Vote For Clinton, Get Secretary of Labor Ed Rendell

And what a disaster that would be...

Ed Rendell has been promised something. He has made crass statements about whites in central Pennsylvania not voting for African Americans. And he argued that elections are fundamentally undemocratic on NBC’s Meet the Press this week. Those who have been around Pennsylvania for long enough know that Ed Rendell must’ve been promised something by Hillary Clinton in order to act like such a buffoon. I believe the rumor I heard yesterday which says that Clinton has promised Rendell the position of Secretary of Labor in her administration.

Rendell is a long time enemy of the labor movement. As Mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell instituted a 3 year wage freeze on municipal employees and drastically cut health care benefits. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was so enraged with Rendell that they backed Republican Mike Fisher in the 2002 election for Governor. AFSCME now backs Senator Clinton, and is one of her most important supporters. AFSCME members should ask themselves this—do they want to contribute to Secretary of Labor Ed Rendell?

In the late 1990s, the Clintons advanced the career of Ed Rendell—they appointed him to be the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In his time as Democratic National Committee Chairman, Rendell developed a fetish for big soft-money donations from corrupt corporate interests. Rendell accepted gigantic donations from the likes of Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko.

Rendell’s poor judgment was evidenced by when he said that the 20 year fugitive from justice Hsu was, "one of the ten best people I’ve ever met in my life." Our friend Chuck Ardo, Rendell’s spokesman, tried to excuse the Governor’s statement by saying that perhaps Hsu thought that a settlement in a civil lawsuit rendered the criminal case moot. Nice try Chuck, nobody believed that whopper. Rendell himself continued to defend his criminal friend by saying,

"Norman is my friend and remains so...It was never about the money. It's about standing up for one of the principles of our judicial system -- that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Norman, you didn't cause me embarrassment ... I wish you the best of luck"

While Rendell embarrassingly defended criminals like Hsu, he’s never met a worker he actually liked. This was evidenced by what happened when there was a fight over the Pennsylvania budget. Rendell furloughed all state employees—except for those working for Rendell’s fat cat buddies at the Casinos. Apparently, in the mind of the Commonwealth’s slightly batty Governor, gambling is more critical to the State of Pennsylvania than fixing pot holes on the turnpike, or teaching the children of Pennsylvania to appreciate nature by spending a day in the park.

Ed Rendell has been a public servant for 20 years now. Time and again, he has sided with big corporate interests over the American worker. Time and again, he has given hard working Pennsylvanians who did nothing wrong the shaft. And in this election, by endorsing NAFTA-loving Hillary Clinton, Ed Rendell’s failure is complete.

Pennsylvania workers have a choice: they can vote for Ed Rendell for Secretary of Labor by supporting Hillary Clinton for President. To do so would be to ensure the demise of organized labor. Or they can step into a politics that says no to Ed Rendell’s lobbyist friends. They can support a candidate who doesn't take money from corporate lobbyists. They can support a candidate who truly opposes NAFTA. They can support a candidate who has fought for unions for 25 years. They can make the better choice and enter a new day by backing Barack Obama for President.

•  Tip Jar nt

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM PDT

•  Now if Obama

  would only offer it to Edwards.

  by happymisanthropy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM PDT

  •  He's already offered AG

    But Obama could offer Secretary of Labor to Reich, who was a great one and resigned when it became apparent that Clinton was selling the worker out...

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM PDT

    •  No he didn't

      The story, which may or may not be true, was that Edwards was asking for a cabinet appointment from Obama in exchange for an endorsement, and Obama refused.

      If he had made a promise, don't you think Edwards would have endorsed by now?

      by jlkenney on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM PDT

      •  Well it's safe to say

        that with the Spitzer fiasco, that the competition for that spot is definitely thinner.

        by bam bam on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

•  Oh, PA

  As someone who until recently lived in PA (and is still registered to vote there) I've gotta take anything Rendell says with a grain of salt. Sure, he's done some good things. But this is a state with high unemployment, soaring rural and urban poverty rates, a crumbling infrastructure, absurdly outdated laws and, let us not forget, a crime and murder rate that has become both a joke and a crisis.

  I can't say I put too much faith in PA politicians, particularly their opinions on what makes a good leader.

  by eColt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM PDT

•  

  They can support a candidate who hasn’t taken a cent from a corporate lobbyist.

  Who may that be? Obama? He has taken donations from corporate lobbyists, as did HRC. To think that a politician is squeaky clean is naive, it's never happened. All one has to do is check opensecrets.org and see for yourself though you may not like it.

  Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race. And Opensecrets.org shows that Obama is picking up gobs of money put on the table by these special interests—including those involved in health care, which will surely have a lot riding on the outcome of the election and will expect to be heard after the election is over.

  Consider the sector called lawyers and law firms. Clearly, lawyers and law firms lobby on behalf of their own interests—like fighting malpractice reform, which could again surface as a thorny issue for the new administration. Clinton and Obama have raised similar amounts from lawyers and law firms—$11.8 and $9.5 million. McCain and Huckabee have taken far less. The health sector has also given to Obama, Clinton, and McCain. In the pharmaceutical and health product industries, contributions to Clinton total $349,000 and $338,000 to Obama. Again, McCain trails in donations at about $98,000, an indication that the sector sees the real action on the Democratic side of the ballot. Health professionals, which include doctors, nurses, and dentists, have given Clinton some $2.3 million and Obama $1.7 million.

  Last August The Boston Globe, in a piece by Scott Helman, took a hard look at Obama’s contributions, noting that "behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth." That truth revealed that as a state legislator in Illinois, a U.S. senator, and as a presidential aspirant, Obama had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs. Helman quoted an Obama campaign spokeswoman saying that after he experienced firsthand the influence of Washington lobbyists, he was taking a different approach to fundraising than he had in the past, and that "his leadership position on this issue is an evolving process." If Obama’s leadership on campaign financing is indeed evolving, more news outlets should be following the evolution.

  by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM PDT

•  "Ed Rendell has been promised something."

  We dont need no stinking facts!!!
  Keep your stinking facts!!!
  We just need "the rumor I heard yesterday".

  by Barry in MIA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM PDT

  •  How does it taste

    Your own medicine that is?

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM PDT

    •  How does your own lack of facts taste?

      Why don't you Google opensecrets and do a search for who exactly gave to whom from corporate lobbyists? Or would that contradict your rosy views of the world?

      by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM PDT

      •  $4,300 to Obama

        Which he says he gave back. Half a million to Clinton which she proudly accepted.

        by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM PDT

        •  You are so naive but then again it doesn't seem

          to concern you.

          by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM PDT

        •   I guess this is chickenshit!

          He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."

          "The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

          But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

          In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

          Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

          In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

          by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM PDT

•  Secretary of Labor?

  Forgive me if I'm extremely dubious.  Organized labor gets a veto on a Democratic Secretary of Labor, and no way they'd accept Rendell.

  HHS, HUD, Commerce...any of those, maybe.  Rendell might also want Specter's Senate seat when it comes up in 2010.

  by jlkenney on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM PDT

  •  Well the Clintons have never given two shits

    about what unions think.  Vote Clinton, you may get SecLab Rendell.

    Vote Obama, you will get someone pro-labor.

    by IhateBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM PDT

    •  Er, no

      As I said - Labor gets a veto over that position.  That doesn't mean Clinton will fight particularly hard for Labor issues - I imagine she won't.  But she's not going to appoint a famed union buster as Secretary of Labor, either.

      by jlkenney on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM PDT

•  Don't let Rendell near AG either.

  Republican Convention 2000

  Philadelphia's crackdown on free speech didn't begin with the mass arrests on Aug. 1. It started months earlier, when then-Mayor Edward G. Rendell signed a "right of first refusal" clause that gave the Republicans dibs on the major public spaces in Center City, banning protests even after the GOP had finalized its plans and there were spaces left over. To appease the Republicans, Rendell sold away the First Amendment for a mess of pottage, declaring the city off-limits to its own people.

    The city criminalized even the hard-won handful of permitted rallies. On Aug. 1, the Pennsylvania Abolitionists held a permitted anti-death penalty rally on Thomas Paine Plaza downtown. Police surrounded the demonstrators with a triple ring of troops and barricades, preventing people from going to or from the plaza. Several people were arrested for trying. For attempting to attend or leave a legal rally.

  by ben masel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

  •  I agree Rendell shouldn't be near

    Any Democratic administration...

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM PDT

    •  And I'm sure that if Obama

      is the President, Fast Eddie with so many skeletons in the closet to fill a graveyard won't.

      by IhateBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM PDT

•  I knew he was after a job. n/t

  by B P Pgh on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM PDT

•  Well, considering...

  ...that all we have to go on here is a rumor you heard yesterday... I guess this should be front-paged ASAP.

  by Bill W on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

•  Thanks for this.

    I feel like one of very few PA Democrats who hates Governor Rendell.  I had great health care under former Republican governor Tom Ridge.  As soon as Rendell became governor my health care got a lot worse and a lot more expensive.  He has bad relationships with teacher's unions since he sold out them out as mayor of Philadelphia.  Rendell is the quintessential DLC Democrat.  Everyone thinks he's a good liberal because he's from Philadelphia, but I assure you, he is not.  I disliked Rendell before he decided to support Clinton.  He's terrible.
    I also forgot to mention that he never gives my university (Penn State) enough money to function.  Ever since he became governor his budget for Penn State has not kept up with inflation.  Pennsylvania routinely and inexplicably ranks close to last in providing support for state universities.  Does Rendell sound like a good Democrat to you?

  by redrelic17 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM PDT

  •  Which is why I voted for Bob Casey in 2002

    When I was still living in Pittsburgh. You're right about Rendell.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM PDT

•  Give the diarist a break, y'all

  At the very least, this diary passes along some extremely interesting information about probably the most vocal and visible Hillary supporter we're likely to see for the next six weeks.  I think the facts in the diary are worth knowing.  The rumor in the diary is clearly labeled as such and can be ignored if one wishes, but no one seems to be disputing the facts about Rendell.

  by teyigdhk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM PDT