Unions: some thanks Obama gets
Is it really possible that, after all he’s done for them, unions are angry at Obama?
Yes, according to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:
…union members are frustrated by “wasted energy” in Washington on issues that he said don’t help workers: “hysteria” about the federal deficit, a White House review of regulations and Obama’s support for free-trade agreements.
I can’t imagine that unions will actually end up supporting Obama’s opponent, so this may be so much hot air. I also can’t imagine they really think they’ll get a viable presidential candidate on either side who will be friendlier to them than the extremely pro-union Obama.
There are other rumblings of trouble for Obama that seem more serious to me, or perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part. Nile Gardiner points out in his Telegraph blog that the recent economic news is very bad for Obama, and his polls are sliding once again after a small post-Bin-Laden bump. Even the NY Times warns that no US president has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 on election day.
That reminds me once again—although I don’t think I needed reminding—that what happens in an election tends to be a snapshot reflecting recent events, and it’s a long looong way to November 8, 2011.
[ADDENDUM: Lech Walesa isn’t keen on Obama either. But unfortunately, he doesn’t get a vote—except for voting with his feet and declining to meet with the president.]
When one opens their eyes, they then realize that they realize that their show position of never being satisfied works to maximize what they get as people are way to slow on the uptake and will make up reasons and things.
its never enough until they have everything…
and they call everyone else greedy?
I think I know who writes your spambots.
These “rumblings of discontent” are nothing but reminders to Obama of how much he owes them. They’ll continue the dance until the Democratic convention, maybe flirt with some other potential nominees, then buckle down with the envelopes of cash and light thuggery through the election until the recounts are done.
On the Republican side the Evangelical Christians used to do the same thing, but lately they’ve declined in how many precincts they can deliver.
Is that a warning or a promise?
Unemployment was at 15.3 percent in December 1936 and 14.6 percent in January 1940 [pages 284 and 366 of The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes], so this rule obviously didn’t apply to FDR.
…union members are frustrated by “wasted energy” in Washington on issues that he said don’t help workers: “hysteria” about the federal deficit,
So … union members don’t think that the Federal deficit will have any effect on them?
If this is true, they must be truly, profoundly, stupid.
Occam’s Beard Says: So … union members don’t think that the Federal deficit will have any effect on them?
They probably expect to write cost-of-living clauses into their contracts.
In fact, given how this administration ignores law and precedent, I wouldn’t be completely flabbergasted to learn that the NLRB wants to rule that such increases are already in force. (Anyone for Weimar?)
I suspect that union members do appreciate how the Federal deficit will affect them. But, union leadership is choosing to ignore it.
As some well-known commentators have pointed out, the unions presently exist principally to act as a money-laundering scheme to get campaign contributions to Democrat politicians.
They probably expect to write cost-of-living clauses into their contracts.
Yep, but that becomes a moot point if their employer goes under.
As some well-known commentators have pointed out, the unions presently exist principally to act as a money-laundering scheme to get campaign contributions to Democrat politicians.
Can you say “RICO?” I can.
The NYT warning is a big So What, exempting FDR and not tabulating the basis for its allegation. We’re just talking Jimmy C here, possibly GHWB, so who freakin’ cares?
I see a third person running this time out. A “Perot” will be necessary to get Obama re-elected. Unless the left runs an openly socialist or openly communist candidate, where Obama ends up the Perot.
Occam: “So … union members don’t think that the Federal deficit will have any effect on them? If this is true, they must be truly, profoundly, stupid.”
I think very few Americans understand the long term ramifications of the debt/deficit and that the possibility of another deep, protracted depression is very real. The end of the USD as the sole reserve currency isn’t even on their radar screens; yet if that comes to pass in the next few years (which I think it will) the real cost of living will leap by 10 to 20% within a few days or weeks.
I’m not calling the general public stupid, I think they are simply unaware of the financial/economic issues that lurk beneath the MSM propaganda. People are focused on their daily lives and they have a lot on their plates that keep them preoccupied in this prolonged recession. It takes time and effort to learn about financial/economic issues and form an opinion based on something other than the headlines. Most don’t want to spend their time researching and evaluating. Its easier to trust the pundits and politicians to know what is best.
br549: “I see a third person running this time out. A “Perot” will be necessary to get Obama re-elected.”
That is the Donald’s role, if he so chooses. Remember this guy has been giving donations to democrats for many moons. I’m convinced Trump’s entire spiel earlier this year, especially the birth certificate issue, was a charade. It definitely benefited BHO. It certainly didn’t benefit Trump (unless he’s was trying to polish his image as a pompous buffoon) or the republican brand name.
Perhaps Trumka is helping him out by creating a perception of separation between Big (Government) Labor and Obama, given possible public dissilusion with over the top union politics.
or disillusion, I suppose