Dean Gets Union Endorsements But Will He Leave Them Hanging As President?

Last night on Hardball Chris asked Dean if he would come out against "Right To Work Laws".
When Gephardt was on Hardball he said HE would actively work against such Anti-Union laws.

Dean basically said he would only go as far as signing Legislation if it came to his desk.
He then said that while it was wrong for NonUnion members to get benefits that Unions pushed for... this was a "State Issue".

So Dean passed the buck....

Dean got the Union Endorsements but won't vigoursly stand up against Right To Work Laws on the Federal level.

If Dean throws Right To Work legislation back to individual States does this mean that he will do the same with ALL UNION ISSUES?

By the way, 22 States currently have Right To Work Laws on the books.

What Right To Work Means:
A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially
support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to
Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.

I hope he doesn't "fight" for labor the way he "fought" for civil unions (ie behind closed doors)

That is true... the Right wingers were being awful and Dean eventually DID step up to the plate.

Although, in a way, he had to because things got ugly in Vermont.

Name one thing he did, besides signing the bill in a closed office, to "fight" for CU's.

The only time he fought, was when he ran for re-election AFTER the bill passed and was signed by him.

The Rabid rightwingers got really nasty and Dean went on the radio and such talking sense....

My only point about that is Dean waited til the matter was a definite live issue to get involved...

But when it became apparent things would heat up he performed admirably.

IMO, he ended up scoring a few points towards the end of that game... he just wasn't a "starter". :)

I've asked Dean supporters numerous times to detail what Dean did to "fight" for CU's. Up until now, all I got was:

1) Immediately after the judge's decision, Dean gave an interview where he stated his support for CUs.

2) He marched in one parade.

3) He signed the bill behind closed doors.

This is the first I'm hearing of any radio interviews. If you have any more info and/or links, I would appreciate it if you would PM me.

However, I do remember reading in the papers while this was all going on, that there was some uncertainty over whether or not Dean would actually sign the bill, which seems odd if he had been giving interviews in support of CU.

But then we know that Dean bashers care far more about bashing Dean, than facts. Dean has done more for gay rights than anybody... but you attack him saying he hasn't done enough.



http://www.gaylinkcontent.com/storydetail.cfm?storyid=584


And that a major first step for my generation is to work to elect a progressive President who believes in equal rights for all. Who is the only candidate who has demonstrated it in an executive position. Who nearly lost his job for it. Whose life was threatened for it. Who was reduced to having to wear a bullet-proof vest for it. Howard Dean.



http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/documents/03333645.asp


FOR VERMONT POLITICIANS, the St. Albans Maple Festival is a natural place to meet and greet potential voters. Thus it was no surprise that then-governor Howard Dean would choose to pass through in June 2000, during his final re-election campaign.

Those were ugly days in Vermont. Two months earlier, Dean had signed the civil-unions bill, giving lesbian and gay couples many of the rights and protections of marriage. Signs emblazoned with TAKE BACK VERMONT were dotting the countryside — not-so-subtle code for a growing nativist backlash against gay-coddling outsiders such as Dean, who was a physician from New York before he became the governor of his adopted state. Later, Dean would reveal that he wore a bulletproof vest for much of that campaign.

Walking toward St. Albans City Hall, Dean spotted a long-time supporter and moved over to give her a hug. Before he could do so, though, an elderly woman walked up to the governor and said, "You fucking, queer-loving son of a bitch." Without batting an eye, Dean retorted, "You should clean up your mouth, lady. You certainly didn’t learn how to talk like that in Franklin County."

The anecdote is revealing about Dean in two ways. On the one hand, he neither apologized for nor attempted to explain his support for civil unions. On the other, his combative response was pitch-perfect: he had managed to go on the offensive while turning his tormentor’s personal invective against her.




A comment from a vermonter...


I live in Vermont, and I assure you that there is no level of nastiness that the GOP can throw at him that he can't handle. If you have any doubts you should do some research on the 2000 VT Governors race. Dean had to run against an all out hate campaign (Take Back Vermont) over the signing of the Civil Unions Bill. The majority of Vermonters were mad as hell over that bill. Dean got out there, busted his butt and won people over. If you have never heard him really talk about this in depth you can't realize how great he addresses it. For instance...once when he was questioned about it he pointed out that one of the men who prevented the 4th plane from being flown into DC was gay and that if he was American enough to sacrifice his life to protect Americans he was certainly American enough to have the same rights as the rest of us. This is an extremely effective tactic that shuts the other person up immediately. Dean has had to campaign with a bullet proof vest on before. He went through the ugliest campaign that has probably ever been run against anyone...and HE WON! If anyone has the experience to face the certain onslaught from the GOP, Dean is the one.

All you did was cite two stories from AFTER he signed the bill.

YOu see, even the Deanies can't detail what Dean actually DID besides sign the bill, march in one parade, and give one interview.

Aside from that, the only fighting Dean did is when he ran for re-election.

that only 35% of the state supported when he signed it... that's not fighting. LOL!

The fact is that Dean supported the civil unions bill before it was signed. Even the Dean hating Rutlandherald made note of this and blows your bashig BS right out of the water... again.


http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/5198

Dean says civil-unions issue is one of conscience
March 16, 2000


By DIANE DERBY Staff Writer

MONTPELIER - Gov. Howard B. Dean on Wednesday challenged those who claim the Legislature has turned a deaf ear on public opinion, but he said the vote on same-sex benefits represented one of those rare moments when a lawmaker had to follow his or her conscience, regardless of the political stakes.

"There comes a time on certain questions - abortion is one of them, I think this is one of them, the equal rights amendment is one of them - when you have to vote your deep conscience because you have to live with that vote for the rest of your life," Dean told reporters at his weekly news conference Wednesday afternoon as debate proceeded on the floor.

______________________________

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/2443

December 26, 1999


By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

Gov. Howard B. Dean said last week he still believed health care would be an important issue, but he also wants the Legislature to address the question of gay marriage during the 2000 session.

"I think it's in the best interest of the state to have a proper bill this year," Dean said in his office last week as he discussed the coming session.

"For those of us who are not at this point favoring a gay marriage bill, the court has reserved the right to impose that interpretation of the Constitution if we don't pass a domestic partnership bill. I think it's important for us to pass it this year and not wait."

...

"I think we need to fulfill the law," he said. "The law says everybody gets equal rights, and I think we need to fulfill that law."

"Oh I see, so since his life was threatened AFTER he signed a bill that only 35% of the state supported when he signed it... that's not fighting. LOL!"

If you ever take the time to read what's been posted, you'll see that I included the signing of the bill along with:

1) Giving an interview
2) Marching in one parade

I see you have nothing to add.

and prior to Dean signing the bill, and in both he made statements supporting civil unions.


Maybe you need to learn to read dates?


So basicaly Dean made several public statements supporting civil unions starting the week of the court ruling, Dean put the civil unions issue on the 2000 agenda, marched in a parades supporting it, supported it in interviews, and signed the bill... then he stood by it through the election eventhough it hurt him and his life was threatened.

And you do not consider that fighting for civil unions because...

"Made statements" is not "fighting"

Dean put the civil unions issue on the 2000 agenda

No, the homosexual cuple that brought the case put the issue on the agenda.

strap on fuckin boxing gloves?

You hate the man and will see no good in anything he does.If he fed the world you'd bitch that it wasn't enough courses.

It goes like this. As president (chief executive) Dean can only work against federal antiunion legislation. He cannot interfere with State laws on such.

The DeanHaters just luuuuv to take Dean's quotes out of context (another rightwing trick, by the way) and pretend they say something that they don't.

including a repeal of 14-B (Taft-Hartley). That's if he really wanted to push the issue, which he doesn't.

Scott Lee claims that a chief executive (and Governor is an executive position) can't influence legislation, but SL also claims that Dean fought for CU's.

DEAN: If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I’d sign it in an instant. I’m just not going to push it hard...
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: Because I do believe states have to have make their own judgments of that.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: I hate right-to-work laws.
And let me tell you why it’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should you should be able to go to work for that company, get the same benefits as everybody else who paid their union dues and you paid nothing? That’s why I’m against right-to-work laws.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: But I do believe it’s important for states to be able to make their own laws.

That's a giant hedge; If he believes in it, why not push the issue?

DEAN: If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I’d sign it in an instant. I’m just not going to push it hard...
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: Because I do believe states have to have make their own judgments of that.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: I hate right-to-work laws.
And let me tell you why it’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should you should be able to go to work for that company, get the same benefits as everybody else who paid their union dues and you paid nothing? That’s why I’m against right-to-work laws.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: But I do believe it’s important for states to be able to make their own laws.

used by Republicans to mask bad policy. Why should Dean push for states rights if he represents the whole country? The question still remains, does he really believe in repealing right-to-work laws or is this just a campign vehicle to keep unions happy?

when you know what you are talking about.


"Why should Dean push for states rights if he represents the whole country?"

Because the whole country is made up of fifty states, all of which have their own governments and rights as granted by the constitution.


"The question still remains, does he really believe in repealing right-to-work laws or is this just a campign vehicle to keep unions happy?"

So you've gone from spining what Dean said to flat out accusing him of lying when it is shown that he did not say what you bashers tried to claim... pathetic.

How do they get enforced without federal law overriding state law? OSHA exists because federal law trumps state law, and the constitution does not have an amendment for ergonomics.

As I said the federal law only trumps state law on issues where the rights of the individual which are granted by the constitution, such as life and liberty, are being violated by the state law.

Worker's safety is a liberty issue.

Sorry there's no constitutional amendment stipulating workers rights; federal law was created to enforcing that issue.

And being forced to work in unsafe conditions by an employer consitutes that employer breeching the individuals civil liberties as set forth in the consitution... just as if I was swinging an axe at your head I would be guilty of endangering your life.


If an employer endangers your life, they are violating your rights as set forth in the consitution which says you have a right to be secure in your LIFE, liberty, and property. And the federal government is charged by the consitution with the job of protecting those rights so worker's safety is a federal level issue.

I am not going to sit here and waste my time trying to teach you 6th grade civics. Go take a civics course.

The Feds power to regulate worker safety comes from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

PS - This is not "6th grade civics". It's considered a difficult part of Constitutional law.

You would have to clarify it or show a connection. If a federal law making RTW illegal survived judicial review and is found constitutionally consistent, then voila - no state could have a RTW law.

Commerce law is enacted based on constitutional authority to set limits on what is or is not allowed by businesses. The Federal government has the right to force closed-shops and not violate your individual freedom. You are free to not work at the closed-shop.

All laws have to be Constitutional. There's nothing unconstitutional about banning RTW laws, which is why Scott Lee won't post any explanation for why a RTW ban would be unconstitutional.

And that would be that Dean can't alter the constitution in one direction or another regarding RTW. The only way you can do that would to amend the constitution commerce clause.

Now, do you care to explain to us how Howard Dean, being in the position only to sign legislation or not, is going to see to it that RTW has a free hand in every state?

This ought to be good.

That's why federal minumums matter; there's not right to money, property, or a job guaranteed by the constitution. You can of course own property if you can pay for it. You can have freedom and liberty without any of the above and that's what the constitution guarantees. Worker safety does not fall under freedom as protected by the constitution.

when the issue is viewed from the perspective of how a given business is allowed to treat employees.

There is no constitutional guarante that you have a job or property. But there is one that says one individual can not recklessly endanger the life of another and that one indivudal can not own another because those things violate the rights of that individual.

And once the business does business over state lnes, they fall under interstate commerce regulations which are federal.


But the idea that federal law always trumps state law is flat wrong.

What part of "a state can adopt right to work laws" don't you get?

If there was a sweeping federal law against RTW, any state attempt would be naturally truncated by the constitution.

So what is your complaint, exactly, other than what you suppose Dean might or might not do?

They'll tell any lie to bash Dean.

Dean's gay rights record according to Vermont gays and lesbians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=641862

dsc (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-03-03 05:34 PM
Original message
Dean's gay rights record according to Vermont gays and lesbians


via their paper of record OITM. The following has been posted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but over a half dozen times. Posters who claim that Dean supporters never have posted his are telling you tales they like. They are not tell you facts. For the record, yet again, this is OITM about Dean.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm
start of quote

Dean, a Democrat, has served as Governor since 1991. Prior to succeeding Gov. Richard Snelling, who died unexpectedly in office, Dean served as Lieutenant Governor and represented Burlington in the Vermont House of Representatives. Dean, a physician, is married to Dr. Judith Steinberg, and has two children.

As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass, and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of the state’s new civil union law, national gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently dubbed him the “Dean of unions.”

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court’s Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?



end of quote

The story the Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never supported gay rights until he had to. The truth, as told by Vermont gays is that "Dean has historicly sided with the gay community".

The story that Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never passed or signed any pro gay legislation until civil unions in 2000. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that "Dean is credited with helping pass and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that Dean never acted administratively to benefit gays. The truth, as told by Vermont gays, is that Dean "appointed the first openly gay house member, permitted joint adoptions by gay couples, and extended benefits to domestic partners."

The story Dean bashers like to tell is that the Vermont Supreme Court decision forced Dean to sign civil unions legislation. The truth, as found in the Vermont constitution, is as follows:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

dtart of quote
72.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate. A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Prior to the submission of a proposed amendment to a vote in accordance with this section, public notice of the proposed amendment shall be given by proclamation of the Governor.

The General Assembly shall provide for the manner of voting on amendments proposed under this section, and shall enact legislation to carry the provisions of this section into effect.

end of quote

I will not break up the quote and explain the process step by step.

At the biennial session of the General Assembly of this State which convenes in A.D. 1975, and at the biennial session convening every fourth year thereafter, the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives with the amendment as proposed by the Senate.

explanation

The decision that legalized gay unions was handed down in 1999 which is 24 years after 1975. Thus the amending process could have begun immediately as per the above. An amendment could be proposed, not approved but proposed, by 2/3 of the Senate and a majority of the House. This is the only part of the process which required a supermajority of any kind and only to propose. This could easily have been framed, like Impeachment of Clinton had been in the House, as a vote to "let the people decide" the future of marriage in Vermont. I can't tell you if the 12 votes needed to block this existed in the Senate existed or didn't. But I can tell you all of the following which suggests to me they may well not have. Gay marriage was at 35% in the polls. Vermont was the third state to have a decision like this. The other two amended their constitutions. These, unlike the Dean bashers pleasing tales, are facts.

quote

A proposed amendment so adopted by the Senate and concurred in by the House of Representatives shall be referred to the next biennial session of the General Assembly; and if at that last session a majority of the members of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives concur in the proposed amendment, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit the proposal directly to the voters of the state. Any proposed amendment submitted to the voters of the state in accordance with this section which is approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon shall become part of the Constitution of this State.

Explanation

Had the amendment been proposed the legislature elected in 2000 would have been the one to adopt. Civil unions took a beating in that election. The House changed party (Dem to Rep) on that issue alone. The Senate lost some very prominate civil union supporters. There isn't a doubt in my mind that this amendment would have been submitted to a majority of Vermonters by that assembly. That leaves the people of Vermont. Poll, after poll, after poll, even those posted by Dean bashers show that civil unions never, as in not even one time, polled above 44%. The people would have approved the amendment in a landslide.

What I provided you, via Vermont's LGBT paper of record are facts. Not stories I like but honest facts. Ask yourself who knows what they are talking about here. LGBT Vermonters or straights who have never lived in or been in Vermont. I know who I believe. As a teen would say. Duh.

That citation says little about what Dean did to "fight" for CU's.

Because sangh0 can't find the term "fight" in yout citation, they dismiss it. This is a textbook tactic the rightwingers use. Dissemble with ridiculous word games to make their point.

Here is the operative part of the OITM statement regarding Dean's efforts:

"As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont’s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass, and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of the state’s new civil union law, national gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently dubbed him the “Dean of unions.”"

Any person with a brain can read that and glean that Dean was clearly a warrior for the rights of gays and lesbians to engage in civil unions.

I'm beginning to wonder who ADJHS really work for....they are exhibiting tactics I know only too well, from some very rightwing MB sites. Things that make you go HMMMMM....

Rediculous.

Howard Dean: A citizen's guide to the man who would be president?


I just read it. It is a great read. Not just for Dean supporters, it takes a truly and brutally honest look at Dean, his flaws and his strengths.

READ IT

Anyone with a link to the transcript? I need a good laugh :evilgrin:

Think you have to pay for it.

I was taking notes though.

And at one point Dean literally did say "Yes" and then "No"

Welcome to another day at "I'll put words into Dean's mouth on DU".

Do you guys ever get tired of getting smacked down with your own silly posts?

Dean said he'd work against federal right to work laws, because he can't stop states from passing the same. You misquoted him.

and then whineabout them.......I'm actually getting thirsty talking about whine-----mmmm, time for a nice glass of red whine ;-)

Keep in mind I'm defending Dean, and I'm a Clark supporter. I'm sick of the tit-for-tat crap back and forth between the Deanites and the Clarkophiles.

:sheepish grin:

and then called the issue a State Issue.

would be one example

I thought Dean was a straight-shooter?

when he said of Clark

"This is a guy I like a lot. I think he's certainly going to be on everybody's list if he's not the presidential nominee himself."

I mean seriously, since Dean couldn't possibly speak a word of truth he must have been lying here as well.

Do you think Dean gave a straight answer on right-to-work? He first said yes, then no, then claimed states rights. Given his union endorsements a request for a straight answer is reasonable.

I'm a Clark guy and I'm tired of all this Dean bashing from you.

Thank you :)

There are badly behaved people in all camps, I hope they can grow up before we implode. Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

And Dean made some serious flip flops & gaffes last night.

He may very well get the nomination.

And even if Clark wasn't in the race... there are other canidadates besides Dean who haven't switched so consitently on ISSUES.

By the way, you might note I haven't "attacked" Dean on his Sealed Records or NonService in VietNam. Rather, my point has been to recognize that Dean has a limited arsenal in regards to these topics. SEVERAL other candidates do not.

I didn't bitch and whine once when Clark made an offhand comment about supporting the IWR.
I got informed as to his past comments and presented arguments.

Dean's arsenal looks fine. If you'd like to spell out the serious issues, please spell them out - and lets get to work finding the truth.

How about an explanation for his "Yes, no, maybe, it's state's rights" answer?

Why, no. No he wasn't! Howard Dean didn't snooze through civics class.

Did you?

Federal law can override State law, end of discussion.

Even worse, it's Republican BS.

The Feds have overruled state laws scores of times.

Let me help you - I said:

"It goes like this. As president (chief executive) Dean can only work against federal antiunion legislation. He cannot interfere with State laws on such."

I defy you to locate a precedence in US history in which a president told a state which laws it could make, even given it was constitutionally protected to do so.

Civics 101. Now this time, no sleeping through it! Get to work!

if rights granted in the constitution to individuals are being violated by those state laws.


Jesus fucking christ do you know ANYTHING about constitutional law?

And it works with no constitutional amendment.

IOW the consitution grants all people right to be secure in their life liberty and property... and the federal minimum wage is based on the idea that slave labor or excessive unsafe working conditions are a violation of that individual level consitutional right, and the federal government is charged with protecting those rights over the states.


Also states are able to set their own minimum wage in their state higher than the federal minimums if they want.

SO once again... go take a basic civics course.

And no - liberty ensures freedom, not job safety.

The federal government is charged with defending and protecting those individual rights to life and liberty.

When an employer is paying slave wages or has unsafe conditions, they are violating their employees' right to life and liberty... hence the federal authority on those issues.


The fact you refuse to learn about consitutional law and civics is not my problem.

Fed minimum wage laws are based on the Commerce clause in the Constitution.

Nice try.

but the commerce claus only applies to commerce that is not limited to within a single state. As the chief justaice said of the rule...

''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.''


Yet even if a business is located within a state and is not doing anything outside of that state, they still must meet federal minimum wage rules. Because tehre is a liberty argument and an argument for the effect the difference would have on business outside of a given state.

Sicne the effects of not having to meet minimum wage would have effects outside of the state... the commerce clause can be used to support the minimum wage, although it is not the only argument used.

Get thee to a civics class, post haste!

I just wish you folks wouldn't resort to twisting the story to make your point - as the Republicans do. You can see it on Drudge right now "Dean will break up Fox" (like that would be a bad thing).

If you watched Dean on Hardball last night you would have seen he was trying to answer the question, and as usual Chris framed it in such a way that it was impossible to answer without some caveats - and kept interrupting Dean while he was trying to make his point. So, if you want to side with Matthews and the RNC, go ahead and frame it however you wish. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you might consider posting the transcript.

Gephardt apparently is willing to go to bat on the issue if he's elected President.

and now you complain about this? Boy, the long knives have been sharpened, haven't they? Y'know, the more you attack Dean, the more you make it legitimate that he's the frontrunner. Why don't you actually like, try to post Clark posts instead if you think Clark should be the frontrunner?

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

a lot of the people in my mother's generation still calls Russia the Soviet Union. I really don't see the big deal with that.

A worthwhile discussion given Dean's union endorsements and last night's Hardball appearance.

that SEIU and AFSME weren't briefed on *exactly* what Dean's position is before they endorsed?

His labor policies are more clearly defined here

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_labor

How long do you think 'right to work' will fly when workers in states without those laws start prospering from fair labor practices?

posted by partyline

I'm talking about discrepancies like the "Soviet Union" remark, and then you didn't directly answer my post about that, only more spin....

How long do you think 'right to work' will fly when workers in states without those laws start prospering from fair labor practices?

In states with right-to-work laws, unions have no power (see Texas and most of the south), and workers rights mean zilch. As Dean said, he's a capatilist, and capitalists don't believe in artificial monopolies...

You do realize that, as president, thats ALL he could do. He cannot get involved in each state and see that they do not have right to work laws. That's not the way the system is set up.

Are you suggesting Dean act in a counterconstitutional way, as president?

*nm*

why would the facts and truths which refute them change?

Now go take a civics course.

I wouldn't be wagging your finger at the civics knowledge of others.

someone else did.... :)

because Dean was on "Hardball" last night and they are looking for something to hack away at.

I found this to be the worst part of Hardball. Tweetie was able to get Dean's pro-Union side to go up against his "state's rights" streak. Right to work = right to get shafted. Dean should've sounded stronger on this.

however, Dean would not have won those endorsements if he wasn't going to go to bat for them. These folks aren't stupid.

just don't assume anyone else agrees.

friend

and I appreciate Dean's objective view of the issue. I've seen the good and the bad of unions in NC.

we need a shrill extremist ideologue who will make a lot of noise but never get anything done.


/sarcasm


It sickens me to see these bashers take a comment from Dean objectively commenting on the pros/cons of both sides of an issue, being spun as Dean suddenly not supporting unions.

But I guess these bashers really have nothing else.

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

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

that SEIU and AFSME weren't breifed on *exactly* what Dean's position is before they endorsed?

His labor policies are more clearly defined here

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_labor

How long do you think 'right to work' will fly when workers in states without those laws start prospering from fair labor practices?

What RTW means:

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially
support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to
Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.

These laws already exist. Libertarians are against them as are Conservatives. The only way lift these laws is to REVOKE them. And many states are so heavily Republican that they aren't likely to wake up any time soon.

If Mississipi's GOP manages to keep its workers behind RTW according to Dean that's just too bad for the Unions... he'll only go as far as signing legislation if it reaches his desk.

*nm*

That is my point. The states should be forced by the people to revoke them. That's more likely with the labor policies Dean offers. Did you read the link?

nothing that someone could look at objectivly.


Why are Dean bashers so afraid of quotes and links and context?


Could it be that the objective facts and context prove the bashers' claims are completly full of shit?

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

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

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

And the transcript is now online.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

.

Dean will leave all sorts of people hanging.

A vote for Dean is a vote for the status quo and business as usual corporate whoring. Fuck the working people.

What a charlatan.

It's all in there:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask it-let me ask it totally open. Do you think a person has a right to work somewhere if they don’t want to join a union?
DEAN: I do. No, wait a minute. I don’t.

The Dean '04 Campaign in a nutshell! :thumbsup:

"I do. No, wait a minute. I don't"

Straight talk?

MATTHEWS: Do you protect-do you protect the right of the person to go work somewhere and not have to join a union? Do you accept the right of right-to-work states to say you don’t have to join a union.
Dick Gephardt sat here and came out and said he was going to say no more right to work and we get rid of 14B, get rid of Taft-Hartley, repeal that, and force people to have to join unions, where they’re organized.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Would you go along with that? Would you buckle to the unions on that?
DEAN: Would I buckle to the unions?
MATTHEWS: Yes, because the unions want you to do it.
DEAN: This isn’t a values-loaded question, by any chance, is it?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask it-let me ask it totally open. Do you think a person has a right to work somewhere if they don’t want to join a union?
DEAN: I do.
No, wait a minute. I don’t.
(LAUGHTER)



Dean was joking... and that was very clear, so clear they added the tag to show the crowd laughing with him. Yet the bashers edit that out.

When Clark was interviewed on Crossfire, for instance, he was asked about his position on abortion. Wes responded, "pro-life, uh, I mean pro-choice, that is, I support reproductive rights."

You don't see the Dean people going bezerk over trivial stuff like this.

Chill out.

Dean's against right-to-work but says he won't push the issue and that it's states rights. There's not a whole lot of conviction in his statements. Reading the transcript hasn't changed my view that he's all over the map.


MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask it-let me ask it totally open. Do you think a person has a right to work somewhere if they don’t want to join a union?
DEAN: I do. No, wait a minute. I don’t.

MATTHEWS: Why not? What’s wrong with an open shop where you can...
DEAN: I’ll tell you what’s the matter with it. Here is the problem with open-and, look, there’s obviously arguments to be made on...

MATTHEWS: A lot of states have right-to-work laws. You would get rid of them?
DEAN: I don’t like-well, I very much believe that states ought to have the right to recognize-to organize their own laws. So I’m not likely as president to-even though I don’t like right-to-work laws, I’m unlikely to order states to change them.

...

DEAN: Let me tell you what-I actually believe in card check. I believe you shouldn’t have to have an election, that people who want to join a union should just be able to sign a card and join it. Let me tell you where I am on...

MATTHEWS: You are against-you do not believe in repealing 14B? You’re not going to accept the challenge from Gephardt to do that?
DEAN: If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I’d sign it in an instant. I’m just not going to push it hard...

MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: Because I do believe states have to have make their own judgments of that.

MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: I hate right-to-work laws. And let me tell you why it’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should you should be able to go to work for that company, get the same benefits as everybody else who paid their union dues and you paid nothing? That’s why I’m against right-to-work laws.

Very strategical.

only more destructive

Don't fool yourself into thinking it is any higher minded than that.

Again, what's the big deal about correcting yourself? This morning I caught myself writing Dean, when I meant Clark but I was thinking about Dean. Besides that is not the extent of the commentary. that he could get anything more than a soundbite or two in is quite an accomplishment considering the commercial interruptions took more time up than everything else combined.

Glad everyone is enjoying this "eat our own." I am sure Karl Rove is getting a good laugh out of it. The unions will be in the top five of Bush's destruction targets in a second term. Support your candidate, but what is with this hatred of fellow Dems, which should be directed at the current (and, if they have their way, the permanent) administration?

There are differences between the candidates... their records, rhetoric and policies.

Surely not Clark who is ready to ship your job offshore and what is Clark's position on labor again? That's right, what benefits management and labor as a big deregulated happy family. And you know who get's the shaft on that one? Not the one with the military connections setting up lists for airline scurity.

I was with you pro-Dean people on this thread, thinking okay -- so they see what it is like to be subjected to nonsense threads and unfounded slaps. And then, there you go, full of nonsense, making unfounded slaps at another candidate.

This is sad sad sad.

but, it's hardly unfounded:

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

<snip>

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7380-2003Sep26?language=printer

The hatred here for fellow Dems, given what we are facing, is astounding, and indefensible. That's why I said, support your candidate, but the opposition in the primaries are not Satanic beings. Save that for the One who will end this nation as we know it in a second term (and no, that is not Dean, Kerry or Gephardt. Guess again).

They just won't admit it yet. Confession is good for the soul.

We chose not to do gay marriage in our state. California chose to do domestic partnerships. As president of the United States, if a state chooses to do gay marriage, that is their business. That is not the federal government’s business. Equality under the law is what’s important. How states get to that is their business, not the federal government’s business. What I have said...

Is everything a "State's issue" with this guy? Isn't that a Republican argument?

Separate but equal doesn't work.

but the Deanies want to pick and choose the parts they like and ignore the rest.

We're not talking seperate but equal at all... we're talking about a state having the right to set their own employment laws regarding unions forcing people to join their membership.

If the state laws violate civil rights, THEN the federal government does have authority to jump in as in cases of discrimination. However saying that a union can not force you to join, is not violating anybody's civil rights, so it is not the same situation.

So like it or not, the federal government doesn't really have authority to overrule those states that have passed these right to work laws. Dean's right... as much as he might dislike these laws, it is a state issue and you get into a real messy area.

Yes the federal government has the authority to enforce minimum standards on all sorts of issues not pertaining to civil rights, including but not exclusive to corporate law, media-fairness requirements, workers-rights, minimum wage and marriage/civil-unions.

"Yes the federal government has the authority to enforce minimum standards on all sorts of issues not pertaining to civil rights, including but not exclusive to corporate law,"

Corporations, for the most part, do not opperate solely within one state. As soon as a business crosses state lines it becomse an interstate trade issue which is under federal authority.

"media-fairness requirements,"

Media crosses state lines and is therefore under federal authority.


"workers-rights,"

Worker's rights is a liberty issue, the protetion of individual liberty is also a federal authority as set forth in the consitution.

" minimum wage"

Also a liberty argument.

"marriage/civil-unions."

Marriage is a state contract... not a federal one.

The Feds power (not right) to regulate business comes from the Commerce clause.

Media crosses state lines and is therefore under federal authority.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

"Corporations, for the most part, do not opperate solely within one state. As soon as a business crosses state lines it becomse an interstate trade issue which is under federal authority."

You delete that and then point out the commerce clause as if I hadn't just pointed that out.

*nm*

He would be sworn to uphold it.

Your understanding of the Constitution is abysmal, I might add.

Do you have any argument at all why employment laws are not state level issues, provided no civil rights are violated such as in discrimination or child labor etc?

Why should the federal government not set a baseline by which states should adhere to? I thought Dean's platform was for workers rights and liveable wages. Pushing states rights won't accomplish anything.

FOr the most part minimum wage IS set state by state... that's why it is higher in some states than others. The baseline minimum wage set by the federal government is set under a "liberty" argument, much like civil rights.

Marriage tax credits are credits on FEDERAL taxes, and as such are not states rights issues. Although a state can, and some do, have state level tax credits on STATE taxes for marriage.


Do youself a favor and learn what the hell you're talking about.

If elected, Dean can set these minimums across the board including increasing the minimum wage to what he calls a liveable wage. States can add above and beyond if they wish but they can't go below. Hence states rights cannot trump federal law by lowering standards.

do you even understand what a liberty argument is?


Federal laws only trump state laws on issues where the federal government is specificaly charged with authority over the states by the consitution. In the case of wage it is a protection of liberty argument.

It might be a liberty argument to you but not under constitutional law. If the Republicans were in complete control they would abolish the minimum wage and OSHA. That would be legal under the constitution, a document meant to limit the control of the federal government. Democrats have spent years enacting federal laws that allow for better treatment of all Americans, not just in civil rights but social justice.

The Feds power to regulate business comes from the Commerce clause, and it's not about the protection of liberty

Which is why Dean was accurate in his opinion on what he could and might do with RTW.

I'm so happy that Dr. Dean knows more about the constitution and our infrastrucrure of governance than his detractors.

That's the whole point of this argument - Federal law trumps states rights. You were arguing otherwise here and above.

Calm down.....breathe.....now try to figure out where you spun your way into my argument.

:eyes:

First I love how Dean flat out called Matthews on his loaded question.



MATTHEWS: Do you protect-do you protect the right of the person to go work somewhere and not have to join a union? Do you accept the right of right-to-work states to say you don’t have to join a union.
Dick Gephardt sat here and came out and said he was going to say no more right to work and we get rid of 14B, get rid of Taft-Hartley, repeal that, and force people to have to join unions, where they’re organized.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Would you go along with that? Would you buckle to the unions on that?
DEAN: Would I buckle to the unions?
MATTHEWS: Yes, because the unions want you to do it.
DEAN: This isn’t a values-loaded question, by any chance, is it?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask it-let me ask it totally open. Do you think a person has a right to work somewhere if they don’t want to join a union?
DEAN: I do.
No, wait a minute. I don’t.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Why not? What’s wrong with an open shop where you can...
DEAN: I’ll tell you what’s the matter with it. Here is the problem with open-and, look, there’s obviously arguments to be made on...




Notice that every time Dean starts to give an answer, Matthews cuts him off or tries to talk over him or even answer for him.


MATTHEWS: A lot of states have right-to-work laws. You would get rid of them?
DEAN: I don’t like-well, I very much believe that states ought to have the right to recognize-to organize their own laws. So I’m not likely as president to-even though I don’t like right-to-work laws, I’m unlikely to order states to change them.
MATTHEWS: So you wouldn’t repeal 14B?
DEAN: No, I would not, but...
MATTHEWS: So you are different than Gephardt. He is with the unions.
You are not.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I’m serious.
DEAN: All right...
MATTHEWS: I hate it. It’s called HARDBALL. This isn’t “Success” magazine, OK?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: Let me tell you what-I actually believe in card check. I believe you shouldn’t have to have an election, that people who want to join a union should just be able to sign a card and join it. Let me tell you where I am on...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You are against-you do not believe in repealing 14B?
You’re not going to accept the challenge from Gephardt to do that?
DEAN: If I got a bill on my desk that repealed 14B, I’d sign it in an instant. I’m just not going to push it hard...
MATTHEWS: OK.

Dean flat out says he'd sign legislation in an instant if it was put on is desk. Something else the spiners ignore. Then Dean flat out says he HATES right-to-work laws, but that there are other issues to consider.


DEAN: Because I do believe states have to have make their own judgments of that.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: I hate right-to-work laws.
And let me tell you why it’s OK to be forced to join a union. The union is out there negotiating for your wage increases. Why should you get a free ride? Why should you should be able to go to work for that company, get the same benefits as everybody else who paid their union dues and you paid nothing? That’s why I’m against right-to-work laws.
MATTHEWS: OK.
DEAN: But I do believe it’s important for states to be able to make their own laws.
MATTHEWS: You understand why a libertarian would disagree with you, right? A libertarian would think they had a right, he or she, to work where they can do the job.
DEAN: Yes, but why should they-but why should they get the benefits of everybody else who is paying dues and get a free ride?
MATTHEWS: Because it’s a free country.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)

So not only did Dean express clear support for the unions' anti-right to work laws position, but he also called Matthews on what was clearly an attempt to bait Dean out and claim he's against unions.

Then we see Dean bashers catch that pass from Matthews and try to run with it here on DU... as if the poeple here would be too stupid to read forthemselves and see the truth.

Once again we see how little the bashers spin has to do with fact and reality. This is why they never provide quotes and links when bashing Dean.

Some state are right-to-work, some aren't. If the people of a state don't want right to work law, they should elect state legislators that oppose right-to-work.

Conveniently overlooked is the fact that Dean said he supports check-off uninion enrollment. That's a HUGE issue for unions and one that would only be overlooked if one where more interested in advancing an agenda than honestly discussing the issue.

I recall Gep being very reluctant to take this position, and I've never heard Gep bring it up on his own.

I'm not sure how this change would be brought about, but I'd be surprised if any president could make the change by fiat. So I see this as a non-issue.

because of his understanding and support of their issues. They were apparently very deliberate, listened to the various candidates, polled their rank-and-file, and came up for Dean.

He's very strong on labor issues, and supports what is most important to them.

But I did get a laugh out of his "I do. No wait a minute, I don't." answer. Not sure if he was trying to make a joke or if Matthews rapid-fire delivery just caught him off guard. It was funny.

Listening to Tweety now, you'd think Gep was running on right-to-work, but going back to the Gephardt transcript it's clear that this is just a Tweety obsession:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/986260.asp?0cb=-c1i105844

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, you mentioned before we started, before we went to the break about your desire for a much higher minimum wage. Do you think the unions in this country have too much power, labor unions?
GEPHARDT: I think labor unions are-have been in the decline for the last 15 or 20 years, and I think the level playing field that used to be there is no longer there. It’s very hard to win an election to be in the labor union, it’s very hard to get a contract even after employees decide they want to have a labor union. So we need to change some of the laws so we have a level playing field.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about some of the laws. You think a person should be forced-I’m going to ask the audience here right after I’m done with asking you the question-you think a person who goes to work for a factory or a company in any regard should have to join the union?
GEPHARDT: If the vote of the other workers is to have a union, then everybody ought to comply with the democratic decision.
MATTHEWS: You mean, you should be forced to join a union?
GEPHARDT: What you’re talking about is right to work.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Should we get rid of right-to-work laws?
GEPHARDT: And that’s the way they’ve broken unions and (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MATTHEWS: Would you like to get rid of the right-to-work laws in all the states that allow a person to go to work in a company without joining a union? Would you like to get rid of those laws?
GEPHARDT: I’m against right to work. It’s right to work for less.
MATTHEWS: So you-do you believe you should have to join a union to get a job?
GEPHARDT: If the people in that workplace have decided to have a union...
MATTHEWS: But not you.
GEPHARDT: Well, you’re part of a group, you’re part of a team.
MATTHEWS: You mean if I go to work-if I want to go to work for U.S. Steel and I don’t want to join the union, you say I have to?
GEPHARDT: If the group has decided to have a union...
MATTHEWS: The group is there before you.
GEPHARDT: That’s OK. If you want to be on that team, if you want that job, you’ve got to be in the union. What’s wrong with that? Let me tell you something, Chris...
MATTHEWS: Well, I want to ask everybody in this room. Does everybody in this room believe that you should have to join a union to get a job?
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: How many think-how many believe it should be up to each worker if he goes or she goes to get a job somewhere, whether they join the union or not? It should be individual freedom. How many believe in that?
(APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: So you’re comfortable advocating repeal of 14-B?
GEPHARDT: The reason...
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. This is a big question. I’m serious. 14-B of the right-to-work provision of the Taft-Hartley Act of ’47. Would you like to get rid of it?
GEPHARDT: If we can do it, fine. If not, it’s a state by state...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Would you like to do it as president? Would you sign a repeal?
GEPHARDT: It would be good.
MATTHEWS: Would you sign it?
GEPHARDT: You should be able-you should be able to elect to have a union, and if the group decides to have a union, you ought to have to join in.
MATTHEWS: In other words, you would pass-I want to ask you just the question, Congressman...
GEPHARDT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) question.
MATTHEWS: Would you sign a repeal-would you sign a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act that required to get rid of right-to-work laws all over the south so that people would be forced to join a union? Would you support-would you sign to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act?
GEPHARDT: But you’re not stating it correctly.
MATTHEWS: Well, state it your way.
GEPHARDT: If people have decided to join a union, then to get a job in that workplace you should have to join the union. Let me tell you, the reason...
MATTHEWS: Under current U.S. law-just explain to everybody here-a lot of states are allowed to opt for right-to-work so that you don’t have to join a union. You say as president of the United States, you would sign legislation, get rid of-to repeal 14-B to make it possible for close shops?
GEPHARDT: If I could pass it in the Congress, I’d do that.
MATTHEWS: You’d sign it? You’d sign it?
GEPHARDT: I’d sign it. Now, let me go further. The reason we have a middle class in this country is because of unions, because we have allowed unions and we’ve allowed people to decide to be in unions in a fair election, and what’s happened in the past years is we’ve stacked the deck against unions’ ability to win elections and to be able to get contracts as unions.
My dad was a teamster. It was the best job he ever had. He lost it after 10 years and he had to do other things in which he did not make as much money. And he used to tell me, we have food on the table because I’m able to get fair compensation for my hard work, because I’m in a collective bargaining unit called...
MATTHEWS: But how can you carry states like Texas and Georgia, right-to-work states, with a position that you want to get rid of right-to-work laws? Those people like those laws.
GEPHARDT: Chris, as it stands now, they have got to do it state by state. There’s a whole organization in the country called Right to Work.
MATTHEWS: I know.
GEPHARDT: And they go out to states to try to pass right-to-work laws.
MATTHEWS: But you’re going in the other direction.
GEPHARDT: Well, we’ve been losing lately. Oklahoma went to right to work.
MATTHEWS: But if you win, forget right to work in the south?
GEPHARDT: New Hampshire-New Hampshire, which is close to here, refused right to work. And I’m proud that New Hampshire did that.
MATTHEWS: How are you going to carry the red parts of the states with that philosophy? How are you going to carry Texas, South Carolina? How are you going to carry those right to work states with a position...
GEPHARDT: Chris...
MATTHEWS: ... you want to get rid of right to work laws and allow unions to force people to join the unions?
GEPHARDT: We have got to appeal to workers in this country. There are a lot of people that want the chance to join a union.
MATTHEWS: Majority? In (ph) the states?
GEPHARDT: We have got to have a president that stands for workers again.
MATTHEWS: Well, I think we’re going to find out what the majority of (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
GEPHARDT: We’ve had a president ...
MATTHEWS: Because you’ve just joined this issue.
GEPHARDT: We’ve had a president who has been there for big business.
We need a president who will be there for workers. Wouldn’t that be...
(APPLAUSE)