Why does everyone accuse the White House of bashing Unions?

From what I understand, the White House is simply saying that the Unions made a poor decision in how to best invest their member's money in achieving their political goals. That doesn't mean don't strongly agree with their political goals.

In fact, many rational observers would say that a race that both Democratic candidates will lose by 20+ points is not the best place to put your resources. In other words, put money in places where the chance of a pro-Union Democrat winning is higher than 0% (such as Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, etc.)

But even if you disagree with this, isn't there a huge difference between disagreeing with the methods to achieve certain goals and actually disagreeing with those goals? I have not seen any evidence that Obama (and most of his administration) is disagreeing with their political goals.

:rofl:

Sums it up right there.

Didn't you get this week's New Rules?
:rofl:

on the bluedogs. I wouldn't either.

Yet I consistently see people on DU accusing the WH of bashing unions, implying that they are somehow against Union policy goals.

Card check, public option, DADT still hanging, still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the WH is against reforming derivatives...Not to mention calling progressives *ucking retards.

Despite what you might want, the White House is not a dictator, and it cannot pass whatever it wants to by fiat.

Card check probably has 50-55 votes in the Senate (or 83%+ of the Democratic Senate caucus). This isn't enough to actually pass it.

The public option had 56 votes in the Senate for sure (and at least 2 of the no-votes could probably have been flipped, with the other 2 not movable). That's 93% of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, but not enough to actually pass it.

We actually got the votes for DADT repeal (which will take effect next year).

The WH is for very intensive derivaive reform. The only thing it disagrees with is forcing swaps desks to go from regulated banks to completely unregulated hedge funds. There are progressive arguments for and against this. I don't think this makes the WH "anti-union."

Iraq and Afghanistan are an exception here (in that the WH does want to continue these wars), but Obama campaigned vigorously on not immediately withdrawing from either (and in the case of Afghanistan, he campaigned vigorously on escalating). Yet Union members still voted for him en masse. So it is hard to see how this makes the WH "anti-union."

Rahm called certain outside groups trying to air ads against certain Democrats *ucking retards because he didn't agree with their methods for achieving their goals (not the goals itself). While he certainly should have said that, it has nothing to do with whether or not the WH actually is against Union-backed policies.

They compromise the good right out of bills and please don't give me that nonsense about giving to get. The only ones getting full WH compliance and support are the blue dogs. When the WH doesn't really want something they muddle their message and then pull back which is what happened with the public option. The WH has a lot of muscle it can use when it wants to but so far the DLC corporatist views are the ones that hold sway. Blanche Lincoln was targeted because she is the epitome of DLC ideology. She put her name on Lisa Murkowshi's bill, and yet this is the person the WH and Clinton chose to support and they don't seem to care that she turned right around and slapped them in the face, but my God when progressives don't toe the line senior WH cowards offer anonymous criticism. As far as I'm concerned we have a 'democratic' party filled with corporate toadies who sell us down the river with each new bill.

Clinton - Implemented DADT. He's not bashed.

Obama - Too slow in undoing what Clinton did. He is bashed.

Clinton - Failed all together to get health care reform passed

Obama - The most major HCR bill in history is passed and he's bashed because it doesn't have a public option, or single payer

And adding to what you said... the troops in Iraq have dramatically decreased and for a long time there have been major changes in preparation for the withdraw (I know because I was there last year).

Afghanistan - Exactly what you said PLUS he has implemented plans for withdraw down the road... something he did NOT even campaign on.

Also, small correction. Rahm did not... NOT call them fucking retards. He said what they DID was "fucking retarded." Big difference.

I fully except fair and well reasoned, constructive criticism. But the childish bashers? They're phonies.

I bash Clinton for all those things and more- like NAFTA, welfare reform. As far as HCR bill- it is a mandate to buy a service from private organization with very little regulation of said organization. The only people who will benefit from it are the insurance companies.

Clinton signed that too and put the final nail in the coffin of New Deal Progressivism. Obama was handed a big mess by his predecessors. He does however seem to care more about what big business wants and what his conservadems think than he does about what the progressive base and traditional Democratic backers, the Unions need.

the more I think that the scene in DC is just bread and circuses to amuse the masses. Democrats couldn't stop legislation for 6 years because they were the poor, little minority party. Now they cannot pass any meaningful legislation because the minority party won't let them (even though the democrats enjoy a larger majority than the pubs did). It is all a sideshow- when the cameras are on, they are fierce political opponents. When the cameras turn off, they go off to dinner parties with each other and laugh at our stupid asses.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6312

Chuck Schumer: Lincoln fighting "Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other."

With two fists pumping in the air.

Which union policy issues is the Obama administration fighting against?

to preserve their healthcare benefits that the Prez wanted to tax, calling them Cadillac Plans.

if you get my drift

And you know very little about how the Democratic party has screwed unions over in the past 30 years, and why they don't deserve union votes as a matter of course.

Of course the likes of Bill Clinton expects labor to bend over, kiss his ass, and call it ice fucking cream.

stated the obvious.

that came out of the WH once Lincoln had won was a real
political goof up. It was reported by credible reporters
that the motive and intention was not pretty.

The Smart thing would have been for the WH to stay
out of the fray and simply said--We are pleased with
the election results and will look forward to continuing
to work with B. Lincoln--blah blah blah and left it
there.

Someone had to snipe at the Unions and there is no other
way to describe it. The Net Roots had spent millions
there and are happy with the results. As usual they
come across as only being concerned with the money. It
is the Union's money and 2 million of that was from MoveOn.
It is too bad they are not that concerned with our issues.-

Why even bother with lost causes? It's best not to rock the boat. It might even make someone mad.

Oh, look! A Puppy!

If Obama wants any of his agenda to be passed, he needs to be cutting deals with senators. Frequently, those deals are of the form of "You vote for the health care bill, and I'll help you get reelected."

That explains why Obama was campaigning for characters like Lincoln and Specter. At least a couple times, he was able to coax votes out of them for things like the the stimulus bill, or the health care bill, and the price for those votes was support for their reelection.

At the same time, no, I don't think the unions wasted their money. I gave money to Bill Halter myself. In fact, we came so close that Lincoln only survived her primary by the skin of her teeth. Hopefully, Lincoln understands that a lot of her base is pissed off, and she needs to do something about that if she wants to continue to be senator...

And the filing deadline for Republican primary already passed.

The AR-Sen election is a lost cause. We literally have a better chance of winning the Georgia Senate race than we do the Arkansas Senate race.

Especially when the people who you defeat are not your enemies.

Otherwise, I can't think of a thing.

I see lots of evidence that the WH disagrees with the method the Unions use to try to achieve their goals. (I would agree with the WH in certain instances.)

But I see no evidence that the WH actually disagrees with most of Unions' policy goals.

Would you care to actually produce evidence?

and there's plenty of instances of that, notably when the President publicly humiliated a schoolful of teachers for "not improving" when the school's last evaluation by the state said in plain English that the school had improved.

Expect a shit-fit. Don't take it seriously, facts infuriate people lately for some reason.

Heaven forbid BzaDem not be some foaming at the mouth Obama basher, or better yet... (sigh!) disagree with you.

And it's quite simple. The Obama administration strongly disagreed with their means to achieve their ultimate goal. To say that makes Obama "anti-union" is absurd.

All righty then!

a Senator who came right out and said that she wouldn't support the Employee Free Choice Act?

Blanche Lincoln's words:



Granted, Halter never stated unequivocal support for the EFCA, but I think it's safe to assume that he would if union money had helped him win the primary.

because of EFCE but the interests of the White House, even a labor friendly one, do differ. They support those who support them on key legislation like the Recovery Act and HCR - both of which Lincoln did support. EFCE has yet to come up for a vote.

Time for a programming upgrade.