Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Dishonesty Of Republican Hack John Boozman
By ARDem, bluearkansasblog.com
John Boozman is upset about recess appointments, one in particular:
"This appointment undermines the concerns American citizens have with Obamacare and the access our seniors have to quality and affordable health care. Dr. Berwick’s support for rationing is no secret and to put him in charge of an agency that has to deal with the deep cuts to the Medicare program under the new health care law is unreasonable. Our senior citizens who rely on this program deserve to know what type of leader will oversee the agency. Bypassing Senate confirmation for this controversial nominee proves exactly how unpopular Dr. Berwick’s policies and ideas truly are with the American people."
As Max Brantley points out though, Boozman is being more than a tad hypocritical:
"Let the time machine take us back to December 2006 when President Bush was jamming Republican hatchetman Tim Griffin into the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock — through interim appointment. In newspaper accounts at the time, Boozman’s spokesman said, “It’s not unprecedented to make acting appointments, for whatever reason.” Boozman argued the interim appointment was necessary because Griffin “would not have faced a fair hearing” in the Senate."
This should tell you everything you need to know about John Boozman-Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong, and if he said one thing to support his party he’ll gladly say another when the shoe is on the other foot. And the fact that he would stand up for Tim Griffin and his party during the worst corruption scandal since Watergate says a lot about his character.
John Boozman is upset about recess appointments, one in particular:
"This appointment undermines the concerns American citizens have with Obamacare and the access our seniors have to quality and affordable health care. Dr. Berwick’s support for rationing is no secret and to put him in charge of an agency that has to deal with the deep cuts to the Medicare program under the new health care law is unreasonable. Our senior citizens who rely on this program deserve to know what type of leader will oversee the agency. Bypassing Senate confirmation for this controversial nominee proves exactly how unpopular Dr. Berwick’s policies and ideas truly are with the American people."
As Max Brantley points out though, Boozman is being more than a tad hypocritical:
"Let the time machine take us back to December 2006 when President Bush was jamming Republican hatchetman Tim Griffin into the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock — through interim appointment. In newspaper accounts at the time, Boozman’s spokesman said, “It’s not unprecedented to make acting appointments, for whatever reason.” Boozman argued the interim appointment was necessary because Griffin “would not have faced a fair hearing” in the Senate."
This should tell you everything you need to know about John Boozman-Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong, and if he said one thing to support his party he’ll gladly say another when the shoe is on the other foot. And the fact that he would stand up for Tim Griffin and his party during the worst corruption scandal since Watergate says a lot about his character.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bill Halter: Looking back and forward
-G. Matthews, Arkansas Times
Lt. Gov. Bill Halter has finally begun sitting down for interviews about his Democratic primary loss to Sen. Blanche Lincoln and what the future holds after he leaves office in early 2011...
.jpg)
The conventional wisdom was that there was a lot of outside money coming in, that you were being supported by the far left. But you lost Pulaski.
Yeah. This was something I discussed during the campaign that just did not get picked up and I'll say the exact same thing that I've been saying for months. The idea that this was a liberal – that this race was being conducted on a left-right spectrum -- really does not convey what was going on in the race. It was about whose side are you on. Who is fighting for middle-class families? Who's willing to take on powerful interest? It was a more populist versus corporatist race than any other sort of dimensions. If you look at where the turnout was heavy for us, it was in a lot of rural areas across Arkansas and what was being expressed there by those voters was a significant amount of discontent with the way things were going in Washington.
Here's the other thing. You have to be careful in all these analyses to be mindful of the fact that it's a primary election and you have two Democratic candidates. So, you can over-read a lot of things. I think the endorsement by President Obama was clearly very helpful to Sen. Lincoln. I don't think there's any question about that looking at precinct analysis in Jefferson County or Pulaski County.
It seems like the Democratic establishment in the state – the elected officials, long time party volunteers – didn't really like you for some reason, or tended to support Lincoln. It also seemed to me that you had a lot of support from younger Democrats. Is there any truth to the idea that a rift exists between the Democratic establishment and Bill Halter?
That's where I'm going to have to go through it with you and give you a bunch of comments. Because I think this is something that gets exaggerated. First, we had Democratic state legislators that endorsed us, county officials, mayors, activists, people that worked in the Democratic committees across the state that were actively for us. We had very key parts of the Democratic Party, broadly, that were supportive of us. I think when you talk about representatives of working men and women, those folks that have been involved with the Democratic Party for a long time. I think if you look at groups that have traditionally been identified with the Democratic Party, they were with us as well. I think the clear distinction that you drew in your question about this side versus this side, I don't think that holds.
Let's go to some of these other folks. The attorney general. You have written and others have written and it's been reported over and over again that we were widely viewed as rivals for the governorship or some other office. So I don't think it should be a surprise. The other people who were supportive of Sen. Lincoln, who were elected officials, they identified with Sen. Lincoln and endorsed her even before I got into the race. So you don't expect people to reverse themselves.
Let's go to another point that's related. We had tremendous support from Young Democrats around the state who were working hard. We had tremendous support from other folks who have been involved with the Democratic Party and identify themselves as Democrats. The more important point about this is in 2006 I competed in a four-way primary for lieutenant governor and lead that race, strongly led it. Had a runoff and won that decisively, with over 56 percent of the vote, against somebody who had been around for a long time. Then we went directly to the people and got the scholarship lottery passed in 2008 by an almost two to one vote. In this race, in terms of voting, in the primary there was a two percent difference between Sen. Lincoln and myself and in the runoff we had 48 percent of the vote. Both of those outcomes reflect well over 100,000 votes cast. I guess, what I'd say is that you can fall into a lot of analytical traps here.
I'm far more concerned with voters than I am with any one individual, elected official, or whatever because they make their own minds up and they decide. You're not going to win every vote, ever.
Anytime you have a competitive primary, there are going to be folks from both sides. If you have a two person race in a primary there will be folks supporting both candidates, especially in a race this close.
Read the full article at: http://www.arktimes.com/gyrobase/bill-halter-no-political-plans-yet/Content?oid=1258463&storyPage=1
Lt. Gov. Bill Halter has finally begun sitting down for interviews about his Democratic primary loss to Sen. Blanche Lincoln and what the future holds after he leaves office in early 2011...
.jpg)
The conventional wisdom was that there was a lot of outside money coming in, that you were being supported by the far left. But you lost Pulaski.
Yeah. This was something I discussed during the campaign that just did not get picked up and I'll say the exact same thing that I've been saying for months. The idea that this was a liberal – that this race was being conducted on a left-right spectrum -- really does not convey what was going on in the race. It was about whose side are you on. Who is fighting for middle-class families? Who's willing to take on powerful interest? It was a more populist versus corporatist race than any other sort of dimensions. If you look at where the turnout was heavy for us, it was in a lot of rural areas across Arkansas and what was being expressed there by those voters was a significant amount of discontent with the way things were going in Washington.
Here's the other thing. You have to be careful in all these analyses to be mindful of the fact that it's a primary election and you have two Democratic candidates. So, you can over-read a lot of things. I think the endorsement by President Obama was clearly very helpful to Sen. Lincoln. I don't think there's any question about that looking at precinct analysis in Jefferson County or Pulaski County.
It seems like the Democratic establishment in the state – the elected officials, long time party volunteers – didn't really like you for some reason, or tended to support Lincoln. It also seemed to me that you had a lot of support from younger Democrats. Is there any truth to the idea that a rift exists between the Democratic establishment and Bill Halter?
That's where I'm going to have to go through it with you and give you a bunch of comments. Because I think this is something that gets exaggerated. First, we had Democratic state legislators that endorsed us, county officials, mayors, activists, people that worked in the Democratic committees across the state that were actively for us. We had very key parts of the Democratic Party, broadly, that were supportive of us. I think when you talk about representatives of working men and women, those folks that have been involved with the Democratic Party for a long time. I think if you look at groups that have traditionally been identified with the Democratic Party, they were with us as well. I think the clear distinction that you drew in your question about this side versus this side, I don't think that holds.
Let's go to some of these other folks. The attorney general. You have written and others have written and it's been reported over and over again that we were widely viewed as rivals for the governorship or some other office. So I don't think it should be a surprise. The other people who were supportive of Sen. Lincoln, who were elected officials, they identified with Sen. Lincoln and endorsed her even before I got into the race. So you don't expect people to reverse themselves.
Let's go to another point that's related. We had tremendous support from Young Democrats around the state who were working hard. We had tremendous support from other folks who have been involved with the Democratic Party and identify themselves as Democrats. The more important point about this is in 2006 I competed in a four-way primary for lieutenant governor and lead that race, strongly led it. Had a runoff and won that decisively, with over 56 percent of the vote, against somebody who had been around for a long time. Then we went directly to the people and got the scholarship lottery passed in 2008 by an almost two to one vote. In this race, in terms of voting, in the primary there was a two percent difference between Sen. Lincoln and myself and in the runoff we had 48 percent of the vote. Both of those outcomes reflect well over 100,000 votes cast. I guess, what I'd say is that you can fall into a lot of analytical traps here.
I'm far more concerned with voters than I am with any one individual, elected official, or whatever because they make their own minds up and they decide. You're not going to win every vote, ever.
Anytime you have a competitive primary, there are going to be folks from both sides. If you have a two person race in a primary there will be folks supporting both candidates, especially in a race this close.
Read the full article at: http://www.arktimes.com/gyrobase/bill-halter-no-political-plans-yet/Content?oid=1258463&storyPage=1
Pryor goes to bat for his colleague Lincoln
Arkansas Junior Senator Mark Pryor's comments in support of his Senior Senator's reelection bid. In his remarks, Pryor outlines Sen. Lincoln's many attributes which make her one of the most independent and couragous legislators on the Hill and a strong voice for Arkansas in the Senate.
Pryor sums up Lincoln within the first few sentences of his speech:
"When times are tough, you need a Senator who's willing to put party labels aside...who stands up and stands firm for Arkansas. And we have that Senator; her name is Blanche Lincoln."
Clinton campaigning for Lincoln
From KARK4 in Little Rock-
Can a little star power be enough to save her? Wednesday former President Bill Clinton campaigned with Senator Blanche Lincoln.
It was end of a long day for Clinton stumping for endangered Democrats and a high-profile party for a candidate currently running behind.The President campaigned for congressional hopefuls Joyce Elliott and Chad Causey earlier Wednesday, both of whom have fallen far behind in recent polls.
But in the evening, it was Senator Lincoln's turn. Not her first. Clinton also stumped heavily for the Senator in the days before her big victory over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in June.
With the message he's used all day, he's hoping it will help again.
It was billed as a celebration for the senator's first full year as the first Arkansan and first female chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee. Lots of supporters inside but this was no victory party. The notables here, were clearly on the campaign trail.
Clinton called Lincoln a practical, progressive problem solver who helped develop rural communities, created jobs. Lincoln says she has accomplished a lot, wants to do more.
But things aren't looking too good right now for the Senator. A recent TPM poll average shows senator Blanche Lincoln would have to make up 29 points to win over congressman John Boozman in November.
When we caught up with him earlier, Clinton admitted the senator may be danger. Even with cards stacked against incumbents, still she, and he, are hopeful.
"She has delivered over and over and over. If we can make it about the issues and what we need to do and who's likely to do it as opposed to anger, apathy and amnesia, I think she can win this race. And I'm going to be for her. If she get's one vote it will be mine because I think it's the right thing to do,” Clinton said.
Clinton says Americans have a right to be angry about the economy, but they shouldn't suffer from amnesia about Republican policies that he says got us here in the first place, definitely some carefully placed zings at Lincoln's opponent congressman John Boozman and his campaign platforms.
But the takeaway here: it will be an uphill battle. every vote will count and the people in attendance are already convinced, it's those that weren't in the room Wednesday that will matter, in November.
Can a little star power be enough to save her? Wednesday former President Bill Clinton campaigned with Senator Blanche Lincoln.
It was end of a long day for Clinton stumping for endangered Democrats and a high-profile party for a candidate currently running behind.The President campaigned for congressional hopefuls Joyce Elliott and Chad Causey earlier Wednesday, both of whom have fallen far behind in recent polls.
But in the evening, it was Senator Lincoln's turn. Not her first. Clinton also stumped heavily for the Senator in the days before her big victory over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in June.
With the message he's used all day, he's hoping it will help again.
It was billed as a celebration for the senator's first full year as the first Arkansan and first female chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee. Lots of supporters inside but this was no victory party. The notables here, were clearly on the campaign trail.
Clinton called Lincoln a practical, progressive problem solver who helped develop rural communities, created jobs. Lincoln says she has accomplished a lot, wants to do more.
But things aren't looking too good right now for the Senator. A recent TPM poll average shows senator Blanche Lincoln would have to make up 29 points to win over congressman John Boozman in November.
When we caught up with him earlier, Clinton admitted the senator may be danger. Even with cards stacked against incumbents, still she, and he, are hopeful.
"She has delivered over and over and over. If we can make it about the issues and what we need to do and who's likely to do it as opposed to anger, apathy and amnesia, I think she can win this race. And I'm going to be for her. If she get's one vote it will be mine because I think it's the right thing to do,” Clinton said.
Clinton says Americans have a right to be angry about the economy, but they shouldn't suffer from amnesia about Republican policies that he says got us here in the first place, definitely some carefully placed zings at Lincoln's opponent congressman John Boozman and his campaign platforms.
But the takeaway here: it will be an uphill battle. every vote will count and the people in attendance are already convinced, it's those that weren't in the room Wednesday that will matter, in November.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Unions defend costly attempt to oust Lincoln
-from MSNBC.com
Labor hoped to send a powerful message by taking down a centrist Democrat who strayed from its agenda. Instead, it was forced to justify the estimated $10 million unions spent in a high-stakes gambit that failed when Sen. Blanche Lincoln narrowly defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter — labor's hand-picked candidate — in a primary runoff.
It was the latest in a perennial effort by frustrated unions to convince moderate Democrats there are consequences for failing to stand with labor. But it raises questions about whether that money could have been better spent helping dozens of vulnerable Democrats in other states.
"To use $10 million during a recession on beating up their own rather than trying to save the endangered makes no earthly sense," said Doug Schoen, a Democratic political consultant.
But union leaders insisted Wednesday that forcing Lincoln into a runoff and coming within a few thousand votes of unseating her had achieved their goal — getting other wayward Democrats to think twice before crossing labor.
"If working families were able to accomplish this in Arkansas, imagine what they can achieve in other states," said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.
Union officials were unified in praising the outcome as a strong warning to Democratic incumbents like Lincoln who have taken labor's money and utterly defied them when it comes to votes. They are tired of the argument that Republicans would be even worse, so labor should tolerate the lesser of two evils.
"It's been well worth it," said American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees president Gerald McEntee. "We've gotten more publicity and been talked about in terms of powerful labor more than I've heard in the last 20 years."
Unions have tried before to oust Democrats who voted against them on trade and other issues — with some success. Two years ago, the Service Employees International Union helped unseat business-friendly Rep. Al Wynn, of Maryland, by supporting his Democratic primary opponent, Donna Edwards. In 2000, California unions rallied behind Hilda Solis to defeat incumbent Democratic Rep. Matthew Martinez in the Los Angeles area.
But those victories took place in decidedly union-friendly territory. Arkansas is a right to work state that ranks 49th among all states in the percentage of workers who are union members.
Still, unions felt betrayed by Lincoln's decision to oppose card check legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. She also angered labor by working to kill a government insurance option in health care legislation and voting against labor lawyer Craig Becker's nomination for the National Labor Relations Board.
Lincoln's turnabout on the card check bill was particularly damaging because unions thought she might have been the 60th vote needed to defeat a GOP filibuster. Unions see the legislation as crucial to ending the steady decline of union members, which fell to a new low of 7.2 percent in the private sector last year.
"We'll see if Blanche Lincoln is made a better senator for having to answer to working Arkansans over these past few weeks," said SEIU political director Jon Youngdahl.
Youngdahl also named a string of other Democrats who could see labor's wrath, including North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell, Ohio Rep. Zach Space and New York Reps. Mike McMahon and Michael Arcuri. All voted against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Leon Fink, a labor historian at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the heavy investment in Arkansas shows other Democrats that labor "will bite back if necessary." But he questioned whether it was the best use of union resources.
"They turn increasingly to political campaigns when the question is whether those millions would be better put into organizing," Fink said.
Labor hoped to send a powerful message by taking down a centrist Democrat who strayed from its agenda. Instead, it was forced to justify the estimated $10 million unions spent in a high-stakes gambit that failed when Sen. Blanche Lincoln narrowly defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Halter — labor's hand-picked candidate — in a primary runoff.
It was the latest in a perennial effort by frustrated unions to convince moderate Democrats there are consequences for failing to stand with labor. But it raises questions about whether that money could have been better spent helping dozens of vulnerable Democrats in other states.
"To use $10 million during a recession on beating up their own rather than trying to save the endangered makes no earthly sense," said Doug Schoen, a Democratic political consultant.
But union leaders insisted Wednesday that forcing Lincoln into a runoff and coming within a few thousand votes of unseating her had achieved their goal — getting other wayward Democrats to think twice before crossing labor.
"If working families were able to accomplish this in Arkansas, imagine what they can achieve in other states," said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka.
Union officials were unified in praising the outcome as a strong warning to Democratic incumbents like Lincoln who have taken labor's money and utterly defied them when it comes to votes. They are tired of the argument that Republicans would be even worse, so labor should tolerate the lesser of two evils.
"It's been well worth it," said American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees president Gerald McEntee. "We've gotten more publicity and been talked about in terms of powerful labor more than I've heard in the last 20 years."
Unions have tried before to oust Democrats who voted against them on trade and other issues — with some success. Two years ago, the Service Employees International Union helped unseat business-friendly Rep. Al Wynn, of Maryland, by supporting his Democratic primary opponent, Donna Edwards. In 2000, California unions rallied behind Hilda Solis to defeat incumbent Democratic Rep. Matthew Martinez in the Los Angeles area.
But those victories took place in decidedly union-friendly territory. Arkansas is a right to work state that ranks 49th among all states in the percentage of workers who are union members.
Still, unions felt betrayed by Lincoln's decision to oppose card check legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. She also angered labor by working to kill a government insurance option in health care legislation and voting against labor lawyer Craig Becker's nomination for the National Labor Relations Board.
Lincoln's turnabout on the card check bill was particularly damaging because unions thought she might have been the 60th vote needed to defeat a GOP filibuster. Unions see the legislation as crucial to ending the steady decline of union members, which fell to a new low of 7.2 percent in the private sector last year.
"We'll see if Blanche Lincoln is made a better senator for having to answer to working Arkansans over these past few weeks," said SEIU political director Jon Youngdahl.
Youngdahl also named a string of other Democrats who could see labor's wrath, including North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell, Ohio Rep. Zach Space and New York Reps. Mike McMahon and Michael Arcuri. All voted against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Leon Fink, a labor historian at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said the heavy investment in Arkansas shows other Democrats that labor "will bite back if necessary." But he questioned whether it was the best use of union resources.
"They turn increasingly to political campaigns when the question is whether those millions would be better put into organizing," Fink said.
Big Labor Is Humbled by Blanche Lincoln's Win
From RCP, June 14, 2010-
How bad a defeat did labor unions suffer when Sen. Blanche Lincoln defeated their candidate and won the Arkansas Democratic runoff last week? That's like asking how Custer fared at Little Big Horn.
Like Custer, the unions bet heavily, putting something like $10 million into Arkansas to support Lincoln's challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, since he started his campaign in early March. And they did so for good reason.
Union leaders desperately need Congress to pass their card check bill, which would effectively abolish the secret ballot in unionization elections. Card check would allow union thugs -- er, organizers -- to collect signatures on cards of a majority of employees and then, presto, the union would be recognized as a bargaining agent, and dues money would come pouring in.
It isn't now, at least at the rate union leaders would like. Last January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that union membership in 2009 was at an all-time low since the 1930s. Only 12 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, and the number of union members dropped 771,000 between 2008 and 2009.
And, for the first time in history, more union members (7.9 million) work in the public sector than the private sector (7.4 million). Only 7.2 percent of private-sector workers are union members, a huge drop from the peak figure of 28 percent in the mid-1950s.
Moreover, unions aren't picking up many young workers. The BLS reports that 16.6 percent of workers 55 to 64 years old are union members. That's compared to only 4.7 percent of workers 16 to 24.
Union leaders spent some $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle to elect Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Senate and House. They got their wish: Obama won, House Democrats gained a solid majority and, once Al Franken was seated last July, there was a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate. There was speculation in sympathetic blogs about how many Senate Republicans would join the Democrats in passing card check and sending it to the president for his signature.
But politicians don't always stay bought. Every Democratic senator but one (who was out sick) voted for cloture to consider the card check bill in 2007, including Blanche Lincoln. But that was when it was sure to be vetoed by George W. Bush.
After the 2008 elections, Lincoln undoubtedly started to hear constituents in Arkansas -- including, undoubtedly, top management at Wal-Mart and Tysons Food, who don't want unions to do to their firms what the United Auto Workers did to General Motors and Chrysler. Polls showed large majorities of the national electorate opposed to eliminating the secret ballot. By January 2009, Lincoln was saying she didn't think "there is a need for this legislation right now."
She wasn't the only Senate Democrat to take that view. Her Arkansas colleague Mark Pryor, re-elected without opposition in 2008, said he wouldn't co-sponsor card check again. Card check slowly died.
Union leaders are under no illusion that there will be more Democrats in the next Congress than in this one. But they think far ahead, and they decided to oppose Lincoln to teach every Democrat a lesson: If you oppose big labor, we will end your career. Whether they persuaded Halter to run or just hitched a ride on his last-minute candidacy, they went all-in for him.
They weren't swayed by arguments that a primary fight would weaken the Democratic chances in the general election. Polls showed both Lincoln and Halter well behind Republican Rep. John Boozman anyway. The idea was not to win the seat for a Democrat, but to teach Democrats that they had to back card check or suffer political death.
Despite Halter's considerable political skills, the unions fell short. In the May 18 primary, Lincoln was forced into a runoff, as she led Halter by only 2 percent. In the runoff, she ran against "outside interests" in a state where only 4 percent of workers are union members. It was enough to give her a 52 percent to 48 percent victory.
Lincoln's victory removes the credibility of the unions' threat to end the careers of Democrats who don't do their bidding. The unions rode into Arkansas like Custer rode into Little Big Horn, and unlike Custer they managed to ride out -- but without the scalp they were desperately seeking.
How bad a defeat did labor unions suffer when Sen. Blanche Lincoln defeated their candidate and won the Arkansas Democratic runoff last week? That's like asking how Custer fared at Little Big Horn.
Like Custer, the unions bet heavily, putting something like $10 million into Arkansas to support Lincoln's challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, since he started his campaign in early March. And they did so for good reason.
Union leaders desperately need Congress to pass their card check bill, which would effectively abolish the secret ballot in unionization elections. Card check would allow union thugs -- er, organizers -- to collect signatures on cards of a majority of employees and then, presto, the union would be recognized as a bargaining agent, and dues money would come pouring in.
It isn't now, at least at the rate union leaders would like. Last January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that union membership in 2009 was at an all-time low since the 1930s. Only 12 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, and the number of union members dropped 771,000 between 2008 and 2009.
And, for the first time in history, more union members (7.9 million) work in the public sector than the private sector (7.4 million). Only 7.2 percent of private-sector workers are union members, a huge drop from the peak figure of 28 percent in the mid-1950s.
Moreover, unions aren't picking up many young workers. The BLS reports that 16.6 percent of workers 55 to 64 years old are union members. That's compared to only 4.7 percent of workers 16 to 24.
Union leaders spent some $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle to elect Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Senate and House. They got their wish: Obama won, House Democrats gained a solid majority and, once Al Franken was seated last July, there was a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate. There was speculation in sympathetic blogs about how many Senate Republicans would join the Democrats in passing card check and sending it to the president for his signature.
But politicians don't always stay bought. Every Democratic senator but one (who was out sick) voted for cloture to consider the card check bill in 2007, including Blanche Lincoln. But that was when it was sure to be vetoed by George W. Bush.
After the 2008 elections, Lincoln undoubtedly started to hear constituents in Arkansas -- including, undoubtedly, top management at Wal-Mart and Tysons Food, who don't want unions to do to their firms what the United Auto Workers did to General Motors and Chrysler. Polls showed large majorities of the national electorate opposed to eliminating the secret ballot. By January 2009, Lincoln was saying she didn't think "there is a need for this legislation right now."
She wasn't the only Senate Democrat to take that view. Her Arkansas colleague Mark Pryor, re-elected without opposition in 2008, said he wouldn't co-sponsor card check again. Card check slowly died.
Union leaders are under no illusion that there will be more Democrats in the next Congress than in this one. But they think far ahead, and they decided to oppose Lincoln to teach every Democrat a lesson: If you oppose big labor, we will end your career. Whether they persuaded Halter to run or just hitched a ride on his last-minute candidacy, they went all-in for him.
They weren't swayed by arguments that a primary fight would weaken the Democratic chances in the general election. Polls showed both Lincoln and Halter well behind Republican Rep. John Boozman anyway. The idea was not to win the seat for a Democrat, but to teach Democrats that they had to back card check or suffer political death.
Despite Halter's considerable political skills, the unions fell short. In the May 18 primary, Lincoln was forced into a runoff, as she led Halter by only 2 percent. In the runoff, she ran against "outside interests" in a state where only 4 percent of workers are union members. It was enough to give her a 52 percent to 48 percent victory.
Lincoln's victory removes the credibility of the unions' threat to end the careers of Democrats who don't do their bidding. The unions rode into Arkansas like Custer rode into Little Big Horn, and unlike Custer they managed to ride out -- but without the scalp they were desperately seeking.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Welcome!
This blog has been set up because MilesC56 and myself would like to see a Lincoln/Halter ticket for Governor/Lt. Gov. in Arkansas in 2014, when Gov. Mike Bebee (D-AR) will be term limited.
We also admire these two politicians greatly and this blog will be covering what they're doing.
Miles will be coverning Lt. Gov. Halter and I will be covering Sen. Lincoln.
Enjoy!
We also admire these two politicians greatly and this blog will be covering what they're doing.
Miles will be coverning Lt. Gov. Halter and I will be covering Sen. Lincoln.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
