Tom Fitton of the Right Side News, which I believe is a sister to Judicial Watch, has written a condemnation today of the NLRB (what's new?) His ignorance and distortion is manifest. Hopefully, this will set him straight. I'd have done it directly, but Right Side News' comment section is virtually unusable, since it allows only for small comments.
Mr. Fitton, your ability to connect dots is non-existent.
A. The Name Calling.
You say:
As I’ve said before, problems at the NLRB begin right at the top with Craig Becker, head of the NLRB’s five-member board. Anticipating a nasty battle, President Obama bypassed the U.S. Senate and recess-appointed Becker. The Becker appointment was made after the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to move forward on his confirmation.
An ally of ACORN, Becker had previously worked for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, major financial backers of Obama and the Democratic Party. Controversially, Becker has refused to recuse himself from certain NLRB decisions affecting his former union clients. And now Becker’s minions at the NLRB are cheerleading for the unions and behaving irresponsibly in attacking a major U.S. corporation.
When his key staff is mouthing Marxist, anti-American slurs and others are showing contempt for Congress, it is no wonder that the Obama-controlled agency would engage in an over-the-top legal attack on a major U.S. corporation.
Aside from Becker’s employment history, which has nothing to with ACORN, you complain that he worked for a union. So where were your complaints when George W. Bush appointed Board members from management firms? Indeed, if you knew the NLRB’s history, you would find that all presidents since 1947 have appointed members with backgrounds in labor relations—some from management, some from the unions. That is a standard attempt to maintain a balance of views—which both Bush and Obama agree is important. And, of course, the sitting president gets to appoint his own majority. Elections have consequences.
Then you go on to say that the Board’s perceived bias comes from the top with Becker. Hogwash. Becker is a Board member. He sits on an appellate panel performing the duties of an appeals judge in an administrative context. He doesn’t set policy and he doesn’t have “minions” working for his causes. What he has is a professional staff of career employees who have worked for a variety of Board members.
And the jokes that so upset you are not the mouthings of Marxists, nor are they attacks on the U.S. or the Congress. They don’t even come from Becker’s staff. They are the comments of ordinary American bureaucrats whose jobs with the Board’s General Counsel are being threatened by political bullies like DeMint, Graham, Issa and Haley. The jokes are aimed at elected officials who disagree with the statute and who themselves are behaving badly—interfering with an ongoing federal prosecution.
Frankly, sir, you are defaming these individuals, calling them names. If you had evidence they were Marxist, surely you could cite it. But you can’t, because they aren’t and such evidence is therefore non-existent.
B. The Emails.
That's all there is?
What those emails and comments actually show is the heavy-handedness of DeMint and Graham in attempting to influence a federal agency in the performance of its job. Clearly they were attempting to intimidate Solomon.
The rest of it is standard office joking around about matters that affected them and which were making news. And privately calling DeMint, Dement, is standard fare. I'll bet he's been called that since the 6th grade. If he's offended, he should resign for being too thin-skinned. If public officials want to play politics with the NLRB's General Counsel staff, or with the staff of any entity, they should expect some sniping in return. I'm only surprised it wasn't stronger since the NLRB people are not shrinking violets. And those elected officials deserved all the scorn they received from these staff members, plus more. At least the staff didn’t go public with its dismay.
But, no matter how you look at it, these employee remarks are aimed, not at Boeing or how to assess the Boeing facts for the purpose of issuing/declining a complaint, but at the Congressional meddling. They do not reflect any bias or preconceived position on how to handle the case, only disdain toward the Congressional meddlers.
That is especially true with the black humor exchange between Solomon and Liebman. Solomon had been unfairly pasted by Graham, DeMint and Issa on economics grounds, even though the NLRB cannot consider economic issues in the abstract. Of course such attacks will result in a response. That this joke is only mildly facetious is actually a compliment to Solomon's professionalism.
These jokes are simply the black humor of agency employees whose employer is under an unfair political attack for doing the job Congress assigned to it.
DeMint, Graham, Issa and Haley have all acted unprofessionally here. Why? They are part of a right wing antiunion cabal and they are trying to provide cover to Boeing in order to prevent the NLRB's General Counsel from doing his job. In fact, they may have been interfering with a government agency in a manner inconsistent with the federal laws barring such intervention.
Conclusion
Your commentary misses the mark because it is factually incorrect. Your ad hominem aspersions have shown that you don’t understand the very human responses people make when they are falsely accused by powerful politicians whose true motives are transparently different from those they have publicly espoused.
Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM PT: My post only linked to the story about the jokes and did not repeat them. My bad. An easier place to find them is -- ahem -- Fox's distortion.
http://nation.foxnews.com/...
Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM PT: Second Update. I linked this diary in the comments section at Right Side News. It's awaiting approval. We'll see if they have the courage to post it.