Well invading Wisconsin would have been a great way to fight wars in both the Mid-East and Mid-West! But no. That’s not what I expected. But that Obama couldn’t go in guns ablazin’ with his Godlike powers and kick ass Chuck Norris style doesn’t mean he couldn’t speak out about it. It’s funny that I must have missed his press conference on the topic.
So I guess the question is this, why is it that Obama can talk about supporting Unions in the abstract but he’s apparently powerless to intervene when actual union busting is happening? What good is his support then?
I want to hold his feet to the fire. Having a press conference during these union attacks condemning the actions of these Governors would be a lot more effective than just talking in the abstract about supporting union rights today. Though Obama isn’t the only one to blame about this. Democrats in Congress, Democrats in the Senate, the DNC, everyone was silent on this issue. They let a core group of Democratic voters twist in the wind and a core Democratic principle get ignored because no one at the National level wanted to get their hands dirty in state politics. Well I’m still entitled to call them on it and say that speecifying during campaign season is too little, too late.
Though, again, I’ll stress that I haven’t yet seen this particular speech by Obama.
"President Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and planning similar protests in other state capitals.
Obama accused Scott Walker, the state’s new Republican governor, of unleashing an “assault” on unions in pushing emergency legislation that would change future collective-bargaining agreements that affect most public employees, including teachers.
The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals."
Yea, I don’t really get the complaint. I guess he didn’t have a Press Conference but both he and other National Dems were pretty vocal in their support of the Wisconsin State Dems and the protestors.
And note while Obama may have not had the Press Conference you wanted, he actually concretely helped out by having his campaign organization help organize the protests. So even despite the limitations of his office, he found a way to assist beyond the level of just talk.
You’re entitled to call them on things you were paying attention to. In this case, not so much.
I think a press conference on the matter would have been problematic. Aren’t those (presidential press conferences) supposed to at least PRETEND to be about the actions the President is performing that relate to him doing his job?
I can see him discussing the issue in a press conference about some policy initiative or other; calling a press conference about something a governor is doing that he opposes would get him quite a lot of flak.
Nice speech - I liked the Ted Kennedy quote, nice touch.
I know the US election are always basically 50/50, but damn, from what I’ve seen (which, admittedly, is mostly Stewart & Colbert ), both Romney and Santorum (Paul has zero hope) are just outclassed.
It’s just this: When capital organizes, that is just the free market in action. When labor organizes it communistic, criminal, and distorts the market.
Ya know, I like a good stemwinder as much as the next guy, but for me this interview with Bill Simmons re-affirms my support of the President even more:
Comparing Obama’s obvious fan-dom and natural ability to talk about everyday sports stuff to Romney’s “some of my friends own NASCAR teams” really underscores MrDibble’s “outclassed” comment.
So, I’m reading commentary that implies that the secured creditors got 70% less than they would have gotten under bankruptcy. Did they actually get less than the value of the collateral that secured their debt or was their collateral simply worth only 30% (or less) of the principal amount at the time of the bailout?
These commentaries also imply that union members and non-union members pensions and benefits were treated differently in the bailout. IOW, two line workers, one a dues paying union member and the other a freerider, got different packages based on their union membership. Were two similarly situated employees trweated differntly based purely on union membership or are we talking about management getting a different deal than line workers (perhaps a cap on benefits taht ends up screwing the executive VPs and stuff)?
The reason i suspect its bullshit is because these commentaries also spout bullshit about how GMs profits are the result of the IRS giving them money they aren’t entitled to. I know what the tax deal was and while it was a variance it wasn’t a giveaway.
), both Romney and Santorum (Paul has zero hope) are just outclassed.