If he won't GO to Wisconsin, the president could at least go on tv and SUPPORT the workers

[Ken Burch]

It could be the labor equivalent of JFK's 1963 Civil Rights speech, which was a huge tipping point.

He doesn't have to be neutral on THIS one.

Nobody who's against collective bargaining for state workers would ever vote Democratic.

[Arkana]

1. He's NOT. He's already made statements saying that he's behind the unions

fighting for their rights to collective bargaining.

Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Ken Burch]

4. Not just a statement. I mean go on tv and do a televised address

n/t.

[vi5]

8. Yeah, and that statement.....

Shorter Obama:

"Hmm......I'm all for making people in unions pay, but it seems maybe that it could possibly be a little too much what Governer Walker is trying to pose. I mean organized labor isn't the cause of ALL of our budget problems, so we really shouldn't hate them completely."

What bold, decisive leadership.

[Bozita]

2. been pretty quiet since last Wednesday

[FreakinDJ]

3. Some one needs to set the facts straight

[steve2470]

5. My theory

He doesn't want the Wisconsin struggle to become about HIM. He wants the focus to remain on the issues there.

Of course, re-election calculations always figure in.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Obama goes on tv with a major address, 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 many threads on this very board.

What does someone with only minority support -- one party out of three, albeit the second-largest party, the one in the middle -- bring to this situation? What support the strikers don't already have does he generate? To what problem is this speech the answer?

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

[Ken Burch]

9. If he's THAT toxic, you've just destroyed any case for renominating the guy

n/t.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. He wins a three-way election

...easier than a two-way election. Defecting sane ex-republicans and independents make up for the loss of sullen, posturing leftists, in a replay of '92.

DU will go all in behind the third party candidate, and be a memory by 2015.

[Ken Burch]

12. Uh, no. there wasn't a "left" candidate in the fall of '92, so you're example doesn't work

That year, the defecting independents and Repubicans voted for Perot. The only votes Clinton got were from people who would've voted for ANY Democrat.

BTW...why do you have a Democratic Socialists of America logo in your posts when you're rabidly and contemptuously anti-Left? Michael Harrington wouldn't approve of your attitude.

[Arkana]

13. There's "anti-left" and then there's "anti-whiners, complainers, and Chicken Littles".

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. My party has all of 5000 members....

...doesn't run candidates, and most years is technically insolvent.

I'm an expert at not getting exactly what I want. I'm a half-a-loaf gourmet.

It's a useful skill set. More non-social Democrats should aquire it.

[Godhumor]

16. There won't be a "left" candidate in 2012 either

At least nobody that will be taken seriously.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. There will, and he or she...

...will be a hero here. You can see the pent-up demands in threads like this.

They'll have little impact on the final outcome, though. John Anderson, redivivus.

[Godhumor]

20. Which is my definition of won't be taken seriously (The no impact thing)

I'm not saying a "left" candidate won't run--just that he or she will earn very little attention outside of places like this.

[Ken Burch]

24. Actually, John Anderson had a significant effect on the outcome in 1980

Even though he only received about 8% at the end, Anderson probably cost Carter 100 to 150 electoral votes(based on the number of states in which the combined Carter/Anderson total was higher than Reagan. Carter might well have lost anyway, but Reagan would have had no bogus Electoral College "mandate" to use to justify his assault on unions and the social wage.

Anderson's effect was negative, but it was likely magnified by the insistence of the Carter campaign on pulling further and further to the right. What that outcome proved was the blurring the differences doesn't work for Dems.

[Arkana]

11. Bullshit. If he did this, the first thing we'd be hearing out of the "Blame Obama First" crowd

would be "JUST MORE PRETTY WORDS RAAAARRGGHGHHHH"

[FreakinDJ]

21. DING DING DING - We have a Winner Folks

[Number23]

18. "There are right now in effect three political parties"

Can you name the third party, please?

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. You're at DU. To quote the old dishwashing detergent ads...

....with Madge the manicurists, you're soaking in it.

[Ken Burch]

22. If you hate DU, why continue posting here?

Do you really think you contribute to the discussion with your tactics?

And do you really think that trying to silence debate through condescension and disparagement is a helpful thing to do?

It's not as though this party ever actually benefits from people being told to shut up.

[Davis_X_Machina]

23. I don't want them to shut up.

...I want them to think -- think hard, not reflexively.
To eschew cheerleaders and bandwagons of all kinds.
To mistrust celebrity, and celebrities, by default.
To expect less from their leaders, and more from themselves.
To realize the messiah isn't coming -- that there are either too may messiahs already, or there aren't any.

[sad sally]

15. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal, so needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but...

seems its more important to the administration to speak out for the chamber of commerce and the bankers (the ones with the REAL campaign financing cash) rather than the little door-knocking donors. Seems to be a memory block as to who needs jobs and support from their government; the ones who pay payroll taxes, send their family members to fight the wars, vote because they're led to believe it's the American way to change things. And it ain't the chamber or banks.

"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.

One AFL-CIO official said "it would be nice" if the president weighed in more forcefully, but, he added that it probably isn't necessary. The state-level attacks on collective bargaining have united once-quiet union members into a fighting force against the GOP, and that will redound to Mr. Obama's political benefit, regardless of his involvement.

"Obama won't ever be the unions' dream candidate," conceded one Democratic Party official. "But choices are relative, and are going to be ticked at Republicans" in 2012.

Mr. Obama and the White House initially signaled support for the public-sector unions in Wisconsin. Last week, he told a Milwaukee television station that Gov. Scott Walker's legislation to curb collective bargaining "seems like more of an assault on unions" than a budget-balancing effort. Democratic officials let it be known that the president's political arm, Organizing for America, was helping to rally protesters.

Then, the White House began saying the protest movements were locally motivated and not the work of the president or Democrats in Washington.

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday defended collective bargaining rights but said "public-sector employees obviously have to tighten their belts." He said he is not aware that Mr. Obama has "been in contact with national labor leaders," although he is "aware of reports about what's happening in these areas."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162820767202248.html?du

[cottonseed]

25. That boy just can't do nuthin right.

[Ken Burch]

27. Didn't say that-didn't mean that.

I've praised him for things he did right.

[JoePhilly]

26. No, not enough ... he should invade WI and take out their elected Govoner.

Here is an idea ... rather than bitch and moan about what Obama should do ... why not FOCUS on what is wrong with what WALKER IS ACTUALLY DOING.

FOCUS the energy in the primary direction, Walker and the GOP.

The President tends to be juggling about 10 or so potential disasters that the Bush administration left behind. And since taking office, the GOP is doing its best to make NEW MESSES for him to have to deal with.

We need to FOCUS. Obama is not the enemy, and he is not superman. He is simply the guy who stepped up and said "yes", I will try to clean up this "fucking mess".