BobLibDem:
You don’t joke about waging war if you’re the commander in chief or want to be. It’s just not done. He thought he was being oh so clever and oh so funny when he delivered the “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” line, but it isn’t something you say when you want to be taken seriously. Really, you casually joke about waging war on one of the largest and most powerful nations in the Middle East and you think you should be president?
Reagan did. Not that that refutes your argument.
It is because of 1) the history:
The legacy of “right to work” laws reaches back to the 1930s, when white supremacists like oil lobbyist Vance Muse initially pioneered the concept to divide and eliminate unions. Muse formed the Christian American Alliance to spread the combined gospel of racism and anti-unionism, pushing the “right-to-work” notion and developing alliances with like-minded groups including the Ku Klux Klan. Muse concluded that the only solution for maintaining segregation was to make union membership or any payment of union dues or fees voluntary. Without such laws, whites would be “forced” to mingle with blacks, although there had been many interracial unions over previous decades.
Crude as it was, Muse’s segregationist argument intersected perfectly with the mentality of corporate managers committed to holding down wages. They recognized that Muse’s “right-to-work” concept would serve to break up unified worker efforts to claim the rights granted under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. Some major corporations directly fused the segregationist and anti-union appeals. As late as 1944, wrote Diane McWhorter in her book Carry Me Home, “U.S. Steel set up a League to Maintain White Supremacy to spread ‘the white supremacy gospel of Simpson [Jim Simpson, an anti-New Deal politician in Alabama] among the grassroots (that is, its workforce)… to baldly promote racial strife.”
But over time, employers increasing dropped their overtly racist pitch and sold “right-to-work” in terms of individual rights and the phantom threat of “compulsory unionism” (no one can be forced to join, but can be expected to pay fees for the costs of union representation). The laws spread slowly from the Deep South over the past eight decades to encompass 24 states, with Wisconsin likely becoming the symbolically important 25th state. This milestone will be seen as a major accomplishment in the eyes of the Republican conservatives Walker is cultivating. It also adds to Walker’s credentials at this past weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
And 2) the present:
If the Wisconsin “right-to-work” bill passes the Assembly (after clearing the Senate Wednesday on a 17-15 vote), the primary victims will be low-paid black and Latino workers who have been unable to raise their low wages in fast-food and big-box stores like Walmart despite visible protests. These minority workers have shown a decisive interest in unionizing and have been long targeted by right-wingers.
Conservatives, including the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation—America’s largest right-wing foundation—have spent decades demonizing unions, public employees and government programs as unnecessary, and social welfare recipients as undeserving opportunists. Their rhetoric raises the specter of an ever-growing class of welfare dependents, who are often hinted to be mainly dark-skinned and draining the tax dollars of hard-working Americans.
Walker used this same line of attack and rhetoric as he has moved to eliminate almost all union bargaining rights through the passage of Act 10 in 2011 and now to weaken union membership further through “right-to-work” legislation. While Wisconsin was still reeling from the economic insecurity generated by the Great Recession during Walker’s tenure as governor, he has blamed supposedly over-paid public employees for the economic anxieties experienced by other Wisconsinites.
The Bradley Foundation has over $800 million in assets and is guided by racial attitudes similar to those of the John Birch Society members who started the foundation. It has funded “academic” research by figures like Charles Murray, who contended poverty was intractable because of welfare programs—with minorities widely perceived as the recipients—and the supposed dependence and moral flaws that were encouraged. Most notoriously, Bradley also spent about $1 million publishing and promoting the 1994 book The Bell Curve by Murray and John Hernnstein, which argued for the inherent intellectual inferiority of African Americans and Latinos. The book garnered a surprising amount of respectable media responses, despite its weak “scientific” basis and white supremacist implications.
adaher
March 6, 2015, 12:48am
945
Given how high the numbers are for people supporting right to work, it would be very unlikely if minorities were against it. But I’m welcome to see polling that shows they are against right to work if you can produce it.
As for the history, unions themselves are racist if we go by history, and abortion is “really” about eugenics, especially reducing the minority population.
(Sigh.) What in blazes are you taking about? As someone of generous inclination, I would like to think that last sentence is some crippled form of satire.
adaher
March 6, 2015, 3:28am
947
You actually don’t know the history of Planned Parenthood?
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[84] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.[85] Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[86][87] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[88] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[89][90][91]
This is an accepted version of this page
Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins; September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966), also known as Margaret Sanger Slee, was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. She popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promo...
adaher
March 6, 2015, 8:01am
948
After a lot of thinking, I’m switching to Lindsey Graham as my favorite. He’s already earned John McCain’s endorsement:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/05/graham_is_serious_about_2016_but_does_he_have_a_prayer.html
And he’s not as long a shot as some might think given his talents.
He’s definitely one of the more sane Republicans, but he’s way too hawkish and on the wrong side of gay marriage. However, the odds of his being nominated are roughly the same as that of the Titanic spontaneously reassembling, rising to the surface, and finishing its trip to New York.
adaher
March 6, 2015, 12:37pm
950
the GOP field is too unpredictable. McCain was supposed to be dead in the water but he won the nomination. The advantage of being the sane candidate is that the insane candidates eliminate themselves, leaving you standing. Plus he’s got some potential advantages in the early primary states.
adaher
March 6, 2015, 12:41pm
951
Besides, I only said that’s who my favorite is right now, not that I’m predicting victory for him.
I’m sure the last thing he would want is a victory prediction from you. He wouldn’t be the worst choice, but you have to keep your eye on the money. Bush has it. Nobody else does.
adaher
March 7, 2015, 1:48am
953
BTW, I realize this is the Republican thread, but this definitely pertains to their chances of winning in 2016: The President’s approval has started to return to the low 40s. He’s currently standing at 43.8%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
So unless things turn around, Republicans will be going into 2016 with a major advantage.
Unless things change… LOL. Sure, things don’t change. I’m sure counting on things not changing is going to go great.
adaher
March 7, 2015, 4:09am
955
He was underwater two years ago, it’s likely he’ll be underwater two years from now.
Says adaher , which doesn’t make it true. This is just a random prediction, and it’s no more meaningful than a role of the dice.
adaher
March 7, 2015, 4:13am
957
A lot more goes into approval than a roll of the dice. Has any President in history ever spent most of his Presidency underwater and finished strong? I’m open to hearing about any examples. And relevant to this thread, has any President seen a successor from his own party elected to succeed him while his approval was underwater?
I’m seeing nothing more significant than a roll of the dice in your predictions. They’re just guesses. Your track record at this is terrible, so I’m not going to play this silly game.
adaher
March 7, 2015, 4:18am
959
Then you could have just said nothing, since I acknowledged that things could change.
Then I’d be shirking my duty on “adaher lazy post” patrol.
There is a very short list of people who we can be sure will *not *be candidates in 2016. He’s on it.
Seriously, you could look it up.
