12 hours ago
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Would you like to hear from President Obama?
Do you remember this Barack Obama in Madison, thanking the people for their votes, thanking them for standing with him, for supporting him...
And in 2007, do you remember when Barack Obama promised this? Do you think he should go to Wisconsin? What about Illinois? Should he go and talk to the 14 state senators, give them some encouraging words? How about some encouragement to the protestors? This story is exploding all across the country, your country Mr. President. These are your people Mr. President, please say more than those few words you said last week. We want to hear more from you, please....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Yes. He should honor his campaign promise and demonstrate once and for all that he is with working people. If it costs him the election, then he went down on a matter of principle, and there isn't a damned thing wrong with that.
Somehow, I doubt it'd cost him the election, if you know what I mean.
If Obama repeats the mistake of passively allowing a "pragmatic" compromise with the Right against workers it will seal his defeat. He's already done it by freezing the pay of federal workers. If he shows some spine and does the right thing by siding with our cause, it can only benenfit his chances for re-election. It's not like the Right will say anything good about him if he capitulates.
When you are younger you get blamed for crimes you never committed and when you're older you begin to get credit for virtues you never possessed. It evens itself out.
Casey Stengel
I don't know.specifically what he could do... but it sure would be nice if he said something....
meanwhile... Russ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/18/russ-feingold-wisconsin-protests_n_825325.html
is walking the walk...
http://www.progressivesunited.org
and speaking of getting the job done.... I really have to do laundry.... if you want to think clearly, clean socks and underwear help.... just saying
I would be pleasantly surprised if President Obama came to Madison to stand with the workers, but I don't think it will happen. He says he needs to raise a billion dollars for his campaign--where do you think that money will come from? He knows better than to anger the corporations that will give him that money. The labor movement needs to form its own party, a true Labor Party that will not be bought and sold, like the Democratic Party has been.
I'm going to take a different view.
Mr. Obama DID "say something" about the assault by Gov. Walker on workers' rights.
Also it is one thing to speak in soaring rhetoric while campaigning, and quite another thing to face reality when one is president.
I believe it would be a huge mistake for Mr. Obama to insert himself in a conflict between a STATE GOVERNMENT and its employees.
That would play into the hands of those in the GOP who accuse him of trying to intefere in state issues that are not controlled by the US government.
I think Mr. Obama is playing this just about the right way by saying what he did and staying out of Wisconsin politics.
He could, and still may, make a statement from the Oval Office about solidarity with US workers and unions. I hope he does.
But to put on shoes and walk into the state of Wisconsin just now would be a HUGE mistake.
Mr. Obama is "no drama Obama." He doesn't do grandstanding gestures. He's deliberate and pragmatic, and aware of the impact and consequences of a rash gestures.
My 2 cents.
I think it would benefit the president to be a little more vocal. It would help him with the union vote, why would he jeopardize that? I know he won't march with the protesters, but he should never have said that he would in the first place. He always seems detached from his own people and that sends a confusing message. We have so much turmoil going on around the country we are craving a leader who will wrap his arms around us and tell us it'll be okay, he is in charge. Ya know?
Well, the 14 Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate got a backbone when they looked out the window and saw tens of thousands of people filling the capitol and marching around the square. It takes people in the street to get anything done, it has never happened in the poll booth. So it will take millions of people in the streets to get the President's attention.
I think Shaw is onto something.... very important to let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and then go after their mistakes.... With Phone-Call Scott in charge their are bound to be many.
you know... I have tried to call Scott several times and he won't pick up the phone..... and neither will any of the Republican Senator's... including the one from my district. Hmmmm
President Obama has the union vote in the bag, Sue...when have unions ever not voted for a liberal?
He is staying nearly silent on this because he knows how much support Gov. Walker is getting from the public, and he stands to alienate many people who feel strongly about the fact that the public employee unions are costing the states a boatload of money (while getting less than stellar results with students in WI). People are tired of public sector jobs and entitlements taking most of the state revenue (and Federal for that matter). When are liberals going to admit to the fact that we cannot afford to pay every retired teacher nearly $100,000 a year while providing free health care for the rest of their lives?
Stupid is as stupid does...
If the standoff between Gov. Walker and union supporters was going down during President Obama's 2nd term (assuming he gets re-elected), he might be willing to strap on those boots and march with the people in Wisconsin. However, Obama is geared up for the 2012 election and he knows he'll need that corporate money. Like Shaw said, campaigning for president and being the president are two different realities. He never should have made that 2007 promise, but he is probably playing the situation just right.
"President Obama has the union vote in the bag, Sue...when have unions ever not voted for a liberal?"
Mmmmm.... for starters, how about the Teamsters putting it in the bag for Nixon in 1968 and 1972, and their getting on the Reagan bandwagon in the 1980's?
Or how about locally in New Jersey; Atlantic City hotel- restaurant workers going for Republican Bill Gormley for state Senator solidly until Gormley's retirement, or GOP's Tom Paterniti elected with AFL-CIO and PBA help in Edison, NJ's 4th largest city.
As for the $100,000 year per retired teacher- my Dad's an 84 year old retired teacher. He does not get $100,000 a year in pension....not even close. Most of his current comes from a modest state pension, an IRA, and Social Security. His "free" healthcare is from Medicare and the outrageous deductible he has to pay for services and prescriptions courtesy of the "Donut Hole" passed down from a Republican President and two Republican Houses of Congress.
So Linda, you're either inflating numbers to try to win an argument, or deliberately lying to try and demonize good, descent American citizens.
And if that's the case, one of those being attacked is a man I love dearly.....my flesh and blood. And I won't let you get away with it.
And Linda....if you're as angry after reading this as I was while writing it.....GOOD!
Linda gets her inflated numbers from rightwing talking points and rightwingers who don't know facts even if they were slapped across the face with them. People like Linda defend big banks and big corps who take from All us middle class Americans, and then they criticize the union worker for making a modest living! There is something wrong with that picture. Why do you hate middle class Americans Linda? Why do you constantly defend the rich and degrade the hardworker who makes 50,000 a yr.
When our government gives tax cuts to rich people, and does nothing about raising the ceiling for contributions to Social Security, does that infuriate you?
Nice takedown Hugh!
Linda is 100 percent correct, you always seem to have an answer for anyone witn an opposing view, but I guess that's the style of an Obamamaniac. You are obsessed with his socialist policies.
The sort of socialist policy you'd think would scare people to death.
Jennifer then how do you explain Linda always having an argument against what we say here? Same thing..you always consider your views 100% correct, duh
This isn't about the president and his "socialistic" agenda. Obama is no socialist, pay attention to your government. The only people afraid are us, of you and your evangelical dreams of a takeover of our freedoms and civil liberties...
Ignorance is as ignorance does...
I'm not a big Obama fan, but I know Jennifer is obsessed with Right Wing fascist policies. Take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich, give to the warmongers, and give up our rights to the surveillance/police state. (They NEVER look at where the real re-distribution of our nation’s wealth has been, to the top 1%) It doesn't take real brains, compassion, and courage to ALWAYS side with the powerful plutocratic economic elite, doesn't it?
All it takes is unquestioning belief. Linda and Jennifer are both 100% true believers.
We always have an answer to the opposing view because we have facts, truth, democracy, and justice on our side. All the Reich Wing has on their side is the FOX(R) and totalitarian GOP talking points working for Big Money.
Typical fascists always accuse those who disagree with them of being unpatriotic commies. They also think a socialist is a communist. They really are that ignorant. Hint: Socialism is compatible with democracy. Communism, fascism, and Republicanism are hostile to democracy.
No wonder we always have an answer to their far Right, ideological, dogma. They are anti-democracy in every way. And they completely side with Arab dictators, fascists, Nazis, and both Soviet and Chinese Communists against workers' rights.
They are like a cult, indoctrinated by, and for, the plutocratic totalitarians. Period.
Any of you Righties care to explain why you always, always, always side with the rich and powerful against the majority that is the rest of us?
Ever wonder why are you consistently more loyal to the Big Money interests that off-shore our jobs and buy our politicians, than to most Americans?
Just wondering...
LINDA wrote: "He is staying nearly silent on this because he knows how much support Gov. Walker is getting from the public,"
Linda, seriously. Hugh just annihilated your fact-free statement about unions always voting for liberals.
That assertion is simply not true.
Here's another not true assertion: that the people are on Scott Walker's side.
"On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed, along with an on-screen graphic, that a recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that “61 percent” of Americans are in favor of taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions. In fact, Fox aired the results of the poll completely backward: the Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to taking away collective bargaining rights.”
And in Wisconsin the public does support having the unions contribute more to their pensions and health care--something THE UNIONS THEMSELVES HAVE AGREED TO.
BUT:
"...for the moment, however, the core issue of the fight that has paralyzed the state government and led to protesters occupying the state capitol building--the idea that the power of public employee unions to engage in collective bargaining be limited to wage and benefit issues--Wisconsin voters break with the governor, 54 percent to 41 percent."
SOURCE
As you can see in plain view, Linda, the FACTS are that a majority of Americans and a majority of Wisconsinites DO NOT support Walker's assault on collective bargaining.
LINDA wrote: "...the fact that the public employee unions are costing the states a boatload of money (while getting less than stellar results with students in WI).
This is another false statement--with no link to any evidence whatsoever. We're supposed to accept what Linda says because...why?
I posted on this with links to back up the information last week.
LINDA wrote: "Stupid is as stupid does..."
Well, Linda, with regard to your fact-free statements, you at least got the above correct.
little time for blogging....
good source of info for what is happening in Madison
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/25/wisconsins_uprising_a_guided_tour_of
bless you all(and I am an atheist) for spreading the truth... remember, Indiana and Ohio are coming up next....support workers and the middle class/!!!!
other news....some Wisconsin State Assemblymen (R) vote against bill. Maintain that they think ... good on them!!
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110226/OSH0101/102260402/Spanbauer-Kaufert-among-no-votes-budget-bill
In my opinion, Sue, the reason that Mr. Obama is avoiding "this" is a fear of hypocrisy charges. Federal employees (in large measure due to the actions of Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress) now have very few collective bargaining rights (they cannot bargain over wages, for instance). And the President himself has recently advocated a 2 year pay freeze for all Federal workers. It would just expose him too much to the "cake and eat it, too" criticisms out there.
How 'bout this for a novel idea? Instead of both sides vilifying each other, we actually try and solve this problem. A good compromise, folks, is often one that leaves both sides unhappy. How 'bout a deal in which the unions give up collective bargaining for 2 years, or a deal in which they keep collective bargaining but certain other things are given up (seniority, for instance)? There has to be a moderate Republican in that Wisconsin Senate who could try and lead the Governor to this type of an approach......I mean, there has to be, 'cuz right now NOBODY is winning.
Will! Have you not been listening? The dems HAVE begged to sit down with Walker, MANY TIMES. And the unions HAVE compromised and gave in to every demand of Walkers having to do with money! This is about collective bargaining which Walker has been given his orders by his masters to END. Simple as that my friend!
Absolutely he should honor his campaign promises and stand up for the American workers who voted him into office!
You need to also talk to President Obama then, Sue. This, in that he presides over a policy that is far more draconian than the one that this Walker guy is proposing......Oh, and be prepared to also talk to/get tough with Governor Cuomo, the Democrat from New York. It doesn't sound like he's in any frame of mind to negotiate, either.
WtnpH wrote:
"There has to be a moderate Republican in that Wisconsin Senate who could try and lead the Governor to this type of an approach......I mean, there has to be, 'cuz right now NOBODY is winning."
Here's what Gov. Walker thinks about pragmatists and people who are not "one of us."
From the prank phone call [Murphy=fake Koch]:
Murphy: Now you’re not talking to any of these Democrat bastards, are you?
Walker: Ah, I-there’s one guy that’s actually voted with me on a bunch of things I called on Saturday for about 45 minutes, uh, mainly to tell him that while I appreciate his friendship and he’s worked with us on other things, to tell him, well, I wasn’t going to budge.
Murphy: Goddamn right!
Walker: Mainly, because I thought he’s about the only reasonable one over there and I figured if I talked to him, he’d go back to the rest of the gang and say, you know, ‘I’ve known Walker for 20 years, he’s not budging.’
Murphy: Now, what’s his name again?
Walker: His name is Tim Cullen.
Murphy: All right, I’ll have to give that man a call.
Walker: Well, actually, in his case I wouldn’t call him and I’ll tell you why: He’s pretty reasonable but he’s not one of us, um, so I would let him be. I think he is in a position where he can maybe motivate that caucus, but he’s not a, he’s not an ally, he’s just a, he’s just a guy. He was in the Senate years ago. He was actually the Senate (word missing) here back in the ’80s and Tommy Thompson hired him to be the head of Health and Human Services. He went into the private sector, made real money and, uh, became a little more more open-minded.
Murphy: Ha!
Walker: And last fall, he got elected to the Senate seat he was in 25 years ago. He’s kind of one of these guys who, he really doesn’t care, he’s not there for political reasons, he’s just trying to get something done. So he’s good to reach out to for me, but he’s not a, he’s not a conservative. He’s just a pragmatist.
Murphy: Now who could we get to budge on this, uh, collective bargaining?
So you see, Will, pragmatists are not welcome unless they are "one of us."
And who is the ideologue here?
Tea Partier Gov. Walker.
\
How does one compromise with someone like that????
Scott Walknutz has repeatedly said he will not compromise or consider any alternatives. A recent court case of a decision he made as County Executive in Milwaukee has now cost that county over %500,000.
the man is not only unwilling to compromise, but repeatedly shows he has little respect for any other ideas than the one he originates.
A college drop-out who thinks he is smarter than anyone else. Sad.
what happened this is the one thing you on't agree with your hero FDR when he said:
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."
Good God! Do I have to tell everyone everything? Jesus Will. Why don't they just negotiate a three or four year contract so there will be no collective bargaining for the next three or four years. That's what they're supposed to do anyway. God forbid they do what they're supposed to do. Why hell. We'd all get confused.
Linda's an idiot. Her cockenbull story about her fictitious scab husband wasn't enough for her. Now she thinks she knows how union members will all vote.
I've worked union members for years with GOTV efforts shithead. Loyalty is all but dead within the ranks.
But being morally depraved I would like to see Linda naked.
OMG, MDL!!! NO, not naked Linda!! LOL
Hugh ~ A couple of incidents of support for Republicans does not alter the fact that NEARLY ALL unions support progressives. You know it is true if you are honest.
Your 84 year old father has obviously been retired for many years and naturally teachers' retirement benefits have improved over the decades since he retired. That also does not change the truth. Teachers' retirement benefits and health care benefits and the expensive entitlement spending are helping to push many states to bankruptcy. There is also the question of whether public sector employees SHOULD be able to collectively bargain when their dues fund the election of legislators who then make laws about how much money they earn and what benefits they receive. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Yes, it is.
Your blind stupidity never ceases to amaze me Linda.
Teachers don't get Social Security so of course their pensions are higher. As are their contributions.
It would cost many school districts more if Teachers were in the Social Security system because their contribution would be higher.
And to educate you on union dues. Unions can use dues money to advocate for an issue but not a particular candidate. And why don't you have a problem with chamber of commerce money going to support republicans mostly even though many members do not support chamber endorsed candidates?
You don't have to answer Linda because we already know your answer. It's because you're a deluded right wing fool(or group of them at someone's kitchen table).
I've decided I don't want to see you naked.
And why do you have a problem with organizations dedicated to fighting for Working Americans fighting for Working Americans anyway Linda?
Why do you hate America?
MDL,
Linda will not answer your question. I'm sure she is a very nice lady but she ignored my questions because the answer to "why" is the cult-like indoctrination. They didn't start out opposing the working class and revering wealth and the wealthy. They were indoctrinated.
Any of you Righties care to explain why you always, always, always side with the rich and powerful against the majority that is the rest of us?
Ever wonder why are you consistently more loyal to the Big Money interests that off-shore our jobs and buy our politicians, than to most Americans?
...Crickets.
Linda is outraged by union support of policies that benefit the majority. She has no problem with our government-mandated auto insurance dollars channeled into electing Republicans. That's entirely different, I guess.
Post a Comment