Labor Unions STRIKE BACK Against Blanche Lincoln!

[Segami]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:



" The Arkansas Democratic Senate runoff election between Bill Halter and Blanche Lincoln is a week from today. SEIU, which has been heavily involved supporting Halter (along with other labor unions and MoveOn), has a new ad on the air today hitting Lincoln for long-time support of Wall Street banks and investment companies. Here's the ad:

<http://www.seiu.org/2010/06/blanche-lincoln-standing-firm-with-special-interests.php>


Blanche Lincoln has a long history of being in the pockets of Big Banks. In 2005 she voted in favor of the onerous Bankruptcy Reform Act.

<http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044>


This law makes it harder for individuals to file bankruptcy and came after years and years of lobbying by the Big Banks.

More recently, Lincoln voted in favor of bailing out Wall Street through TARP.

<http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213>


Her Big Bank favoritism continued this year when she voted against putting a cap on the rates allowed for out-of-state credit card lenders.

<http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/111/s3217/amendments>


Delaware Online reported: "The amendment to the financial reform bill would have allowed all 50 states to impose individual interest rate caps on out-of-state lenders -- meaning card companies would not be able to use one national rate set in the state where they are chartered."

<http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100520/NEWS02/5200348/Senate-preserves-unlimited-card-rates>


Isn't it great to have Blanche Lincoln on your side? Sure, it is if you're a Big Bank or Wall Street firm. But if you're just a regular working American who can't donate over $800,000 to Lincoln like the securities and investment industry, you're SOL.

<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00008092&type=I>


Lincoln's recent ads have tried to attack labor for supporting Bill Halter. This is a pretty bizarre critique, considering the unions who are supporting Halter are doing so because it is what their Arkansan members want. Just putting the word "Washington" in front of the word "union" doesn't move the target of Lincoln's ads out of Arkansan and back to the nation's capital.


The good news is, recent polling by Daily Kos and Research 2000 shows Halter three points ahead of Lincoln, though still within the margin of error.

<http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/5/26/AR/528>



If you're in Arkansas, early vote for Bill Halter. And no matter where you are, support Bill Halter for Senate in Arkansas.

<http://billhalter.com/2010/6/1/vote-early-starting-today-2>




<http://crooksandliars.com/labor-unions-strike-back-against-blanche-lincoln-n>

[BzaDem]

1. The money spent in this primary is ridiculous.

Both candidates are down 20-30 points to any and all GOP candidates they are polled against. And yet millions of dollars of Democratic money is being wasted on this. All so Lincoln can go down now instead of November.

If either Democratic candidate were actually close to the GOP candidate, then this primary would matter and maybe the resources spent would be justified. But given that neither are actually close, people are blowing millions by contributing to either candidate that they could be contributing to Patty Murray or Barbara Boxer or Joe Sestak or any of the other Democrats that can actually win Senate seats.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. I disagree with your premise. If holding our leaders accountable is a waste of time, then your

argument makes sense.

On the other hand, if we want good government, we have to vote out the people who keep screwing us over and helping out the bad guys.


A week is a year in politics. 5 months is a lifetime. It will get a lot closer by November. Just watch.

[BzaDem]

3. The point is, out of all Senate races on the map, this is one of the biggest long-shots.

The chances of us actually getting either is miniscule. This has been true since early 2008 for Lincoln, and since the day Halter entered the race. Even if the environment trends towards us in a huge way, we still wouldn't win with either candidate (whereas there are 10 other Senate races where we might ACTUALLY win and who all need money).

In this case (where Lincoln is going to lose in November anyway), "holding our leaders accountable" means putting revenge over actual Senate seats and more progressive policy outcomes. It is unbelievably stupid. Unfortunately, it will probably take you until November (where Halter loses by 30 points but Sestak loses by 1 point) to make you realize that the destination of 7 million dollars actually matters in a real, tangible way, for 6 long years. Even if you don't realize it then, you probably would realize it after a few months of listening to Pat Toomey, knowing that even part of that 7 million dollars could have put Sestak over the top. (And same with a number of other Democratic Senate candidates that will likely win or lose in close races.)

[John Q. Citizen]

4. If we just decided these races based on your data, we could save even more money.

It sounds to me as if you are of the opinion that even paying for the election is a waste of time, since you are already 100% sure of the outcome, right now, today.

We had about 15 years of not contesting races that we knew were a forgone conclusion. You can ask the DLC how well that worked out for Democrats. They will tell you that Terrry McAuliffe did just what you are suggesting and that it was brilliant politics. They will tell you that Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was a waste of time and money.

I disagree with Terry and the DLC. I think failing to contest elections leads to more losses in the future. Short term gains over long term success is short sighted, IMHO.