Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

In Defense of Mitch McConnell

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 15:03
in

Red State is unhappy with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. (Note: I used to work in the Senate Republican Communications Center under Sen. McConnell.  Perhaps that biases me, or perhaps that gives me a unique viewpoint, but I'm trying to make an objective analysis of the landscape here)

The idea that Mitch McConnell is protecting us from the Democrats is bullcrap.  We should collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat that he’s been serving us. [...] Mitch McConnell is privately screwing us just like Obama is doing to the left, but because he makes Harry Reid cry on queue, people love him.  It’s almost like Reid and Durbin know it and are happy to cry on cue if it means conservatives stay rallied to McConnell.

I really do appreciate Erick Erickson's frustration - the conflict between ideals and the politically possible is a particularly difficult tension for libertarians -  but Sen. McConnell is not the problem. The problem is a Senate an inch away from a 60-Democrat majority.  There is simply no way he can stop the Democrats.  That, not McConnell's personal preferences, is the important factor right now.  Sen. McConnell can either...

  • Compromise, lose and cobble together the best deal we can get (sometimes on the proximate legislation, sometimes on other potential legislation), or...
  • Be righteously indignant and go down in flames. Total defeat.

So, yeah, Senate Republicans are not protecting us from bad legislation.  Against almost 60 Senate Democrats, that's what you do.  You lose. 

Senators DeMint, Coburn and some others want to fight, and that's great. We need fighters...but we need the parliamentarians, the deal-makers, too.  The fact that individual members can pick fights does not mean the entire Senate Republican caucus can do so.

If a fighter was elevated to the Republican Leader position, one of two things would happen: (a) they would be unable to hold the Republican caucus together behind a tougher ideological agenda, or (b) they would be forced to moderate to hold the caucus together.

Some hills are certainly worth dying on, but the Senate Republicans can't all die on every hill.

Yes, McConnell isn't likely to lead a Republican revolution. But nobody is right now. Leadership is almost certainly going to come from the outside.  The Republican Congress is just trying to execute the best retreat possible.

A General gets to tell the troops where to go.  A Senate Minority Leader has to ask the troops where they want to go, and figure out how to do something with the many different answers.  Mitch McConnell's job is the art of the possible...and at the moment, very little is possible.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Four GOP retirements since Nov.

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 16:01.

Your pragmatic analysis is spot on. The Democrats are firmly in control, and there is absolutely nothing the Republicans can do except collaborate with the enemy and live to fight another day. Either that, or they all die trying to take a hill that they won't take.

Four GOP Senators have already seen the wisdom of retreat just since Nov 4, and more retirements are expected. I am predicting at least two party defections before the 2014 midterms.

Most folks don't remember that Republican stalwarts like my own Senator Shelby were true blue Democrats until Newt took the Hill in 1994. For alot of these guys power is the only party or principle that matters. Give them a plum chairmanship and they would caucus with the Neo-Nazis or the Black Panthers.

no, no, no

Submitted by Alexander Brunk on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 16:04.

Jon, I normally agree with you, but I think you're dead wrong on this.  This is exactly the kind of stuff the Ford/Nixon Republicans said about the Reaganites in the 70s.  That we have to work with them, compromise, even help pass bad legislation.  They accused Reagan and the few movement conservatives in the GOP at the time of being irresponsible at suggesting that we actually fight a liberal agenda full on instead of just trying to make it a little less liberal.

If a law is wrong, if it will harm the country, then we have a duty to do everything in our power to stop it, and if we lose then we take our case to the American people and hope that its an issue that will help us in the next election.

When card check comes up for a vote this Spring, should we just let it pass?  41 votes is enough to stop it if our Republican Senators have the backbone to do it.

fight on

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 16:11.

Jon is right on one sense - you pick your fights carefully and you choose which hill you want to die on.  In the Republican Party's weakened state in DC, that can only mean choosing which bills you will filibuster to the very end because that's the only real power we have now.  But as for all of the rest of the liberal agenda, ok fine don't filibuster everything but don't vote yes for it either.  It would be great if every vote in this Congress was a party-line vote.  Let the Democrats own the liberal agenda and let the Republicans stand completely in opposition to it.

No we can't!

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 16:37.

Say it with me brothers and sisters, "No we can't!"

Good luck with the patented Stadler and Waldorf legislative strategy.

you already have coburn to fillibuster everything

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 17:24.

there's a reason they had the coburn omnibus last session.

More Vigorous Dissent, Please

Submitted by Mark30339 on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 23:14.

A. Brunk is right.  Go down in flames with style and with clarity.  There is precious little a 41 member minority is going to extract in compromise, so don't endorsef the leftist policy and spending spree.  Offer the Republican recovery plan, let it lose -- and let it be the basis for throwing the leftist bums out when the leftist approach fails.

Good Post

Submitted by LEM on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 16:18.

Who whould you replace McConnell with?  He was elected by the other Republican senators.  The party is in a tough situation right now with only 41 senators.  Folks we have four republican senators who are retiring in 2010.  Those seats will be very tough for Republicans to win.  There is very little Senate Republicans can do.  Filibuster should be used only when it is absolutely necessary.  Secondly, McConnell's job is not to protect the republicans from the democrats.  He only has 41 votes at the most. 

Sadly ironic...

Submitted by ThinkTank on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 17:38.

To see Mitch McConnell stand up to Obama's spending initiatives when he sat down during Bush's open checkbook policy is unlikely to strike a very sympathetic chord among independent voters who swung this election.  In short, he and fellow Republicans are not in a good position to make the case for the type of fiscal hawkishness that they had so recklessly abandoned. 

Therefore, I'm not certain holding the line on every spending bill either make sense.  The goodies after all are spread among Republican-learning states, too, so McConnell will need to be careful not to cut off noses just to spite faces.  

In addition, ever since Frist put the "nuclear option" on the table for handling filibusters, McConnell and his colleagues probably understand what the ultimate price of heavy-handed obstructionism can be.  Having raised the specter of changing Senate rules regarding filibusters, Republican senators--once again--are not in the best position to claim much high ground here. 

In brief, gaining enough support to obstruct or slow down the stimulus plan whole or in part will require a set of arguments that convinces more than just the Republican base.

McConnell will have to tread carefully here and pick his battles.  Fortunately, some he won't have to pick at all.  For example, it is unlikely any health care legislation will make it through the pipeline with a recession and a proposed stimulus plan weighing down spending priorities. 

Well said

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 19:43.

n/t 

health care is vital for getting us through the recession.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:29.

(and really, if we need to pour money into something, can't some of it go to making sure we're alive to enjoy our deficit?).

I believe that health care reform will substantially free our GDP from pouring gazillions of dollars into making sure that people don't get healthcare.

Addressing the trade imbalance

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 20:13.

...would do 3 times what health care reform could. 

who's to say it won't? at least in part ;-)

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:31.

electronic health records and cost effective ways to transmit clinical research to busy doctors are good exports. ;-)

A round of applause for

Submitted by Our Paul on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 18:18.

A round of applause for brother ThinkTank!!! Consider this:

I'm not certain holding the line on every spending bill either make sense.  The goodies after all are spread among Republican-learning states, too, so McConnell will need to be careful not to cut off noses just to spite faces.

Which was followed by:

gaining enough support to obstruct or slow down the stimulus plan whole or in part will require a set of arguments that convinces more than just the Republican base

.Said it before, but I will say it again, you do not solve problems by throwing ideology at them. You do not knock on the door of a unemployed construction worker and say:

“We are conservatives and deserve your vote. We successfully filibustered a bill that would have provided you with a job, and blocked attempts at providing your family with health care. Rejoice brother, we have held the line against the liberals!”

Is it only me that finds Erick Erickson's language inappropriate? Certainly it does not advance a reasonable examination of a problem. This “collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat” is the voice of a bully. It is brains that solve problems, not verbal displays of swinging parts 

Plus, Mitch presides over a passel of pukes

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 21:47.

We have a similar situation in Michigan, except that here the (nominal) Repubs control the state Senate. A weak majority leader stands at the front of a passel of rino pukes who have gone along with massive tax hikes and new regulatory regimes, and sponsored plenty of their own too. As a sideline they hand out new privileges and perks to rent-seekers of every variety, looting the treasury and the public at every step.

Whether or not he deserves it it's pointless to beat up on Mitch - look at who's in his caucus. Criminy, I'll be surprised if they summon the gumption to fillibuster card check and fairness doctrine, should those ever come to the floor.

Civil Disobedience

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 23:09.

Yes, we save the filibuster to the life or death must stop issues.

BUT: we set an expectation that on run of the mill votes we oppose that Reid is forced to whip his caucus to win the cloture vote. A few RINO's or issue aficinados break ranks, well, that's expected. But the point is: a few.

Senators unwilling to play with the team can turn in their cleats in '10. Thanks for your service.

This is a long march, folks. The first step is to make the other side burn up time and energy so they get tired and sloppy. Reid loses a cloture vote or two and we regain an awful lot of juice.

Some senators don't have a choice

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 16:04.

Since they are from more liberal states. Can you name any Republican senators that are less conservative than their states? Senators from states that went for Obama 60-40 can't exactly be as Republican as the esteemed gentlemen from OK and SC.

Fivethirtyeight had an analysis of senators that compared how liberal or conservative they are to how liberal or conservative their state is. The conclusion was that Democrats support a Democratic senator from a conservative state that votes Republican 30% of the time, because it's better than having a Republican from that state, who would vote with the elephants 90% of the time. Sure, sites like Kos can have a man-crush on senators like Baucus, but there isn't nearly the level of hostility towards senators like Bayh, Conrad, or Webb as there is among Republicans towards Specter and, to a lesser extent, other moderate Republicans (for example, Collins and Snowe).

Alternately, we can support Toomey and watch him go down in flames, like Santorum in 2006, and we'll be in an even tighter fix. Except for Reid, who nobody likes, the Democrats don't have many vulnerable seats, and OH, MO, FL, and even KS look uncertain. Right now, what the Republicans should do is maintain 41 seats to the best of their abilities, and if that means compromising with Obama so that the moderate Repubs will have a safer primary, then so be it.

We have a bad hand right now, and the Democrats know it, and maybe the best thing to do is to fold, and not bluff and hope for your card to come up on the river.

you willing to sign away card check?

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 16:24.

fine by me. Specter has a real dilly of a pickle, and I'll not be the only one glad to see the last of him in PA.

RINOs in blue states

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 16:37.

First, in 2010 I hope that we will have spirited Senate contests in OH, MO, NV, FL, IL and NY.  KS is not uncertain even if Sebelius runs.

Second, why would voters in blue states vote for RINOs, i.e. Democrats-Lite, when they can vote for the real thing?  The bottom line is, voters get the senators that they deserve.  If we can't convince people that free markets and limited government are things that they should support then that's that, and trying to run a RINO that only sorta-kinda supports free markets and limited government is just trying to pull a fast one on them, and ultimately does more harm than good to the Republican brand.

Put it in a glass case?

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 18:09.

Let's find a pristine, perfect, uncirculated, mint condition example of "The Republican Brand" and put it on display in a museum in Washington. That way our great grandchildren will be able to see what a Republican was, way back in the day, when they still existed.

If I have two candidates and one of them is a centrist who takes positions on different issues that appeal to both liberals in some cases and conservatives in others. And the other is a far right hard liner who could not get liberal or moderate votes if he handed out twenty's on election day. I'm pretty sure who is going to win that election. And nothing damages a brand worse than being a big loser time and time again.

There is no reason at all that the two candidates in my above example could not in theory be from either major party. There are hard right Democrats. And I seem to remember that there were liberal Republicans. There are still reported sightings up in Maine on occassion. Maybe their natural habitat is shrinking?

You guys got what should have been a teachable moment ass whoopin' at the balot box twice now. And it sure looks like the next two are shaping up to be just as painful. How many in a row do you have to lose big before you figure out where the votes are? Or how many do you have to lose before you go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs? And which comes sooner?

They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and he said "Cause that's where the money is." If Willie had been a modern Republican I'm sure he would have only robbed Bangladeshi take out restaurants so he could have a pure, unique, and easily identified brand he could take pride in.

pandering vs. principles

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 21:31.

You say: Republicans should change their positions to go where the votes are.

I say: Republicans should persuade voters to come closer to where we are.

And I repeat: Why would blue-state voters vote for Democrat-Lite when they can vote for the Real Thing?

It's called representative for a reason.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 09:16.

I believe the way it works is that the people we elect are acting as our representatives because a complete democracy would be a mess to deal with. So the senators and especially the RERESENTATIVES in the house should reflect the values, views and wishes of the people who elected them.

Granted the senators are supposed to be more deliberative as a check against unwise mob rule. But still, if we are left our representatives will be left, if we are right our representatives will be right. We are currently trending left. One can argue whether we currently find ourselves in a position on the spectrum that is center right or center left.

One can not argue that we are trending left. The scariest map I saw for the 2008 election was a county by county that showed whether that county was trending blue or red. The red was a small strip from Louisiana to West Virginia. Running roughly along the Appalachian range.

Republicans and Democrats do not change us, we change them. That's what the last two elections were about. The voters don't really care if you have an R or a D after your name. It boils down to who is most like me. The would go for a centrist Republican if he seemed more competent than his challengers.

that hit oklahoma and arkansas too

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:35.

which are NOT appalachia. It tracks closely with scotch irish immigration. No surprise, there was an awful lot of racebaiting and "durn foreigner" talk out of McCain and company.

Louisiana is a demographic change state, doesn't count in the analysis, as the warm bodies moved elsewhere.

LA is always a piece of work.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 13:08.

Even before Katrina LA was the oddest of states. It's like one of the Canadian provinces got lost and could not find it's way home. Or maybe a wayward island nation that floated up the gulf and made landfall off the coast of Arkansas.

The red band also tracks well with lack of urbanization and lack of education data. If you live in a city of over 5000 people then a "smaller government" message is a joke to you. And if you have a college education people like "Joe the Plumber" are not likely to sway your opinions.

who changes whom

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 18:41.

Okay I have no idea what map you are referring to.  And I have a slightly different analysis.  Is the country really tilting left?  Obama was the one promising tax cuts and an aggressive posture on the War on Terror.  McCain was only barely tolerated by the right.  And Bush is just an unpopular guy right now; it is difficult enough for anyone from the same party to win a third term, and it's downright impossible when the incumbent is as unpopular as Bush is.  And let's not forget the lapdog press that gave Obama a pass on pretty much everything.  So I don't think the last election results really are a full-throated endorsement of more liberalism or a complete rejection of conservatism.  Rather I think it is more a statement of "we want some other guy in charge now", and things like qualifications or ideology just weren't nearly as important as they should have been.  What should be the Republicans' job now, IMO, is to demonstrate to the public that the "other guy" that they just elected is actually a liberal, and to remind people of what is so great about conservatism in the first place.

So I understand that you optimistically (to you) think the country has lurched to the left, and hence your 'helpful advice' is for Republicans to follow them leftward, but I ask again - why should blue-state voters vote for Democrat-lite when they can vote for the real thing?  Republicans have to offer a clear, unambiguous alternative to Obama's big-government leftism.

Found the map link, chemjeff!

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 08:15.

theelectoralmap.com/2008/11/06/the-electoral-map-shifts-to-deep-blue/

The map I refered to in a post above can be found at this link. It shows shifting trends and how strong they were from 2004 to 2008 in the presidential race. Granted, Obama ran a great race and McCain ran a poor one. But I'll bet that the congressional data would look not much rosier for the GOP than what the presidential data shows.

The GOP was braced for massive losses in 2008 way back in the primary season when it was just generic D vs. generic R for president. No one on either side ever argued that 2008 would not be a GOP route even if McCain had somehow squeaked out a win.

2010 and 2012 have very poor structurals for the GOP in terms of demographics, voter ID, and which congressional and senate seats are open and need defending. Bush definately made it an uphill climb for McCain. But I'm not sure you can blame what happened in congress on Bush. Congress had 9% approval in one poll I saw shortly before the election. And still the Dems made massive gains in both chambers.

My impression so far is that the Senate loves working with one of their own, as opposed to having to deal with a rookie governor of either party. I suspect that the party structures of both parties will shift to support presidential candidates from the Senate in future cycles. And the Dems have a much deeper Senatorial bench than the GOP.

 

People don't see things in black and white

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 18:20.

Some people dislike abortion and abortion supporters, but don't want it banned.

Some people think tax cuts are better than more spending, but that the top 1% don't need more money.

Some people think the current healthcare system is flawed, but don't want single-payer.

Some people are social conservatives, but are disappointed with how the Republicans have run things.

I doubt that many Americans like a choice between ideological extremes. People compromise by nature, and someone that says that "we should cut taxes for those who are struggling to make ends meet" may sound wishy-washy to some, but more nuanced and intellectually thorough than someone who repeats the party line, even if they understand and believe it.

In the same way, I think that what is most dangerous to the Republican brand is being identified with a narrow line of ideology. Democrats benefit by saying that they appeal to liberals like Barney Frank and conservatives like Evan Bayh at the same time, since that allows more people to say "there is room in the party for people like me".

That pretty much sums it up

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 20:18.

Other than to say:

McConnell is a douchebag, and he has to go.  I was hoping a Democrat would win his seat, for the good of the party. 

Ponder why this is.

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 21:15.

but there isn't nearly the level of hostility towards senators like Bayh, Conrad, or Webb as there is among Republicans towards Specter and, to a lesser extent, other moderate Republicans (for example, Collins and Snowe).

I would submit to you that this phenomenon has to do in large part with the fact that Bayh, Conrad, and Webb don't go out of their way to stick fingers in the eyes of the party base the way douchenozzles like Specter do.

I can tolerate a Republican who disagrees with me 30% of the time, if the alternative is a Democrat who disagrees with me 90% of the time.  Hell, I disagreed with George W. Bush a lot more than 30% of the time, and nevertheless tolerated him for eight solid years.  What I won't do is put up with self-aggrandizing tools who, as the result of their inexplicable thirst to earn cred with the cretins in the liberal media, make a very public spectacle of castigating the party mainstream.  See also, John McCain.

what did specter do again?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:37.

last i checked he was granstanding on Holden.

So how many R's ought to bail for self-defense

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 22:10.

The RINO defense is it's the only way I can win

Assuming that: who does it fit?

Let's assume the 2008 Obama vote is a fair measure of potential opposition strength  

a)Maine  58% Obama. Last R presidential win 1988. OK. It applies, but....

Collins is not up until 2014...lots of time to make nice for nasty votes now

Snowe is up in 2012 but I do not believe she has had a tough race in many cycles and ME likes incumbents

b) PA  55% Obama. Last R presidential win 1988. Not a friendly place of late, and Specter is going to bail as always on all but the most crucial votes since he's up in '10.

c) NH  54% Obama. Last R presidential win 2000. State is drifting blue , but

Judd Gregg (who is up in 2010) is still pretty popular. Ok, some heresy allowed, I guess

d) Iowa 54% Obama. Last GOP presidential win 2004. Got away from us this cycle, but

Chuck Grasley is up in 2010 and is an Iowa institution. Yep, he;s gonna shovel cash at dumb ethanol plants, but they love him for it in Iowa. On non-Iowa issues, he oughta stick, ya thinK?

e) Nevada Obama 55%. Last GOP Presidential win 2004. The economic mess in Vegas did not stay in Vegas. Hopefully this was a one cycle event.

I don't think anyone thinks Jon Ensign is vulnerable in 2012. He's got a couple of years before he needs to go re-elect mode, anyway.

Now there are some other Obama states with GOP senators, but if an incumbent can;t win re-election in a 51% Obama state; he's not much of a candidate anyway.

So, tell me, of the 41 GOP senators how many need to bail out for political survival, as opposed to convenience?

Specter's death is imminent

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 12:39.

if McConnel or Limbaugh decides to demagogue on card check or other things that he has to vote Yes for.

That is, unless Cornyn can persuade Toomey to stay out. Personally, I doubt it.

Specter and card check

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 16:42.

No Republican in their right mind should support so-called "card check".  Not only is it bad politics (supporting organized labor, who don't support us), it is undemocratic and virtually certain to raise costs of everything.  This is precisely what we don't need.  So he'd better vote no if he cares at all about the R behind his name.

Wait

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 17:25.

I am a Republican, and as far as I can tell, I am in my right mind, and I support card-check. I have read your posts on this issue and obviously we disagree. But to simply make a blanket statement that the Republican Party should not support organized labor is a disservice to the party, in my opinion.

I am sure you would agree with me, as a Republican, we defend the workers' rights to free association and a right to organize.  

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

EFCA

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:37.

Wait, maybe we are not on the same page.  I'm talking about EFCA, not general freedoms of association.

are you for a mandatory

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 11:19.

nine week waiting period before forming a union?

Are you actually favoring the illegal firing of union activists? Or of the 25% of companies that are bad actors (according to peer reviewed research) and refuse to sign a contract with the union, even after the union wins a fair vote?

unions

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 18:45.

are you for a mandatory nine week waiting period before forming a union?

Umm, no. I don't see why there should be a waiting period.

Are you actually favoring the illegal firing of union activists?

I think companies should be able to fire anyone for any reason.

Or of the 25% of companies that are bad actors (according to peer reviewed research) and refuse to sign a contract with the union, even after the union wins a fair vote?

If someone has broken the law that person should be prosecuted, and/or sued.  Nevertheless, hardball tactics are a two-way street.

I fail to see what this has to do with eliminating secret ballot elections.

as the law now stands

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:51.

card check is an available way to form a union. so is a secret ballot. The thing is, the corporation chooses which one it wants to pursue, not the workers. So even if a union can get 100% of the workforce to sign a union card, there is still the option for the corporation to call for a secret ballot. And there's a mandatory 9-week period where they get to campaign.

Understand that a secret ballot is a great way to suppress turnout. You don't have to vote, after all. With card check, you need 50% of the employees to get a union. With a secret ballot, you just need a majority of the voters.

NLRB needs more funding, so that it can actually take action against the company. maybe you'd rather that just be done in the courts, but the judges are already overworked, imho.

Good companies and good unions...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 07:03.

...go together, it's just good business. A good business should never object or fire someone because they want to form a union at their work place. Unions are not formed to put business out of business but to insure workers are treated fairly in an otherwise ruthless commercial environment.

Now, specifically, as it relates to secret ballots: As has been pointed out, presently, it is the company that has the power to call for a secret ballot, not the employees.  And judging from your own statement, if a foolish employee was to raise his head up and call for a ballot to unionize, secret or otherwise, you would fire that employee. So what you are objecting to here is the loss of the company's ability to control the balloting procedures during the organizing process, not the employees.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Your statement:Unions are

Submitted by centerfire on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 15:22.

Your statement:

Unions are not formed to put business out of business but to insure workers are treated fairly in an otherwise ruthless commercial environment.

reflects a hopelessly naive view of the modern workplace and bears little relationship to the actual tension between business and labor in the real world, today.

No, unions aren't formed to put business out of business, per se.  They're formed to blackmail employers with the threat of government-sanctioned work stoppages to capitulate to collective bargaining agreements containing terms favorable to the union -- not necessarily workers -- regardless of whether those terms make short- or long-term financial sense for the employer.

The myth of the union standing up for the rights of the oppressed worker against exploitative plutocrats is a holdover from the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries.  Today they're extortionary enterprises that are barely distinguishable from organized crime.  Fortunately more and more workers are recognizing that reality, which is why union membership is plummetting, and why workers in the most dynamic sectors of the American economy forego unionization.

 

While I certainly respect your opinion...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 18:46.

...I would like to understand why we have such a totally different view on this subject. So let's see if we can establish some parameters so that we can assure ourselves we are both on the same page here.

For an example, large organizations, be they unions or corporations, function differently than smaller organizations. Large organizations have, I suppose, more of a need to segregate power and therefore more opportunity to misuse power, and to misuse it on a larger scale, than do smaller organizations. Are you suggesting that your view transcends this point?

ex animo

davidfarrar

Why do you hate Santa Claus?

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 10:47.

Here's an example of a union helping it's workers -- holding seminars on how to persuade people to spend some money on Santa Claus, while not having to spend as much as last year (rather than having kids sit on Santa's lap, read them all a story).

Santas were hit pretty hard this year.

Let me say this again...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 18:55.

...for someone to say the Republican Party does not support organized labor is a disservice to the party.

The Republican Party political platform..."affirms both the right of individuals to voluntarily participate in labor organizations and bargain collectively"...

And while the party's platform does oppose “card check” legislation, in my opinion, it does so under the mistaken assumption that it deprives workers of their privacy and their right to vote. In fact, you can't deprive someone of their privacy or their right to vote when they never had those rights to begin with.

Now if you would like to work with me to help pass legislation that would allow employees the right to privacy and a right to vote on unionization without fear of being fired by the company, I will be glad to work with you in this regard.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Quite common

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 20:14.

Firefighters routinely support the GOP.

I work on a union job site with over 2000 men.  I have not met a single one that supported Obama (other than stewards, and they do "officially" because the hall tells them to).

In particular, gun rights is a huge issue among union members. 

odd. some coal workers in WV ran off the NRA

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 11:21.

and took a Worker's Holiday in protest (details on wvablue).

Obama's pro gun rights. I think the NRA has won that battle, and should focus on something else for a change.

HeeheeeHEEHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Submitted by centerfire on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 03:19.

Excuse me, I thought you just tried to say that Obama, whose actual record reflects implacable hostility to gun rights for his entire political career before he ran for the presidency, was pro gun rights.

Wait, you did?

HeeheeeHEEHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Add to that...

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 19:49.

... that 43% of AFL-CIO members voted for Geo. W Bush in '04.

Don't confuse the membership with the leadership. 

Erik says, "We should collectively rip off his jaw..."

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 00:17.

Then it looks like a job for Team Srike Force.

 

LOL.

Red State.

I'm voting for that site for best comedy blog.