AFL-CIO Threatens Obama's Re-Election Over Jobs

[Cali_Democrat]

AFL-CIO Threatens Obama's Re-Election Over Jobs
By Paul Bedard
Posted: August 25, 2011

The AFL-CIO, worried that President Obama's long-awaited September jobs announcement will be inadequate, is threatening to boycott the Democratic National Convention and maybe the 2012 elections unless bold action is taken to ease unemployment.

"If they don't have a jobs program I think we'd be better to use our money doing other things," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

The leader of the nation's largest union, who regularly visits the White House to talk with Obama, sounded a warning today that he is worried that the president will simply propose "nibbly" things to spark some job creation instead of laying out a bold plan and promising to challenge Republicans in Congress to pass it.

"People are frustrated and the more jobs aren't created, the more they're gonna get frustrated with everybody," he said in a Christian Science Monitor newsmaker roundtable breakfast.

Read more...http://tinyurl.com/3shokkj

Trumka is probably right. I have a feeling that Obama's jobs proposal will not be bold. Chances are that it will be underwhelming, inadequate and unable to solve our structural unemployment crisis.

Call it a hunch.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Worry is news?

:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I see it as more of a threat

Trumka also threatened to ditch the Dems according to another article I read. He's essentially threatening Obama. If the jobs proposal isn't bold enough, support may be withdrawn.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. It's an interesting negotiation.

An Union negotiating with a "supportive" union supporter.

Weird.

[Armstead]

7. Not supportive enough.....More free trade as a jobs polucy?

Can you blame thev unions for feeling a bit angr and frustrated?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. See " " around "supportive."

[Armstead]

13. Okay.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. -

:woohoo:

[Fearless]

10. +1000!

[truebrit71]

27. When did Obama "support" the unions, other than on the campaign trail of course....

...

[CakeGrrl]

4. Not very smart:

Besides suggesting that his national union won't attend the convention unless a big new jobs program is proposed, he also indicated that his union won't do much for Obama or Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Asked if union participation in the election will drop, he said, "I think yes. I think the overall population participation will drop. Because people, if they think there's not going to be any solution they get upset."

Oddly, he said that the union hasn't decided if it will participate in the convention though he said some affiliates already aren't going. That would be a slap at Obama.


So they'll just sit it out to 'slap at Obama'? Dumb way to help the GOP. And exactly HOW much do they expect the GOP to do for Labor? Ask Wisconsin.

I wonder why Trumka didn't say anything about courting Primary challengers.

[ProSense]

5. A few things:

This also applies to the OP report: Trumka criticizes Obama, confusing Politico

<...>

At the same time, nothing in Trumka's reported quotes boils down to unions "ditching" Democrats. My read on the plan, as both Trumka and AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer have reportedly described it in several interviews, is to sit out the races of truly crappy Democrats, focus less on direct contributions to candidates, and work to ensure that election-related organizing efforts contribute to an ongoing structure for action and advocacy by and for workers (union and non-union) that continues past election day rather than ceasing in the belief that Democratic victories mean working people's victories. That could represent a significant shift in resources away from the priorities of the Democratic party, but it doesn't represent a statement (pledge or threat, depending on your leanings) that unions won't be organizing around elections or that they'll be supporting a greater proportion of non-Democrats than in recent cycles. But political reporters don't quite know what to do with a political strategy that's focused on something other than flatly supporting or flatly opposing the institutional priorities of a major political party. Except when they're writing about the tea party.

AFL-CIO chief: History will judge Obama if he 'nibbles' at jobs crisis (video)

<...>

While crediting Obama for “bold leadership” in proposing an economic stimulus package and health-care legislation, Trumka was critical of the president’s handling of the persistently high unemployment rate. “He made a strategic mistake,” Trumka said, “a number of months ago when he would talk about job creation and in the same sentence talk about deficit reduction, and people got the two confused. And he helped with that. And I think that was a strategic mistake.”

<...>

AFL-CIO's Trumka Outlines New Strategy

<...>

Trumka remains an administration ally who will, it appears, be in the president's corner during the reelection campaign.

"Barack Obama's a friend," he said, "and when you place him in the context of those who are running against him right now, he is a giant."

<...>

Trumka is challenging the President to do more, and that's a good thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. "Trumka is challenging the President to do more, and that's a good thing"

Absolutely.

[Fearless]

9. +1

[ProSense]

11. Thanks.

Glad you like my comment!

:)

[Armstead]

12. Exactly...And that's what many others are trying to do too.

But that often gets called bashing, or not suporting the president etc.

Politics is about pushing for what you want and believe in -- even when politicians and parties you basically support are in office.

[ProSense]

15. And

some of it is just bashing!

Nothing constructive, just name calling, smears and a lot of yelling: He's a failure, I don't care if Republicans win.

That's not what Trumka is doing, and he can give the President credit where credit is due!

Giving up is not pushing.

[Armstead]

17. Yes, that is partially correct. But....

1)People pecking on the keyboard at places like DU, or talking among their friends, is different than someone who is the spokesman for a large movement like Trumka. He has to be tactful in his public remarks, especially because he is working with Obama to resolve these differences....But I suspect if you got him talking freely behind closed doors, Trumka would express his frustrations a lot more bluntly.

2)The difference between useless "bashing" and honest expression and criticism is often blurred here.

If I say that in my opinion Obama is a failure because he is behaving like a waffling centrist, that is simply an honest observation of how I see it. It doesn't mean I don't ultimately support Obama. Nor does it mean I plan to sit it out, or do something counter-productive like support a 3rd Party opponent.

But too often on DU (and elsewhere) when people express their honest opinions, they get instantly labeled as "bashing" or "hating" or spreading GOP talking points, etc.

[ProSense]

28. These

"2)The difference between useless "bashing" and honest expression and criticism is often blurred here.

If I say that in my opinion Obama is a failure because he is behaving like a waffling centrist, that is simply an honest observation of how I see it. It doesn't mean I don't ultimately support Obama. Nor does it mean I plan to sit it out, or do something counter-productive like support a 3rd Party opponent.

But too often on DU (and elsewhere) when people express their honest opinions, they get instantly labeled as "bashing" or "hating" or spreading GOP talking points, etc. "

are just excuses when my response was this:

Nothing constructive, just name calling, smears and a lot of yelling: He's a failure, I don't care if Republicans win.

That's not what Trumka is doing, and he can give the President credit where credit is due!

Giving up is not pushing.


And if it's important to point that "honest opinions" are labeled "bashing," it's equally important to point out that "honest support" is labeled with all types of name calling.

It's not a one-way street.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Exactly

Core values should be adhered to.

[CakeGrrl]

16. Thanks for that refresher. That puts the 'threats' in better perspective. -nt

[great white snark]

18. "and when you place him in the context of those who are running against him, he is a giant"

Trumka is an ally to Obama and the Democrats. Those who wish to twist his critiques in order to divide the party are assholes.

[boxman15]

19. Trumka is right. We need a bold jobs program.

Obama needs to propose one, and I think he will. He has nothing to lose. If it passes somehow, the country benefits greatly. If not, people will see where the GOP's priorities are and he can get enough Democrats in office to pass it in his second term.

I see no reason why he won't propose something big or something bold. He has absolutely nothing to lose.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Why is Trumka jumping the gun just days before Pres O presents his jobs plan?

Dumb.

[Armstead]

21. Better to have input before it than have to react to a fait accompli

He is trying to get Obama gto actually propose a real jobs plan.

He could, I suppose, just shut up and hope for the best, and the have to complain if Obama propose some inane "bipartisan" nothing plan.

But better to be proactive before the fact, and put the pressure on to actually propose something meaningful and constructive.

[AtomicKitten]

23. A jobs proposal is not a fait accompli.

[Armstead]

24. No but it IS an action that sets a framework

A crappy proposal sets a crappy framework. A good one sets a good one.

[AtomicKitten]

26. The preemptive criticism because Trumka is "worried" is superfluous.

[Enrique]

22. "we should just wait for the big speech"

I guarantee he will push the public option!

[AtomicKitten]

25. There is no public option in a jobs proposal. Did you mix up your harangue of criticism?

The depth of emotional baggage some people bring here is surreal. It virtually erupts and emits a string of unrelated ad hominem BS criticism.

[Enrique]

29. ad hominem, eh?

not a big fan of ad hominem arguments, are you? What about irony, do you appreciate irony?

[CakeGrrl]

35. Too true. They love to trot out the old tired chestnuts:

?w=593&h=805

Tried and true.

:eyes:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. What is he expecting exactly?

He should be spending more time and energy fighting the House Republican Tea Party, the Senate Republican mega-obstructionists and businesses that are sitting on bucketfuls of cash and not hiring IMHO. There's probably not much President Obama can propose that is going to be able to make it through the House Republican Tea Party and Republican-obstructed Senate, at least nothing more than what Trumka calls "nibbly". :shrug: Hopefully, Trumka recognizes the perils of allowing the Republicans to regain the WH and Senate next year.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. He wants Obama to lay out an extremely bold jobs proposal.

He wants the proposal to be strong. He wants Obama to forcefully and directly challenge the Republicans to pass it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. Lay out something big and bold

so that when the House Republican Tea Party refuses to even hold hearings on it and the Senate Republicans filibuster it to death, people can turn around blame President Obama for its failure to go anywhere? There's only so much he can propose that the government do and even less that he might ever actually get to sign into law. If businesses aren't hiring like they should be even after everything he's done so far, then I'm not exactly sure what more he could do. There are a lot of businesses sitting on wads of cash right now and as far as "uncertainty" is concerned, the only ones creating that are Republicans and there's little President Obama can do about them short of somehow making the Republicans not act like Republicans. The Republicans clearly have no shame and their concern for people out of work extends only as far as how high(er) unemployment harms President Obama politically in advance of the election next year. :puke:

[WI_DEM]

32. I wish people would wait and see before pronouncing what Obama will do.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. +1

There always seems to be a perpetual "bubblegum crisis" around here.

[Peacetrain]

33. I am retired AFSCME.. hubby is current AFSCME all part of AFL-CIO

and Trumka is out to lunch on this.

[Donnachaidh]

37. you say that like it's a bad thing?

Honestly, the spin here at times is decidedly bizarro-land.

Soooo, labor is supposed to support a candidate that doesn't seem to support them? Really? :sarcasm:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. BOEING might have some choice comments

about how much President Obama supports labor.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Ooooh! I hope Obama's shaking in his Florsheims.

NOT!


The Labor leadership can do what it wants, but the rank-n-file membership will still support the Democratic Party. Bank on it! ;)