Democratic and White House Betrayal on EFCA (Emloyee Free Choice Act)

[Political Heretic]

WARNING: I'm a "fringe extremist" or whatever label you want to give me when it comes to Unions. I don't fuck around on this, and I'm not "even handed" about it. If you don't want to read, that's cool I understand.



Dave Lindorff:
We are witnessing one of the fastest betrayals of the Democratic Party base in modern memory, as President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate slither away from a crucial constituency, the labor movement, and from support of labor's key legislative agenda item: passage of a bill, "The Employee Free Choice Act," which would restore a measure of fairness to labor relations.

Obama, who once supported the measure, and who campaigned saying he would sign the bill, has stood shamelessly silent as a massive corporate campaign mounted by such lobbying powerhouses as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, hiding behind a fake "citizen action" organization called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (sic), has descended on Congress, and especially the Senate, where it has been working to peel away support for the bill among both Democrats and swing Republicans who had formally backed the measure.

(snip)

Clearly, the key turncoat in this sorry tale is Obama, whose presidential campaign would have sunk into oblivion early had it not been for powerful support from key elements of organized labor. It was also undeniably organized labor's army of grass roots backers that handed him victory, a majority of the popular vote, and a mandate for "change" in November over Republican John McCain.

If Obama were to strongly advocate for Employee Free Choice, he could clearly line up the backing needed to win its approval in both houses. Moderate Republicans like Specter need Obama's support for their own pet bills, and would have no hope of accomplishing anything, much less bringing home the bacon that they need in order to win re-election, without the president's willingness to support them. This gives Obama enormous leverage if he wants to use it. Wavering members of his own party, like Feinstein, would also certainly respond favorably to his calls for backing on a key issue for his base. But he has chosen instead to duck this issue.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/31-10


Why EFCA is the most critically impotrant piece of legislation to hit Washington in 30 years:

Paul Fleisher
magine an election in which one candidate could threaten your job if you voted for the other side. That candidate could campaign as much, and whenever, they wish, while the opponent was limited to speaking only during coffee breaks or after work. Suppose that candidate could even decide when the election would take place -- calling the vote only after being certain that it would go in their favor?

Those conditions don't sound much like a free and fair election -- but they are just the situation employees can be subjected to when they choose whether or not to unionize. It's those sorts of inequities that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is intended to remedy.

Under current law, when a majority of workers indicate they want union representation, management gets to decide when the certification election will take place. Meanwhile, union organizers may not enter the workplace; employees can only campaign during breaks, or before and after work. And even if 100 percent of workers indicate by signing authorizations that they wish to be represented by a union, the company is not required to recognize and bargain with it. In short, employers are playing with a stacked deck.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) currently before Congress would increase penalties for violating workers' First Amendment right to form a union and to negotiate a first contract and would provide mediation and arbitration to assist management and unions through that negotiation process. Finally, it would allow a majority of employees to establish a union by signing authorization cards. This provides an alternative to the current election process, which is subject to intimidation, firings and other disparities favoring a company's anti-union campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/31-13


"But, Obama has too much stuff on his plate right now - he can't fix the economy and restore worker's rights at the same time!"

Actually, Obama must make this a priority if he wants to truly restore economic and social progress in the United States. Strong Unions are fully connected to a true economic recovery (for resources on this, visit the Economic Policy Institute, Center for American Progress (and search "Labor",) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (also search "unions") and the Urban Institute to get started (search unions AND search "EFCA"). Research is clear: unions are essential for sustained, growth in which the majority of Americans benefit rather than a privileged few.

"But we can't fight for strong Unions during a recession because that might hurt struggling businesses."

Wrong. EPI's latest public research smashes this right wing talking point.

Still Open for Business: Unionization Has No Causal Effect on Firm Closures
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp230/


President Obama, you MUST make the restoration of strong LABOR in this country an economic and moral priority! You campaigned on your strong support of EFCA, you promised to "do everything in your power to see it (EFCA) passed" and so far you've done nothing in your power to signal that you care about EFCA at all!

I beg you to please call your representatives AND call the White House and demand for support for the non-corporate "compromise" Employee Free Choice Act! Write to your local papers, speak out in your community. Contact local union and find out ways you can partner with them either locally or as part of the national campaign!

This is the best shot we've had at restoring voice and power to working america in decades! We can't afford to let it die.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp230/

[billyoc]

1. I'm not ready to give up on EFCA yet, we still have a few tricks up our sleeves.

I won't fuck around on this, or accept some watered down version.

Pass EFCA, or get yourselves reelected.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

117. + 1...n/t

[ProSense]

2. Drag his ass back from Europe

and have him stand guard on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Obama, who once supported the measure...

You're proud to have posted this?

One good thing about the idiotic articles, it shows the level of desperation the detrators are feeling in their failed attempts to drag down Obama.

[Political Heretic]

6. It says "who once supporte dthe measure" and is now dead silent when his voice is needed most

Yes, that seems fair.

It's not about Obama goddammit! It's not about trying to "drag him down." Not all of politics can be conflated to one group trying to do nothing but "build him up" and another group doing nothing but trying to "tear him down." If that were true, then it really WOULD be just a cult of personality.

It's not about him! It's about AMERICAN WORKERS. Right now - not tomorrow, not three months from now, right now - we need Obama to use his political capital to make sure EFCA happens. It's crucially important.

You're right I am desperate. There's never been a bill this profound in congress in my lifetime. Right now in congress is the potential power to take a major stab at undoing the busting of unions. Almost nothing is more important because strong unions are key to most everything else we want, namely a robust and SUSTAINABLE economy.

It's not about "detracting" Obama for fuck sake. Its about we NEED his CLOUT or EFCA DIES.

[ProSense]

9. "who once supported the measure" implies that he no longer supports it.

That's the tone of the entire piece. Frankly, Obama can't do jack about the EFCA at this point. He is not a member of Congress. He doesn't control the flow of people in and out of that institution.

Better start focusing on Congress.

[Political Heretic]

15. How do you support EFCA? By DOING IT.

"Support" means more than silence.

You're tragically ill informed if you think the President of the United States can't do jack about bills in Congress. Are you fucking high? It was his negotiation, pressure and leadership that got us AAR. The presidents REGULARLY push their agenda in congress, and use the bully pulpit to rally public support. Obama is doing EXACTLY THAT ON HIS BUDGET. We saw the Bush administration do this tragically well - they CAMPAIGNED for bills they wanted, and got much of what they wanted even in a DEMOCRATIC controlled congress.

Why is it such a fucking big deal for you to just simply say, "yes we need Obama use his political capital to push on this issue, and to make it a policy priority!" What is the harm in that? For that matter, why is it such a personal problem for you if people feel like Obama is dropping the ball on campaign promises to work to pass EFCA? How in the hell did we ever get to a place where some people think that all you do is nothing but nod and smile to pictures of the President?

[ProSense]

18. Support means support.

Unless you can demonstrate that Obama no longer supports the bill, this article is BS.

[Political Heretic]

28. You're right. Support means support.

Doing nothing, when action is critically required doesn't equal support.

[ProSense]

35. What's he doing to pass any legislation at this moment?

He is not a member of Congress. He can address the issues and when crunch time comes do more to pressure members of Congress.

You seem to think the President controls Congress. You seem to forget that he put the pressure on during the stimulus vote and Repubs voted against it anyway.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand how politics works.

[Political Heretic]

44. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS???

OMG man he's only been on PRIME TIME press conferences advancing his budget, and dispatched his executive staff to nearly EVERY major news program (and all the Sunday shows) to stump for his budget.

He put pressure on during the stimulus vote and IT PASSED - fuck your "republicans still voted against it noise" - apparently NOT ENOUGH OF THEM.

YOU seem to deny that presidents ADVOCATE for their policy agenda, and put tremendous pressure - when they chose - on members of congress to support their agenda, through threats, through cutting deals, and the like. Or that presidents mount advocacy campaigns with the public in attempts to build public support for their agenda.

What presidents don't do, is sit silent on issues that are priorities for them. Ever.

[ProSense]

45. Yes, I am "fucking serious" This

Clearly, the key turncoat in this sorry tale is Obama...

Is bullshit.

[Political Heretic]

49. Don't change the subject.

That has nothing to do with what I just wrote in response to you.

[ProSense]

46. And this:

"He put pressure on during the stimulus vote and IT PASSED - fuck your "republicans still voted against it noise" - apparently NOT ENOUGH OF THEM."

Screaming doesn't mask the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Every Republican in the House voted against the bill.

[Political Heretic]

50. IT. IS. LAW.

That's all the matters. That's what happens when the administration makes something a POLICY PRIORITY and fights for it.

[Zodiak]

146. You noticed how republicans were mentioned?

It is not Republicans who have a problem with it....at least their problems can be mitigated. It is the conservadems that TRULY are the reason this will eventually not pass or pass in such a watered down state that it is ineffective.

Acting like our only opponents are Republicans is way too simplistic and bespeaks of profound ignorance of recent history.

[CANDO]

113. What's your angle, ProSense?

Are you one of the shock troops who think we should sit down and STFU because election day has passed? It seems the administration has gone out of their way on other matters including holding national tv audience press conferences in pushing Congress. Why not show their support for EFCA by doing the same? Instead, they are strangely silent.

[cali]

12. bleeding jeezus. what a piece of shit piece.

by a dishonest asswipe who simply wants to destroy Obama. That couldn't be fucking clearer. It's reflected in his language.

Obama hasn't betrayed anyone yet on EFCA. And do you or the author of this piece know what he's doing behind the scenes? Of course not. It's possible he's doing nothing and it's possible his admin is working behind the scenes- even likely considering who the Labor Sec is.

[Political Heretic]

16. We actually do know a bit about what's going on "behind the scenes"

What's going on "behind the "scenes" and in front of the scenes and across the entire spectrum of every type of media is a full court, balls to the wall press by business to destroy all chance of EFCA passing. They are WINNING the public relations war. Some hope that a miracle is going on "behind the scenes" isn't enough, and it isn't how political battles are won when the other size is blitzing every possible outlet 24/7.

[cali]

19. no you don't. that's blatantly and obviously false.

[Political Heretic]

27. Because you say so, right?

It's completely true.

[cali]

40. no. because we don't know what's going on behind the scenes

thus the phrase "behind the scenes". duh.

[quiller4]

58. I see far more pro EFCA ads on TV than anti and polls

show public support. According to emails from my union, Obama has been meeting pushing EFCA in meetings with Senators.

[Political Heretic]

63. Okay time out from the heat.... more ads really? Where are you living?

This is good.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. The far left needs a boogeyman now that Bush is gone

[CANDO]

115. Those who support EFCA are far left?

You can't be serious. Union members numbering in the millions are THE BACKBONE of our middle class and the Democratic Party, and you choose to refer to them as "the far left"!

[avaistheone1]

129. It's radical to be a hard working person these days -

especially if you want to be treated fairly and with dignity.

[Freddie Stubbs]

138. Not most of them

But those who are trying to make the President into some kind of villain because he hasn't made this his top priority are.

[Zodiak]

147. Notice the sig picture?

Blue dog.

Everyone to the left of Clinton is "far left" to them. And to them, Clinton was an unabashed leftie.

Their blue dog contribution to the party has been to hobble it at the worst possible times. I would not expect much agreement with a DUer who champions that particular group of turncoats.

[bluestateguy]

3. Obama has always supported EFCA

If the Congress passes it, he'll sign it.

[Political Heretic]

7. That's not enough. Without Obama making it a policy priority, EFCA dies.

It's that simple.

[Thrill]

21. Bullshit. Its the job of Congress to legislate.

You want to blame someone its Pelosi and Reid who don't even have it scheduled.

And no matter what, please show me where the votes are to pass it?

[Political Heretic]

31. You need to figure out how the political process works.

The President and his administration use their political capital to advance their agenda. This includes a huge amount of campaigning in Congress pushing to get support for their agenda, and it often includes full scale public relations campaigns to ramp up public support was well.

We see this all the time. We're seeing it on the presidents budget. It's why the president holds prime time press conferences, or puts out talking points. It's why he or his staff go on the Sunday talk shows - to "lobby" for their agenda.

What's missing from these efforts? EFCA.

[Thrill]

43. This is how the political process works

I won't lecture on the Branches of Government. But short version

If someone introduces it in Congress and it passes both the House and Senate. Obama will sign it.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Bill McBlueState]

87. he's talking about the bully pulpit

This is the stuff of 9th-grade civics.

[LostinVA]

94. Exactly

[Political Heretic]

98. Thank you.

I'm glad someone gets what I would think would be a basic grade school understanding of how thing work.

[biopowertoday]

76. Yes, it is that simple.

[LSparkle]

4. Agree with you completely ... if we want to avoid becoming China we need EFCA

Thom Hartmann had a guest on this morning who's written a book
about China's plan to dominate this century, exposing how our
insipid, profit-grubbing corporations are playing right into
their hands, by putting their own profits ahead of workers'
and human rights ... Coming soon, to an office or factory near
you: CHINESE-STYLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, with workers treated
like crap for the sake of the almighty dollar/yen/yuan/AMERO/
whatever.

The poisoning of the public's minds against unions that began
under RayGun is now just about complete ... UNLESS WE PASS
EFCA, at this critical point. Corporations in this country
are trying to get us used to the idea that we DON'T NEED UNIONS,
that companies will just "do the right thing" and take care of
their workers voluntarily ...

WAKE UP SHEEPLE! It's later than you think ...

ON EDIT: I hope posters above who say Obama hasn't given up on
this legislation are correct. If the WH doesn't come out more
strongly in favor of this, I'm going to be VERY disenchanted.

[Fire1]

5. I am confident that he will sign this piece of legislation. The problem

is going to come from Congress, as usual.

[Political Heretic]

8. IT'S NOT ABOUT HIM SIGNING. IT IS ABOUT HIM *LEADING* ON THE ISSUE.

[ProSense]

10. No, the article is about him preventing/controling lobbyists' access to Congress.

That's dumb.

[Political Heretic]

11. Um, no.

The article is not about that. At all.

[ProSense]

13. has stood shamelessly silent

Obama, who once supported the measure, and who campaigned saying he would sign the bill, has stood shamelessly silent as a massive corporate campaign mounted by such lobbying powerhouses as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, hiding behind a fake "citizen action" organization called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (sic), has descended on Congress, and especially the Senate, where it has been working to peel away support for the bill among both Democrats and swing Republicans who had formally backed the measure.

It might as well be. The EFCA has the support of a almost all the Democrats, and a couple of wavering Republicans.

Obama has to run the country, the focus of any effort to pass this bill should be squarely on members of Congress.

[Political Heretic]

33. So then you criticize Obama's advocacy efforts to pass his budget?

Or the efforts he undertook to make sure ARR was passed? He met with congress, held prime time special new conferences to sell the ideas to the public. He ordered his staff to blitz the media campaigning for his agenda, we've all seen the sunday lineups of executive staff out stumbing for those pieces of legislation....

Are you saying he was wrong to do this because he has to run the country?

Or is it just on EFCA where he should be totally silent and not make passage of the bill a policy priority?

[ProSense]

41. When he introduced it. Are you saying he hasn't addressed EFCA?

Obama Reaffirms Support for Employee Free Choice Act

President Obama: "We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act"

The OP "Obama, who once supported..."

[Political Heretic]

51. Saying "I will support this" and "We will pass this" and doing nothing when it counts...

...doesn't count for much.

[ProSense]

54. Yes, it does. It's the same as saying he supports any pending legislation. n/t

[Political Heretic]

57. Which means nothing unless he actually DOES it.

"support" doesn't mean just saying so.

But I get it... I understand. You define presidential support to mean doing nothing but promising to sign the bill if it makes it to the presidents desk.

I define support as activities designed to advocate passage of bills that are priorities of the administration. That's support. Supporting a bill means fighting to see it passed. It doesn't mean saying "I support this" and then sitting on your ass.

[bvar22]

109. Using his popularity and the Bully Pulpit....

...to actively throw his weight behind EFCA IS running the country.

[FrenchieCat]

17. He has led on the issue.......

Sorry, if it ain't his numero uno priority about all others!

But this sounds more like a case of "What have you done for me yesterday" type of
criticism. :shrug:

MARCH 4, 2009
President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123611995496723249.html

I think the problem was Sen. Spector who threw cold water on chances in the Senate vote,
even after the unions offered to support him during his next Senate run....
Not Barack Obama imagined to no longer support the measure.

[Political Heretic]

39. Wow... he TOLD unions that act will pass. Amazing.

In the face of a multi-million dollar coaltion coordinated ASSAULT against the bill by every powerhouse business lobbying group in America, the president "told unions" it would pass. I feel better already. Of course, that was when the bill was introduced, and since then there has been nothing

The next thing Obama needs to do, in light of Sen. Spector, is make EFCA a POLICY PRIORITY FOR HIS ADMINISTRATION! We need him and his team to be campaigning as hard for EFCA as the other side is against it. The article makes a good point which is Specter needs democrats and Obama for many of his priorities for the next four years just as much as we need him.

If EFCA is going to fail, fine -- but it damn well better not be because we threw up our hands and decided we couldn't be fucking bothered to fight.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Obama is not the Messiah. You cannot work to weaken the man's hand

daily while not caring if your rants and that of others affect his political capital negatively,
only to turn around and stamp your feet and throw a fit insisting that he make something happen based on that same political capital.

It's called reaping what you sow.

That's part of the reason that I am being patient with this President,
because it is my hope that if folks would allow this man to maneuver,
it would be better for us in a long run, not worse.

[Political Heretic]

65. I don't accept any of that. I don't accept it weakens his hand. I don't accept that we shouldn't

be loud.

I don't accept that there is time to manuever on EFCA. It's here, dying right before our eyes. It's now or fuck it.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Well then keep it up.

Those of us who act as a counterbalance to level the hyperbole, will also continue.

I'm with Emmanuel Kant on the moral question of asking oneself if everyone did what one is doing, whether it would it be a good thing?

I've concluded that if everyone ranted against Obama endlessly and needlessly as you are doing,
it wouldn't help anybody, just get him down to a zero approval rating.

[Political Heretic]

71. Actually if "everyone" did what I was doing, we'd have EFCA as law.

[FrenchieCat]

72. What?

Posting lies and exaggerations on a website?

I doubt it.

[Political Heretic]

73. That's why things suck so bad.

Because "you doubt it."

[FrenchieCat]

74. Present some facts next time. I can deal with those.

But hyperbolic stretches of truth really have no place on these boards.
Sorry you think so.

[Political Heretic]

77. Acutally - no, you've made it quite clear facts are the last thing you're comfortable with

[brentspeak]

89. s/del

[berni_mccoy]

14. Overblown Hyperbolic Fiction. Obama supports EFCA. No facts in the OP whatsoever.

It's all opinion/OpEd pieces FEARING Obama won't support it or give it enough attention. Patience people.

[Political Heretic]

22. Wrong. On all counts.

Saying that its "fear that he won't give it enough attention" implies a future time when attention will be appropriate.

The attention is needed RIGHT NOW. EFCA is currently dying. Right now. At this present moment. With Specter's defection and Fienstien - an original co-sponsor, now capitulating to the corporate-created so-called "compromise" EFCA is now on the ropes. And the massive, gargantuan public campaign by the right against it is blitzing the media.

It's happening RIGHT NOW. Attention is needed NOW.

[Thrill]

23. Where are the votes to pass this? This was over the day Specter said no

[Political Heretic]

26. It's simply stunning to me how ignorant some DUers are about how politics work.

Holy shit.

[Thrill]

36. You're the ignorant one. If you think Specter who is going to face a tough

primary challenge is going to sign up for this.

You also don't seem to get that even with Specter, without Franken seated you still don't have the votes.

[Political Heretic]

53. Which is WHY we so desperately need the administration to make EFCA a POLICY PRIORITY

Without that, it will die.

[Thrill]

56. Priority or not. You don't have the votes. You wouldn't know reality even if it smacked you

in your damn face.

[Political Heretic]

61. That's why we need the adminsitration to make this a policy priority

Without that kind of effort, there's no chance of making any deals or twisting any arms to get this through. And this is a fight worth fighting until the bitter end. Even if we don't have the votes, if the president was to make this a priority, we could leave the Republicans looking like absolute idiotic failures who hate ordinary Americans.

And, if the president put pressure on our own party leaders (Reid) to FORCE AN ACTUAL GODDAMN FUCKING FILLABUSTER instead of just taking the republican threat and cowering, we could do even more advocacy and turn public opinion.

Do I know it would be successful. Of course not. Your right we don't have the votes right now. Notice I said we not "you" as you did, because this is about you too. I don't believe that means we pack up and go home on issues as critical as this. I believe it means we FIGHT.

[Hippo_Tron]

111. Again, where do the votes come from?

If you think Obama can do this then name the names of persuadable Republicans and how he could persuade them.

[BzaDem]

132. -crickets-

There is no way that the Democrats could force Republicans to stand up and talk to fillibuster anything. That is an urban ledgend. Strom Thurmond did not need to stand up and talk for 24 hours. All Republicans would need would be 1 Republican standing there and every few hours say "I suggest the abscence of a quorum." They would just rotate Republicans, just like they do for presiding officers. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html .

So unless there is a post that list names of 2 Republican Senators (1 with Franken seated) that would vote for it or could be persuaded, this is just a lot of hyperventilating that isn't going to accomplish anything.

[Hippo_Tron]

136. The thing is that as the article says, the majority can fight back by forcing members to the floor

So McConnell can keep having quorum calls but Reid can order the Sargeant at Arms to basically seal the doors to the Senate chamber so long as those quorum calls are going on, and force Senators to remain in the chamber until they fold or there is compromise.

Basically you would have 100 Senators forced to stay in the chamber probably eating pizza and snacks in their cloakrooms. Sleeping on your desk or anywhere in the chamber is probably against the Senate rules, so you can't do that. It would probably be even easier to break a quorum call filibuster than a talking one, but it would involve a lot of suffering on the majority's part as well.

[Political Heretic]

141. sigh.

You do a great job of summarizing the status quo, and politics as usual. But if Obama showed us anything it was that he can rewrite those books. Change coming to Washington shouldn't look like the same old same old that you so flippantly describe. That's my opinion.

I have already seen more the enough instances of what is possible when Obama connects with people and stirs them to action. If Obama made doing so a political priority for him, and he rallied people to to the point where they believed fighting tooth and nail for EFCA was what hardcore "support everything without question" Obama people believed was to be done, there's no telling what kind of good deals, compromises or outright victories on EFCA could be achieved.

Once again, as a side note, I'd like to correct the language about votes needed. We don't need 60 votes to pass a bill. We need 60 votes for cloture, i.e. to avoid a filibusterer. However, Democrats never make Republicans actually filibusterer. The filibusterer was never designed to be something infinite. But it has become that because Harry Reid never ever makes them actually do it. Now we've all embraced this myth that we need 60 votes to pass bills, and our hands are tied. It is political bullshit that has to do more with how to the good ol boy parties play politics with each other.

The bottom line is you don't know what would happen if Reid actually threw the spotlight on Republicans filibusterng against American workers in the midst of a populist explosion, forcing them to stand there hour after hour all while the Democratic machine, led by a fully engaged White House BLITZED the media stirring up anger against the obstructionists, combined with the full force of the largest popular movement in recent memory (the machine that drove Obama to election) actively engaged in pushing Senate Representatives to hear outcries from their constituents.

The one thing that causes congress persons to break rank on either side of the isle is the extreme unrest of their constituents. You can yell that "its futile" until you are blue in the face, but you don't know shit about whether that's true or not. Finally, and most importantly, the battle itself would not be a "waste" of political capital even if EFCA did not pass right now. It could and would be stage one in a public campaign to ensure that the public was with us on the issue. The death of EFCA that is coupled by the extreme tarnishing of the GOP on the issue is a long term win. In other words it could be the GOP, and not Democrats who lost mass political capital if we were ever smart enough to do anything other than tuck our tails and run.

[avaistheone1]

130. You really like the status quo. I have seen you make these kind of

statements before on issues, like single-payer health insurance.

Why be a Democrat if you are so invested in keeping things in the same sorry shape for the average working Joe?

[BzaDem]

133. Because maybe some people are interested in pushing for health reform that might actually pass?

I know that this is a disturbing or hard to understand concept for many people here.

[avaistheone1]

139. From your mouth to God's ears.

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

25. Specter would never have voted for it. Period. Even if he said he would.

Feinstein's defection won't be swayed by Obama. She wants to be Governor of California and won't succeed without anti-union money.

See 538.com's analysis of her defection:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/why-is-diane-feinstein-stiffing-labor.html

No amount of pressure from Obama is going to change her position if Nate is right.

But pushing the blame for the failure of EFCA on the White House is BULL-SHIT.

[Political Heretic]

55. I wouldn't be blaming the administration at all if they were fucking OUT THERE on this.

You know what, to paraphrase Toby Zeigler from the West Wing... its not the ones we fight and lose that bother me its the ones that we don't even bother to suit up for!!

If EFCA fails there will be lots of reasons for it. But it will be tragic if it fails and the administration never even made it a priority.

[berni_mccoy]

32. Just because nothing is being reported doesn't mean nothing is being done.

[Political Heretic]

66. Okay this point has been made several times, and I'll say this again:

It's not enough to have some magical "behind the scenes" thing going on. In the face of a full court press, and total blitz attack of a huge conglomerate of corporations and massive, powerful lobbying firms throwing EVERYTHING THEY HAVE on ALL FRONTS AT KILLING THIS, you can't just be like "shhhhss... we're doing something back here.... "

[Thrill]

20. BS. The reality of the EFCA is it has always been about Specter

It has ZERO Republican support. Let me repeat ZERO Republican support. There will no doubt be a filibuster on it. You had to get Specter or you had no chance. Thats the reality. Obama hasn't betrayed anyone on this.

[Political Heretic]

24. You know how you get Specter?

You bring the entire power and political capital of an insanely popular and brilliant President and his tough-as-nails, get-things-done chief of staff to bear on Specter, on any other republicans, on Fienstien (to get the fuck back in line) and you fucking CAMPAIGN FOR THE GODDAMN BILL.

For fucks sake its like I have to teach Politics 101 all over again....

[Thrill]

29. Even if you somehow got Specter. You still couldn't get the damn thing passed

because Franken isn't seated.

And Specter may jump back on if he wins re-election. But there wasn't a chance in hell he would do it knowing the primary he's going to face.

[berni_mccoy]

30. This is the real reason the GOP is POURING money into Coleman's campaign to keep Franken out.

[Political Heretic]

67. That is absolutely true, but I don't agree with others who assume this means game over.

And basically it comes down to this... some thing political capital shouldn't be wasted here because "its over."

I believe this is so important that we should litreally fight to the last man, blow the reserves, use that dry powder we've been keeping for so long - we should die on this hill.

That's how important I believe it is. We might still lose but we might... might... not and even that slim chance, I believe, in this issue, at this time - is critically important.

[Political Heretic]

52. Not without FIGHTING for it, no you're right. We can't get it done.

Which is why we need the Obama administration to make EFCA a policy priority RIGHT NOW and FIGHT.

[FrenchieCat]

37. LOL! No matter what can be said about Specter, he is not a Democrat!

And you have just mistaken President Obama for the Messiah....
Something that we have all been warned against!

You are the one that you have been waiting for,
and you pinning all of your hopes on the actions
of none other than one man, is convenient on your part,
considering how critical you have been of those who
have attempted to reason that we not hang our dirty drawers out on the line
for all to see.

You can't have it all ways.
You can't rail against Barack Obama each and every day for every infraction that you think you see,
yet expect the man to move mountains when it comes to the issue you care so much about.
When you deal someone a weaker hand, sometimes you get to reap the benefits or lackthereof.


MARCH 25, 2009
Key Senator Won't Support Union Bill

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter dealt a blow to organized labor's top legislative priority by announcing that he wouldn't support a bill to make it easier to unionize workplaces.

The AFL-CIO and the bill's Democratic sponsors had been counting on Sen. Specter's vote to reach the 60 needed in the Senate to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. In 2007, Sen. Specter voted for cloture on the bill, or to cut off debate, but he said he could not do so now, especially given the recession and the weak economy.

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact" the bill, Sen. Specter said on the Senate floor Tuesday. He said the bill was "a close call" and the most heavily lobbied issue he could recall. At the same time, Sen. Specter said he would reconsider the bill if other efforts to amend the National Labor Relations Act to increase labor's clout are unsuccessful. One change he supports is shortening the time frame in which union elections are held.
snip
Unions, meanwhile, appeared to be caught flat-footed by the announcement. John Sweeney, president of AFL-CIO, called Sen. Specter's announcement "a disappointment and a rebuke to working people." As recently as last week, the labor federation's officials said they were confident that Sen. Specter would support the bill. Mr. Sweeney and other labor leaders said they would keep working to pass the bill.

Labor's hopes had been raised by the increased Democratic majorities in the Senate and House, as well as by open support for the bill from President Barack Obama.

Sen. Specter's announcement also could clear the way for compromise legislation that could appeal to moderate Democrats. Over the weekend, the chief executives of Whole Foods Market Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Starbucks Corp. presented a proposal that would give union organizers greater access to workers, set a fixed and likely quicker date for elections, and impose tougher penalties for intimidating workers. Their alternative guarantees the secret ballot and doesn't include mandatory arbitration.

The proposal was criticized by businesses, which said it undercut efforts to defeat labor reform outright, and labor, which sees it as a threat to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Over the next two weeks, CEOs John Mackey of Whole Foods, Jim Sinegal of Costco and Howard Schultz of Starbucks plan to travel to Capitol Hill to meet with about 20 lawmakers to push for an alternative bill.

"I'm a lifelong Democrat and my father worked in coal mines and steel mills, but in my view card check isn't fair," said Mr. Sinegal, who said he was backing the alternative because labor reform is needed.

Mr. Mackey said he thinks labor has legitimate complaints. But he also said he thinks his company will remain largely nonunion -- even if the unions gain greater access -- because of its higher-than-average wages and benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123792023652828061.html

[GrantDem]

34. Now more than ever we cannot give up.

This country needs the EFCA if we are to fully recover and rebuild the middle class. Without it organized labor is all but dead.

[Thrill]

38. well better start raising money for midterms to get the Seats in the Senate

because the votes simply aren't there.

[Political Heretic]

68. God forbid we actually try to advocate at all.

Oh noes the votes are there! :eyes:

Once upon a time, politicians GOT votes when they weren't there. But not now. Not fucking cowards throw up their hands and go "oh well, nothing we can do..."

[FrenchieCat]

79. Advocating by copying and pasting an article attacking

the one person you seem to think could make a difference
seems counterproductive.

Bullying folks by lying about their stance is ignorant,
and will solve nothing, which is what that article author did.
But you know that....which is why I'm baffled that you would
continue with this conversation
considering that it is all based on that biased article. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

103. That's the fourth time you've called me a liar. Based on nothing but your distaste for the "tone"

Of the first article.

I don't define "support" as sitting quietly by and not using the full resource of your political power to fight. Obama said he would support EFCA, and that's what support would look like. Some people apparently think "support" means simply a committment to sign a bill if it gets to the president's desk. That's not "support." That's just cowardly. Support means fighting for a policy priority, and making it a serious goal of the administration.

Instead, he's chosen allow it to die, and that's shameful.

[Zodiak]

148. It's against DU rules to call someone a liar (just so you know)

I recommend alerting. This kind of anti-social behavior needs to stop...it is tearing our community apart.

[Better Believe It]

42. K & R EFCA could be passed if Democrats favored it, but they don't.

Thanks for posting this.

EFCA could be passed with 51 votes if Obama and Reid actually challenged anti-labor Democrats/Republicans to engage in a real filibuster against the bill.

But they won't.

[FrenchieCat]

47. What is it that makes you treat Obama as a Messiah,

and attempt to make all of the answers that you seek be about him?

He is but one man. He doesn't walk on water.

Since you are on these boards day and night attempting to undermine him and weaken his hand,
why would you think he would now be in a stronger position then from the last time
you were copying and pasting your daily diatribes against him?

You wish to weaken his standing each passing day,
and yet, you now rely on him to move the mountains.
Lame strategy on your part.

You make it hard to believe you.

[ecstatic]

59. Many *small* business owners are against it

And small business owners can be Democrats too.

[Political Heretic]

69. small business owners too stupid to know the facts can go fuck themselves.

A quick trip to any of these places:

Economic Policy Institute
Center on Budget and Policy
Urban Institute
Center for American Progress

Will get you a TON of quantitative research data, with methodology you can check for yourself, showing that the exact OPPOSITE of what corporations and republicans claim will happen to small business will actually happen. I already posted the one showing that the notion that strong unions hurt business in a recession is a myth.

But of course, no one will ever understand these facts if we don't undertake a CAMPAIGN of advocacy to get the truth out there, and it certainly won't matter if the administration won't fight for it.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

62. Me too.

Worker's rights are one of my biggest issues. Obama and the Democrats need to be loyal to the unions and workers.

[depakid]

64. One would think that this good job for Biden-

Who likes nothing better than to yack about this sort of stuff in public.

[Jennicut]

84. He has been in South America all weekend

Plus, he has other more pressing family issues to deal with right now.

[depakid]

91. Just sayin'

Joe loves the Sunday shows- and Obama really does have his platter full.

[karynnj]

75. Commondreams is re-writing history on the primaries

They say;

"Clearly, the key turncoat in this sorry tale is Obama, whose presidential campaign would have sunk into oblivion early had it not been for powerful support from key elements of organized labor. It was also undeniably organized labor's army of grass roots backers that handed him victory, a majority of the popular vote, and a mandate for "change" in November over Republican John McCain."

but,

"No national unions had endorsed Mr. Obama until today, largely because union leaders were more attracted to Mr. Edwards because he vigorously courted unions by taking outspokenly pro-union stances. Moreover, many unions also backed Mrs. Clinton largely because of their long ties to the Clintons and because union leaders often like backing a front-runner."

This is from a NYT article on the Union endorsement Obama got near the NH primary time. Most of the article is on that endorsement - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/obama-to-get-union-endorsement/

So, it is clearly not true that Obama's campaign would have ended up in oblivion without the unions. The unions did help in the general election, but Obama won in a landslide.

It is also overkill to say that this is the most important piece of legislation in 30 years. The other thing is that he is upset not because Obama is not on the right side, but because he is not fighting for this.

[Political Heretic]

78. If you think Obama would have won without labor you are insane.

Now admittedly the counter argument would be, if I think labor was going to vote for anyone else then I am insane.... and that's a fair point.

EDIT - in the general I mean.

[karynnj]

80. The fact is that Obama did NOT have the support of labor in the primaries

I know labor supported him in the general election, but IMO they were NOT the determining factor. There are many who helped Obama in the general election and all could make a similar claim -but with the landslide Obama got - it was not close.

My point is that the Common Dreams article is over dramatic at many places to the detriment of their argument on why to vote for this legislation.

[ArchieStone1]

81. First Read reported the other day that the WH was "happy" that card check died (link)

"The White House appears to be happy (but very quietly so) to have this debate out of the way. No doubt they were for it."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/25/1865075.aspx

[FrenchieCat]

82. MNSBC opining again.....?

Let me stake my life on Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro!
cause they have not ulterior motives! :sarcasm:

Apparently, they also have no sources. How quaint!

[Jennicut]

83. Per Tom Harkin its not dead, there could be a compromise worked out

"Democratic aides said that should a compromise be reached, it will likely end up somewhere between the card check bill as it’s currently written and an alternative union organizing proposal floated by Starbucks Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc. That plan would retain the use of secret ballots when workers decide to unionize and would not include binding arbitration provisions. It would, however, include a number of other provisions, including allowing unions access to employees during off-work hours and requiring a fixed date for elections.

The alternative has been publicly criticized by Harkin and other pro-labor Democrats as being unacceptable. But privately Democrats acknowledged it was the first sign of movement from the business community that a compromise may be possible.

Democrats predicted they would likely use the existing card check legislation as the underlying bill, with any major changes being made through amendments on the floor.

Harkin, the lead sponsor of the card check bill, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act, said that he had expected amendments would be made and that Specter’s decision to drop his support for the bill would not kill it out right.

“We always expected the bill would be amended, but that does not change the fact that labor reform is needed, as even Senator Specter pointed out. There is no question that the bill will be debated and voted on because workers deserve a share of this recovery. Right now, we are looking for options that all stakeholders can agree to as a way forward to get this bill passed in both the Senate and the House,” Harkin said in a statement Friday."http://www.rollcall.com/news/33591-1.html


I know that will no please you but the Senate works like that, compromise all the time. Too bad about Specter but he IS a Rethug still for a reason.

[Political Heretic]

97. The "compromise" floated by three mega corporations isnt a "comrpomise" at all

Its the death of EFCA in everything but name.

You say the Senate works like that, compromise all the time. But let me give you an example:

A Bill gets proposed to increase heath insurance for 10 million children. The one side balks at the cost, and a compromise results in a bill that increases insurance for 6 million children. That's a compromise.

If a "compromise" was reached that provided no insurance for any children, but instead insurance "education" for consumers about how to make decisions about health insurance - that's not a comrpomise, that's the death of the original bill.

It's not a "compromise" if it doesn't give employees freedom to form a union by simple majority vote.

[Jennicut]

107. I know, just reportin whats put there.

[waiting for hope]

85. K&R -

Nicely done! :thumbsup:

[TBF]

86. It is embarassing to watch the democratic party turn their backs on labor.

I guess this is part of being a "new democrat".

[Political Heretic]

101. It's tragic and gut-wrenching. Watching the American worker be raped before our eyes.

And no one gives a fuck because hey we got a Democrat elected so everyone should shut the fuck up.

[avaistheone1]

131. I don't see how this economy is going to survive unless we dramatically change gears and shift to

policies that are more pro-American workers. To-date I have not seen that at all. Everything and everyone is a priority but American workers. That pisses me off too.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. It's not like it wasn't mutual, lots of union members decided to vote for Reagan

And thus unions lost a lot of power in the Democratic Party because they couldn't deliver the vote like they once could.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Oy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Obama-to-AFL-CIO-Executive-Council/

[waiting for hope]

90. Here's a portal for taking some action:

Dear XXX

Wow.


I just got back from Capitol Hill, where fearless men and women – joined today by cast members from "The West Wing" – met with members of Congress and the press to passionately defend their right to join a union and bargain for a better life.

Their stories show why the Employee Free Choice Act is so important:

*Joe Bordelon, a Louisiana security technician, was tricked into signing a petition against the union in his workplace.

*Dan Luevano, an electrician from Colorado, was interrogated, threatened, and eventually fired by his employer when he tried to form a union (after 6 years without a raise).

*Asela Espiritu, a nurse from California, shows what things could be like – she was able to gain a voice in the workplace because her company was NOT hostile to unions.

By coming to DC and bravely telling their stories, these workers are making a big impact. Can you help multiply their efforts?

Click here: See the workers, read their incredible stories, and forward them to your own members of Congress.

Today's media event was just the beginning of our "Faces of the Employee Free Choice Act" campaign. We've also unveiled huge, dramatic banners showing workers' faces all over Washington, DC – so they will be impossible for lawmakers to miss.

As they walk down the street, our leaders won't be able to ignore the faces of these workers – folks who want nothing more than a fair shake and a better future for their children. But we need your help to be sure your members of Congress read their incredible stories.

See the pictures, read the stories, and SHOW your members of Congress that it's time to pass the Employee Free Choice Act!

Then forward this message to 5 friends and ask them to do the same.

The energy is palpable, and the momentum is gathering. We can win, if we all give it every last ounce of effort in the coming weeks.

Sincerely,


Liz Cattaneo
American Rights at Work
www.AmericanRightsatWork.org

[liberalsince1968]

92. Obama only cares about rich people...just like Bush.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[PAStudent]

93. Why Shouldn't My Vote Be My Business?

Sorry if I've misunderstood the issue, but I keep hearing that this eliminates the secret vote. If that is the case, shouldn't we be against it? What if the next group in power wants to single our progressives by their vote and target them?

[Touchdown]

95. It isn't. Your being lied to.

ballot unionization is preserved in EFCA.

management get the results from these "secret ballots" anyhow. It was never secret in the first place. Another lie they are telling you.

[Political Heretic]

99. Thanks for posting the question. Unfortunately, the answer is that you've been lied too.

Literally. There are few times when its that simple, but in this case it honestly is. It is a complete and total lie that Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the secret ballot.

Here's a few things to help:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/03/efca-is-coming-what-you-need-to-know.html

http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/03/efca-is-coming-long-version-of-what-you.html

http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/03/efca-day-2.html

[doc03]

153. It effectively eliminates the secret ballot

from what I understand. Say you have a hundred employees, the Union organizers go to each employee and ask you to sign the card. I understand this could be over an unlimited period of time.
After a few days they get 50 signatures, now all they have to do is threaten and intimidate 1 more employee into signing and they get a Union. All this does is place the employee into a position to be harassed by his fellow employees into signing the card. Once they get 51 signatures they have a Union and no secret ballot, so even though there is still a secret ballot you see nobody
will actually get to vote by secret ballot. The way it is now 51 people sign a card and the company doesn't accept that and demands the NLRB run a secret ballot election. In the mean time the company fires the Union organizer and calls in all the employees and tell them if they vote for the Union they will shut down. Either way it puts the employees between a rock and a hard place. I think the EFCA is just as unfair to the employee as the current system. What the Unions want is the law to do there organizing for them. I think think it is a very flawed bill. Imagine if we had a card check in our elections, that is not Democracy.

[BzaDem]

96. Specter does not need Obama's help to bring home the bacon.

Projects for congressional districts are inserted by Congress into larger bills that Obama won't veto (or at least won't veto solely because Specter's project is in there).

So I really don't think Obama would be able to convince Specter no matter how much he supported the bill.

[Occam Bandage]

100. I knew once Specter came out against it, people would blame Obama for its failure. nt

[Political Heretic]

102. All I'm pleading for is for Obama to lead on this issue.

This is an issue so important its worth a full throated, full tilt offense, even if our backs are against the wall, even if things look grim.

I believe that the administrations active engagement, making this critical issue a policy priority could make a difference in rallying public support so strong that it makes votes that seemed "locked" before suddenly become movable, and in applying pressure to a "comrpomise" process so that an actual compromise that gives something positive to labor could be worked out (as opposed to the corporate "compromise" that's out there now.

All I want is for Obama to use his huge commanding influence to be OUT THERE on this. The Republicans decreed that this is the hill they'll die on. And in return Democrats decreed that they'll....sorta ... kinda talk about fighting... a little bit.... not too much though.

I don't really feel angry blame in my heart (though obviously the writer of the first article feels more angry than me) as much as I feel desperate to plead with people to contact their representatives, the democratic party and the White House and PLEAD for them to step up to this fight.

[uponit7771]

104. Will we have the votes with Franken on this issue? Thx in advance

[Political Heretic]

105. We will need at least one more.

It was Specter, but he went off the reservation - which is why we need this to become a policy priority for the administration, and for them to use their considerable talent and political capital to partner with labor unions and push HARD for public pressure on representatives.

People who rest on "we don't have the votes" ought to be ashamed of themselves. If a congressman has enough fear of his or her constituents, he or she will do what they demand. If we had a strong campaign and and aggressive full court press by our administration, we might be able to work out a deal that would work (either in the form of a workable compromise, or in the form of trades for votes (compromises on a future issue).

[Earth Bound Misfit]

116. We'll need at least 3 more.

Possibly 4...or more. Lincoln & Pryor will vote against cloture (IMO). Nelson (NE)?, Warner?, and now Di-Fi...:grr:


http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/03/24/specter-no-to-efca/

Some Democrats and labor advocates have been open to a compromise bill that would LEAVE OUT card checks and keep binding arbitration, which many believe is the EFCA’s most important provision. SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD PUT CONSERVATIVES IN A CORNER, since they have FRAMED their battle against the bill as a battle for "secret ballot elections". Yet, Specter’s decision to denounce binding arbitration closes the door to his supporting such a compromise.

Having lost their one Republican ally, EFCA’s proponents will now have to find the 60th vote on cloture elsewhere while making sure to keep all 58 Democrats (plus Al Franken, once he is seated) in toe. Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and George Voinovich all voted against EFCA in 2007, but all eyes will now turn towards them.

None of these Senators is expected to vote for the bill as it is currently drafted - Specter was the only Republican who might have done that...Yet, these four Republicans might be convinced to vote in favor of the bill (at least for cloture) if some compromise is found, which is why reports of EFCA’s death are EXAGGERATED.

In particular, Murkowski CLEARLY OPENED THE DOOR to the possibility of compromise support last month. The question now become what compromise she would be comfortable with, and could she be in favor of the binding arbitration provisions. (The last reason not to bury EFCA or water it down too much yet is that Specter opportunistically left the door open to changing his mind if economic conditions change; such a moment would likely not occur before next spring’s Republican primary.

Alternatively, is it worth for labor and Democrats to delay EFCA until the 112th Congress, hoping that Democrats will finally cross the bar of 60 seats after the 2010 midterms and thus NOT NEED TO WATER DOWN the legislation?

[Political Heretic]

118. The last paragraph has a great question

My opinion is, if the full EFCA can't go through (after all political resources have been exhausted in the fight, which hasn't happened yet) then it shouldn't go through at all. There's no good way to water down this bill that doesn't basically make it useless.

The danger of passing a useless labor bill is that all the impetus to do something dies. We rarely have a situation in which a watered down bill gets passed and then the real, better bill gets passed shortly thereafter.

Just like a FMLA. That was total crap, but we passed the compromise that made it unpaid under the idea that it was "Better than nothing" and we could improve on it over time. It's fifteen years later... it still totally blows.

[Political Heretic]

106. Good morning. Time for this to be reviewed again.

[AtomicKitten]

112. The White House supports EFCA.

Perhaps not as vociferously as some would like, but it is patently untrue to state unequivocally he is "betraying the cause."

The hyperbole should have been your first clue.

[Political Heretic]

119. I believe its a betrayal to the american worker not to make this a public policy priority

He is certainly not doing that. And that's tragic.

[AtomicKitten]

123. or not

I think much of the kvetching around this place is premature. People react to predictions and extrapolations, much based on blog chatter, and go off.

The good news is that Obama supports EFCA. He does have a lot on his plate though and that distraction perhaps explains what is judged here to be insufficient support.

I'm going to wait until he changes his mind before I light a fuse. But that's me.

[Political Heretic]

124. I understand that you think that. And its not something where I can prove you wrong

I however don't think that, though I can't prove myself right.

But, frankly - I'm hoping you are right.

[AtomicKitten]

126. Dianne Feinstein is being a colossal pain in the ass on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/feinstein-may-oppose-efca_n_180044.html

I knew I should have pegged her with rotten fruit when she was 10 ft away from me in the Chinese New Years Parade a few years back! :mad:

Good news though. Big Ed Schultz is UBER pro-labor and starts Monday on MSNBC. He will be a wonderful voice for the cause.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

127. "Big Ed" on MSNBC..That is good news...

:woohoo: http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

Veteran talk radio host Ed Schultz joins MSNBC as host of "The Ed Show," premiering on Monday, April 6.

"The Ed Show" will air weekdays, 6-7 p.m. ET. The announcement was made today by Phil Griffin, President, MSNBC.

President of MSNBC Comments
Griffin said, "I am thrilled to have Ed kicking-off our primetime lineup."

Griffin said, "Ed's proven that he can connect with Americans and will be a perfect complement to Chris, Keith, and Rachel. He's already made his mark on radio and I'm excited to see what he'll do with the 6 p.m. hour."

Ed Schultz Comments
Ed Schultz said, "I'm excited to have this opportunity with MSNBC."

Schultz said, "I look forward to having a day to day discussion with fellow Americans on issues that really matter to all of us."

Check out the video w/KO...This is gonna be great!!

:popcorn:

[AtomicKitten]

128. Good stuff indeed.

:toast:

[Zodiak]

149. Feinstein is a constant pain

Really, California can do a lot better than a DINO who is a beneficiary of the military industrial complex.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

114. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

The C of C/ Corporate/ anti-EFCA lobby has gone “ALL-IN” on the secret-ballot CANARD in an effort to “frame” EFCA as “un-democratic”. Greg Sargent wrote on his blog: “…labor officials also don’t want the argument to focus on this, because they see it as a DISTRACTION from a discussion about the plight of workers and a TOUGH ARGUMENT TO WIN IN THE SOUNDBITE WARS”. IMHO labor’s response to this strategy should be to heed the advice of Napoleon Bonaparte–”Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a MISTAKE.”

The premise that the aforementioned groups are spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS opposing the EFCA in an effort to “protect” workers rights is LUDICROUS. The real issue here is KEEPING the advantages BUILT IN TO the system that they now enjoy. That "protecting" workers and defending the "cornerstone of Democracy" is the ONLY issue they have been able to "frame" to their advantage before an uninformed public and corporate M$M leaves the repukes with no other viable argument against the bill.

So, let's REMOVE THE ARGUMENT! Take out the card-check provision. I would be willing to “give up” the card-check provision in exchange for a more "Union/Employee Friendly" election process and compromises to the arbitration & mediation process which I describe here.

Card check probably requires much more POLITICAL CAPITAL to wedge into the bill than anything else in EFCA, and as the anti-contingent is so HEAVILY invested there, it’s my contention that Labor should seize the opportunity to offer “compromise” on this portion of the bill but “stand firm” on the other two provisions, which seem to be a MUCH tougher argument for the anti- EFCA lobby “to win in the soundbite wars”.

Politically, one could go further: by accepting that secret ballots are good and valuable and in tune with American ideals, etc., the labor movement would put its opponents on the defensive. It's hard to see exactly how business groups would counter this move.

[Political Heretic]

120. I'm not convinced, but I'm also not ummovable.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that card-check is something that can be given up. I think this is one of those times where we should have met their force with equal or greater force, rather than looking for away to slink around their force and defuse it by cutting ourselves up in the process.

Card check is probably the most important restoration of union strength in my life time. Strong unions are intricately tied to economic growth and quality of life increases. Why is it I always have to be on the side that's afraid to fight for anything, when the other side has no problems fighting to the last person?

[ShareTheWoods]

122. employees can only campaign during breaks, or before and after work.

Is there a problem with that? Who on Earth expects the employer to pay for employee campaigning?

There are some good issues covered in this bill, but quite a few fliers included.

[Political Heretic]

125. I think you've missed the point here.

There would be nothing wrong with that if employers weren't able to campaign nonstop, indiscriminately.

So the point might be not to allow employees to "campaign" on work time, but rather to crack down on the often illegal practices of employers and clamp their ability to use their disproportionate power to blitz employees with misinformation and intimidation for as long as they want until the time when the employer, not the employees decide to hold the "secret ballot."

[BzaDem]

134. You vastly overestimate the ability of Obama to use his political capital to get Republican support.

This thread is filled with your snide comments telling people that they should retake political science 101. As most knowledgeable people who have read this thread probably see, it is you who needs to retake political science 101. We do not have a parliamentary system where the majority rules. Most republicans would not even support this bill even if by opposing it they would cause their current approval ratings to cut in half. Specter was the last hope for this bill, and he made his decision.

Obama can pour all the political capital he wants into this, but all that does (in addition to losing his political capital) is convince everyone how useless his political capital is, since no amount of political capital will get the bill through the Senate.

It's a little ridiculous to say "I don't fuck around on this," and then proceeded to do just that for paragraph after paragraph, misleading Democrats as to what Obama could realistically do. Your posts would be a lot more credible if you said "I don't fuck around on this. We simply do not have enough senators to get this bill through. This shows the importance of electing pro-EFCA Democrats to the Senate in 2010 so that we can get 60 votes for passage." Because as much as you say the time is now (as opposed to tomorrow or a month from now), the time is not now, because the current make-up of the Senate prevents it from being now. The next chance for the American people to have their say is 2010.

[Political Heretic]

135. You've misinterpreted my comments - purposfully or otherwise.

Comments talking about needing to re-learn basic politics were in response to poster saying that the president literally does nothing but sign bills into law. We all know that is ridiculous and false. In addition to the technical system of "how a bill becomes a law" there is the leadership, campaigning and expenditure of political capital that most honest posters already understand.

Your opinion about how much President Obama can do is duly noted. It's just that, your opinion. Hell, and obviously my opinion is just that - my opinion. You do a great job of summarizing the status quo, and politics as usual. But if Obama showed us anything it was that he can rewrite those books. Change coming to Washington shouldn't look like the same old same old that you so flippantly describe. That's my opinion.

I have already seen more the enough instances of what is possible when Obama connects with people and stirs them to action. If Obama made doing so a political priority for him, and he rallied people to to the point where they believed fighting tooth and nail for EFCA was what hardcore "support everything without question" Obama people believed was to be done, there's no telling what kind of good deals, compromises or outright victories on EFCA could be achieved.

Once again, as a side note, I'd like to correct the language about votes needed. We don't need 60 votes to pass a bill. We need 60 votes for cloture, i.e. to avoid a filibusterer. However, Democrats never make Republicans actually filibusterer. The filibusterer was never designed to be something infinite. But it has become that because Harry Reid never ever makes them actually do it. Now we've all embraced this myth that we need 60 votes to pass bills, and our hands are tied. It is political bullshit that has to do more with how to the good ol boy parties play politics with each other.

The bottom line is you don't know what would happen if Reid actually threw the spotlight on Republicans filibusterng against American workers in the midst of a populist explosion, forcing them to stand there hour after hour all while the Democratic machine, led by a fully engaged White House BLITZED the media stirring up anger against the obstructionists, combined with the full force of the largest popular movement in recent memory (the machine that drove Obama to election) actively engaged in pushing Senate Representatives to hear outcries from their constituents.

The one thing that causes congress persons to break rank on either side of the isle is the extreme unrest of their constituents. You can yell that "its futile" until you are blue in the face, but you don't know shit about whether that's true or not. Finally, and most importantly, the battle itself would not be a "waste" of political capital even if EFCA did not pass right now. It could and would be stage one in a public campaign to ensure that the public was with us on the issue. The death of EFCA that is coupled by the extreme tarnishing of the GOP on the issue is a long term win. In other words it could be the GOP, and not Democrats who lost mass political capital if we were ever smart enough to do anything other than tuck our tails and run.

[BzaDem]

145. The myth is that we have any way to force Republicans to stand there till they are blue in the face.

There is no way that the Democrats could force Republicans to stand up and talk to fillibuster anything. That is an urban ledgend. Strom Thurmond did not need to stand up and talk for 24 hours. All Republicans would need would be 1 Republican standing there and every few hours say "I suggest the abscence of a quorum." They would just rotate Republicans, just like they do for presiding officers. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[Political Heretic]

150. I'm aware of this, but it would stop all business in the senate

My original point is exactly the same about forcing them to do this.

[iamthebandfanman]

137. i love peoples excuses!

excuses excuses!

people are going to pay for their jobs, whethers its in congress or the presidency.


if you do the same as republicans, you are a republican to me. i didnt vote democratic so democrats could side with republicans.


there will be no place for the weak willed in a democratic congress and democratic government.

its time to stand up for beliefs, and history would tell us this is the best time ever presented.

we must take advantage of this horrible disaster that the republicans have made.
not only by furthering our ideals, but proving that our train of thought gets more accomplished for the american people.

the conservative way of thinking was tried. it failed.
its time for the liberal way of thinking to be tried.
if it fails, so be it. moderates will be right, and off to centrism we will all go.

we have to PROVE our ideology works as liberals.

we will never be able to with these spineless folks that represent us.

[TayTay]

140. This bill was introduced by Sen. Kennedy and is currently in HELP, right?

Sen. Kennedy is a major player in health care reform. Health care reform is something that the President dearly wishes to enact so that he can go before the votes in 2012 as the first President to advance this issue for the American people. What are the chances that Sen. Kennedy can extract some promises from the President on EFCA in exchange for helping get health care passed for Pres. Obama? That would be some nice deal-making that would advance the Democratic agenda.

(And there are a number of Republicans who need health care reform passed just as much as Dems do. Not the nuts on the fringe, but those more inclined to the center. We only need a few of them and I think they can be squeezed.)

Heard anything on whether or not Sen. Kennedy is willing to squeeze this President on this? (After all, the President owes Teddy Kennedy a lot. )

[Political Heretic]

142. I've not heard anything on that front, but that's interesting and I'd love to find out

[TayTay]

143. Sometimes you have to squeeze people to get what you want.

People who hold public office at the level of the US House or US Senate understand the value of being squeezed. President Obama, a former community organizer, is used to squeezing others to get what he wants and to being squeezed by others. It is immature to pretend otherwise. No one gets elected to the highest political offices in the nation without understanding this. Also, most legislators WANT to have pressure put on them to advocate for issues. Sens and House members can go to their colleagues with proof that there is a popular movement afoot for a given initiative. That is how it is done.

The President has an ambitious agenda and will need help getting it enacted. He will horsetrade with others for what he wants. If I were one of the strong EFCA supporters, I would put on the table some of the President's energy or green jobs or health care initiatives and horsetrade the degrees of support. That is how it is done.

Call Teddy's office and see what is happening with EFCA. He is lead sponsor. God, I hope he is well enough to be able to help on this. He is a master at "the deal" and might be able to pull this off still.

[leftofthedial]

144. Obama zealously represents the interests of the corporate status quo.

The corporate status quo HATES union. They are willing, even eager, to destroy the American auto industry in order to take down the auto workers union.

Nothing short of a return to the aggressive, confrontational days of union building will help unions or working people at this point. No one represents us in DC.

[stevenleser]

151. This is bullshit and Lindorff has turned into a shrieking Obama hater

The tone of this is as if Obama had vetoed EFCA. Lindorff and others like him (unfortunately, far too many where I write at OEN) have basically listed the entire progressive agenda and called Obama a traitor for not having already enacted it ALL.

It is all completely non-credible nonsense.

[stevenleser]

152. This is bullshit and Lindorff has turned into a shrieking Obama hater

The tone of this is as if Obama had vetoed EFCA. Lindorff and others like him (unfortunately, far too many where I write at OEN) have basically listed the entire progressive agenda and called Obama a traitor for not having already enacted it ALL.

It is all completely non-credible nonsense.