I stand with labor. If the AFL-CIO does not endorse Obama in 2012

[Robb]

...I will withdraw my support.

If they endorse him, I will stand with labor and work for his reelection.

[Luminous Animal]

1. I'm pretty sure labor will endorse they just won't put boots on the ground or

donate to the national campaign.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. After calling Obama, effectively, a Tea Bagger, you think they'll endorse him?

That doesn't sound likely to me.

Sounds like Trumka wants to put an end to 18 years of triangulation and appeasement.

[Robb]

53. Of course they'll endorse him.

The question is, will you stand with labor when they do?

[MannyGoldstein]

69. "Obama's a Teabagger, but vote for him"

I guess it could happen.

I would likely vote the same way Labor votes.

[Robb]

70. So I'll put you down for a "I'll likely" stand with labor.

Well I guess we'll take what we can get.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. Do you want an oath of fealty?

Jeez.

[trueblue2007]

71. President Obama is NOT a tea-bagger!

[roguevalley]

75. could have fooled me.

[JoePhilly]

106. Probably all that time he spent demanding to see his own birth certificate

[SusanaMontana41]

79. I agree. As for the OP, I'll vote with and for Labor because I am Labor,

not because Labor tells me for whom to vote.

[WI_DEM]

2. they will endorse him and they will work for him...

because they don't want a GOP president and GOP House and Senate--like we got a GOP Gov and Legislature here in WI doing all kinds of anti-Union things.

[tartan2]

101. look at the alternative

Yea don't endorse or vote for President Obama and see where that get's us! I willingly admit that President Obama has done or not done some things that I am not happy with, but I will not abandon him for the crazies! The GOP amd teabaggers scare the hell out of me!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

11. What if the OP is voting with Labor, because he/she BELIEVES in, and supports labor?

Why is your way so cool, and another way so deserving of your scorn?

Are you a scornbot? If someone tells you who you should scorn- you scorn that way?

[SwampG8r]

90. scornbot lol

[JDPriestly]

13. robcon, why are you a Democrat?

What values that are important to you?

Which of those values has Obama strongly supported?

[Zhade]

35. Conservative ones.

NT!

[leftyohiolib]

24. so quick with the name calling

[Rex]

43. Who said the OP wasn't going to vote!?

Big difference between support and voting. So you blindly follow the crowd that blindly follows Obama, talk about irony.

[LynneSin]

4. I have no doubt they will endorse him

When they see the option from the GOP, they'll be there in full force

[Bluenorthwest]

111. If you think this is about an endorsement or voting for him you

are not correct. Everything Trumka said would be done can be done while endorsing the candidate or voting for him. It mostly involves not yielding the checkbook to the DNC and keep labor money under labor control. Endorsement is small potatoes.

[Brickbat]

5. The AFL-CIO might. Individual unions might not.

[Creideiki]

60. The AFGE is part of the AFL-CIO

After what the Administration has done to federal employees, it's not surprising that Trumka is at least talking.

[KamaAina]

6. So you're cool with President Perry?

Or Bachmann? Or Bush***? :scared:

[markpkessinger]

18. Right on cue with the scare tactics n/t

[sudopod]

33. I always carry more rocks after a thorough beating. nt

[mod mom]

118. isn't it disgusting?

We should all just sit back and praise our leader despite his working in the corporation & wall street best interests. :eyes:

[RetroLounge]

23. This is all you have?

So you're cool with president XXXXXX?

Wow, that's quite the defense of Obama...

:puke:

RL

[leftyohiolib]

26. isnt it enuff

besides sometimes you dont FOR someone you vote against his opponent. what has obama done to defend? he's given he's given us icing but they got the cake, but then again we need the supreme court. so what to do what to do

[KamaAina]

28. To quote the Big Dog, "I feel your pain"

I vehemently dislike having been reduced to a partisan hack. In times past, I would have seen a move like Trumka's as admirable.

But the consequences of another repuke presidency like the last one -- or worse -- especially with them in control of at least the House as well, are simply too frightening to contemplate.

[RetroLounge]

34. So we drive off the cliff at 10mph instead of 90mph?

either way, we're dead.

RL

[KamaAina]

40. If you drive off the cliff going 10,

at least you have a shot at rolling over a few times and coming to rest at the bottom.

If you're going 90, well, ever wonder why there wasn't a Thelma and Louise II?

[markpkessinger]

78. If it's a cliff it won't make much difference.

You're simply talking about a hill.

[Zhade]

38. I find your honesty in admitting you've chosen party over principle refreshing.

I'm serious. At least you tell it straight, sad as I am to see it.

[KamaAina]

41. How would you propose to move the Dem party back to the left?

The best way I can think of is to elect more progressive Dems to the House, and maybe even a couple of Senators.

[LooseWilly]

49. I propose punishing Dems who DON'T move back to the left, by withholding my vote.

And it sounds like Trumka and the AFL-CIO might've come to the same conclusion.

It's really not all that complicated.

And, am I cool with a President Perry? or President Bachman?... if the alternative is a President Obama who keeps dragging the party to the right, you bet I'm cool with President {Fill In the Dingbat Scare-Name of Your Choice}.

[Telly Savalas]

80. That won't do jack shit unless you come up with a positive alternative.

But that would take work and creativity, so it's pretty obvious why such an approach is ignored in favor of endless whining.

Punishing a candidate in 2012 isn't going to make the 2016 candidate any more progressive. If this punishment influenced future elections, then the losses by Gore and Kerry would have led to a Kucinich nomination in 2008.

But the simple fact of the matter is that you really aren't going to get any results by just doing nothing, which is all sitting on your ass on election day amounts to. The more to the Right people who win currently elections are, the more to the Right future candidates will be.

But it's good to see that you're honest enough to openly endorse a far right extremist for president. It's taking me one step closer to realizing how pointless American politics is. We have a right-wing that's fucking insane, a center that's too spineless to stand up to the right, and a left-wing that's so fucking stupid that they endorse the insane right-wing candidates. I'd probably be happier ignoring all the dumb assholes, and spend more time painting and making music.

[Selatius]

62. We simply never had the resources to do that in the confines of our system.

As it stands, if you come out as a progressive, you've already handicapped yourself because pro-business Democrats and corporate special interests will contribute to a challenger against you. If your platform is at least pro-business, you get access to extra millions of dollars for your campaign that you otherwise would not get from powerful interests. The only way to win against that is if there is sufficient anger lying around to harness; it's how someone like Bernie Sanders can win despite the fact that he is very open about supporting socialism, but even Bernie Sanders appears to be the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more socialists in the US Senate than there currently are (just one).

The lack of publicly financed elections might actually undo this country in the end, I fear.

[SwampG8r]

93. enabling those moving it to the right will

not likely move it to the left

[SwampG8r]

92. at least you can admit it

[blindpig]

116. So where's the big difference?

Fact is this administration is building on the works of the previous.

Your 'worse than' ammunition is getting rather low.

And when the legislation is signed to diminish Social Security you'll be dry firing.

[treestar]

114. All? Reality is not optional.

[RetroLounge]

131. Reality?

:rofl:

RL

[treestar]

133. Laugh all you want

Reality, that is, Republicans in power, is not something you get to laugh at. If it happens, you live with it.

[RetroLounge]

139. ...

:rofl:

RL

[roguevalley]

76. yawn. Same old crap with every single person who reflects about

which republican we will get by voting, the crazy one or the cold blooded don't give a shit one.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marrah_G]

86. I've decided to just put every single one of you using this tired argument on ignore

All it shows is that those doing it are completely incapable of individual thought and are too emotionally attached to the cult of personality.

[Joe Fields]

89. I put three of them on ignore this morning already.

[rhett o rick]

129. Great idea. They are bullies. nm

[Bobbie Jo]

152. "They" are bullies?

:rofl:

Good one.

[rhett o rick]

153. Yes. Not once will they discuss issues but only threaten that if we dont vote their way

the world will end. That's it, that's all they have. They never, never expose their positions on issues. Just try to bully.

[scheming daemons]

162. It's not a threat to say if Democrats don't vote for Obama then Perry will win. It's simple math.

If Democrats don't come out for Obama, the Republican nominee will win.

That statement is no more of a threat than "If you don't use an umbrella when it's raining, you'll get wet."



It's a statement of mathematical certainty.

[rhett o rick]

167. So you will vote for Obama regardless of his stand on issues? You are ok with not prosecuting

war criminals? Extending the Patriot Act, domestic spying and tax breaks for billionaires?

[scheming daemons]

173. Every vote is a choice between the candidates on the ballot. I'll pick the best one.

On any ballot that has this:

_ Obama
_ Any of the current GOP field



Yes... I'll pick Obama. Every single time.



You don't get a choice in our system of government to vote for your "dream" candidate. You have to vote for someone on the ballot.

[scheming daemons]

174. And also... doesn't matter if I am "ok" with those things. The choice I'll have is Obama or GOP.

That's the choice you'll have on your ballot too.

[rhett o rick]

175. The system is rigged. Our corp-overlords have us where they want us.

Either the slow road to oblivion or the fast road. And that's a choice? Sooner or later the people will wake up and see how we are manipulated.

The Revolution is Waiting.

[Mr Deltoid]

177. Obama will not win in such a situation

In which very few vote 'for' Obama but instead vote 'against' the GOP candidate.

[Occulus]

147. I did that a LONG time ago.

Then an interesting thing happened.

They failed to post on the AFL-CIO threads a couple days ago. In poker, that's known as a 'tell'.

[rhett o rick]

128. I smell a bully. "Vote for our guy or you will be punished with a Bush". nm

[scheming daemons]

163. If I said to you "If you don't use an umbrella in the rain, you'll get wet"... would I be bullying?

If too many Democrats abandon Obama, he will lose.

That's a statement of fact, not "bullying".

[rhett o rick]

164. It is bullying if you say that those that dont vote for Obama are responsible for the election of

a Republican. They are no more responsible than those that follow him without expecting him to adhere to Democratic values.

[Mr Deltoid]

178. If Obama loses it will be his own damn fault

He is following through on choices he is making. He chooses to implement GOP economics knowing it will cost him a huge chunk of voters that elected him to get rid of those same policies. Obama is making his own bed and he will ultimately have to sleep in it. It is up to Obama whether he wins or loses.

He is at a fork in the road. He can go right or left. There is no 'centrist' fork.

If he chooses the left fork, he wins the election.
If he chooses the right fork, he loses the election.

It's as simple as that.

[Occulus]

149. I'm going to put you on ignore.

I'm tired of the fear tactics- excuse me, the Republican fear tactics.

You don't deserve to be heard. By anyone.

[Sheepshank]

7. They will vote union busting Republican? Right! n/t

[joeybee12]

9. You mean Obama? nt

[pnorman]

51. "THERE'S NOT A DIME'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN......"

N/T

[Luminous Animal]

14. Endorsing and voting are two different things. Unions are not compelled to endorse

anyone in any political contest.

[leftyohiolib]

31. no maybe put up a labor candidate

to enact efca repeal nafta and all the other naftaa

[Ohio Joe]

8. Define "support"

Does it mean you will vote other then D?

[NNN0LHI]

10. IBTL

[gratuitous]

12. My reading of the AFL-CIO's press release

They aren't going to coordinate with political parties or action committees that don't share their vision for Labor. Which is to say, they won't get hand-in-glove with just anybody, which is a positive development, I think. Labor needs a little more than vague promises of unspecified action at some future date. It's time for candidates to get a little more serious about courting the Labor vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. They are about to do, from my read, what they should have

done 100 years or so ago.

[Little Star]

84. This is long over due! Make candidates earn the labor vote. It..

should not just be given than abused. A candidate/party either stands with labor or they do not deserve labors support!

[Robb]

100. Sweeney did this every four years.

Not so dramatic, but you better believe he didn't "give away" the endorsements. :hi:

[Occulus]

148. They need to form a Labor Party.

It's the only thing that can even possibly breaqk the two-party stalemate we have here in the US, and if it were to happen, I'd drop the Dems like a hot rock and vote Labor for the rest of my life.

The Democratic Party had better be taking that possibility seriously. If it happens, the Democratic party will be done.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Would you leave DU if Obama was the nominee in that case?

That would create a bit of a quandary for you.

But I guess you'll probably support the President because it's likely Trumka will tell you to go ahead and do so:

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."

[Xithras]

16. They'll endose, but there will be some serious backroom negotiations.

The Obama administration has had a fairly lousy track record with labor issues, but it needs labor's support to win the second time around. The union leaders aren't stupid, and they're probably already negotiating with the administration to push some second term labor priorities through Congress and the White House in exchange for their support in 2012.

FWIW, I wouldn't withhold a vote simply because labor didn't support them, but I WOULD withold a vote if labor actively worked against Obama or supported another candidate. There's a difference between "not supporting" and "opposing".

[Robb]

54. Exactly correct. (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

17. What if the other labor organizations that pulled out the AFL-CIO

endorse President Obama?

You realize Trumka does NOT speak for all of Labor, correct?

6 million workers, seven unions--UFCW, SEIU, Teamsters, UNITE-HERE, Laborers, Farm Workers, and Carpenters--are a part of Change to Win, no longer affiliated with the AFL-CIO or Trumka.

[Robb]

20. UBC and UNITE-HERE left CTW. Laborers are rejoining AFL-CIO.

Still a good point.

[MagickMuffin]

22. So, let me get this straight: A DU mod WILL NOT VOTE FOR the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT

:cry: You would much rather have a Texas President who doesn't believe in the constitution. Wants to take away YOUR power to even vote for your senators. GOOD LUCK, and thanks for taking your ball and going home. BTW: Goodhair RP is my Gov. and he and his buddies have done soooooo much damage to this state and labor it is unbelievable. But go ahead and withdraw "your support" and see how much air will be left in that ball of yours.

SHEESH

[RetroLounge]

25. So, let me get this straight

No matter how right-wing Obama goes, at least he's not a republican?

Is that it?

RL

[MagickMuffin]

37. The anti-Obama DUERS "think" that yes they do

However, I believe that is mostly in their heads. Perhaps Obama is being somewhat conservative to get the swing vote and during his next 4 years will be able to swing back to left of center. Of course he will STILL need a Democratic congress to pass ANY agenda.

And again YOU would rather have another dipstick from Texas as the next POTUS??? This place is really F'd up.



What PROGRESSIVE legislation has Obama VETOED???

[Lucian]

45. It's a piss-poor argument, isn't it?

[MagickMuffin]

47. Answer this for your argument

What PROGRESSIVE legislation has Obama VETOED???


WAITING

[Number23]

56. Let me know when you get an answer! A bunch of us have asked that question

so many times that we've stopped waiting for an answer.

We're waiting for an answer to that question along with Who is going to be the magical liberal primary challenge to the president that these guys keep harping about that will leap out of the shadows and save us all!!!!one!1 So far, answers to both questions have been a LOOOOOOONG time in the coming.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. "A DU mod WILL NOT VOTE FOR the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT"?

Doesn't that just speak volumes about The New DU? Take a look at some of the non-answers over in ATA on this very subject. :hi:

[MagickMuffin]

39. Yep, this place has really become unbearable at times

It always makes me wonder just what the agenda is here.

It certainly doesn't seem remotely democratic. :hi:

[_ed_]

82. Liebermann?

He's a Democrat, too. Should we support him?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftyohiolib]

29. maybe a majority of people really need to suffer hard to get it thru their heads

that republicans are a plaque and a national security threat and they need to be- well i'll say avoided dont want to get deleted

[MagickMuffin]

42. My state has suffered enough since bush and perry has taken over

I would not want to inflict that on the whole nation just to prove a point. Another point to consider is once the republicons have inflicted their policies it will take an awful long long time to restore them.

[leftyohiolib]

50. it isnt to prove a point

i dont want people to suffer either but there are people voting repub when it's against their own best interest and will continue to do so until the repub policy takes something from them that they really care about and until then they will continue to vote repub. it's to get people to realize the repubs are poison. some wont realize that until they are bitten. when that happens they will turn on repubs and no amount of citizens united will help the repubs win anything. just an idea

[Robb]

55. A profoundly *bad* idea.

[Selatius]

66. I wouldn't say it's a bad idea. It may actually be the course of history the US will take.

Exactly how many examples are there in the history books of a population allowing itself to be pushed into abject desperation and poverty before it finally rose up against its oppressors? How many countries on the planet have had to deal with dictatorship or worse before people in those countries finally said "enough"? People usually don't stand up and fight unless they have nothing left to lose. The problem was trying to get them to stand up and fight long before they were forced into desperation. That's a problem that has been noted throughout history.

[Robb]

67. Name one example in history where the population intentionally hastened their own oppression.

[Selatius]

74. There exists none debatably, but I do not believe that was the solution the other person meant.

I believe what the other person is noting is that if a population truly does hit rock bottom or is close to hitting rock bottom, it will finally wake up and rebel. In light of that, if people are not happy with the outcome of their elections or are profoundly unhappy with having to choose between two limited options, what begins to happen is that they stop voting, in ever increasingly larger numbers. It has been known for a while that the US has some of the lowest voter participation rates in the industrialized world. While it is foolhardy to go out and support Rick Perry because one is a left-winger and is upset at a center-right president like Obama, I would understand somebody who withholds his support from Obama or "stays home."

For the record, I do encourage people to vote, and I've never not voted in an election when there was a chance to vote, but at the same time, it's impossible to get people to vote or even become enthusiastic if people see it as a choice between burning slowly to death or getting a bullet in the head instantly. Telling people that you should vote for candidate A because A is not candidate B isn't a great basis for any attempt at reform.

[Robb]

103. It's an interesting notion, but it's not accurate to single out the US.

On turnout, I suggest this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Trends_of_decreasing_turnout

It appears to be a global issue in all democracies; that suggests many problems, but dissatisfaction with a single American president does not seem the likely culprit.

[leftyohiolib]

88. your opinion but

like people addicted to crack they dont give it up until they have a brain hemorrhage or end up in jail. the point is the dont change their destructive behavior until the hit rock bottom

[Robb]

97. So you think Americans are addicted to what, eating?

[Robb]

59. I do not believe you have it straight, actually.

The likelihood of the largest federation of unions in the country endorsing someone other than the Democratic presidential candidate is precisely zero. The days events are a necessary and hopefully productive theater.

Next year, Obama will receive their endorsement. And I would like to see those who claim to "stand with labor" do so then -- and help reelect Obama -- rather than "standing with labor" whenever the whim strikes them, or the moment seems to align with their particular inclinations.

[_ed_]

83. Liebermann?

He's also a Democrat. Should we just support him no matter what also?

Do you see how your point is worthless?

[Robb]

107. Lieberman's been Independent since 2007. (nt)

[_ed_]

126. So what?

I meant from 2001 until then when he was a thorn in the Dems side.

The point was whether or not we should support someone just because there is a D next to their name, not Liebermann's current political stripe.

[MagickMuffin]

119. You are WRONG, Lieberman left the Democratic Party

Nice try though.

Do you see how worthless your point was???

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

150. Welcome to my ignore list.

Anyone who uses that tactic of fear and threats ends up there.

You don't deserve to be heard. Bye!

[Robb]

30. Surprisingly, it seems this part needs saying:

I also expect the full support of anyone who claims to stand with labor if AFL-CIO endorses Obama's re-election campaign.


... Can I expect it?

[Worried senior]

32. The Teamsters

didn't endorse Carter and we know how well that turned out.

[Major Hogwash]

121. Hell, it was worse than that! They endorsed Nixon in 1972.

And we know how that turned out!!

PATCO endorsed Reagan in 1980 and look what he did to them -- disbanded their union!!

[Robb]

123. Meany had the AFL-CIO sit on its hands in '72 as well.

Although it was about "quotas." Not our brightest hour.

[Joe Fields]

95. I disagree.

I have free will and think for myself. I don't allow anyone to do my thinking for me. Obama has not earned my vote. I hope that labor has the courage to follow me.

[Robb]

102. I'm sure DU's union members will be delighted to hear this.

Solidarity!

Unless I know better!

:eyes:

[Occulus]

151. I'm a union member of nearly fifteen years

APWU.

And I'm not voting for Obama next year regardless of who decides to endorse whom. I came to that decision long before the AFL-CIO made their announcements.

And yes, I did vote for him the last time. That was before be betrayed medical cannabis users, let the bankers remain free, put the DADT repeal up to an employee poll, and said flat-out that my ability to marry should be left to the states.

Thanks a fucking lot, President George Fucking Wallace.

[Major Hogwash]

124. If you've already made that decision, then why hang around here anymore?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Why if anyone has genuinely decided not to vote for Obama, they hang around like a guy not playing in the poker game.

I have to vote for Obama, come hell or high water, because I'm a Democrat whether I am currently in the United States or abroad.
That's just the way it is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. He may get their endorsement. But, it may be a case of "Damn with faint praise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_with_faint_praise

Damn with faint praise is an English idiom for words that effectively condemn by seeming to offer praise which is too moderate or marginal to be considered praise at all. In other words, this phrase identifies the act of expressing a compliment so feeble that it amounts to no compliment at all, or even implies a kind of condemnation

[Lucian]

44. I will stand with labor also.

And don't give me any scare tactics.

K&R, Robb. K&R.

[spanone]

46. well if the republicans win we won't have to worry about unions at all

[ThomWV]

61. If the Republican win the Unions will grow stronger

Have you people learned nothing from Wisconsin?

[TBF]

48. Solidarity with Labor. nt

[amborin]

52. K&R for labor unions

[Throd]

57. So what you are saying is that you don't think for yourself.

[ThomWV]

58. What a horseshit thing to say. Who are you, the keeper of all wisdom who relies on no one?

Who else is he supposed to listen to, the White House Press Secretary?

[Throd]

63. Who says you have to base your vote on what any person or group says?

[RetroLounge]

68. Well mine is certainly not based on you

:puke:

RL

[treestar]

113. Exactly!

Going to let some other person decide for him.

[WillyT]

64. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[MissDeeds]

65. I stand with the working men and women of this country

Thanks, Robb.

K&R!

[shanti]

72. SOLIDARITY!

:thumbsup: i had already withdrawn my support, but this just reinforces it.

[Lunabelle]

73. I'll still hold my nose and vote for him

Cause god knows a third candidate can't win and I'd rather pluck my eyes out rather than to let a rethuglican win. And before anyone says anything about Obama being a rethuglican, let me stop you right there. Obama ain't perfect, but he is no damned teabagger or rethuglican.

[Joe Fields]

96. A skunk is still a skunk, no matter how it's dressed up.

[olegramps]

85. Labor is going to force Obama to shit or get off the pot.

If he wants Labors' support then he better wake up damn quick and grow a pair of balls like FDR who said I welcome their hatred. Enough with the stupid bipartisanship. He seems to be intimidated with fear of not being liked by those who hate him to the point of appeasement that is strangling the working class.

[mitchtv]

160. good luck,

you're looking for courage, SOL

[Vidar]

87. K&R.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. I'm afraid the fear of President Perry pushes the Democratic Party to the right

Even the unions are put into the position of having no choice but to "put up or shut up." The Democratic Party leadership does not have to be very responsive to labor's concerns when they know that at the end of the day labor will be left with no other choice than to bite the bullet and support for the lesser of evils - especially if the greater evil incarnates itself in the form of someone like Rick Perry.

[Shagbark Hickory]

98. What if labor endorsed a teabagger?

:shrug:

[Robb]

99. What if they endorsed a squirrel?

Roughly as likely. AFL-CIO's endorsements are well-negotiated, but consistent.

[KittyWampus]

104. SO, Moderator- Construction Unions support building Walmarts in NYC. Teamster Unions support drillin

drilling in the Arctic.

Still standing with the Unions?

[Robb]

105. The OP is quite clear.

Perhaps a re-read would be helpful.

[xchrom]

109. pssst -- he's on your side -- read the thread. nt

[LWolf]

108. I stand with actual laborers whether or not

their union leadership does.

It's encouraging to hear the AFL-CIO call out Obama on his neoliberal economic policies, which are aggressively anti-labor. If the AFL-CIO chooses to endorse Obama anyway, as my association did, I'll won't be on board.

I can't speak for the AFL-CIO, but I can say that the NEA endorsement is running on empty, as far as member agreement and participation goes.

[Robb]

110. So you'll "stand with actual laborers" but not their unions?

You either support the union movement or you don't.

[LWolf]

112. Nope.

Just like with politicians, just like with political parties, it is not that black and white.

I support politicians, political parties, and unions WHEN they support the issues. When the don't, I don't. They earn support.

When a labor union endorses a neo-liberal, they have endorsed policy that hurts their membership. I don't support that.

I don't support my own union's endorsement, and I pay them plenty of money every month to represent me.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/161754330559955/

[Robb]

115. "Solidarity! ... Unless I know better!"

Got it.

[LWolf]

130. No...it's solidarity with those who earn it. nt

[Robb]

136. How can you possibly claim to support the union movement?

You've just excluded the largest union federation in the US and the largest single union because they didn't "earn" your solidarity.

[LWolf]

140. I didn't exclude anyone except

for bad leaders who don't represent their membership well. If the leader of "the largest union federation in the US and the largest single union" leads well, I'll be behind him. If not, I won't. That doesn't mean I don't support the people he is supposed to be serving.

How can you not discern the difference between the people served and the bureaucracy that is supposed to serve them?

[Robb]

141. If you see unions as mere bureaucracies, I don't think you're supportive of them.

"I support workers" is as meaningless, in practice if not intent, as "think of the children."

You either support the union movement, or you support something else.

[LWolf]

143. The movement is the people.

It's not changeable leadership who may or may not represent people well.

I support leaders who earn it. That goes for politicians and political parties as well. Earn it.

I support my own union even when I don't support the actions of the leadership. When that happens, we work to change the leadership, either by changing their stance, or changing the leaders themselves. They have to earn support. When a leader loses support, that doesn't mean we don't support our organization. The words and actions of the leaders are impotent without us. The NEA endorsement is impotent, because I don't know many NEA members who will be supporting Obama. The AFL-CIO hasn't endorsed Obama. They've at least had the courage to speak out about his poor treatment of labor. So far, I'm in full support.

You don't like it? Your problem.

[Robb]

145. Sorry, but conditional solidarity is not solidarity.

It's opportunism.

[LWolf]

146. Sorry, but refusal

to acknowledge the purpose of a union, and to support actions that advance that purpose, and withhold support from actions that don't, isn't solidarity. If all you can do is follow without thinking, you can be led astray by any less than ideal leader.

What, exactly, are you claiming solidarity with? The union, or the people they serve? The cause of laborers, or the leaders that may lead well, or not?

[Robb]

154. Again, if you don't think unions advance the cause of labor, you don't support the union movement.

[LWolf]

155. Don't put words in my mouth, or try to read my mind.

Of course unions advance the cause of labor. That's their purpose.

Unions are not union leaders, and not all union leaders are effective at advancing the cause of labor.

Union leaders who support politicians whose policies push the cause of labor backward aren't "advancing the cause of labor," and therefore, are not supporting the union movement.

[Robb]

156. Unions select their own leadership. And we vote a lot.

If you don't think you are getting your money's worth for your dues, perhaps unions aren't for you.

[LWolf]

158. Are you trying to purge union members who aren't sheep?

Kind of like some Democratic Party members would like to purge members who expect elected Democrats to actually act like Democrats?

I don't think that's going to work out too well for the Democratic Party in '12, so let's just hope unions are smarter.

For the record, I approve of the fact that the AFL-CIO has not endorsed anyone at this point. I'm also fully in support of Trumka's statement here:

Everywhere I went, people asked me, why do so many of the people we elect seem to care only about Wall Street? Why is helping banks a matter of urgency, but unemployment is something we just have to live with? Why don’t we make anything in America anymore? And why is it so hard to pass a health care bill that guarantees Americans healthy lives instead of guaranteeing insurance companies healthy profits?

and here:

Let me be even blunter. In 1992, workers voted for Democrats who promised action on jobs, who talked about reining in corporate greed and who promised health care reform. Instead, we got NAFTA, an emboldened Wall Street – and not much more. We swallowed our disappointment and worked to preserve a Democratic majority in 1994 because we knew what the alternative was. But there was no way to persuade enough working Americans to go to the polls when they couldn’t tell the difference between the two parties. Politicians who think that working people have it too good – too much health care, too much Social Security and Medicare, too much power on the job – are inviting a repeat of 1994.

Our country cannot afford such a repeat.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=290989555936

And more recently:

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/political-transcript-wire/mi_8167/is_20110523/afl-cio-president-richard-trumka/ai_n57537345/?tag=mantle_skin;content

MODERATOR: So someone hearing this up to this point asked, well, does this mean that you'll be concentrating less in fighting against congressional attacks on Social Security and Medicare? They're worried that you might cede that kind of ground.

TRUMKA: Actually, we'll be fighting more strenuously for those type of -- of fights, and let me make this one personally clear: The AFL-CIO and working America will fight against any proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, regardless of who proposes them. That's point number one.

I assume that includes fighting the guy who supports "modest modifications" to both.

More:

MODERATOR: Unions have threatened to pull support from Democrats many times before when they don't seem to be pursing labor's agenda, but it seems like unions always come back because they then realize the alternative, i.e., Republicans in leadership is worse. So is there something different this time?

TRUMKA: Ask Blanche Lincoln.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR: So are you willing to apply that sort of standard more broadly?

TRUMKA: Look, we're not going to apply a litmus test. What we're -- what we were saying is people that support workers, we're going to be with them, and candidates that don't support workers, well, we're not going to be with them.

I think the Trumka said the exact same thing I've been saying right here: people, and unions, and politicians, and political parties that support workers, well, I'm going to be with them. Candidates that do not support workers, well, I'm not going to be with them.

So, a couple of questions:

1. Are you going to spin me saying the same thing as Trumka as somehow failing in solidarity? :popcorn:

2. Do you back Trumka's remarks that I've posted here?

[Robb]

161. Wow. Solidarity with unions makes one a sheep?

Contortions notwithstanding, you clearly plan to stand with, or against, unions based on your own whims -- and which quotes from union leaders you decide to agree with.

Under that rubric I'd be quite interested to hear how you define "solidarity."

[LWolf]

172. Following leadership blindly, without holding leadership

to any sort of standard, makes one a sheep. Regardless of whether that leadership is union, faith, party, or any other.

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions. Is this a one-way street, or are you going to answer the things I'm interested in hearing about...namely, the questions you ignored?

Solidarity?

Solidarity involves a community of people with the same interests and goals.

It does not involve supporting an individual leader.

It does not involve shutting up and getting in line behind a leader who isn't leading well.

It does not involve agreeing with or joining with anyone whose words or actions harm those interests and goals.

[kentuck]

117. kick

...and rec

[Major Hogwash]

120. Well, there's an elephant wearing my pajamas.

How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know.

I happen to know that the AFL-CIO will endorse Obama because the other candidates are insane.

[Peacetrain]

122. The union will support the President.. take it to the bank

I mean seriously.. take it to the bank.

[DCBob]

127. This "hold breath till I get what I want" strategy is not going to work.

trust me.

[DevonRex]

132. Yay!!! We all know they will endorse Obama. Robb, I'll stand with you and labor.

:hi:

I'm not here much anymore so I'm glad this got kicked.

[readmoreoften]

134. I stand with rank and file union members. If union leaders fight Dems who use us, steal our dues,

and deplete our strike funds I'll support them. If they sell us out to sell outs, I'll fight them.

I won't vote for Obama because Obama has failed unions. If Trumka gives him another chance, it doesnt mean I'm going to make the same mistake.

[Robb]

137. So you stand with "union members" you agree with, but not unions.

Check.

[NNN0LHI]

135. One question Rob

If a DUer had posted "I stand with labor. If the UAW does not endorse Obama in 2012 I will withdraw my support.", in your position as a moderator would you have locked that thread?

Don

[Robb]

138. Good question Don.

First, of course, a single mod can't lock a thread without consensus. So if someone alerted on a thread that said that, we'd take a look at it and many mods would weigh in before any action.

If I was around for the discussion, I'd probably chime in, pointing out it might be a bit of a "card trick" post, because the notion that the UAW would endorse anyone else is silly on its face. Then we'd probably talk about the poster's history to see if they're an obvious Obama supporter being funny, or a union diehard holding his feet to the fire, or what-have-you. Then we'd look at the wording of DU rules, and ask one another if "withdrawing support" is the same as "advocating defeat."

So given that, were you a mod, what action would you have supported? :hi:

[NNN0LHI]

142. Good answer Rob

Now to answer your question.

Due to what happened in 1980 and 1984 when the Teamsters leadership endorsed Ronald Reagan for president twice and what was occurring behind the scenes to cause that endorsement I would be very suspect of anyone who posted they won't support our Democratic president if their union leadership leadership doesn't.

The 1980's was the worst decade of my life so that period has kind of been burned into my brain and I will never forget what happened during that era. I was out of a job for most of that decade while watching the leadership of another major union endorsing the most anti-labor president in my lifetime.

So remembering what happened back then I would have locked such a thread if it were left up to me.

:hi:

Don

[Robb]

144. True enough. But I said AFL-CIO, and you said UAW.

It would be a very different post had either of us said "Teamsters." Historically all unions have made mistakes, but AFL-CIO's last time not endorsing a Democrat for President went very poorly, and was a matter tainted with racism. Nearly destroyed the federation. They won't make that mistake again. :hi:

[woo me with science]

157. I don't vote for Republicans in Democrat suits,

no matter who endorses them.

But I am encouraged that labor appears to be taking a stand here.

[Cleita]

159. A union is of no use if you don't stand in solidarity.

I understand your decision.

[rhett o rick]

165. Well put Robb. I want to know who are these people that claim to stand with Obama regardless of his

stand on labor, or the Patriot Act, or domestic spying, etc. Who are these people? They dont sound like Democrats if they will follow a leader if that leader deviates from Democratic principles.

[ClassWarrior]

176. Amen.

NGU.

[mdmc]

166. dingbatt!

rules!

[Odin2005]

168. I will stand in solidarity with Labor. if the DLC shill poster don't like that, they can kiss my ass

[proud2BlibKansan]

169. I'm already getting emails asking my union to withhold their endorsement

If they do endorse, it will be only after lots of backlash from rank and file.

If they don't endorse, it won't be surprise.

[Robb]

170. AFT, I presume? They poll their members, don't they?

Or at least they did in 2008? Wound up endorsing HRC.

[proud2BlibKansan]

171. It's a vote at the convention, just like NEA

They may poll some members but I was never polled in 2008.

They endorsed Hillary early on but then switched to Obama when he got the nomination.

[Bake]

179. I stand with labor.

Our President needs to decide who he stands with. Right fucking now.

It's Wall Street or us. Choose, dammit. You can't have both.

Bake