right to work" law. Think about it Iowa's Democratic legislative leaders feel more comfortable thwarting aggressive efforts to even debate sex marriage, than to over turn our current labor laws.
Too many thrashing Lincoln don't understand that in certain areas of the country, even where elected leaders are strong friends of labor (Who is a bigger supporter of labor in the Senate than Iowa's Tom Harkin?), and the state's largest manufacture (John Deere, Quaker Oats) have strong unions, most legislator's would lose their seat if they voted to change the state's right to work laws.
As a democrat, I usually find myself defending the White House. However, this time I have no idea what they were thinking. Blanche Lincoln won so in my mind they didn't have to say anything at all about the unions. Let Blanche Lincoln prove to the unions that she heard their message and let her do the courting.
JoAnne: Stop blaming Obama for EVERYTHING. You have no idea what a mess this country would be in right now if old McFart and Silly Sarah were in charge. Old McFart can't even run a campaign properly, let alone the country. Instead of blaming the president for breathing and stealing your air, you should be thanking your lucky stars.
On the flip side, running a perfect campaign also shows you can't run a government
Ramboet:
JoAnne: Stop blaming Obama for EVERYTHING. You have no idea what a mess this country would be in right now if old McFart and Silly Sarah were in charge. Old McFart can't even run a campaign properly, let alone the country. Instead of blaming the president for breathing and stealing your air, you should be thanking your lucky stars.
Neither do you or anyone else on this board. No one knows what would have happened had Obama not been elected. "IF", if a dog had a square azz he would sh!t blocks. McCain didn't win because Republicans could not stand him. He won the primaries only because a lot were open to Dems and Independents as so helped him win the nomination.
I know, Mccain would have freezes spending and the housing credits, tax credits to small business would have not happened. he would have increased defense spending for no good reason, we would be at the door of iran ready to invade. the missle defense shield that Obama canceled would still be there and our relationship with russia would be in the toilet, Gaza would be goan because the Isrealies would have goan in there and leveled the place. also gas would be back to 4.50 a gallon. there would have been no help for the auto industry 200 thousand would be out of work for good, all the banks would have failed, no one would be able to get any kind of credit.
the oil spill would be worse because of the spending freezes he put in effect would make the clean up effert non existant due to funding, Oha yes some of you are bitching about the premits Obama signed for the deep oil drilling would have been signed By McCain as well, the same bitching some are doing about the spill would not be at Obama but at mccain.
Oha yea some things would be alot different.
Don't forget Jeff - McCain would have also started two more wars - IRAN and N. Korea.
i mentioned Iran, but my bad i forgot about north korea!!!
In the middle (what a misnomer) Democrats and Independents did NOT in any appreciable number vote for McCain in the primaries. Why is it that so many right wingers think the can reinvent reality. Your name should be Baghdad Bob!
In Iowa the Democratic caucus turn out was more than twice the previous record. The GOP also had a good turn out, but it paled in comparison. The number of registered Democrats who attended the GOP caucus statewide was negligible, however a record number of registered Independents and GOP voters changed party affiliation at the caucus in order to participate in the Democratic caucus, and most of them supported Obama. McCain was a distant finisher in Iowa. In 2008 NH more Independents elected to vote in the Democratic primary than in the GOP race, the opposite of what they did in 2000. McCain won NH in 2000 and again in 2008, but by a much smaller margin. In part due to the higher Independent turn out in the Democratic primary and Mitt Romney being from neighboring MA.
Unlike the Democratic primaries where delegated are awarded proportionately, the GOP primaries are winner take all races, as a result all of Romney's second place showings netted him no delegates, and the GOP race was over while Clinton and Obama were still having televised debates. The Democratic primary wasn't concluded until June 2008, after the vote in Puerto Rico, the race was hard fought and no Democrat or Independent who supported Clinton or Obama would have passed up an opportunity to vote for their candidate. Furthermore each state has different rules regarding who can vote in the primary, in some you have to be a member of the political party a month or more before the primary in order to vote, and you can't switch poltical parties at the poll, others you can switch parties at the poll, and in others you only need to be a registered voter and at the poll you select a GOP or Democratic ballot.
Not only was the Democratic race hard fought and going strong long after McCain was the "eventual nominee" (Huckabee stayed in the race until McCain secured theb nomination), but it was Limaugh and other right wing nuts who told their listeners to go vote in the Democratic primary to hurt the Democrats. The GOP wanted Clinton to win, and in many states (Ohio is one) the cross over vote (number of previously registered GOP voters) who voted in the Democratic primary was larger than Clinton's margin of victory.
Not only do the facts not support your silly claim, and it was actually GOP voters who tried to effect the Democratic primary, but most Democrats saw John McCain as the most difficult GOP candidate to beat, so why would people who wanted a Democrat in the WH try to help nominate the GOP'sbest candidate? Had Democrats crossed over to support a GOP candidate they would have supported Huckabee!
HAwkeye:
Dude your living in la la land. McCain is frikken hated as I stated by most Republicans. This is something that I know. Democrats wanted McCain to win because they thought he was easier to beat than a Romney or at that time Thompson. You're just just pulling something out of your azz with your one state (Iowa) statistics.
Your facts do not support your claim and before you step to me, do your research.
Keep it Moving
In The Middle,
Sorry to trouble you with facts, I realize reality upsets you. Not only did I provide actual verifiable facts, and your response ignored that reality, and failed to provide any fact, but your claim that "McCain is frikken hated as I stated by most Republicans."
I don't doubt the GOP group you hang out with, who listen to Rush, and actually think Fox is a news channel hate McCain, and always have, however the fact is the GOP is not a monolithic group. The GOP is a fractured party, it has the pro-life/religious conservative wing, the big business all I care about is low taxes wing, and now the tea party wing. For the most part the Big business wing wanted McCain, or Rudy. Some wanted Thompson until they saw he couldn't give a speech without cue cards. Did you see the speech where Thompson was so dull the group didn't realize he was finished, and actually had to ask the crowd (actually the 20-30 people who were there) if he could get a round of applause? Romney was seen as unelectable by many in the business wing of the GOP because of his religion, and he was seen as a phony who would say anything to try and get elected.
Whether most in the GOP hate McCain, thought he was the best candidate in the 2008 race is up to debate, however it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality that contrary to your crazy statement that Democrats and Independents voted GOP to effect the GOP race. As I previously illustrated, and did not limit to Iowa Democrats had no role in helping the GOP nominate McCain. There are many reasons McCain won, however Democrats and Independents voting in GOP primaries is not among them. If you really believe otherwise you are a pathetic person who has my sympathy. Here are indisputable facts that disprove your crazy Baghdad Bob claim.
1. After Super Tuesday (2/5/08) the majority of the GOP establishment shad endorsed McCain.
2. After each GOP candidate dropped out of the race they endorsed McCain. Each candidate from far right Sam Brownback to Mr 9/11 himself Rudy G strongly endorsed McCain after dropping out and urged their supporters to do so as well.
3. The cross over (Registered Democrats or Independents) who attended the GOP caucus in Iowa was negligible, it was actually lower than in previous years. This is a fact that can be verified by the Iowa GOP. However a large number of previously registered Republicans and Independents crossed over and registered Democrat at the Democratic caucus. At my caucus previously registered Republicans and Independents represented 30% of the caucus participants, I don't have the state wide figures, but it was significant.
4. In NH the official records show that more Independents requested a Democratic ballot than a GOP ballot (the opposite of the respective percents in 2000). The "pundits" opined McCain won NH by a far more narrow amount than he had in 2000 because the Independents turn out was far larger in the Democratic primary.
5. Nevada was next and is a caucus state. 2 out of every 3 Nevadans who attended the Nevada caucus participated in the Democratic caucus. Also Romney won the Nevada caucus by a large amount with Ron Paul second.
6. SC was next. It is a GOP state, but 100,000 more voters turned out in the Democratic primary than in the GOP. Obama had more than double Clinton's vote total, and yet Clinton only received a few thousand less votes than McCain who won the GOP race in SC.
7. Romney won the January 15, 2008 Michigan primary. Democrats did not campaign in Michigan because Democratic candidate's agreed to honor the DNC calendar. Only Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich's name appeared on the ballot along with "uncommitted". Had Democrats wanted to help McCain in a state where they knew a vote in their own primary would not count, they would have done so in Michigan. And yet despite McCain spending millions in Michigan after winning NH to beat Romney (and put Romney out of the race) Democrats didn't vote in the GOP race, and Romney beat McCain by 11%. The hotly contested GOP primary had only 275,000 more people vote than in the Democratic primary, where no Democrat campaigned and Michigan voters knew would not count. Clinton received 60% and uncommitted received 40% of the Democratic primary vote. Almost 240,000 people showed up to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary in Michigan. McCain's Michigan vote total exceeded the vote total for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary by less than 20,000 votes.
8. Florida, like Michigan did not count in the Presidential race. Florida (like Michigan) would have been a great state for Democrats to vote in the GOP primary if your absurd claim of the Democrats and Independents voting for McCain to screw the GOP had a scintilla of merit. McCain and Romney battled hard in Florida, and it was Rudy's make or break race. 1.75 million people voted in Florida's Democratic primary, which was only 200,000 less than in the GOP primary. However Florida's GOP race counted, and the Democratic race did not. McCain received 36% of the vote, and Romney 31% (Rudy and Huckabee were in the low teens) However, McCain received all 57 delegates under the GOP winner take all system. Hillary received 46% in the Florida "beauty contest", (or over 870,000 votes)
9. Unlike in the Democratic Presidential primary in the GOP Presidential primary the winner gets all the delegates. By the time Romney dropped out of the GOP Presidential primary after super Tuesday (2/5/08) when 21 states held elections, Romney had won 9 states to McCain's 11 states, and came in second in each state McCain carried except SC, where Huckabee came in second, Romney also came in second ahead of McCain in most of the states that Huckabee won. When Romney dropped out of the GOP race more people had gone to GOP primaries and caucuses to support him than had supported McCain, but because delegates are not awarded in a Democratic manner in the GOP, Romney had no chance to overtake McCain in the delegate count.
10) The GOP race was effectively over when Romney withdrew and endorsed McCain days after Super Tuesday (2/5/08). However the Democratic race continued until June, and Limbaugh and others encouraged their listeners (sheep) The March 4, 2008 Ohio in primary was an open primary, any registered voter could vote. Huckabee was still trying to win (or become VP), but needed to win all remaining primaries. McCain got just over a half million votes, and Huckabee about 2/3 that amount. Just over one million people voted in the GOP primary. Both Obama and Clinton had more than a million votes in Ohio's Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama and 53 to 45%.
11) Contrary to your factually absurb claim that Democrats (and Indepedents who favor the Democrats) gave up the ability to participate in the Democratic race in 2008 when Clinton and Obama were locked in the battle of a lifetime, in order to vote in the GOP race, this did happen in the Democratic race. Rush Limbaugh even dubbed his efforts "Operation Chaos" . This wasn't a secret underground effort, day in and day out he urged his idiot listeners to vote for Clinton in Democratic primaries to damage the Democrats. Here are just a couple quotes from his website from Rush's March 19, 2008 show. "Operation Chaos, we can safely say, is now exceeding all objectives"..."Obama is burning cash fighting Operation Chaos. Here's the latest poll numbers... The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton." Well, yes, which was the primary purpose of Operation Chaos. (laughing)
Folks, we are doing it! Do you realize, we are doing it! Things are happening out there on our terms. Why, this is just fabulous. ..." "
Sorry the truth hurts ITM aka Baghdad Bob. McCain was the GOP's best shot, and regardless of the love or loath the GOP had for him, the GOP selected him, and then openly tried to effect the Democratic race.
Independent Redneck - from a previous thread.
Well, the fact is Independent if people did not undersand that we were electing an analytical whose history (and race) conditioned him to hold the emotion and to depend on brain power to become successful in life they were not paying attention to the man during the Dem primary and general election. Take a moment and consider another successful Black man in Colin Powell who is very thoughtful, well spoken and obviously intelligent. But do you ever recall Colin Powell showing a great deal of emotion or does he come across as fairly calm and deliberate? The answer helps one to understand Obama. These are two people who were taught and conditioned to use the mind and not their libidos to get them through life. The conditioning was so strong, and the lessons proven to them by how others responded to them, that both men learned early at the expense of surpressing their emoitonal side that it was brain power that was going to get them ahead. This is especially true for a Black male who has this intellectual ability.
But don't let the surpressed emotions fool you. They have been surpressed, not eliminated completely. Push the bottons too hard and the first thing such people will do is try and handle you through their intellectual capacities and training. If these do not work then watch for the emotions and the anger to surface. It is then they will lash out with emotion and they might even seek whatever avenues are avaliable to them to destroy you. This can be easily observed in Obama's eyes and the expressions of the jaw line at times. How often have I seen that jaw line tense along with every muscle in Obama's neck and most likely his entire body. But what does he do. He calms himself and reminds himself what got him where he is today, detached analytical and intelllectual prowess. But the day he decides he has had enough, whether friend or foe, those leaders in Iran or those in Israel, such people will become the target of an intense desire and purpose to take them apart. It will be quick and it will be devestating.
If he is re-elected watch Obama in his second term. The calm, analytical, intellectual side will give way more to the surpresed emotional side. He will have nothing to lose regarding this conditioned need to surpress his emotions for he will have already achieved what there was for him to achioeve. It will be like the last 5 seconds of a basketball game and his team is behind by one point. He has the ball. Do not even think of getting between him and that basket.
C.A. I think that your pretty much right on target.I think that many forget that the President did make the call a while back and just because he doesn't parade that in the manner that some others have they make the mistake of thinking that he won't do it again if it becomes necessary. Picking up the same signals that your outlining I would say that that would be a devastating mistake because I don't think that he will be goaded into it or do it out of a desire to get even etc but only after a quiet decision that it is necessary and the only viable option left. When the decision has to be made I would expect that he will already have his ducks in a row and it will be swift sure and decisive and then he will move on. The comparison to Colin Powell is very interesting. I think a lot of folks mistook Gen Powell's endorsement as one Black guy supporting another and this was a mistake if you listened to what Gen Powell said. His decision was based on his evaluation as to what was going to be best for the country and it's future Having listened to Gen Powell speak and reading some of his papers he is someone that I've developed great admiration for. If you have time or inclination one day I would be very interested in your thoughts about Powell in the context of the Republican Party coming to it's senses sometime in the future and running him( I don't see any body else on that side of the aisle right now) for higher office.
Independent:
I think the Republican party made a big mistake in not pursuing earlier, to a greater degree, Powell as a serious Presdential contender. I think he could have easily beaten Kerry and Al Gore. On the other hand I'm not sure he could have been convinced to run because frankly he recognized even then the microscope he would have been under as a Black man just as he knew later Obama would be under if elected. Obama is yet young and vibrant and full of confidence and still lives various dreams for the country. More recently Powell lived the beltway experience under the Bush administration, whose dreams were beaten down to an extent as he learned how little control the person holding this office actually has given the power and demnds of special interests. Something that Obama is only learning now. Powell may still have dreams for the country but he also recognizes that he now posseses a certain level of apathy. He is not willing to take those feelings into higher office. I also think that Powell was, and is, more sensitive to the possibility of harm coming to himself and/or his family as a result of being a Black man in the Presidency. I think this scared him to a degree versus Obama who has learned to compartmentalize this fear.
Powell would not run against Obama. Not because Obama is a fellow African Amercian but because frankly I think Powell likes and respects Obama as a person and iagreeas with many of those issues that Obama is pursuing as President. Here is a hint. When asked what he thought about repealing don't ask - don't tell which is a policy he supported stronlgy in the past, Powell stated time and people's attitudes change and government policy should change with those times and attitudes. At this time that is not the position one would hear from the republicans or the far right. Change to them is defined as a loss of the past, a past that they insist must be maintained. Unfortunately they misinterpret change as an attemopt to destroy the basic principles on which this country was founded which of course is not true. But with that attitude and Powell's growth as an individual, one who would expect greater tolerance and a commitment to community, the current republican party and the far right would never nominate Powell. It is a shame, he could add some badly needed light to a party that appears is choosing to live in the dark.
C.A. Thank You As always very thoughtful Couple of aspects there that hadn't occured to me.
Wow, great thread CA and IR. You've inspired me to learn more about former Secretary Powell myself. I wanted to add that it was widely known at the time that Mrs. Powell influenced Secretary Powell's decision not to run for President, due to her fears for his safety. The couple is from the Civil Rights generation, and after living through the deaths of so many Black leaders, including Rev. King, Minister El-Shabazz, Mr. Edgars, The Four Little Black Girls, etc., many older Black Americans are still very fearful for President Obama and his family. Many of us in the younger generations are fearful, too.
Endurance:
You are correct. Mrs. Powell (as reported through interviews with several news organizations) had a great deal to do with General Powell's decision on running for Presdient. She did express a great deal of fear for his safety.
About time that the White House got smart and stopped attacking Liberals and Labor for exercising our right to field candidates we like even if they aren't backed by the White House. Time for them to bring in Admiral Joe Sestak to make peace as well.
I think that Labor got it's money's worth spending $10 million to scare Traitor Blanche Lincoln straight back to the Democratic Party which previously she bragged about blowing off. I'm sure that other Blue Dogs got the message as well, we didn't need to purify our party the way the Impotent Minority has.
hahahaha,
You really crack me up. You are justifying spending $10 Million to attempt to prove a point...
No wonder we are broke.
Eric is always good with spending other peoples money
The union's 10 mil only made Blanche that much more anti-union.
This is what I like about or government they feel that there is no end to what they can steal from the average NON UNION person and give to there UNION BUDDIES. This administration and the DEM's that support them make me sick
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575188263180553530.html
The Union Pension Bailout
Mr. Casey is gathering support for his curiously named "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act," a bailout for union-run retirement plans. Similar to House legislation from North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy and Ohio Republican Patrick Tiberi, the bill would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, i.e., to taxpayers.
At issue are multi-employer pension plans, in which companies across an industry pay into a single pension pool. The plans are predominately run by unions and for years have distinguished themselves by poor management. The Labor Department in 2008 listed 230 multi-employer plans that were either endangered (less than 80% funded), or critical (less than 65% funded), or that had applied to government for funding relief. By 2009 that number had soared to 640.
The financial crash is partly to blame, but even before 2006 only about 6% of multi-employer plans were fully funded, compared to about 31% of single-employer plans. The real problem is that multi-employer plans have become a sort of pension Ponzi scheme.
It isn't my fault that these Union leaders have raped their people and who is this Casey to take money that all of us NON UNION people have paid in taxes and give it to these crooks. My wife and I lost over a hundred thousand in the market with our 401K's. Now is Mr Casey and the feds going to give me my money back that I lost.
You should thank Pappy Bush for introducing 401K's...and Republicans sought to get that Social Security privatized...didn't they? It was done to help banks and investment houses earn money off of YOUR money. Now I 'm a product of the "pension era". My Executive Pension Plan (golden parachute) was locked in years ago and didn't lose money during the financial crisis.
That 401K was to replace corporations "mandatory" requirements to provide pension plans for their employees (back in the day). Those plans were "fully" funded by companies. Now-- what say YOU had a pension plan with a corporation that you had been employed with for years-- only to find out that your pension was mismanaged by the company. Believe it of not-- it's mandatory that the Federal Government intervene where pensions are concerned. It's not a UNION thing...research the facts...
I suggest that you research facts about pension plans and the responsibility of the Federal Government to intervene on behalf of the "taxpayer".
Like it or not unions exist, they have money, they have power and they support the Democrats, for the most part. The Obama Administration is smart to make nice with them. Unions are an important part of their support mechanism. Blanche Lincoln may or may not have gotten the message regarding party loyalty. Time will tell. If one doesn't belong to a particular union they have no business telling the union how to spend their money. So like it or not unions exist, they will continue to take in money and they will spend that money as they please.
Besides, it's not like they'd get anything from the Republicans, other than the backs of their hands!!
Unions represent only 12.6% of all american workers. Do the math... that means there is a 7 to 1 advantage in non union workers. If you deduct the 5.5 percent of workers who are government workers(fed,state,cty local) this leaves only 7.1% of private sector workers who are actually unionized.The dems care only about this one eighth of "working man) code for union worker and their actions prove it. "prevailing wage" requirements on federal bids and many states require this as well. "Prevailing wage" insures union workers are used and this causes all government projects to be over market prices and you and I get to pay for this excess. The most recent kick in the ass to america by dems is the moratorium on unionized workers being covered by the Obamacare monstrosity until 2018 (I bet they are never included!!). Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the democrat party's alliance with a small segment of the working population at the expense of you and I and the other 87% of working americans.Down with the Bolsheviks..
All those nice things you enjoy today at your workplace weren't given to you because the company is just nice--you got them because Unions organized to make life better for workers. Vacations, sick pay, holiday pay, 8 hr days, 5 day weeks, overtime, a safe environment, no child labor. Those things didn't just happen out of the goodness of Corporate's hearts, they were the result of Union efforts decades ago and in order for every other company to be competitive, they had to give you what you have today.
Union bashing seems to be the norm these days with little thought to why unions are and were important. The history of unions is worth studying and reading about. It's easy to demonize it today because the impact of no unions is history. I make no excuses for the Jimmy Hoffa's of the past but unions are what keeps the rest of business on their toes, and gives the rest of us good benefits.
We could get rid of prevailing wage laws replace you with an illegal allien for 2 bucks an hour and we could all live better with cheaper prices at wal-mart.
Listen to Jody.
I imagine that Pres Obama isn't too happy with Anonymous nor are the other WH staffers. It was a dumb thing to say, thoughtless and dumb; but I can find a bit of sympathy because they were happy, the media has been making a lot of noise about the losses of Obama backed candidates like Specter--he's got no clout, he's lost his touch...... and Anonymous got caught up in "winning one". Whoever it was just needs to remember where he/she is working.
Would like to be a fly in the room because something tells me Anonymous will be making a formal apology.
Winning is not defeating the grass roots in any election! If you bet aganist the grass roots you are done in politics!
The Sad part about this is that no body thinks anything of complaining about companies who pay a CEO $10M, or spend $10M on frivalous expenses. Those are pointed out and crucified as being "the bad guys".
But wow if a Union throws $10M down the drain to defeat one senator (of their own party no less), then they must be "proving their point".
It's still $10M... If I was a Union worker I'd be pissed.
This is American you only get represrntation if you pay for it.
Trust me, your paying. We all are.
We have the best democracy money can buy! The 10 mil was the "buy" in for representation in Arkansas.
Sorry Grump, but we are a republic, not a democracy.
If it were a democracy then our country would be vastly different.
I have said this before but will say it again. Union members have no reason to be upset in as much as only money that they specifically donate for the purpose of political action can be donated. Dues money is not and cannot be spent for political action, believe me this is the only regulation the republicans had an interest in enforcing. Political action funds are collected separately and voluntarily from members. The unions contribute more in "boots on the ground" than they do in money in most cases when they support a canidate.
Thank you, but it looks very grimm for the shrimp business.
I hear you Grump.
I do think the Union members have a reason to be pissed. I get that they donated directly for the political action, and that it is not part of their dues, but did they actually get their money's worth? It is the same question. Spent $10M on one election to eat one of their own (assuming they are democrat), and lost.
I'd still be pissed
Jody,
Union workers sacrificed for themselves and no one else. Anything unions pushed for was for their own members gain ...so stop the bleeding heart BS. US Labor Dept laws now cover virtually all the items that unions negotiated way back when OT 40hour,etc. Now please tell me if you believe that unions members for example UAW workers when negotiating with GM say to the company reps" now we don't want our cars to cost too much so the average person cannot afford them so we will not demand any more pay or benefits". Isn't that a nice fanatasy that casts the unions in a benevolent, kind of warm and fuzzy light. Well the reality Jody is that unions and their thug bosses go into negotiations with the attitude of F---the customer GIMME, GIMME,GIMME!! Why do you think GM and Chrysler were defunct until their guy in Washington saved their sorry asses at our expense? Please grow up throw the Howard Zinn history books in the trash along with your little red book from MAO and realize that unions are out for themselves and the dems need their $$$$ to survive.
I'M so glad to see that the intelligence and wit of the President taught you a new word to use like "Bolsheviks" ...in so much that you decided to use it as apart of you moniker. lol!!
F.Y.I. Our federal government is interlinked to the GLOBAL UNIONS. Research for yourself. Of couse unions have been down played and bashed.
"unions and their thug bosses" - turn off the Soprano's, you have never belonged to a union. What are you about a sophomore in a community college business class, I can see by your moniker you had freshman western civilization but did not understand it well.
Hello everyone! Listen up—you just can’t make this stuff up
"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/chamber-of-commerce-says_n_607748.html
Go to HP to read this entire article! Imagine—the same people that are screaming Big Government and deficits are asking this Administration to take on the responsibility of this disaster; making us taxpayers pick-up the tab! In my honest opinion-- this was exactly what the MSM and Republicans were trying to get this Administration to do.
Thank You President Obama for standing firm!
Hey Forrest,
Explain to us how unions really work...and for your info I had the unfortunate experience to belong to two while working summer jobs while in college. Unions are no longer anything like their early versions. Take the public employee unions. These monsters are THE cause of the bankrupting of CA, NJ, NY , ILL and others. Unions have negotiated (read extorted) benefits that include allowing workers to retire at higher incomes than their highest paid working year. Unions (UAW) negotiated paying people virtually their full pay for being layed off. Now try to convince me that benefits such as these make sense. The free market system takes care of abusive unions by driving unionized companies out of business..look at Walmart. It has run off most unionized comapanies in the retail business. Winners are the consumers and the investor and employeess. Unfortunately public employees unions have no restraint and in collusion with the dem party have raped the american taxpayer. Truth is that public employee pay and benefits (and the fact that they are lazy ass bums to begin with ) are the cause of our economic collapse. We are Greece and expect to see american citizens to revolt against the dem union alliance. See ya in the streets
Yes, I imagine the average Wal-Mart employee, who averages less than $1092/month, ($13,104/year), and 70% of whom have absolutely no benefits whatsoever, looks at himself as the 'winner.' If you are going to hold up a company as the model for anti-union success, you might want to find one that behaves a little less like the sweatshops of the 1800's.
If you want to call a man a goon because he will stand up to a mine owner to prevent men from being sent to their death so we can live better with cheaper prices then go ahead call him a goon. I call him a union Rep or steward and when he does tell the crew it's safe to go down in the mine he go's with them and works just as hard or probably harder than anyone else because he has to.
Forrest:
You are correct...many of them that are downing unions fail to realize that our Nation (along with others) are a GLOBAL union. Of course the Republicans want to diss unions because they want us to work like slaves for them-- the less money and benefits that we make on jobs-- the more business they can funnel to other nations. They should remember that those union workers were their parents and grand parents and without them toiling...they wouldn't be where they are today.
Thats the saddest part of all, unions allowed the children of working class people to go to college, basically large numbers of union members kids went to college for the first time in the late 40s 50s and 60s. The proud dads asked them what did they learn in college, and they said that they learned that you and grandpa were chumps and that if we close the plant, lay you and gramps off, and move it overseas I get a bonus.
Exactly...My uncle was a member of the Auto worker's union. He obtained a better paying job off of the assembly line because the Union had a position opened as an Engineer that require him to have a Bachelor's of Sciences degree. He was 45 years old when he went "back" to college and got his degree.
He earned his pension and benefits because he was a skilled laborer. After that he helped my parents educate the rest of my siblings...education was mandatory in my family. Had it NOT been for him having the opportunity to dare to dream and accomplish-- we wouldn't have had the opportunities that we have today-- we've all been PLAYING IT FORWARD...we Retired as an Engineer...
I'll bet every 4 or 5 years your uncle could actually buy one of those cars he made
If the free market works so well for us how come all of our buying power has went down. The last 8 years have been a big loser for working people union and non union. we have allowed the corporations their enormous profits, when does it trickle down. Wal mart rolls back prices but purchasing power still went down. When does this non-union "merit pay" kick in? Evidently some of the most profitable companies the world has ever known don't think their non union work force merits didly. Somebody list a few non-union companies that value their workforce and show it by paying more than the union shop. Is their even one? If should be easy to be more competetitive than a bunch of lazy goons and thugs. A non union company should be able to pay their employers way better than a shop that has to carry so much dead weight. They never pay more. They never charge less either. The union shop still has to be the low bidder to get the job. Funny how they can be the low bidder, make a profit, and pay their employee's fairly, with a crew of goons. The truth is the union shops employ the best talent, and hardest workers, and they pay for it. The people who believe in the "right to work for less and less" and that the free market is best for you and your family, show me a few non union employer's who pay so well that the union guys want to quit their job and work for them. Show me one who pays their employee's better than the union because their crew "merits" good pay.
Forrest:
Yes he could. Remember when Ford commercials once had the slogan "Quality was job one"? There are many that are brain washed into believing that unions are bad but fail to look at their personal circumstances and lack of benefits-- if Unions were so bad...then we wouldn't have needed to get HCR passed because unions protected the workers and worker's benefits. Walmart didn't want a union in house did they? lol....
Sounds like another compromise from the Obama Aministration! I would just like to know who or what he really does stand for because I am not sure anymore. If he does not support the middle class or labor what does he support?
Michael,
Amerca's free market has produced the most good for the most people. Be honest you could care less about what I earn or have acquired by my diligence, hard work and ability to avoid the economic death trap of instant gratification. As a matter of fact, Michael, you could care less about anybody but yourself, family and some select friends so please no bleeding hearts about Walmart people. Walmart employees are always helpful and mostly cheery vs. the grim faced, surly dork-losers one runs into in union shops. Why is this Michael? I'll tell you why brcause union shops are based on unhappiness...there is never enough to satisfy the goon leaders (who want to keep theit cushy jobs) or the generally less than intelligent rank and file. Now surprisingly I probably agree with you that a union has the right to ask for anything it feels is necessary but they also have to accept the bad and if a GM and their unions create a bankrupt company they need to be allowed to go belly up. It is in public unions that the abuse is a matter of collusion with the Dem party and market forces cannot curtail the excesses of the unions that the problem lies.
I don't think that you can cite any post of mine where I've argued against free market economics. And since I doubt that you possess the very rare ability of internet telepathy, I also tend to doubt you can intelligently speak about what I 'care' about or don't 'care' about. I will say that if you have seen more happiness in the average Wal-Mart worker versus the average union worker, then my experience has been vastly different from yours.
I am always willing to be proven empirically wrong and if I am, I will admit it. Unions and the labor movement are not a subject that I am particularly passionate about, so last night I did some independent research on the subject to see whether my philosophical instincts on the subject might be incorrect.
Things I learned:
1.) There are 22 Right-to-work states versus 28 states that right-to-work advocates call 'forced union' states. In 21 out of those 22 states, the average annual income of the workers in the states is below the national average. The only exception is Virginia,
2.) Proponents of right-to-work states often cite that right-to-work status has a beneficial effect on overall employment. So I looked at that also. Indeed, 7 out of the top 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are right-to-work. So that would seem to be a mark in their favor.
However, unfortunately, 6 out of the top 10 states with the HIGHEST unemployment rates are also right to work. From this, there are only a couple of conclusions you can draw:
a.) Right-to-work status will either be INCREDIBLY helpful to overall employment or EXTREMELY harmful to overall employment.
or
b.) Right-to-work status really doesn't have much of an effect on overall employment at all.
Of the two, I lean toward the latter. Usually things don't have simultaneous effects that are diametrically opposed to each other in different cases.
So, apparently right-to-work status does little more than economically depress the wages of the area in which it is imposed. That is unless there is some other presumed benefit that I can explore that you know about?
If the free market works so well for us how come all of our buying power has went down. The last 8 years have been a big loser for working people union and non union. we have allowed the corporations their enormous profits, when does it trickle down. Wal mart rolls back prices but purchasing power still went down. When does this non-union "merit pay" kick in? Evidently some of the most profitable companies the world has ever known don't think their non union work force merits didly. Somebody list a few non-union companies that value their workforce and show it by paying more than the union shop. Is their even one? If should be easy to be more competetitive than a bunch of lazy goons and thugs. A non union company should be able to pay their employers way better than a shop that has to carry so much dead weight. They never pay more. They never charge less either. The union shop still has to be the low bidder to get the job. Funny how they can be the low bidder, make a profit, and pay their employee's fairly, with a crew of goons. The truth is the union shops employ the best talent, and hardest workers, and they pay for it. The people who believe in the "right to work for less and less" and that the free market is best for you and your family, show me a few non union employer's who pay so well that the union guys want to quit their job and work for them. Show me one who pays their employee's better than the union because their crew "merits" good pay.
I'm a union employer who hires the best training electricians in the world. I have a good working relationship with the IBEW and we negotiate in good faith. I care about my employees and every IBEW member I hire works hard everyday. They have made me ton of money, and they're worth every dime and benefit I can provide... I have never hired a "goon" or encountered a "union goon," whatever that hell that is from our Bolshevik comrade?
The irony of anti-union conservative thought is their idea of free-market capitalism. I negotiate in the private sector and provide healthcare to 47 union electrician without one cent of federal, state, or local tax dollars....and suddenly I'm the bad guy. I promote socialism because of my union associations. What? If there were more union employers like me, we wouldn't even be discussing Obamacare! This whole socialized healthcare debate is brought on by the anti-union forces....They're just too dense to realize their own ignorance.
In the meantime, the so-called patriots of capitalism spit on unions and labor management relations, and endorse non-union companies like Wal-Mart which outsource jobs overseas while importing cheap good made by 12 year old Asian girls tied to sewing machines for 16 hours a day @ 23 cents an hour....Real patriots!
In the meantime, while I'm providing healthcare in the private sector, the anti-union republicans wave their flags as Alice Walton buys another $78 million dollar Rembrandt and we get stuck paying for her employees healthcare....
Who are the real socialists.......Tell Homer Simpson I said "hello".
I want to work for this guy, who would not work hard for a boss like this!