What does ((())) mean? I’ve only ever seen that to mean a hug (usually with a person’s name inside), but here it appears to mean something more sinister.
I believe certain neo-Nazi scum use the triple parentheses around a person’s name to indicate that the person is Jewish.
In the name of healing the country, Susan Collins for President. Competent, extremely ethical and honest. Republican. Pro-choice. Fiscally moderate. Definitely not a puppet of any political faction including her own party. I’m not in love with all her positions on all issues but the country would be in good hands.
I could also go for a Trumka/Brown ticket. I might actually prefer it. I have a theory that a person with executive experience does better than a member of Congress at the top of a presidential ticket.
I still love the idea of a Trumka/Duckworth ticket though. It’s got it all: Organized labor, a mine worker, a white guy with roots in a battleground state, an executive, a fiery speaker who could go toe-to-toe with the Candied Yam, an outsider; partner that with a minority woman, a Midwesterner, a disabled vet, someone who has spent her entire professional career fighting for the military and vets, someone with state, executive branch and Congressional experience, a moderate Democrat. I dare labor not to turn out for that ticket. I dare Republicans to besmirch Tammy Duckworth’s record with the military. It should be acceptable for progressives, it should be acceptable for moderates, it should be acceptable for women, it should be acceptable for minorities, it should be acceptable for vets, it should be acceptable for labor and high-school-educated blue-collar rustbelters. It should be inspirational in a way that the 2016 Dem ticket wasn’t.
His name sounds too much like Trump. Jokes and memes and references to the similarity of the name would obscure the actual issues behind the candidacy, and he’d fail.
A bit too much like stealing.
If we knew more about their policies and the skeletons in their closets, this sounds good.
-
Labor leaders are not an especially popular group in this country, which sucks but is the reality. There would be no precedent for someone going directly from heading a union to the White House; I can’t think offhand of any who have even been elected Governor or Senator.
-
glancing at Trumka’s Wikipedia page, he was implicated in a money laundering scheme in 1996 to allow the Teamsters to use general union funds to promote the re-election of their incumbent President. He pled the Fifth Amendment, and nobody was ever convicted. Still not a good look.
There wasn’t much of a precedent for a crooked real estate tycoon who moonlighted as a reality TV star to go directly to the WH either. And more Americans have a positive view of labor than they have in years– 60% favorable, with 75% of millenials having a favorable view, and even 53% of 50+ viewing labor favorably. Hell, even 44% of Republicans view organized labor favorably these days.
I’ll give you that it would be a negative against him in the campaign, but with as much federal oversight that the IBT had in the 80s & 90s, if he was really guilty of something, there’s no way he’d still be standing in the labor movement, let alone at the top of it. I do concede that that’s a grey mark. But it’s hard to find *anyone *in any sort of power position these days that doesn’t at least have a *whiff *of stink in their past, in some capacity.
My 30-second case for Trumka: Membership of the AFL-CIO is greater than all but 6 U.S. states, and he is charged with wrangling the massive egos of 55 International Union presidents-- no small feat, and ego wrasslin’ is a skill that would prove useful in the Oval Office. He also loosely oversees dozens (hundreds?) of state federations and central labor councils, which means handling the egos and agendas of hundreds more local leaders. He’s in charge of a fairly substantial annual budget (granted, it’s still a fraction of even the smallest state budget) and staff; but as an executive, he’s familiar with handling a budget, staff, departments, etc. For years, Democrats have been faulted with focusing too much on helping the poor and social fights at the expense of the working and middle classes-- Trumka is ALL about the middle and working classes, his argument for social justice is even economic-based. He’s a progressive on immigration, LGBTQ and minimum wage issues. His environmental bona fides are a bit suspect, however; he’s been attempting to balance the needs of the trades with the will of the service union memberships, and his overall message has gotten pretty muddy in the process. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s more green than he’s letting on; he just needs to keep 1.5 million of his members in the trades from revolting.
A big, burly white dude with a Ron Swanson mustache from Pennsylvania that came out of the Mine Workers? A dynamic public speaker who could excite youth and labor alike? Now, sure, there’d need to be vetting to make sure there isn’t anything “there” in regard to the Teamster thing from the 90s, and to make sure he isn’t wagging his weenie around at women in the union halls, but, IMO, the dude brings a lot to the table.
Add a moderate Midwestern Dem like Tammy Duckworth, and you’re capturing a lot of potential voters there as well-- college educated, suburban, women, moderates, PoC. Plus she’s a disabled vet who lives and breathes veteran care? Again, if everything in her background comes up kosher, sign me up!
Looks like he’s also got a pretty good record on race; gave a well received speech in 2008 repudiating racist attacks on Obama, and was a leader in the anti-apartheid support campaign. So, maybe… Is there any indication he’s considering running? I still would prefer someone with actual experience in high-level Federal positions, but your elevator pitch is intriguing.
Duckworth isn’t actually even my favorite Midwestern Senator named Tammy, but I agree that she has a high upside.
Nope. Not a one. 
But a boy can dream.
Happy Lendervedder, I appreciate your sanguine take on Mr. Trumka’s chances, and I agree he has some positives in terms of appealing to voters in the great Midwest. But I disagree he is a good choice for President.
Your list of is good qualities completely overlooks the fact that Trumka has zero experience in the critical area of foreign policy. Candidates such as Gore, Kerry and Clinton were all excellent precisely because they had accrued years of experience not just in national policy, but global policy as well. Our national well being is grounded in our place on the national stage, whether people wish to understand and accept this or not.
Unfortunately, in this country we no longer value intelligence and experience over flash and a race to the bottom, so truly qualified individuals can look forward only to vilification based on distortion of their records and mindless jeering at the exact qualities that make them terrific choices to lead this country. A significant number of our citizenry prefers to make fun of how they talk, how they look or what they wear. If you’ve been in public service for 20 or 30 years, there are going to be situations that are ripe for exploitation by an opposition with the scruples of an embezzler willing to demonize you into a loss at any cost. And that’s exactly what they do: Embezzle the public trust from our rule of law, our institutions and our national character and morality.
Someone experienced at the top, please. Sherrod Brown is an excellent pick. I would also consider Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Adam Schiff, Richard Blumenthal or any other number of experienced Democratic Congress persons for the job. All properly vetted, of course.
Veep is a good position for up-and-comers who need to cut their teeth in international public service. Let them learn before they lead, but let them at least be in the game awhile. Good potentials: Kamala Harris, Eric Swalwell, Tammy Duckworth and Amy Klobuchar are all good choices.
There’s a place for a Trumka in government, for sure. But let him start a little further down the ladder and work his way up.
I don’t think Trumka’s name would be too much of a handicap. After all, I thought that Obama’s name being so similar to Osama would hurt him, and, well, it probably did, but he got past that anyway. And I don’t think that liberals would be as bothered by a name as conservatives would.
I can think of one labor leader who went from there to governor, then President. And the union he was the leader of was in a very liberal profession, too.
How Liberal was that Union then? The Union cooperated with McCarthy’s Witchhunt?
Oooh, good point.
Sherrod Brown has a history of domestic abuse, or at least so his ex-wife claimed in a sworn affadavit at the time. Yeah, it was thirty years ago, and the ex-wife is now in his corner politically, but I don’t think he’s a good fit for the current climate. Too bad…until I found out about this just today, I thought he was a plausible candidate.
Yeah, it was 30 years ago. I still think he’s a potential. It’s hard to say how all this plays out in the next couple of years when it becomes critical to pick someone, but as time goes on, I think we’ll all have to accept that good people may have episodes of not-being-good in their pasts. If that’s a full bar to public service, our choices will be very limited indeed.
Anyway, should Sherrod Brown be held to a higher standard than the current occupant of the Oval Office? (New Yorker) Or is it just ok if a Republican does it? Sure seems like that.
It seems that public opinion is moving fairly rapidly with regard to this particular sort of not-good behavior. I find it hard to believe we can’t find any candidates at all who don’t have records of sexual abuse or violence against women; if nothing else, we have plenty of good potential female candidates.
I assume that last paragraph isn’t directed at me personally, since I am pretty well on record as not thinking anything Republicans do is OK. But yes, I certainly do feel that voters in general should be holding politicians to higher standards than they did at the last election, and am pleased with the indications that they are starting to do so.
True, but honestly, how many people have come into that job recently with foreign policy experience? The people you mentioned all lost. I think it’s more important to surround oneself with qualified people, especially in the areas the president might be lacking, and have wisdom enough to lean on your experts for guidance. People who have run large organizations (government bodies, non-profits, etc) do this all the time-- Trumka included.
Experienced how, though? Trumka, any way you look at it, is a very good politician, to rise to the level he has. He’s also a good/inspirational leader, although a person’s opinion of that may differ based on their ideology. And he’s a solid administrator, even with occasional missteps within the AFL over the years, and since becoming its president, there’s been a solid uptick in union growth.
Hey, I’d settle for a Veep Trumka too!
I’ve come to notice that, among other factors that decide presidential elections, the person with the greater executive experience has often prevailed-- Trump over Clinton, Obama over Romney, Bush over Kerry, Bush over Gore (although Gore did actually get more votes, and it might be argued that Veep is more executive-level than governor, see Bush over Dukakis below), Clinton over Dole, Clinton over Bush was a little flukey, Bush over Dukakis, Reagan over Mondale. I know other things factor into these elections, but I like the idea of someone with executive experience topping the ticket in 2020-- a governor, a mayor, the rotting bones of FDR, a labor federation president…
There’s a place for a Trumka in government, for sure. But let him start a little further down the ladder and work his way up.
[/QUOTE]
No, Thing Fish, not directed at you personally, and I apologize for having left you with that impression. I’m just so disgusted with the obvious double standard.
Unfortunately, I think you’re going to find that most people in public service over the age of about 15 may have some less-than-savory episode in their pasts. I think we should hold politicians to the highest standards we can – but not impossible ones. Offenses come in many different shades. Learning a lesson from one’s past mistakes should also count for something. Every situation is different and should be regarded as such. The laws of the land recognize this, and I believe we should, too.