Obama sits out the anti-union attacks: Doesn't view organized labor as critical to winning in 2012

[Better Believe It]

"The Obama team does not view organized labor as critical to its political ground game" They assume that workers and their unions will automatically support and campaign for President Obama's re-election in 2012. Labor is once again taken for granted. BBI

Obama Sits Out State Fights
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Wall Street Journal
February 24, 2011

President Barack Obama, after initially lending his support to organized labor, has stepped back from the fights spreading in state capitals from Wisconsin to Tennessee, leaving union officials divided about his tactics.

Mr. Obama is eager to occupy the political center, Democratic officials said, to help him forge a bipartisan deal on the nation's long-term finances that could strengthen his position heading into the 2012 election. Mr. Obama has already tacked to the center on taxes, on trade and by working to forge stronger ties with business leaders.

"Everybody is looking to the president on this one," said Amy Dean, a labor activist and former AFL-CIO official in California. "The grassroots infrastructure of the Democratic Party is organized labor." Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.), a co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, agreed. "There's a bully pulpit there that the president has, and it needs to be used," he said. "I don't think you can turn the cheek on this one."

The Obama team does not view organized labor as critical to its political ground game. Union activists are helpful, Democratic officials believe, but Mr. Obama's political operation still has faith that its own campaign will be the central organizing force of the 2012 campaign.

Read the full article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162820767202248.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird#articleTabs%3Darticle


-------------------------------------------

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Who the &$*# else 'ya gonna vote for, chumps?

Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. That is pretty much the position of the party on many groups these days

[LoZoccolo]

22. And yet people can't respond to it other than say they are tired of hearing it.

It's a little like being tired of hearing about gravity.

I mean, if you really want to shut us up, go ahead and do it. Show us how you're going to get what you want without the Democratic Party, and without the Republicans taking advantage of it. Then we really would be tiresome to listen to.

[Ken Burch]

23. We're tired of hearing it because it's bullshit

We don't have to choose between the admin(no matter HOW far to the right it goes)or Palin and have NO other options.

And we don't have to accept that the admin owes us NOTHING.

Loyalty must always be mutual AND equal.

[LoZoccolo]

29. O RLY?

So how are you going to get what you want:

1. Without the Democratic Party and
2. Without the Republicans winning?

Because all we're really saying is that you don't have a plan that fits these two criteria.

Like I said, shut us up of you want to. And if you can.

[tekisui]

30. That is exactly why the Democratic Party needs to be CONSTANTLY criticized.

Because the keep fucking us over and act like wet noodles when they have power.

[LoZoccolo]

31. So what's the plan?

All we're saying is there's no plan. All you have to do is give us the plan, and we look stupid. You want us to look stupid, don't you? That plan would surely make us look stupid.

[MineralMan]

33. Well, y'all are doing a great job of it, if that's your goal.

Round the clock criticism and no praise. That's how to get what you want, no doubt. :rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

37. It's not like that strategy makes someone too expensive. n/t

[tekisui]

42. Huh?

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

44. If you give someone an ultimatum every week, they stop giving in to you

and start working to satisfy the people who give them less frequently and/or for things which are easier to accomplish and/or satisfy more people.

[tekisui]

49. So hilarious that you think any of what I or you do or say makes a difference.

Hilarious really.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Didn't you just say that the Democratic Party needs to be constantly criticized?

Wouldn't that imply that you think it makes a difference when you criticize them?

[tekisui]

52. They should be. Doesn't mean it makes a difference, though.

[tekisui]

41. Praise and criticism, each when warranted.

[MineralMan]

45. Well, you let me know about that praise stuff, OK?

I'll rec it.

[tekisui]

48. Check GD:P, lots of praise over there.

Rec what you want, that's what I do.

[Ken Burch]

32. It wouldn't have to be "without the Democratic Party"

And the Democratic Party doesn't HAVE to distance itself from progressives to win. Besides, you can't distance yourself from(and diss)00 from activists AND implement progressive policies at the same time. You're going to experience that during the sharp turn to the corporate right that Rahm will bring in as mayor. If anything progressive does happen in Chicago for the next four years, it will only be because the council overrode Rahm's vetoes.

There's never been any good reason for you to be this contemptuous of progressives. Without us, there wouldn't BE a Democratic party(or at least not one that meant anything). Without us the party would just be stuck in the Nineties for the rest of evernity. That kind of crud was the only thing that our "insiders" ever wanted. Nobody like Rahm ever cared about the poor or the workers.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I think I lost the plan somewhere in your message.

If you can repost the portion of this post that outlines the plan, I think I could find it.

[Ken Burch]

39. Here's a preliminary plan

One strategy would be for the admin to actually make FIXING the healthcare bill and actually standing up to corporate power a real part of the 2012 election campaign(and the post-election strategy). This would also have to include committing to getting the hell out of Afghanistan, since there's clearly no good reason to stay and Karzai can't survive anyway.

It would also include massive voter registration(and the revival of ACORN), plus an agreement by the admin to switch from a totally "cutting deals on the inside" strategy to a strategy based on working inside AND continual mobilization from below(with that mobilization occurring on the grassroots' terms, not the pathetically limited involvement the admin used).

We're not going to get hawks to vote for us anyway. We're not going to bet budget obsessives either. The strategy needs to be mobilizing the majority of voters who have still been left out in the cold by the current forms of politics.

Now can you give the "where's the plan" hectoring a rest?

[LoZoccolo]

43. It sounds like that plan acknowledges what I've been saying, and what response #1 is mocking.

And that's that if you don't vote for the Democrats, the Republicans win. That is what you can be 99% sure of, and if anybody can demonstrate that this is not so, they can embarass me regarding my assertion that it is.

You are basically proposing a way for the Democrats to get more votes. And it just may be. But it doesn't say anything about how to work around the Democratic Party by not voting for them while avoiding giving the Republicans an advantage. That is what response #1 is disputing, and I find this disputation to be without substance until someone can give me an alternative plan.

[Bake]

46. How is the party going to hold the White House without us?

That's the better question. We get screwed either way, so what difference does it make if we sit it out? The rich still get their fucking Obama Tax Cuts. Obama still kisses the Corp Chamber of Fat Cat Bankster Commerce's ass.

Bake

[LoZoccolo]

47. Maybe they won't.

Will that get you what you want?

If not, why are you doing it?

[Bake]

53. Won't matter to me either way. I'm still screwed.

The party's JOB is to give me a reason to support them. So far? Not so much.

Health care "reform?" OK, I've got health insurance. It doesn't cover a DIME until I'm out of pocket $2600. I still can't afford to go to the doctor. I still can't afford 2 prescriptions (at $200/month) that I need TO LIVE. TO LIVE.

But Obama gave the rich their fucking tax cuts.

I'm still looking for a real job in my field, after almost two years.

But Obama is too busy kissing the Chamber of Commerce's ass to worry about that.

I KNOW the Rethugs aren't on my side. What I'm wondering about is the party that I've supported and voted for ... whose side are THEY on?

Bake

[amandabeech]

82. Hear! Hear! n/t

[MineralMan]

51. Without whom? You? Well, if that happens, then you'll get

what you wanted, I guess. A Republican-controlled government. That is your goal, right?

[Bake]

55. At this point? Makes no damn difference to me if it's Thug or Thug Lite.

See my post above. I'm STILL SCREWED.

Bake

[RegieRocker]

75. Myself, myself, myself, myself, myself, myself?

Or, OMG another party besides republican or democrat. Or maybe a new party. Wait can anyone think three dimensionally?

[Bandit]

86. I'll tell you who I won't vote for and that is a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

When they think I have no where else to go they are very very wrong. I can go fishing..and I probably will.

[Drahthaardogs]

88. All Democrats get my vote!

But not all of them get my campaign contributions. Just saying.

[eleny]

2. Hmmm....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x557265

[arthritisR_US]

11. Interesting juxtaposition....what a difference two years makes :( ...

:mad:

[Marr]

61. Don't expect a response from the booster club.

They all seem to be suffering from some technical problem that leaves them unable to view the video.

[eleny]

68. Pinky bet that they watched it and got the vapors?

:hi:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Horse with no Name]

5. It's NEVER about the people

It is ALWAYS about "his re-election".:puke:

[leftstreet]

6. So does this mean Obama is running in 2012?

Or is this just punditry?

:shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

7. Using WSJ Murdoch sources is really reaching.

Unrec.

[Cirque du So-What]

25. Damn right unrec!

The WS fucking J was on my 'pay no mind' list BEFORE 'Sir' Ruprecht Morlock bought the damned thing, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay attention to the propaganda - designed to sow discord among Democrats - that they serve up now. True to form, I see the usual suspects have lapped it up like mother's milk.

[Ikonoklast]

38. Funny how all the 'socialists' here suddenly luv them some WSJ!

That's why

I don't believe one word of what they say here; they are to laugh at.

[Cirque du So-What]

54. I wonder if any of them actually look at the byline before quoting something as gospel?

JONATHAN WEISMAN - of all possible pundits? Is there no limit to the neocon apologists some people will cite in their quest to slam Barack Obama?

For those unfamiliar with this toady, he's certainly well-known at MediaMatters:

http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=jonathan+weisman&from=&to=&tags=jonathan_weisman&tags=&tags=&tags=

What next? Will they quote Andrew Breitbart if it's a slur against Barack Obama? Bill Kristol? Glenn Beck?

[MineralMan]

65. They'll quote anyone, from random bloggers nobody's ever

heard of to neocons. Anything will do, as long as it's negative.

[Ikonoklast]

78. To answer your question, 'yes'.

I expect Stormfront cited as a legit source soon.

Unreasonable hatred makes fools of them all.

[joeunderdog]

8. I just got finished saying how I would love to vote for someone else

in the primaries.

Obama is just an extension of what has been going wrong in this country.

The only thing that's changed is that it's getting worse (GLBT aside.)

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. I think there are a host of reasons why

The most disheartening thing is that it is clear that the choice for the traditional base of the Democratic Party presented by the Obama Campaign in the next election will be "where else you gonna go"?

The Obama people know exactly how the game is going to be played since the Citizen's United decision. It is all about securing the kinds of funds and support that only the ultra-rich and gargantuan corporate interests can provide.

There is also the political calculation that Pres. Obama may look weak if the unions go down in defeat.

I think the Obama folks are dead wrong, but there you have it!

[amandabeech]

84. That's a very good summary of the situation.

Even before Citizens United, I thought that the only way for regular people's voices to be heard again would be conduct elections with federal money. Now, the only way to do that would be with a Constitutional amendment. Now, not even that sounds impossible.

There's so much money sloshing around waiting for something to do that it looks like a gigantic tidal wave compared with anything else.

[hfojvt]

10. "tacked to the center on taxes"

No, he started in the center and has now tacked to the right of center on taxes.

[Annabella]

14. uggh

As usual we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils. The unions will hold their noses and do the same.

[mmonk]

12. Doesn't want to scare off the money?

http://my.firedoglake.com/mmonk/2011/02/24/will-obama-find-those-shoes/

[shraby]

13. I would expect nothing less of an article from the wsj

remember who just recently bought it????

[tridim]

16. The OP knows exactly who owns the wsj, that's why it was posted. nt

[Champion Jack]

18. Exactly

[Better Believe It]

99. And since you condone such personal attacks on DU you may join him/her on that ignore list.

[Better Believe It]

98. You are now on ignore because of that low-level personal attack.

Those kinds of personal attacks have no place on this discussion board.

[Better Believe It]

15. Congressman Keith Ellison: "President Obama should come to Wisconsin and stand with the workers."

Go to Wisconsin to support labor, liberal leader urges Obama
By Michael O'Brien
February 24, 2011

President Obama should go to Wisconsin to show his support for the labor movement, a House liberal leader said Wednesday night.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, ramped up pressure on the president to weigh in more heavily against the Republican governor's labor reform proposal.

"I'd like to hear more from President Obama. He's made some statements. He should get credit for that," Ellison said on MSNBC. "We would like to hear him make some more statements. I think that President Obama should come to Wisconsin and stand with the workers."

Ellison joined Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the other CPC co-chairman, in a conference call on Wednesday morning to boost the administration and Democrats on their handling of the labor issue. The Minnesota congressman's remark adds pressure on the administration to act, especially by calling on Obama to travel to Wisconsin.

Read the full article at:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145865-house-liberal-leader-obama-should-go-to-wisconsin

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Obama goes, the unions lose.

He's toxic. We can argue all day why he's toxic -- because he's a closet Republican, because he's an out Socialist, whatever. It doesn't matter.

He's toxic. There are right now in effect three political parties, and two of them think the single biggest obstacle to fixing the country is The Guy in the White House. One of those parties is large, and on the right. The other is small, on the left, and well-represented in the comments on this thread.

What does someone with only minority -- one party out of three, albeit the second-largest -- support bring to this situation? What support the strikers don't already have does he generate?

Zip.

He's a lightning rod. Let him stay in DC & fight with Congress.

[mmonk]

19. I think the workers themselves makes for a better scenario.

That way you are pitting Republicans against the people instead of Republicans vs Obama.

[creon]

94. You are right

Obama is toxic. And, for the reasons that you have described.

My own view is that the forces at play are getting to a point where no one can drive them: "the terrible ifs accumulate". The forces are getting a 'mind of their own'.
Obama is best where he is; and dealing with the threats posed by the HoR.


I think that Obama was toxic from the start.

[Fire1]

20. I'm looking for him to start on EFCA any day now. n/t

[uponit7771]

21. ******OBAMA SHOULD NOT STEP FOOT IN WISCONSIN RIGHT NOW*******

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

40. Right. It shouldn't be presented as "Democrats support workers and Republicans support billionaires"

How could anyone expect Democrats to win elections if working and middle class people thought Democratic candidates stood on the side of working people and their right to form labor unions?

You raise yet another valid and powerful point uponit7771!

We need to push bi-partisan friendship and unity with Republicans, corporate America and Wall Street.

We are all in this together to win the future and other stuff.

A bi-partisan lovefest celebration should be called by President Obama.

That's the ticket to victory in 2012!

[Ignis]

57. ***** NEEDS ***** MORE ***** STARS ******

[MineralMan]

67. Your asterisks are unbalanced. Six on one end and seven on the other.

Please do try to uphold the standards for screaming titles. Thank you for your cooperation.

[MineralMan]

24. The word, as spoken by Rupert Murdoch, eh?

You're doin' a great job, there, Brownie!

A Socialist Press for a Socialist America, eh? That's the Murdoch-owned WSJ, right?

Feh!

[JoePhilly]

58. Didn't you hear ... WSJ is where we go for anti-Obama rhetoric.

[MineralMan]

62. Someone should make up a link list to help those looking

for anti-Obama screeds that pretend to be from progressives. I can think of several, right off the top of my head.

That would save time wasted searching for things to post.

[JoePhilly]

63. +1

[asjr]

27. If Obama goes to Wisconsin, and I am sure

he would like to, he would then have to go to every other state that is doing the same thing. He would be on the road all the time and then there would be the same ones criticizing him for doing what they wanted. There are too many wishy-washy Democrats now. And to do it because it was reported by the WSJ is just too stupid.

[Better Believe It]

76. That's the best excuse I've heard in defense of inaction so far.

Can anyone come up with an even better one?

[Better Believe It]

28. Obama rallies business leaders in Ohio as unions protest cuts

Obama rallies business leaders in Ohio as unions protest cuts
By Hayley Peterson
February 22, 2011

Demonstrating how difficult it will be to champion both business and labor in an election year, President Obama arrived in Cleveland Tuesday to rally business leaders he said will help lead an economic recovery even as thousands of unionized state workers were storming the state Capitol 150 miles away, saying they were trying to protect their livelihoods from the budget-slashing wrought by the recession.

"We can't sacrifice investments in the future," Obama said. "There's no room for division between business and labor and Democrats and Republicans."

But the split-screen images of Obama cheering on business owners while the labor unions so critical to Democratic Party election prospects were screaming foul did little reinforce the president's message that there are shared stakes in reshaping the economy as it emerges from one of the worst recessions in the nation's history.

Read the full article at:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house/2011/02/obama-rallies-business-leaders-ohio-unions-protest-cuts#

[polichick]

36. How fucked up - he probably thinks those split-screen images...

...will help him with indie votes.

[Initech]

34. If those fucking crooks get their way, there probably won't be *ANY* labor in 2012.

[SidDithers]

56. ROFL...

SSDD

Sid

[Raksha]

59. Of all this administration's attacks on liberals, this one is the most insulting yet.

I don't about anyone else, but the fact that the Obama administration doesn't consider organized labor critical to winning in 2012 is the ultimate deal-breaker for me. It's one of the last (maybe THE last) of the traditional Democratic constituencies and power bases, which is precisely why the Koch Mafia is going to such extraordinary lengths to break it.

If Obama really believes the squishy "center" he's been courting is an adequate substitute for organized labor, I think he needs to be taught a painful lesson in 2012.

[SidDithers]

60. "painful lesson"?...

what do you have in mind? Thumb screws? Wet willy? Purple nurple?

Surely you're not saying you think he needs to be defeated in 2012.

Sid

[Raksha]

64. I'd prefer a winning primary challenge by a real progressive,

but I basically don't care if he wins or not. I've already decided I'm not going to vote for him. I don't vote for Republicans even if they have a "D" after their names.

[MineralMan]

69. When will you name that "real progressive?" Time's a'wastin'.

If you've already decided you aren't going to vote for Obama, you're irrelevant. Say goodnight, Gracie.

[SidDithers]

70. Good luck with that...

Tim Kaine was right. The only primary challenge to Obama in 2012 will be from the fringe.

Sid

[MineralMan]

77. I think the poster means a noogie. That's a painful lesson.

[Ikonoklast]

83. The dreaded 'Melvin".

You have been warned.

[MineralMan]

71. Well, I'm sure you're just the one to teach him that lesson, eh?

Your vote has the strength of thousands, I'm sure. Onward...ever onward! :rofl:

[Raksha]

81. Actually, it does--probably the strength of millions.

Whoever or whatever can mobilize the disenfranchised wins. Doesn't matter whether the challenge comes from inside the system or outside it. Tahrir Square and Madison taught me that.

[Rex]

66. Obama is pro business all the way.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[last_texas_dem]

73. The response of national Democrats to these protests in general has been shameful.

Contrast the muted reactions of national Democrats to those of national Repugs to the teabagger crowd ca. 2009. Repugs were falling all over themselves to align themselves with the often scary and extreme "Tea Party" protesters, while most national Democrats are silent or noncommittal and just can't quite muster up the courage to identify themselves with all those apparently far-too-extreme students, teachers, and public workers filling the streets in Wisconsin and other states.

You'd think even a pol basing a decision upon the most nakedly political of calculations would see standing alongside with a major constituency as a win-win. What in the hell has happened to this party?

[ProSense]

74. Why are people demanding that the President go?

Shouldn't they be making these demands from Wisconsin? Why don't they go?

The President made a strong statement.

Also, where are all the prominent non-elected Dems?

David Obey and Russ Feingold, who are from Wisconsin, have spoken out, but not even a blog post or anything from Howard Dean or Alan Grayson.

The union-busting issue is huge, spreading across several states.

What gives?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[RandomKoolzip]

80. Most Dems - Obama included - simply know what side their bread is buttered on.

We mean nothing to them (except on election day).

[upi402]

85. We put the sword in their hand so they can defend us

from the powers that be. Then they turn it on us. And defend the people who are already too damn powerful and abusing it.

Yeah, we're just whiners when we point that out.

[RandomKoolzip]

97. +1 "You never loved him!"

Sorry. I am too busy trying to scrape out a living to give too much of a shit about Obama.

[Raine]

87. Another group goes under the bus

gee it's getting awfully crowded under here. :-(

[Nevernose]

89. Who are these "Democratic souces?"

Granted, a lot of DUers -- myself included -- suspect everything that the "Democratic sources" say, but i'd sure like to know who they are nefore I accept that as the gospel truth on Obama's position.

It could be ineptitude: it could be political triangulation: it could be an underestimation of the mood of the country; it could be exactly what the article says it is, a sell-out; it could be a whole host of things. Until I know who the "sources" are, the article might as well be FDL ranting.

[WCGreen]

90. I'm not sure he should get involved with these events...

He is a polorizing figure and could galvanize the opposition if he decides to get involved.

Plus it is a state issue and not a federal situation.

[54anickel]

91. If we can't reclaim the party maybe it is time....divorce from an abusive relationship. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

92. That's a ridiculous accusation NOT shared by Wisconsin voters.

link: Slate

Do you believe that President Obama should get involved in state disputes like the one in Wisconsin or focus his efforts on the federal budget battle in Washington?

Get involved in state disputes - 27%
Focus his efforts on the federal budget - 68%

[creon]

93. Basically happened a long time ago

1968 and 1972.

Labor and the Democratic Party started to have problems with each other in 1968/1972.

And, it has gotten no better.
In 1976, Carter was not really pro union, although he did not have as much troulbe as McGovern.

Reagan came along and we had the "Reagan Democrats". And, then, Clinton.

Now, the Unions are much weaker in numbers and in money. Which gives the party the rationale it needs to no more pay lip service to Labor.

The relationship needs a lot of work. The party sees no reason to do the work.

Sad, but true.

[spanone]

95. bullshit.

[Better Believe It]

100. Yes it is! President Obama should clearly support the demonstrators.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. Unrec.

Slim pickins today, eh?