Proof Mounting That Dems Lack 60 Votes on Employee Free Choice
The Journal reports today on a Democratic math problem that we noted yesterday: the president's party simply lacks the votes to break a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the No. 1 priority of the labor movement that's headed for its official introduction later this afternoon.
The Journal states that six senators who previously supported EFCA are now up in the air on the bill, although only four fence-sitters are named -- the exact same four we reported yesterday, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Mark Pryor (D-AR).
The uncertainty surrounding their votes means that we're unlikely to see EFCA come up in the Senate until May or June, giving labor unions more time to lock up support and Minnesota's Al Franken more time to win his court case and get seated in the Senate.
Late Update: Here comes more proof of the Dems' uncertainty on EFCA ... Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who had previously voted to break a GOP filibuster of the bill, told HuffPo today that he's opposed to Employee Free Choice in its current format.
Late Late Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a rosier prediction to reporters after today's party luncheon, predicting that "frankly, [the votes are] there" to break a GOP filibuster of EFCA. As Reid put it:
Now, remember, these are procedural votes. These are not votes on the substance of the bill. There may be somebody who simply -- they don't believe it's right to hold up legislation like this. And so I think getting 60 votes on the procedural aspects of it, I think, it certainly doable. And then we'll look and see if we can get enough votes to pass it. I, certainly, think we can.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I've been convinced all along that EFCA is the overriding reason for Coleman's well-financed delaying action. Gives the business lobby more time for its bullshit fear campaign and to put pressure on waverers.
Not that they'll lack for money from their corporate pimps, but no so-called Democrat who votes against cloture on EFCA should ever get another dime from the DCCC.
March 10, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again with another uninformed rant. The DCCC funds House candidates. There are no cloture rules in the House. You might be referring to the DSCC. {rolling eyes}
Still, your advice that the DSCC refuse to give financial support to any encumbent who refuses to vote the party line is just as absurd as Steele saying (and wingers agreeing) he might challenge Specter, Snowe and Collins in their primaries.
Are you sure you're not a republican? Your prescriptions would do more to shrink the Democratic party than Limbaugh has ever done.
March 10, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of blah over a one-letter typo. But typical of your content-free stupidity.
March 10, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, dude. It wasn't a typo. It was your usual know-nothing bullshit. Keep on working to root the not-sufficiently-pure out of the Democratic party.
Better yet, since you're so upset that the party is filled with people who actually "represent" their constituents and have their own beliefs and opinions instead of being Stepford pols, maybe you should leave. There's a party that's perfect for you . . . it begins with an "R" and ends with "can."
March 10, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Get this though your thick skull. I can deal with it if they feel they need to vote against the bill itself. But there is no excuse for them to abet Republican abuse of the filibuster by voting against CLOTURE. But I doubt you're smart enough to understand the distinction. (Cue stupid reply proving that I'm correct about that in 3,2,1...)
March 10, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S.-Reply: Hey, Turd Blossom! read lower and you'll see that I understand completely and posted about the difference four minutes before your "enlightening" post. You see, I understand cloture. I even understand that it's necessary in the Senate, not the House! Something you don't get.
Just like you didn't realize that so many cruicial things can't be "shoehorned into the budget" (as you claimed when saying we only need 51 "real Democrats") and need 60 votes.
But please, stop the spinning. You've advocated drumming Democrats out of the party if they don't VOTE with the Dems 100%, saying earlier that it doesn't matter if they vote with the party 90% of the time since those are the "easy" votes . . . as you declared in your infinite wisdom.
March 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah.
March 10, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's blah, blah, blah to YOU, Turd Blossom!
Baiting you is so easy . . . and so much fun!
March 10, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your trolling prowess. Meanwhile, while you're wasting electrons, I'm one of those who have actually posted a substantive defense of EFCA on this thread. I doubt you're even capable of doing that, since trolling is all you ever do around here.
March 10, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, stop trying to impress me with your fancy posts! LOL.
You're one of the most uninintelligent, uninformed, constantly wrong on the facts people on this site. You think "trolling" is anyone who outs you as a clueless blowhard. The day I need you to explain EFCA or anything else to me is the day I hang up my mouse!
March 10, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are such an arrogant asshole that any merit you posts have are lost by your tone and attack mode. Quite framkly you are mostly wrong in your analysis and defense of congressional democrtas who run a free lance operation against party positions and platforms. The big tent as you propose may collaspse due to not enough underlying support.
March 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: what is "framkly"?
Get back to me with that and I might consider your critiques. NOT!!
March 10, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Reid putting it out there now? Does he want it to be defeated to rally the Unions?
March 10, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er...I thought the whole point of the last paragraph of the story was that Reid wasn't bringing this up now.
March 10, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another things I'd like to blame Reid for:
Why is Reid allowing an evolutionarily challenged low population podunk state like AR to have TWO Senate seats? Didn't Reid foresee that problem when he wrote the Constitution over two centuries ago?
March 10, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a blog yesterday saying it could be brought in as early as today.
March 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have 51 votes you have the sufficient votes. Will nobody rid of Harry Magic Underwear Reid?
March 10, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
51 votes are sufficient to pass it but you need 60 to cut off debate. Reid should cut a deal with Lincoln, Bayh and Pryor: Vote with us to shut off debate then you can cover your ass by voting against the bill.
March 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, Freeper, could you be any more obtuse?
A fucking fifth grader could figure out that it's more of a political risk for, let's say, Blanche Lincoln to vote against EFCA than it would be just to sit out cloture. Via the latter, she does not anger the beasts of the Bidness Lobby (Wal-Mart is in what state, again?), but her constituents (the good ol' folks who shop and work at Wal-Mart) don't notice her taking any hostile action toward them, by her being passive.
If, however, she actively votes ANTI-UNION... well, she's got a little problem. In that her constituents will rightly ask, "Why the hell should I get off my ass and vote for a Democrat?" And this, boys and girls, is how Republican majorities are born. And, conversely, how they can be defeated: by adhering to core Democratic principles and not running from "liberal" labels anymore (or maybe you've been in a coma for the last two big elections, 2006 and 2008? It's a possibility...).
So basically, your idea is as ignorant as... well, literally everything else you've ever written. I don't come by here to slam you, normally, but your numerous excretions today are so onerous, and childish, that someone needs to tell you to just shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck up.
~~~~
Now, on to something CONSTRUCTIVE... here is how EFCA can pass... takes a little creativity, but it's so goddamned doable, it's a joke:
Arlen Specter: Acts and votes like a conservative Democrat (stipulated: I HATE those. A lot). About to be primaried; may actually pull through, or not. If yes, there is no PA Dem in the queue that can take on his 150-year incumbency; that is simply fact.
Question: what is currently the single most unacceptable feature of Arlen Specter, to a Dem who does not have the psychotic hatred of "conservative Democrats" that I possess [g]? Simple. He has no loyalty to the Democratic Party. Duh... he's a lifelong R.
So I suggest the we hold our noses and offer Specter a deal: Arlie baby... your dying, stupid-ass Party is throwing you to the wolves, anyhow. In this political climate, your Democratic "bipartisan" support will not be what it once was.
So we'll offer you a deal: trash your Republican affilliation for once and for all. Register Independent; caucus with us Democrats. We will endorse your "Pennsylvania For Specter" [g] Party in the general and not run a viable Democrat; you will be a Democrat-endosed Independent with heavy-duty incumbency, vs. some flaming wingnut upstart. And, of course, you vote for cloture.
NOW...
Blanche Lincoln: Biden's got her kneecaps, if necessary. Score one for the O Team;
Al Franken: Patience, my dears;
Landrieu and Pryor: fuck 'em.
... and there's your EFCA.
[bowing]
March 10, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a bore. And You're stupid.
White Democrats in Arkansas are republican-lite and anti-Union Wal-Mart owns that state. If Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor vote anti-union, they're safe. Why else do you think they're considering it, dumbass? To argue anything else is yet another example of your single-digit IQ.
But if I'm wrong on this, perhaps you should tell that to all of the other "non-freepers" here who suggested the same thing. Make sure you clue Harry Reid in on that, too, since that's obviously the route he's hinting at taking.
March 10, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... at least you're "smart and interesting", so it all washes, don't it?
:-P
March 10, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you're not too stupid and boring to realize how smart and interesting I am.
Smooches!
March 10, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive groups should push back hard on nonsense like this. Strengthening our unions is a vital part of restoring and sustaining a strong economy. The problem with our economy lies on the demand side of the equation. For the past two decades our economy has increasingly relied on consumer debt to provide demand. Business interests had conflicting desires to grow our economy but also reduce wages, giving birth to an economy fueled by debt. The consumer debt burden has now, predictably, reached unsustainable levels. To restore balance, we need to fuel the economy with wages instead of debt. That means strengthening the bargaining position of workers with measures like the EFCA.
March 10, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Strengthening our unions is a vital part of restoring and sustaining a strong economy." So the reason the American auto sector is crashing and burning is because there aren't enough unions in Detroit?
March 10, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason the auto industry is in trouble is because Bush and the the republicans who ran Congress for 6 of the last 8 years screwed up the economy so badly it's going to be years before it recovers. It has nothing to do with unions.
March 10, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the reason is that auto workers in the southern states (assembling foreign cars) are not unionized.
March 10, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
...so if we can unionize the foreign car plants and force their costs up and make them overprice their products too, then we're good...?
March 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about fairness, but it's also about keeping up the demand side of the equation. For 30 years we've been playing by Arthur Laffer's ridiculous "supply side" rules, an economic philosophy that has no basis in history, intelligence or reality. For about 7,000 years, demand has driven production. Supply-siders decided to stand economic theory on its head, hoodwinked the public, and effed-up the world economy.
Once all the factories are unionized and fair trade incentives are enacted to keep producers from bolting the US, we'll not only have auto workers making more cars, they'll also be able to buy the cars they build, just like Henry Ford figured out 105 or so years ago.
March 10, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ford didn't have to charge 20% more than his car was worth to cover the cost of of a Job Bank and a golf resort for the union bosses.
March 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you really are full of Rush talking points today. Apparently you also get your "facts" from the same place he does.
Forgive me for engaging you as if you were a rational person. My mistake.
March 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
...because there never was a Job Bank or golf resort...right?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
http://www.blacklakegolf.com/
March 10, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you mean the job banks that the UAW said they would forgo in these harsh economic times...the ones that, even if you did take them into account no matter how moot, would not equate to the 20% excess charge on each car that you claim?
Fact free fail.
March 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits."
You're correct, it was 19.2%...off the top of my head I said 20%...epic failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1
March 10, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the article you quoted:
That’s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle.
Your ORIGINAL contention that 20% of the car's cost is because of job banks and golf junkets by union bosses is, by reading the very article you provided, utter crap.
The truth is that a large part of their overall costs come from the health benefits that go to their large corps of retired workers - something completely different than the original "point" you brought up - which stems from the hyperinflation of the American health system.
EPIC.FAIL.
March 10, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
(... it's Troll Discount Day!" :-)
March 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on! This is a disappointing response even for you.
As if Henry Ford had to deal with the cost of healthcare growing five times faster than wages.
As if Henry Ford had to compete with foreign automakers whose benefits were subsidized by the government.
If you're going to hold up the repug side here, could you at least put some effort into it?
March 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the employees at the KIA plant in GA have government subsidized health benefits?
March 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right, genius! Stop being such a putz. You're much more likable when you're just stupid.
March 10, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...are these subsidized by the US government or Korea...if they're receiving a subsidized benefit from a foreign nation do they have to claim it as income and file a Form 2555?
March 10, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Figure it out and then get back to me. No wonder you're a republican.
March 10, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Republican who is fishing for free tax advice, apparently.
March 10, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree, SFCW, you truly are an imbecile. If we had IQ and awareness tests to earn a right to vote, you wouldn't pass.
First off, as others have mentioned it's primarily health care costs killing US automakers. That and just plain incompetence and complacency.
There's no incentive to be efficient if you're justifying profits/growth as a fraction of revenue and have a captive market without real competition. All insurance providers have incentive to increase waste and cost.The market incentives are all for increase waste and bureaucracy, hence "growth" and increased revenue, hence larger profits, investment and bonuses.
Every fee in healthcare insurance is padded heavily and they all do it. For decades the healthcare industry hasn't been looking for ways to reduce costs, but to increase costs and wherever possible externalize costs which also serves to drive up revenue for the industry.
March 10, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the parent post went completely over your head, huh?
The problem is that the vast majority of the non-auto workers in the U.S. are not union. Since these workers have seen their wages shrink since the '70s, they have less money to spend on big-ticket discretionary items...like cars. For a long time now we've made up for that with debt and rising home values. But as soon as housing crashed and credit dried up, what happened? Suddenly car sales fell by half.
It's not that we need "more unions in Detroit." That doesn't even make sense...the Big Three are already unionized. But your unspoken suggestion is that somehow their unions caused their failure. We hear that a lot these days, and it's total insanity. I don't care what the workforce looks like; when any heavy-industry, highly-capital/credit intensive company suddenly loses half its revenue, it's going south.
Which brings us back to your parent-poster's excellent point. A demand failure broke big auto. That demand failure could have been avoided by unionizing the American workforce. Not "more unions in Detroit" but more unions everywhere else. We simply can't run our economy based entirely on supply and never think about where the demand comes from.
March 10, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
everything goes over SFC Wallace's head, since it's tucked succinctly through his sphincter
March 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can assure you that since my knees (which happens to be the depth of the BS in hunter's argument)are below my sphincter, even if your assumption of my current position is correct, it isn't over my head...yet.
March 10, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously over your head. Since when has supply ever dictated demand? Hunter is exactly right: Demand is created by income growth. For years the Reaganite voodoo economists have driven capital toward the wealthy on the ridiculous assumption that they would then take it and build stuff for all us peons to buy. Great. So what the hell do we buy it with?
"No problem!" shouts Greenspan, "We'll just make a bunch of cheap money available and train everyone to borrow and spend!"
So the debt to income ratio soars for 28 years until the inevitable happens...it has to be paid back. Trouble is, nobody has enough money to pay it back because they've spent all their money servicing their debt. Of course any ordinary idiot knew this would happen. Unfortunately, extraordinary idiots like Greenspan, Reagan, Laffer and all GOP true-believers never saw it coming.
And you wonder why we make fun of Republicans.
March 10, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And you wonder why we make fun of Republicans."
Nope, you make fun of "Republicans" because you are what you profess to hate. You make irrational gereralizations of an entire group of people based on false assumtions and are intolerant of any oppossing views.
March 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fail.
March 10, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction...ad hominem fail.
March 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again the spineless Democrats in the Senate put extra-constituional parlimentary rules and Senatorial club courtesies ahead of the people's needs.
Why, why, why can't they take a page from the Republican playbook, they at least have the balls the Democrats lack, and threaten to change the rules unless the Republicans stop threatening (!)to fillibuster?
The Senate Democrats are sickening.
March 10, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the Republican's threat wasn't about fillibustering in general, it was about fillibustering judicial nominees, which the Constitution specifically requires a majority approval of the Senate.
March 10, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And whatever the reason, the GOP threat was the "nuclear option" which meant doing away with the filibuster entirely.
Jeez, man. Proofread your posts.
March 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you're wrong...it was solely about the Constitutionality of fillibustering judicial nominees.
March 11, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another Freeper.
March 10, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
so hack politicians once again proving how corrupt they are. and who is shocked by that?
but the dumb people who turn against their best interests by blaming fellow workers for their lack of jobs is even more absurd.
where are the republicans or the dems ,insisting that corporate saleries and profits be limited like wages?
and why do the people who support the corporate politicians not demand what is in their best interests?
call me names if you like but i cant tolerate stupid people.
March 10, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would I call you names when you are so right?
March 10, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a sad day in Mudville if the dems in the Senate fall by the wayside and let labor down once again. I hope the streets will be full of very angry people and the 2010 elections will hear from labor backing alternative politicains and kick out the "good Ole boys who turn them down!
March 10, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line: Will Obama fight, get down in the trenches, for EFCA? I guess we'll find out.
I'm not vey optimistic on this one, though.
March 10, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There should be a simple rule on party unity for the Democrats: Vote for cloture on EVERY GOP-led filibuster no matter what your position is on the bill. Don't let the Senate fall victim to the tyranny of a 41-vote obstructionist minority.
Dems would then be free to vote as they wish on final passage, so long as they stay unified on cloture.
If Harry Reid were even semi-competent, he would lay down the law on this issue. Strip Dems who vote against cloture of their subcommittee chairs as enforcement.
March 10, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moose your approach makes sense and should be the party rule regardless of the pending legislation. the Senate has become a HOUSE Of LORDS and the pain of their lack of party disipline should be felt and it should be severe!
March 10, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what I was thinking. Reid should be approaching the apostate Dems and asking them to vote for cloture, regardless of their final vote. The purpose of the filibuster is to prolong discussion on the bill, but in this case (as much or more than any other) the GOP aims to filibuster to stop it entirely. I would think even Reid would be able to demand enough discipline to thwart the GOP's obstructionsim, even if he can't on the bill itself
March 10, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. That's how the game is played. Let them "vote their conscience" on the bill as long as they don't abet Republican obstructionism by voting against cloture.
If Reid can't manage this, he really needs to go.
March 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entirely sensible. Of course, it doesn't exactly solve the problem...we still need one Republican.
March 10, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but one is easier than having to get three or four. Plus Specter voted for cloture last time -- while his continued support is not a sure thing, as Elana notes, it's at least a possibility. And there's a lot labor can do in Pennsylvania to make it happen.
March 10, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus a vote in favor of cloture is a lot harder to spin as a vote in favor of a bill. Specter could easily vote against a bill and rightfully say that he opposed it even if he voted for cloture.
It's up to Harry now to wrangle his cat herd into the corral. If he's not capable, we need a new Senate majority leader and fast.
March 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, and why is the Democratic Party pushing the Employee Free Choice Act? Frankly, they're being killed in the propaganda war over this one. Standing up AGAINST secret ballots? How could anything make that look good to most Americans?
Yeah, the unions are still a powerful force in the Democratic Party, but a much smaller percentage of American workers are unionized these days. And a LOT of Americans distrust unions. I understand wanting to change that, but there is no way you can make secret ballots seem like a bad thing - or make doing away with secret ballots seem like anything but "union bosses" dictating to Democratic politicians.
Call it anything you want, but this bill is made to order for the Republicans.
March 10, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that way to you because you've seen fit to adopt the dishonest "secret ballot" framing of the Rethugs. Please read up on what's actually in the bill before spouting off again. It does NOT eliminate all elections, it simply prevents employers from FORCING employees to go through the NLRB election process (which has given them multiple opportunity for intimidation and other forms of manipulation)if a majority of then have already signed off on their desire to be represented by a union. And this is only one of the bill's multiple provisions. Go look it up before spouting off again.
This is crucial not just to the party but to the country. The fundamental cause of this economic crisis is the stagnating incomes of most working Americans. For a while the business class tried to substitute easy credit in place of paying workers fairly in order to maintain the level of consumer demand. We all know how that worked out.
For the economy to be revitalized it MUST become fairer and the middle class MUST be rebuilt. Pushing back against the union-busting trend is an indispensable tool for bringing that about. If you want true, shared prosperity you should want EFCA. Stop listening to the lying propaganda from the very people who got us into the mess we're in now.
March 10, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pro-Obama and pro-union but this is a lousy bill. It allows unions like the Teamsters to intimidate employees to sign a card and once that is done, there's no way of determining whether this was a free choice or not. And then if an agreement can't be reached by the union and the company, an arbitrator comes in and imposes an agreement. There are problems with the current system (employers can often use unfair tactics to influence the result of the secret election) but there are ways to improve it while still guaranteeing an "election" by the employees as to whether they really want a union. The country and the Democrats are better off if the bill fails
March 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really are what you say you are, inform yourself and stop believing Rethug fairy tales. If you're a concern troll, go Cheney yourself.
March 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like the Teamsters would have so much sway over employees at a company when there is not even a union presence. What are they gonna do--threaten to withhold their fancy hats and t-shirts?
The employer, not the union, has all the sway over the workers since they can cut hours, benefits, etc.
March 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
gee THAT'S a surprise.
I'll put efca right next to the now "too radical" notion of universal health care (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/03-15), ending the bush abuse of state secrets (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-17-justice-department-bush_N.htm), and accountability (nothing says accountability like handing billions to banks with no strings attached over and over again).
so hey, where'd all my change go? oh that's right, tim geithner gave it to goldman sachs.
March 10, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose opposition from the Arkansas Retrocrats should come as no surprise since they are in the heart of Wal-Mart country. As Sam Walton used to say to his store employees when he sat down to lunch with them, "If y'all try to get a union in here I'll tear this building down to the ground."
Arkansas should change its name to WalMartistan and be done with it. Then at least you'd know where their representatives' true loyalties lie.
March 10, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, tell that to B. Champlain who says the people in Arkansas would rise up against Lincoln and Pryor if they went against the union. Apparently, he knows nothing about the state's anti-union bias or the power of Wal Mart.
March 10, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM probably explained it before, but why is a non-secret ballot a "free choice"? The title seems to rank up near PATRIOT on the cynicism scale. Is the rest of the bill so good as to justify voting to undermine this foundation stone of democracy?
March 10, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Reid continue the 60 vote free ride?
If the GOPpers want to filibuster, why not let the GOPpers actually mount a real filibuster, bring Congress to a screeching halt and see just which voters are amused and which are really ticked at GOPpers?
I don't believe that the Senate rules require the majority leader to affirmatively muster 60 votes before bringing bill to a floor vote. If that were the rule, what is a filibuster anyhow?
March 10, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink