I have been trying to really understand what is going on between the White House and Labor and for the life of me I cannot come to any other conclusion other than this is a big old pissing match that has gotten out of control.
Although the sword brigade is one sword less after Andy Sterns' retirement, it seems the enmity that is left over from the Health Care fight is fighting its way back to the forefront.
I for the life of me cannot understand the logic of the unions' fight to unseat Lincoln in Arkansas. Yes I understand she is not a reliable vote for all things union but she is more reliable than a Republican. While the unions may only get from Lincoln, 40%-50% best case or 20%-40% worst case, of the votes it wants for its agenda. That is a whole lot better than the zero percent of votes they will get from any Republican Senator from Arkansas.
So I do agree with the proposition that an enemy of mine who agrees with me 50% of time is really my friend. Certainly a better friend than one who disagrees with me 100% of the time.
Jane Hamsher says that Bob Menendez should return all labor money as punishment for calling labor a "Special Interest".
Bill Clinton, "Anonymous Senior White House Aide," Chuck Schumer and now Menendez? This is no coincidence. Looks like the Democratic establishment is going to triangulate against labor now. Unlike their bullshit claims about "standing up to Wall Street," at least this one is from the heart.
Well, if Robert Menendez thinks the money that went to Halter was tainted, why is he taking it himself? If it’s coming from a "DC Special Interest Group," he should give it back.
Well Geesus Cristopher that is certainly helpful Jane. While Sen Menendez is at it why doesn't he just transfer that money over to the Republican side of the aisle. Because as we all know Republicans are just waiting for like minded labor supporters to hop on board the right wing express. Or maybe Jane, you should just hook up one more time with Grover Norquist and make sure that all anti-union Democrats are replaced with anti-union Republicans.
F'ing stupid!
Rick Ungar and I see eye to eye on this issue
Let’s hope that it was organized labor that learned a lesson. While the unions have an important political role to play in the election process, at a time when their members are struggling, wasting $10 million in the quest for revenge may not be the best possible use of memberships’ hard earned money.
That unnamed White House spokesman was right. This kind of money could make a real difference in congressional districts where politicians supportive of union objectives need the help. To waste this much cash on a vendetta is an abuse of the power given to organized labor leadership by their members and should not be permitted to happen again.
Everyone has to admit that in times of recession and cut backs in spending. Wasting money fighting someone who you may agree with some of the time in a red State may not be the wisest use of one's cash.
I know there are arguments that say the Unions are wanting to send a message to Democrats to fall in line. However, keeping this up through the primary season is unwarranted, the message has been sent, so why continue this? IMO, "the sword brigades are measuring their tools"
Erza Klein point this out.
Insofar as they wanted to prove that they could and would make an incumbent's life hell, they did it, and they did it in a low-consequences state. Going forward, when they march into someone's office and threaten a primary challenge if they don't stand with labor on this or that, the officeholder will think back to Lincoln's very-bad-year and listen. That was the point of labor's challenge. Electing Halter in Arkansas really wasn't. And so though you might believe that labor is wasting its money when it focuses on legislative politics rather than organizing, it doesn't make much sense to say they wasted their money if you're trying to get them to spend that money on other races. In order for labor political spending to make a difference, they occasionally have to do things like this to make sure no one takes them for granted.
Methinks, and this is pure speculation on my part, that the White House was sending labor a message that they may have been going a little to far and asking too much with the Public Option and Card Check proxy wars. The White House needs and wants labors money and boots on the ground but it has to understand that there are limits to what the White House and congress can deliver within the big tent of the Democratic party.
So when the Unions insist on purging those who disagree with them from the party, while on the other hand the White House and DNC is trying to grow the party, the Labor Unions strategy of addition by subtraction has to be called out. This anonymous source at the White House was doing just that.
The Risk Reward is also not in the Unions favor, especially in Arkansas. There was polling that said that Halter may have done a bit better than Lincoln. However, after a bruising primary battle and the fact that Bubba (Clinton), Halter, and the Unions pissed each off, there was certainly no guarantees that they would be successful against Boozeman the Republican nominee in the fall. Bubba still has clout in Arkansas and it was certainly no slam dunk that he would have laid it out for Halter this fall as he surely will for Lincoln.
On the other hand the White House has a chit that they can play in a year, once the real contest for the White House begins. I can see the Republicans side trying to hang the Union is a pejorative necklace around the President's neck. However, the President's political team will have a "we stood up to the Union's" chit to play at the right time.
The Union on the other hand may or may not have the same chit with the moderate Democrats that win in the fall. Because if they win without Union help then the leverage that Labor sought with the Arkansas play will vanish.
Update:
I wanted to point out that Democratic enthusiasm seems to be on the rise.
For the first time since December PPP finds Democrats leading on the generic Congressional ballot, albeit by the insignificant margin of 43-41.
The biggest reason for the shift is that the party is becoming more unified. Democratic voters are planning to support their candidates by a 76 point margin, 84-8. That represents an 11 point increase from March when it was just 65 points at 80-15.
So who are the 8% who are disenchanted and the other 8% who don't know?