Culinary Workers Union Clinton Supporters - Go caucus yourself

[ronnykmarshall]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-caucuses18jan18,0,6024887.story?coll=la-home-center

The campaign was referring to complaints by some within the culinary union that they were denied caucus information after telling low-level union organizers they would not be supporting Obama.

One of them, Cruz Aponte, a housekeeper at Caesars Palace, said in an interview that she and co-workers were taking their breakfast break Tuesday when a union representative approached them with a list of names and their caucus sites.

"He said, 'I'm going to tell you where your caucus is Saturday so you all can then vote for Barack Obama,' " Aponte said Thursday. When she told him she would be caucusing for Clinton, he refused to tell her where her caucus site was, she said.

Another union member reported witnessing a similar scene in another hotel.

[Renew Deal]

1. Culinary is playing hardball on this.

Apparently, they've put their reputation on the line and they don't plan to lose.

[redqueen]

5. It stinks.

[sufrommich]

It stinks to high heaven.Perhaps we need non partisan election

observers . Anyone know how if there is a plan to protect the integrity of these polling places.

[NewHampster]

12. No - They're playing Chicago

Chicago politics have always been the worst and Axelrod and Obama are both from Chicago.

[Renew Deal]

19. No, they're playing Las Vegas.

Look up the union. You'll see.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Very disturbing if a pattern of this is established.

Especially since Nevada is a caucus, not a primary. Those Union members who do not support Obama will not have a secret ballot to protect them. Intimidation can become a real factor, even an unjustified fear of displeasing higher ups in the Union can become a real factor, especially with work place caucusing.

[Renew Deal]

10. Are you surprised?

When do campaigns help their opponents win?

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Not surprised at all

But it further strengthens by belief that secret ballots are the way to go, and if a caucus must be held, probably it's not a good idea to hold them at a site where people are dependent for their livelihood.

Having said that, objections to this plan should have been raised long ago, not right after the Union made it's actual endorsement. Still at this stage a spotlight should be focused on this process to protect the right of workers to vote their own conscience without being subject to efforts to intimidate them any more than is inevitable with a caucus system of voting.

[Barack_America]

3. It's not nice, but it's not disenfranchisement.

They're not denying them that information, it is publicly available. But they're certainly not making it easy for Clinton supporters and I don't agree with that.

[aquart]

22. "Not nice."

What words would you use if it were done to Obama supporters?

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Lots of "not nice" things happen to black potential voters all the time

Often they are "technically legal". The term we use for that is vote repression or voter intimidation, not literal physical disenfranchisement.

[GalleryGod]

4. Yikes, Hardball

The very FIRST Nevada "Caucus"

[ronnykmarshall]

6. That's a swingin' picture!

[Tellurian]

21. It would be sweet if Clooney, Pitt and Damon swept in with BIG Hillary signs

[aquart]

24. No. It wasn't.

[madfloridian]

7. Debunked, wasn't it?

I found this at Kos. I think it was debunked here as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Were the union members names mentioned before?

I didn't notice that in previous articles about this. This was the first time I've read someone going on the record about it.

[Tellurian]

31. The so-called debunking done by the LV Sun isn't certain..

You need a metal detector and a map to find the link and story. After that, the conclusion is the LVS says:
"It's all in who you talk to."

This is for certain. John Kerry putting on a Show at a LV codominium complex..And you know how his jokes usually bomb.

He tells one funny one comparing himself to Sanjya. Loves the laughter, can't shut himself off, then tells this one:

"But then Kerry dipped a little too deep into the treasure chest of political yuks for a joke that virtually every politician has told for at least the past 15 years."

“In an airport," Kerry said (but the setting could be a convenience store or a McDonald's), "some guy pointed at me and said, ‘Anybody ever tell you you look like that Kerry guy?’ I said, ‘Yeah, they tell me that all the time.’ And he said, ‘Kinda makes you mad, don’t it?’ ”

The guy is absolute poison to a campaign!

[madfloridian]

36. You guys just don't quit with the nastiness.

You attack everyone.

[Tellurian]

52. It's a publicly accepted fact Kerry is a walking disaster on the campaign trail..

would you invite ants to a picnic?

[madfloridian]

53. That is sad.

.

[Tellurian]

63. But True! Don't blame the messenger..

[cali]

8. not good. not good at all.

the CWU is acting thuggishly here. They look bad and it makes Obama look bad as well. Obama's campaign should read the CWU the riot act.

[madfloridian]

9. I think this was debunked.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638

[rinsd]

13. That is a different incident.

Apparently its a pattern.

[madfloridian]

18. How about this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4104910&mesg_id=4104910

[rinsd]

25. That's the same story you referenced earlier.

The incident you reference was chalked up to a misunderstanding with slightly overzealous Obama caucuser dealing with a language barrier. The "victim" in that case agreed with that assessment.

This is a case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Depends on what you consider debunking

From that kos blog:


First, the Sun debunked Marsh's lie of widespread intimidation:


"After speaking with several Culinary members — at the suggestion of the Clinton campaign —the Sun cannot substantiate widespread voter intimidation on the part union organizers. What is clear, however, is that Culinary organizers are pushing Obama hard in the run-up to Saturday’s Caucus.

It’s also clear that some members in some cases have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers. According to labor experts, a vigorous back-and-forth is the norm in these types of situations — and the tactics don’t cross the legal line unless workers are overtly threatened.

None of the Culinary members interviewed by the Sun claim to have been threatened."


Note this sentence:

"It’s also clear that some members in some cases have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers"

If the red line is whether or not union members are being OVERTLY threatened if they do not support Obama, no evidence proved that anyone has crossed that line. But that is a very legalistic line; "and the tactics don’t cross the legal line unless workers are overtly threatened."

Plain old garden variety "intimidation" of the sort that has been used to discourage Blacks from voting in the past that doesn't cross over into actually preventing someone from voting if they can brave the intimidation factor is not exactly something to proud of or condoned.

[madfloridian]

11. Debunked in this forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4104910&mesg_id=4104910

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. That really depends on where you draw the line

"It’s also clear that some members in some cases have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers. According to labor experts, a vigorous back-and-forth is the norm in these types of situations — and the tactics don’t cross the legal line unless workers are overtly threatened."

Overt threats may be debunked, but at a work place it is not always necessary to be overt.

[madfloridian]

34. Tom, This was approved by the party long ago. Why wait until the day after...

the union endorsed Obama to start the attacks. The court says it is ok....the DNC entered the lawsuit and said it was ok.

This is just over the top smearing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. I don't deny the politics being played over this MF

I have no doubt that no law suit would have been filed by Clinton supporters had Clinton won that endorsement.

I suspect that the original decision to set up those caucuses was one of those it seemed like a good idea at the time things, nothing malicious. On the face of it they are a good idea as they make it easier for more people to participate in the electoral process. I understand why the DNC backed it.

The problem, if any, is in actual implementation. If these were added polling places for a primary being talked about instead of a caucus, there would be no problem. Perhaps the Clinton camp would have objected over inequitable distribution of polling places anyway, but possible intimidation would not be a real factor to worry about. Of course we will never know if some Obama ally would have challenged these caucus locations at the last second had Clinton won that key Union endorsement. All we know is that they now likely help Obama and hurt Clinton.

I agree that if a lawsuit was to be filed it should have been filed long ago, when these plans were first set in place. I am not defending the law suit. But neither should we defend strong arm tactics from some Union organizers either, when confronted with evidence it is occuring to some degree. That simply is wrong.

Perhaps this caucus location idea was promising in theory but flawed in practice.

[elixir]

14. Disturbing is right. Maybe BO will try to kick HRC off the ticket ...

He did that in Illinois - pretty nasty stuff. I guess all's fair in love and war for him. What he did was legal but not ethical.

[BootinUp]

15. this is democracy?

:wtf:

[Little Star]

54. Thats what they call it in Chicago, Los Vegas and other well..

known mob towns. Thuggery rules the day.

[featherman]

16. A little bit of spin planted by the campaign and fed to the media

"Two Clinton operatives said today" might have the better lead. Just politics as usual lowering expectations and setting up excuses "The CWU cheated" et, etc.
Are some people here really this naive? I hope a few have at least worked in campaigns.

[aquart]

17. Which is WHY you shouldn't caucus in the the workplace.

Your job can be held hostage. The pressure to conform is outrageous. This is NOT an "enfranchisement" plan. It legalizes voter intimidation.

[William769]

20. K&R!

[Cameron27]

26. K&R

[madfloridian]

29. The caucus places were cleared by the DNC months ago.

And the DNC came in on the side of the culinary union as a defendant in the lawsuit.

SO now it is all wrong?

I am getting so totally and completely disgusted with Clinton supporters, DLC types, Bill Clinton attacks on others, and just about everything to do with them.

Just fed up.

[leftynyc]

30. So should I put you down as

approving of these tactics?

[madfloridian]

33. First off, I am not at all sure I believe it. Second...I just see a pattern.

It is a pattern I don't like. The Clintons have been using their surrogates for ugly smears and then denying it. I don't believe anything coming out of a campaign that is connected to Penn, Carville, and similar beings.

I just don't think I like the ugly side I see.

[leftynyc]

35. So what would make you beleive it?

Is there any evidence that would convince you of this or is that kool-aid just too strong?

[madfloridian]

37. Kool-aid? I don't even have a candidate. I am just disgusted with

tactics the Clintons are using via surrogates, and disgusted with Clinton supporters at this forum.

[ronnykmarshall]

48. Back at ya, toots!

[pampango]

38. Some of us don's approve of either tactic: Caucusing at work with the intimidation

that may be associated with that or waiting until the last minute to challenge the mutually agreed to arrangement to caucus at work, when the union endorses the "wrong" candidate.

[madfloridian]

39. Then sue the effing DNC and the courts.

Because it was approved months ago by the party, and the DNC joined the lawsuit on behalf of the culinary workers.

Why are all of you up in arms now?

Stupid question...because Hillary was not endorsed by them. It is called sour grapes.

I am disgusted with the Clinton wing of the party.

[pampango]

41. Didn't make myself clear. I agree with you. The last minute legal challenge

was ridiculous. If the teachers union (and the Clintons?) didn't like the party rules for the caucus for any reason (possible voter intimidation, over representation of those workers, or any other), they should have never agreed to them or sued over the issue months ago, not just at the last minute after union endorsed the "wrong" candidate.

[madfloridian]

44. Thanks.

Appreciate the clarification. :hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

47. River.

Cry me one.

I don't give a damn if god herself approved the caucus sites. And could also not give a flying rats ass what Bill Clinton thinks about the damn things either.

MY problem is when I read stories like this.

So what about people that DON'T work in a casino and work nights and can't get to a causus site?

Why didn't the DNC give a shit about them?

Sounds like the union leaders are putting pressue on workers to vote the way the union wants them to vote.

[madfloridian]

50. Clinton supporters are losing it.

I am sorry but that is the truth.

[ronnykmarshall]

51. Edith Ann you're not

[Little Star]

55. It would still be wrong even if the endorsed Hillary. The DNC

really f'ed up this one. We are now playing dirtier than the Repugs. Disgusting!

[madfloridian]

56. So sue the DNC....everyone else is.

Sue the judge who made the decision while you are at it.

You are the only one who is right...so sue everybody!!!!

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

58. Do you think the judge's ruling was wrong? Is he an "activist" judge?

Are you saying the DNC and the judge wre wrong, and you are questioning that while calling me a drama queen.... amazing.

DU is now questioning judge's rulings.

[Little Star]

59. YEP. That is exactally what I am saying.

[madfloridian]

60. You saying the judge was wrong? I just want to be clear.

[Rock_Garden]

42. I think this subject will far outlast this particular election. K&R!

It's well worth debating the value of workplace caucusing. A certain amount of intimidation is implicit, especially when there's a union endorsement. Add to that the lack of privacy of the caucus process itself. The potential for abuse exists, whether it's this election or any other.

[Debi]

45. If one guy is being an asshole do two things

1) call the NSDP and get your caucus information (after all - it's public record not super secret union information)

2) call the union and complain - tell them who it was and what they did. There will be elections for those leadership positions and the member will get to vote against the asshole.

++++

Oh, maybe three things:

3) call the press and claim 'voter disenfranchisement' :eyes: because obviously somebody NOT giving out PUBLIC information is keeping the person from participating in the political process.

[sunonmars]

46. Stop and think Obama Supporters

If HRC loses tomorrow, do you really want a lot of hispanic and CWU workers on the television and newspapers saying they were deliberately held back from going to the caucus by the union and denied the information to attend. The PR effect of that would be devestating for Obama.

If intimidation does happen, it may come out whether she wins or loses. It isnt going to be pretty for Obama either way.

You might just open a pandora's box. Be careful what you wish for.

[HughMoran]

49. I was wondering how the rank-and-file might react to the endorsement

What if they don't want to caucus for Obama? Is there peer pressure? Since a caucus is out in the open, can people be punished for not caucusing properly? I'm not making accusations at all, I was just wondering - I know I've not always been in agreement with union positions, so it is a logical question to ask.

[rinsd]

61. Bullies 4 Obama!

[AGirl]

62. secret ballot is the only way to go