“‘Taxpayers are subsidizing a legislative agenda that is inimical to their interests and offensive to what the whole TARP program is about,; said William Patterson, executive director of CtW Investment Group, an activist group affiliated with a coalition of labor unions. ‘It’s business as usual with taxpayers picking up the bill.” Sigh. The WP’s Dan Eggen reports on GM and a host of financial firms using bailout money to lobby for the status quo. “Major recipients of federal bailout money spent more than $10 million to lobby lawmakers in the first three months of 2009, including arguing against pay limits for corporate executives, according to newly filed disclosure records.“
Tag: Unions
GOP to Big 3: Drop Dead. | WH to the Rescue?
“‘Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms,’ the White House statement said. ‘However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary — including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.’” After Senate Republicans manage to kill the auto bailout bill — apparently, GOP conservatives wanted to see more arbitrary union-busting therein — the Dubya administration, to its credit, announces it may just move ahead anyway. “A precipitous collapse of this industry would have a severe impact on our economy, and it would be irresponsible to further weaken and destabilize our economy at this time.”
I can’t say I ever expected to pat this administration on the back for broadly interpreting its legislative mandate. But, we live in strange times, I guess.
Said Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm of the bailout bill’s demise in the Senate: “Their no vote is an astounding blow. They have chosen to ignore the livelihood of 3 million Americans, 3 million families, and in the process have chosen to drive the American manufacturing industry — and perhaps the American economy — into the ground.” Said Republican L. Brooks Patterson of his party’s behavior in Congress: “The arsenal of democracy is under attack by the arsenal of hypocrisy.” (The world markets didn’t like it much either.)
Andrew: Enough.
“‘He has shown such mettle under fire,’ Andrew said in the interview. ‘The Jeremiah Wright controversy just reconfirmed for me, just as the gas tax controversy confirmed for me, that he is the right candidate for our party.‘” A Clinton endorser since Day 1 of her candidacy, former DNC Chair Joe Andrew switches to Sen. Obama, and is ready for the fallout.”If the campaign’s surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton’s cabinet, a ‘Judas’ for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me. They are the best practitioners of the old politics, so they will no doubt call me a traitor, an opportunist and a hypocrite. I will be branded as disloyal, power-hungry, but most importantly, they will use the exact words that Republicans used to attack me when I was defending President Clinton.” Heh.
Throw in DNC member John Patrick of Texas for Obama and AFL-CIO head John Olson of CT for Clinton and that puts our post-PA super count at Obama 11-5. Once you add the automatic add-ons from NY (Clinton +4) and IL (Obama +3), Clinton is down nineteen from her needed 2-1 split. Clinton -5, -10, -13, -19…anyone else noticing a pattern?
Nardi for Obama. | And More.
“Barack Obama began his career in public service helping to restore opportunity to a community that was devastated by a steel plant closing, and he has been fighting for economic fairness ever since.” Sen. Obama picks up another superdelegate endorsement in Ohio Teamsters president Sonny Nardi. According to Ohio’s Buckeye State Blog: “This is a huge deal. Sure, it’s a superdelegate pickup for Barack, but more importantly, it will open the flood gates. Ohio superdelegates leaning for Clinton or Obama are going to be more likely to come out now, because Nardi just gave them cover.“
Update: According to DemConWatch, Sen. Obama also picked up a few more: Overseas superdelegate Connie Borde, PA super Leon Lynch, and Rep. Steve Kagen of WI. And, most importantly (as you’ll see if you scroll down), Sen. Feingold moved further towards Obama, and voted for him last Tuesday. Update 2: AP counts a super switch of +27 for Obama over the past two weeks.
Labor and Supers Swell the Ranks.
“‘Sen. Obama will fight for better wages, real health care reform, stronger retirement security, fair trade and an end to the outsourcing of good jobs,’ said Hoffa. ‘He understands the importance of giving workers a voice at work and will fight for strong unions to help rebuild America’s middle class.’” The Teamsters, 1.4 million strong, back Barack Obama, as does the 65,000-member International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. (The Change to Win labor consortium may follow suit tomorrow, although four of its seven member unions already back the Senator.) Meanwhile, Sen. Obama picked up four more superdelegates today: Ron Kind of WI (who said he’d follow his district), Lloyd Doggett of TX, and Dana Redd and Donald Norcross of NJ. (Redd had previously backed Clinton, meaning today’s superdelegate swing was 5.) Update: Change to Win backs Obama, although the three unions not already supporting the Senator abstained from voting: “[T]he three unions released the federation to work for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.“
UFCW for Obama. SEIU next?
“Senator Obama understands the needs of working people. As a community organizer, he understands that America must restore the balance between working America and corporate America. He will fight to level the playing field on behalf of workers across our country. He will fight to regain the rights and protections workers have lost after too many years of the Bush Administration.” Sen. Obama picks up some key labor endorsements. First up, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which is 1.3 million members strong and “has a powerful presence and a strong organization in key primary states such as Wisconsin, Hawaii, Texas and Ohio.” And, though it hasn’t been announced for sure yet, Politico‘s Ben Smith says an SEIU endorsement is imminent. “‘It’s done,’ said one person close to the union.” Let’s hope so — we’ll know tomorrow.
Also, we should probably expect Bill Clinton to dust off the union-busting rhetoric.
Update: SEIU endorses. “‘There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us,’ Andy Stern, the union’s president, told reporters in announcing the decision.“
Mightier than the Sword?
“‘This the best deal this guild has bargained for in 30 years,’ Verrone said.” Is the writers’ strike coming to an end? It would appear so. “The endorsement paves the way for writers to return to work on Wednesday, pending a vote by the guild’s membership to lift the strike order on Tuesday.“
Variety covers the basics of the deal here. “The most significant opposition is coming on the issue of the promotional window on ad-supported streaming. The objections center on concerns that TV viewing will be quickly migrating to the Intenet before the end of the contract [May, 2011], given current viewing trends…reaction to the deal points in the blogosphere on Saturday morning has been decidedly mixed, with much of the criticism pointed at the length of the promotional window.” To be honest, I don’t know enough about the issues at stake to evaluate the deal. Any thoughts out there? Update: Slate‘s Kim Masters sifts through the deal.
Our Rove Problem.
Another column update, as per yesterday:
TNR’s Jonathan Chait examines the “vast left-wing conspiracy” emerging against the Clintons. “Something strange happened the other day. All these different people — friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read — kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons…Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational.“
The American Prospect‘s Paul Waldman agrees with the assessment that the Clintons are running a thoroughly Rovian primary campaign: “Three weeks ago, I wrote that Clinton was working to make voters uneasy, utilizing just enough fear to encourage them to stick with the known quantity in the race. But in the time since, her campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it’s being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor — take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps — however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they’re doing so in awfully familiar ways. So many of the ingredients of a typical GOP campaign are there, in addition to fear. We have the efforts to make it harder for the opponent’s voters to get to the polls (the Nevada lawsuit seeking to shut down at-large caucus sites in Las Vegas, to which the Clinton campaign gave its tacit support). We have, depending on how you interpret the events of the last couple of weeks, the exploitation of racial divisions and suspicions (including multiple Clinton surrogates criticizing Obama for his admitted teenage drug use). And most of all, we have an utterly shameless dishonesty.”“
Vanity Fair‘s Bruce Feirstein has had just about enough of Bill Clinton: “Clinton’s response offered an unusual lens into the powder-keg that is our former commander-in-chief: Starting with an almost jocular dismissal of the accusation, he then proceeded to wind himself up into a finger-pointing fury, attacking Barack Obama, painting himself as the victim, and generally blaming the press for everything, before walking away with the taunt, ‘Shame on you.’ It was not, well, presidential.“
“They think they’re better than you are.”
“Of course, Hillary and Bill aren’t suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn’t. That’s the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.” Ronald Cass examines the new tactic the Clintons have taken to in Nevada: union-busting. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton remains on a roll, and argues he and Chelsea personally witnessed voter intimidation at a Las Vegas casino, claims that would appear to be “technically impossible.”
Did I mention it’s been 10 years since Monicagate? (I wouldn’t expect a 10th-anniversary edition of And the Horse He Rode in On.)
Leahy and Durazo Aboard.
“‘We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world – and actually reintroduce America to ourselves. Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again.” Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont endorses Barack Obama. “Leahy likened his support of Obama to the 1968 presidential campaign, when as a young prosecutor he endorsed Robert Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. ‘He was bringing us a sense of hope, bringing us together,’ Leahy said. ‘I know those are intangibles, but it encouraged me to go against the establishment in my own state, and go with Bobby Kennedy.’“
And another potentially big Obama endorsement from yesterday: Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles Federation of Labor. One expert said of Durazo: “There is no person in all of California who could get more people out to the street to go do something, either to march or get the vote out.” “When she discussed her endorsement with her son Michael, a senior at Cathedral High School in Los Angeles, he urged her to choose Obama. ‘He said, “In the end, Mom, it’s the chance of a lifetime.” For him to say that means a lot. It’s true.’”