Obama voices strong support for Wisconsin public employees

[ProSense]

Greg Sargent

Obama voices strong support for Wisconsin public employees: With the standoff continuing to rage over Governor Scott Walker's push to strip public employees of bargaining rights, Obama has now waded into the debate, denouncing Walker's proposal as an "assault on unions."

In an interview with local WTMJ-TV which is now up online, Obama said we all need to "make some adjustments to new fiscal realities," but insisted it's important not to "vilify" public employees and described them as "our neighbors, our friends":

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers.

"They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

Obama's comments -- which put him squarely in opposition to the right's ongoing campaign to scapegoat public workers for our economic woes -- could draw more national media attention to a story that's mostly unfolded so far online.

[Pirate Smile]

1. The smear against the President was spread on DU first so that will become "reality".

They chose to ignore the full statement.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Obama denounces Wisconsin's "assault on unions"...

.... that line bears repeating. ;-)

[former9thward]

7. It would if he did.

Why don't you repeat the full quote? Sorta removes the "denounces" doesn't it? "from what I have heard" "generally seems like" public sector workers "are not responsible for all of the budget problems". Which means they are responsible for some of them.

[Arkana]

8. Sounds to me like you didn't read the full quote.

Does your rage keep you warm at night?

[former9thward]

14. No I have a beautiful young lady for that.

[boppers]

12. Is it impossible to overcompensate somebody?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[former9thward]

13. I am not on the witness stand so I will answer as I wish.

I think that many people in our society are overcompensated by my standards. What is your point?

[boppers]

15. I was wondering if you thought public sector workers could be part of the problem.

Not that they are always part of the problem, but whether it was possible. From what I've read about wages and benefits in Wisconsin, some seem over-compensated to me.

The problem with having a rational discussion about the topic seems to be an assumption that all unions provide fair compensation, without excesses occurring.

[former9thward]

16. I won't argue that point because I don't know.

I have read various things but I have learned that unless you are one of the parties involved a lot of stuff gets "reported" and it may not reflect reality one way or the other. I guess I have a knee jerk reaction to this because in an earlier life I was a union chairman at a major steel mill and we had to give concessions. And we still closed down. It is exactly the same? Probably not. I hope things work out.

[flamingdem]

3. Good on Obama for putting more fire under Scott "Hosni" Walker nt

[Greybnk48]

4. Thanks Mr. President!

I'm glad he has begun to shed national light on this issue.

[Lifelong Protester]

5. I thank HIM, and I thank YOU for the entire context

personally, I hope to hear more from him. He could really make a difference here.

[bigwillq]

6. Good statement.

:thumbsup:

K and R

[jenmito]

9. Ed Schultz is one of the dummies repeatedly saying that Obama has to make it clear that he stands

with the people/unions. :eyes:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. Power to the workers!

and to the Prez.

[Bonobo]

11. No, that is not strong support. That is mild support. Almost tepid. nt

[phleshdef]

19. In other words, not acting like a chest beating ape.

[polichick]

21. Yes - very cautious.

[YvonneCa]

17. All that says is...

...that he thinks we shouldn't vilify them as we make fiscal changes. And he wins on this either way, IF he stays on the fence and IF it is not nationalized. Playing it down and generalizing...rather than unequivocal support...works for the Democrats' and Obama's education policy.

If Walker loses, Obama and the Dems can claim they supported teachers all along. No risk for fence-sitting.

If Walker wins and unions are busted, so called 'expensive' public employees will be more easily removed (think, $$$ saved). If these GOP governors pull a Reagan and fire them all...same outcome...money is saved and the GOP gets the blame, not Dems or Obama. But there will be money saved for TFA teachers...which Ed. Reformers want.

You said, "Obama's comments -- which put him squarely in opposition to the right's ongoing campaign to scapegoat public workers for our economic woes -- could draw more national media attention to a story that's mostly unfolded so far online."

Nationalizing this issue is what President Obama wants to avoid. I have to say, Prosense, I vehemently disagree with the President on this. If keeping this out of the spotlight allows states to rid themselves of collective bargaining rights and cut teachers in order to further what the Education Reformers want...ie. getting rid of my profession...then he's lost me as a supporter. And he will lose a large part of his base as a result.

[ProSense]

18. "Nationalizing this issue is what President Obama wants to avoid."

I don't agree. Otherwise, the DNC and OFA would never have gotten involved.

The unions heard and know whose side he's on.

Still, the President isn't a substitute for a progressive movement. He can support collective bargaining. He can implement programs to fight homelessness and poverty, but he cannot serve as the leader of a progressive movement. That's not the President's role.

What's happening in Wisconsin is what has been missing for years, and it need not stop with collective bargaining.

As Van Jones stated: Over the next hours and days, all who love this country need to do everything possible to spread the "spirit of Madison" to all 50 states.

That's exactly whats happening, now Montana.

[YvonneCa]

22. I sure hope you are right, Prosense. I want to believe...

...that, but it's very hard to do so. It doesn't feel like President Obama is there with us yet...I wonder if he realizes that? I am glad to se that other Dems are speaking up...but it's too few and too quiet. We need LOUD.

Thanks for this response. I promise to read it all. :grouphug:

[gkhouston]

25. Committing to something he can't later back away from is what he wants to avoid.

He made a statement on a local station with sentences that he can later point to and either claim he was supporting the union people (if they succeed) or they should have been more reasonable and compromised (if they fail). Commendably skillful doublespeak for a diplomat. Deplorable cowardice for our party's nominal leader.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmmm?

"Committing to something he can't later back away from is what he wants to avoid....Commendably skillful doublespeak for a diplomat. Deplorable cowardice for our party's nominal leader. "

You have evidence that the President is leaving room to back away from unions?

It's easy to call someone a coward on the Internets, but unless you have evidence to back up your assertions, they amount to "just say any damn thing."

[gkhouston]

28. Most things posted on DU outside of LBN fall into that classification. Your point?

I see no reason to believe that your assessment of the situation has any more or less validity than mine, so unless you have some "evidence" that the President isn't playing both ends against the middle, you, too, are just saying any damn thing.

[ProSense]

30. Well,

right now there is his statement, which the unions took as support.

You can dismiss it and speculate about some ulterior motive, but that's on you and it has nothing to do with the President's position.

[YvonneCa]

32. Here's another view:

...from WAPO:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/race-to-the-top/the-irony-of-obamas-help-for-w.html

[ProSense]

35. Interesting

For two years, President Obama has been pushing school reform that has demonized public school teachers. Now he has injected himself on the side of teachers into the confrontation in Wisconsin, where the new Republican governor is trying to pass emergency legislation that would drastically cut collective bargaining rights.

Obama’s support is ironic, given that teachers’ collective bargaining rights have already been undermined by his education reform policies.

<...>

Is she upset that he's injecting himself? Does she want him to back off?

She disagrees with his education policies, and that has been a source of debate, even among unions.

[YvonneCa]

36. I can't speak for her, only for...

...myself.

As a teacher, I am concerned (not upset) about aspects of his education policies...even though I think the goals are laudable. I DO disagree with his treatment of Title I and turnaround schools...because his policy discriminates (knowingly or unknowingly) against experienced teachers.

I do not want him to back off on injecting himself into the WI situation. To the contrary...I want him to inject himself further, in a less 'fence-sitting' way. I want him to apologize for those discriminatory aspects of his reform policy and CHANGE them to make them fair.

[JoePhilly]

20. Obama should INVADE WI and remove Walker!!!!

That's how it works, right??

[boppers]

33. What about Libya? Aren't we supposed to invade there first?

Why won't this president resort to bloodshed and violence as a first reaction?

[Pisces]

23. Thanks for the informative post. I hope everyone reads it.

[robcon]

24. Where's the strong support?

I don't see any.

[polichick]

37. The op seems to think that if you say it enough, people will believe it...

Hell, it works for the other side!

[Gr8Dem]

27. That was then, this is now

From the NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21democrats.html

"Over the weekend, the White House and Democratic Party officials pushed back against criticism from Republicans that Mr. Obama and his political network were meddling in the Wisconsin dispute.

Administration officials said Sunday that the White House had done nothing to encourage the demonstrations in Wisconsin — nor was it doing so in Ohio, Florida and other states where new Republican governors are trying to make deep cuts to balance their budgets.

And, officials and union leaders said, reports of the involvement of the Democratic National Committee — specifically Organizing for America, the grass-roots network born of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign — were overblown to start with and were being inflated by Republicans sensing political advantage.

“This is a Wisconsin story, not a Washington one,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “False claims of White House involvement are attempts to distract from the organic grass-roots opposition that is happening in Wisconsin.”

Seems like fairly timid support to me. And to my eyes, Walker passing tax breaks for the rich and businesses, then claiming a budget shortfall he created as an excuse to bust unions isn't all that different to me than two things Obama has done:

1. Claim that nothing could be done about tax payer bail out money being used to bonus wall street millionaires, then turning around months later and claiming union autoworkers just had to give concessions if the government was going to bail out automakers. (huh? Wall street millionaires contracts are sacred; autoworker contracts, no so much?)

2. Sign in an extension of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that cost a trillion dollars, then weeks later propose a budget that slashes the social safety net.

To my eyes, Walker is just taking another play from the same playbook.

[ProSense]

29. Sounds about right.

President Obama and his administration aren't the Koch brothers.

Why the hell would anyone want to giv the impression that what's happening in Wisconsin is an astroturf campaign instead of a real grassroots movement?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

34. "Wall street millionaires contracts are sacred?" Huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/30obama.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/president-obama-to-bank-execs-you-guys-are-like-overpaid-pitchers----and-you-didnt-win-the-world-series.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34833757/ns/business-consumer_news/

[Gr8Dem]

38. Oh he jawboned

...but that was it. They still got them and the evidence shows the Obama team knew they getting them. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-aig-bonus-timeline-who-knew-what-and-when-did-they-know-it-2009-3

[boppers]

39. What about the "sacred" part, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred

[Gr8Dem]

40. That would be evidenced by...

...the part where he had his minions Giethner and the pay czar patiently explain to us that the wall street fat cats had contracts that couldn't be broken.... Followed shortly thereafter by an Obama speech about the auto bailouts explaining that auto workers would have to make concessions on THEIR contracts. Honestly I have never and would never vote for a republican, not in 32 years of voting. But that maneuver by Obama is where he lost me.

[polichick]

41. That was a particularly disgusting turn of events...

I wonder how many would have voted for him if the prez had campaigned on his close relationship with Wall Street.

[ProSense]

42. Yeah, saving the auto

industry was an aside to saving jobs. After all, letting it collapse would have been better.

The unions are going to fight for workers and workers are going to fight for their rights.

The President has nothing to do with contract negotiations.

[Gr8Dem]

45. The president made it exceedingly clear...

... That the auto workers contracts were not sacrosanct immediately after he had sent out his minions to declare that wall street worker contracts were sacrosanct. I honestly don't understand how one can be a true Democrat and not be bothered by the incongruity of that. I've spent a lifetime, it seems, teaching my 18 year old son NOT to have those kind of situational ethics. Are you saying I've done wrong? Why are the contracts provided to millionaire bankers more important than those provided to union workers? I'd love for Obama or any Democrat to explain that to us rationally.

[ProSense]

49. Hmmmm?

"That the auto workers contracts were not sacrosanct immediately after he had sent out his minions to declare that wall street worker contracts were sacrosanct."

"Sacrosanct" for $500, Alex.

The President has nothing to do with negotiating auto workers contracts.

He did save the industry so I'll credit him with saving jobs. Since you want to claim that he was involved in their contracts, would you like to give him credit for the size of their profit-sharing checks?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gr8Dem]

54. Hmmm too

I don't think anything I posted even remotely suggested that Obama was involved in auto worker contract negotiations. Nor was he involved in Wall Street banker bonus agreements. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. But the facts appear to support that he made union concessions a condition of the auto bailout, but did NOT make bonuses for rich wall streeters a condition of the wall street bailouts.

From Obama's auto bailout speech:

"....And that's why the federal government provided General Motors and Chrysler with emergency loans to prevent their sudden collapse at the end of last year -- only on the condition that they would develop plans to restructure. In keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure. But after careful analysis, we've determined that neither goes far enough to warrant the substantial new investments that these companies are requesting.

And so today I'm announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited additional period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional taxpayer dollars. During this period they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.

Now, what we're asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more"

I'm not sure how you can explain or excuse the incongruence of the rules for wall street bank bailouts and wall street fat cat bonuses with what the Obama administration required of union workers associated with auto company bailouts. The facts would seem to speak for themselves here.

[ProSense]

55. Hmmmm?

"but did NOT make bonuses for rich wall streeters a condition of the wall street bailouts"

The conditions of the bailout (TARP) were negotiated under Bush.

Obama 'outraged' at AIG bonuses

Obama Praises Bonus Tax, Looks Forward To Getting Final Bill

How many people opposed that: He can't tax them, it's unconstitutional!!!

Oh, some people opposed the auto industry bailout too.

What the President said is it will require everyone to make tough choices:

<...>

And so today I'm announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited additional period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional taxpayer dollars. During this period they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.

Now, what we're asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more. It'll require creditors to recognize that they can't hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. It'll have to -- it will require efforts from a whole host of other stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers. Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.

But I'm confident that if each are willing to do their part, if all of us are doing our part, then this restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short term, will mark not an end, but a new beginning for a great American industry -- an auto industry that is once more out-competing the world; a 21st century auto industry that is creating new jobs, unleashing new prosperity, and manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us towards an energy-independent future. I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.

<...>

[Gr8Dem]

57. Actually you're wrong...

Congress shelved the bill in May (your link is from Match) after Obama appeared on 60 minutes singing a whole different tune. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/03/24/senate-shelves-aig-bonus-tax-bill/

Obama in that interview in May (a flip flop from March):

""I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people...And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."

And of course the fat cats got their taxpayer funded bonuses after all. So..... Not "everyone" is apparently required to make tough choices. Just the little guys that didn't create the problem as opposed the fat catsvthat did.

[ProSense]

58. "Obama in that interview in May (a flip flop from March) " Actually,

the interview was March, and here is what the President said

<...>

Tonight during his interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes President Barack Obama continued to back away from the House passed AIG bonus bill. Obama said that the tax code shouldn’t be used to punish people, but the AIG situation was egregious.

<...>

Steve Kroft asked Obama if he thought the House bill was constitutional. Obama answered, “Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don’t wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don’t wanna use the tax code to punish people. I think that you’ve got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let’s see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don’t hamper us from getting the banking system back on track.”

<...>

[Gr8Dem]

60. Are you missing the point?

Obama killed the bill you claimed he championed. "Unless President Obama changes his mind about the constitutionality of the bill, however, the Senate postponement will likely kill the measure. Democrats in Congress will not want to present a personally popular president of their own party with a bill he cannot sign"

I'll assume you're not intentionally trying to mislead anyone, but the fact remains your post was factually incorrect.

[ProSense]

62. No, but you missed the date: Mar, not May. n/t

[Gr8Dem]

63. May is when congress....

Gave up because he made it clear he would not sign the bill to negate the bonuses with taxes. Which was a complete flip flop from his early March statements. But by now you know that. :)

If you didn't realize it before and actually thought what you had posted previously was correct I'm sorry I had to be the one to break it to you. Sometimes facts are hard to take and can be very disappointing.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Well that pretty much invalidates this OP. Strong support my ass.

Pathetic.

Can this Administration take a stand on anything? Obama is so afraid about what the Republicans will say about him.

Dude has got the backbone of a slug.

[ProSense]

44. Actually,

NYT article can't invalidate the President's own statement.

"Dude has got the backbone of a slug."

"Dude" is the President, and I'm sure he didn't get there by worrying about what his detractors think of him.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inuca]

47. I don't know about the rules

but in my personal opinion, yes, it WOULD be out of line. In your defense, you are new around here, so you are not familiar with ProSense's long and valuable history around these parts (though her many hearts could have been a hint).

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

53. He seems to be stuck on a fence,

and not sure which side of the fence him getting down on will benefit him the most.

[FrenchieCat]

56. No...that's not it!

He cares about the issue much more than some care about seeing him beat his chest.

Republicans are losing on this....why mess with that?
GOP Governors are walking this anti-union shit back. Why now make it about Obama?

[Arkana]

59. He's not in Wisconsin right now and he's not running his mouth

because he doesn't want to make it about him--and as the President he's a political lightning rod. If he repeatedly lambastes Walker, the debate goes from "tin-pot dictator governor vs. Wisconsin workers" to "Obama vs. Walker". That, in turn, gets framed as "BIG GUMMINT INTERFERIN' IN STATES' RIGHTS" and we all know what our media does with those stories.

The best thing Obama could do for the Wisconsin protests would be to stay the hell away. This is their protest. He wants to avoid the idea that the protests are bought and paid for by the DNC or OFA.

[babylonsister]

61. You wish, but he's doing the right thing right now. nt

[Autumn]

71. Yes I do wish he would get off the fence.

His support at best is tepid.

[paulk]

69. his presidency in a nutshell

wash, rinse, repeat

[sudopod]

50. OH SNAP nt

[opihimoimoi]

64. President Obama backs up the WI Protesters....Nuff said.....his hands are tied...

[polichick]

65. This op title makes me laugh every time - how many days has it been now?

And still just that teeny tiny drop of support.

[ProSense]

66. "how many days has it been now?"

You're looking for daily statements?

The statement is a eight days old. Will he need to make another next week?

Biden made a statement a couple of days ago. He and Sec. Solis met with Trumka and other union leaders yesterday.

[polichick]

67. Thanks - that made me laugh too. :) Stop spinning - there's no excuse for...

...the lack of leadership by our so-called representative in the WH.

[ProSense]

68. Stop laughing

"there's no excuse for ...the lack of leadership by our so-called representative in the WH."

...it's making the words sound like say anything.

[polichick]

70. What you posted makes no sense. (Surprise, surprise.) nt

[ProSense]

73. My bad

Stop laughing

"there's no excuse for ...the lack of leadership by our so-called representative in the WH."

...it's making the words sound like "say anything."

I forgot the quotation marks.

[Autumn]

72. Is there anything you have feeling about other than Obama?

There are a lot of Democratic values and ideals you could also be extolling.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Newsflash! This is the GDP forum, where all topics are supposed to be related to President Obama.

:eyes:

If you don't like it, why don't you read some other forum so your eyes won't be offended by the sight of news posted by Obama supporters about our Democratic President?

[Autumn]

76. My eyes are not offended.

But you better get busy. There are OPs in here that are about politics, other than Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Good! Because ProSense & others are going to continue to offer current news on our President at GDP.

:)

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

81. "I don't pay attention to anything you fucking post." lol! Obviously you do, dear.

[Autumn]

83. I just replied to you, it's called being polite. You know someone

replies to what you typed and you type back an answer. I only read your "LIHEAP cuts are common sense" post because I was amazed any Democrat would actually believe it and feel that way, and I didn't notice your name as the poster.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Uh huh. The use of the epithet "fucking" is "polite" to you? How interesting.

[ProSense]

78. "There are a lot of Democratic values and ideals you could also be extolling."

Maybe mind your own "extolling"?

I'd be happy to discuss any subject in an OP you start.

[Autumn]

80. I do ex-toll other Democratic values. I asked because you seem

to have a vast knowledge of politics and the legal aspects of them. :shrug:
"extolling"? Do forgive the spelling

[ProSense]

82. Still don't

get why you're so concerned about what I'm posting. Anyone can start a thread. You seem to know what constitutes "vast knowledge of politics and the legal aspects of them" so why not start your own threads?

[Autumn]

85. It's not about me starting threads. I just asked you

simple question. If you don't want to answer my question that fine. I was just curious and thought I had asked politely. No more to discuss.

[ProSense]

86. Well,

I responded here.

It may not have been the response you were looking for, but it was a response.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

88. The facts make you laugh? Pres. Obama has expressed support via the WH and on WI public radio.

He has also allowed his DNC and his re-election campaign arm OFA to help organize protesters and support for the unions in WI, OH, and IN. Furthermore, WI labor leaders have thanked the president for his support in their speeches to the protesters. If they are happy with what the President Obama has done so far, why aren't you?

[ClarkUSA]

87. Thanks for the facts. Labor leaders in WI have expressed thanks to President Obama for his support.

I have read NYT Blog transcripts of their speeches to the gathered protesters where they have praised President Obama.

I should think that would give some people a clue. :eyes: