Progressive Leaders Press Obama To Use Bully Pulpit In Public Worker Fight

[babylonsister]

Progressive Leaders Press Obama To Use Bully Pulpit In Public Worker Fight
Brian Beutler | February 24, 2011, 1:48PM


Leading progressives in the Democratic party are pressing President Obama to get more involved in the fight over public worker rights playing out in Wisconsin and other states across the country.

Obama has publicly sided with state and local government employees against laws meant to crush their right to collectively bargain. But his political shop has run hot and cold on the question of involving him more publicly in the protests.

The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus yesterday both called on him to speak out more loudly -- or even join the protesters in Wisconsin.

"I think the statements the president made supporting collective bargaining and organized labor are important," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) told reporters on a Wednesday conference call organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "I think that there is more to do.

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/progressive-leaders-press-obama-to-use-bully-pulpit-in-public-worker-fight.php?ref=dcblt

[Robb]

1. Dumb idea. Even Dubya knew enough to stay out of Boston in 2004.

...And he ran on a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm torn; maybe he should stay out of state politics, but this has

huge ramifications. He's taken a stand, but his presence might be more forceful. I don't know.

[Robb]

3. I hear you. My gut would love to see it.

He could make the ground shake down there. But I hate the precedent.

[babylonsister]

4. This might be a time to make an exception?

There is so much at stake.

[msongs]

5. to stand up for something, one has to have principles and believe in them nt

[Armstead]

6. He should ..... this is far too important and he should exert leadership on it

[Shiver]

7. Except it would give the Repiublicans perfect ammo to use against him.

He'd be interfering in a matter of state, which is the domain of the state government. Not to mention that right now, the narrative here in Madison is 'Republicans vs working men and women'. If he comes, it becomes 'Republicans vs Obama', and what it's actually about will fall by the wayside.

[babylonsister]

8. Thank you. nt

[nevergiveup]

9. You got it right.

I hope so much he doesn't go to Wisconsin. I am astonished that there are not more progressives who realize how such an appearance would be a game changer in the wrong direction.

[Bravo Zulu]

10. Plus,miss lindsey graham ordered him to stay out of Wisconsin!

If you don't stand up for something,you'll fall for anything!

[polmaven]

46. "miss" lindsey graham???

I trust that was not a reference to his alleged homosexuality. Because if it is, it sounds like a homophobic slur to me....with a little sexism thrown in too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Exactly. A media frenzy of Obama v. Walker, and the workers will be lost in the circus. (nt)

[applegrove]

16. The press about Union members and regular middle class people angry

at their rights being taken away gets through all the main stream media filters and gets to the GOP/Tea Party base in a way that not much gets through. Obama should remain absolutely quiet on this so that it goes on as long as possible. If he gets involved the right wing noise machine will say it is all a liberal plot and the GOP base will then will lie to themselves and say it is nothing...it isn't real.

[Armstead]

33. That way of thinking is why we usually LOSE

Do you really think the Republicans and Corporate Oligarchs avoid doing what they want to do because they are skeered of what those mean old Democrats will say? Do you think they really curtail their national agenda because of state lines?

Hell no.

What would be wrong with a narrative of Shithead Republicans against working men and women and the Democrats who are standing up and fighting for them?

[Shiver]

34. Because if Obama shows up

then the narrative will change from "Shithead Republicans against working men and women" to "President interferes with state government", or "Obama scrambles to keep union vote", or something along those lines. The narrative will change, and perceptions will change. "Big Government stepping on state's rights".

I'd love to see some more support from Obama on this, but at the moment I think he's doing this right. We need to win this battle, and if things keep going the way I'm seeing them, Walker will implode without any help from the president.

[Armstead]

35. WE ARE NOT GOING TO WIN THIS

The numbers are inevitable. At some point there wiu be a vote. And the Republicans have the numbers to ram this through.

That will happen.

The bigGer issue is WHY this has happened. Why have the Dems lost so many of the working class?

Because the Republicans fight. ThevRepublicans are not afraid of their own shadow. They have sold too many middle class people a crock of shit -- and they bought it because our side does not do a goddam thing to counter that.

We play Hamlet and muse and come up with all kinds of excuses as to why we CAN'T do anything or take any stands.....

So we are about to lose another one. And we will keep losing because we rationalize instead of taking clear stands when it matters.

[last_texas_dem]

36. This is only a state issue if viewed in the narrowest sense.

The attempt to severely limit or completely repeal public workers' (and in some instances, private workers') collective bargaining rights and other rights is going on right now in multiple states. There is no doubt that the right-wing's crackdown on workers' rights is a national campaign, even if the tools by which it is being accomplished are the state houses.

[flamingdem]

47. Shiver you are right on this one nt

[polichick]

39. He's too worried about saving his own job to bother with leadership.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Uh huh. That's why Pres. Obama has expressed support via the WH and on WI public radio.

And that's why he's allowed his DNC and his re-election campaign arm OFA to help organize protesters and support for the unions in WI, OH, and IN. That's why WI labor leaders have thanked the president for his support in their speeches to the protesters.

:sarcasm:

Your bilious opinion seems more reflective of your personal animosity towards the president than the facts.

[ProSense]

11. Really don't understand why these members of Congress believe this is a good idea.

It's a lose-lose for the protestors. This is their movement and they should win the day.

If President Obama goes and Walker backs down, this becomes an Obama rescue (interference to the RW).

If he goes and this drags out, it becomes all about Obama's influence (like the RW the night before Mubarak stepped down only on steroids) until it gets resolved.

The protestors, the movement, should be the focus, not the President. It would be better if the person taking the spotlight was a defined grassroots leader, not a Washington politician (which is likely why none of them are there), and certainly not the President.

It's a state issue in more than one state, and the dynamics in each differ. He can't go to all the states.

He made a statement, and everyone knows where he stands. Yet somehow he needs to prove where he stands again. The statement is a week old. Will he need to make another next week?

Biden made a statement yesterday. He and Sec. Solis met with Trumka and other union leaders today. The demand that the President make another statement in Wisconsin is making this about him, and it's not.

The President is not a substitute for a grassroots movement and he shouldn't upstage one.

Think Progress: After Progressive Pressure, Sunday Show Will Feature Labor Leader

There needs to be more like that.

[Gr8Dem]

12. I disagree

If it were just happening in WI that would be one thing, but the facts seem clear that this is a widespread Republican agenda that has been planned on and is being played out on a national level.

The president should use the bully pulpit. There is plenty of precendent for this. In fact here is an article written by the progressive American Prospect about this issue way back in Sept. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_case_for_presidential_action

It's time for Obama to find his FDR rather than is Ronnie Raygun.

[ProSense]

15. "If it were just happening in WI that would be one thing"

From my previous comment: "It's a state issue in more than one state, and the dynamics in each differ. He can't go to all the states."

"It's time for Obama to find his FDR rather than is Ronnie Raygun."

Well FDR opposed public sector unions, and screw Ronald Reagan.

[Gr8Dem]

17. I wonder if you're aware that....

You just repeated a republican talking point re: FDR opposing public sector unions. And like most republican talking points it's meant to be misleading. For your reference: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948033/-Wisconsin:GOP-Lying-About-FDR-Again

[ProSense]

19. It was his

position on collective bargaining and public workers.

Salon

<...>

The quotation you refer to is in a letter he wrote to a postal worker leader in the 1930s. It has been a bit blown out of proportion. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. But like many people, had he lived into the postwar era, he might well have changed his mind. Because a consensus developed pretty quickly after World War II that collective bargaining in the public sector was actually a positive thing. That consensus really took shape between the late '40s and '50s.

<...>

Still, I wonder if you actually read the letter at the link you posted:

<...>

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

<...>

[Gr8Dem]

22. FDR opposed strikes by public sector unions

Not public sector unions in general. Or any unions. In fact he was a strong supporter of unions and worker rights. Public sector unions are often forbidden from striking and no public sector union official is asking for that in Wi.

I can't understand why any Democrat would parrot a misleading republican talking point like that. Or use a guest tech bloggers post at Salon to argue historical facts about FDR and unions.

[ProSense]

26. Here

note the point made here. Don't forget to take in the entire post.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Other GOP Governors are starting to back down on this......

What counts more, the winning the fight or witnessing the beating of one chest? You tell me.

[Gr8Dem]

20. It's called leadership

... That's what we elect a president to do. It's continually lacking with Obama IMHO.

[Arkana]

23. I am so fucking sick of this bullshit talking point.

You people toss around "USE DA BULLY PULPIT" and "U NEED 2 LEAD OBAMA" so often that the phrases have lost all meaning. Are you at all familiar with what "grassroots" means?

Guess what happens if Obama goes to Wisconsin? That's right--the protests are no longer "grassroots", because the media will make sure of it.

It's a clearly-laid trap, and you and so many others want Obama to walk right into it. Pathetic.

[Gr8Dem]

24. I'm very familiar with what grassroots means....

But it's not an excuse for a president not to lead on important issues. Like this one and others. One Of the most important jobs a president in this country is tasked with is swaying public opinion, which in turn sways politicians in congress. I'm disappointed that far too often Obama seems to fail to fulfill this role of leadership.

[ProSense]

27. "But it's not an excuse for a president not to lead on important issues."

Lead meaning do stuff on demand? What about lead like DADT and DOMA? Guess who was right when it came to leadership on those two issues?

All his accomplishments have been met with one demand or another that he lead on something besides what he's doing or to do something different from how he's doing it.

He's the President, and he gets to decide the issues he works on, when and how. You got a vote, not an on demand button. We should expect results, and that has nothing to do with demanding that the President jump every time someone wants him to. Egypt, jump! Libya, jump! Wisconsin, jump! Part of being President is exercising good judgment and bowing to whim is not a wise move.

There is too much "do it now" and "do it our way." Look at the disagreement across every situation, including the demands on this one.

Whose demand should he jump to address?

[Gr8Dem]

29. So you're saying he has led enough for this year?

He's reached his quota? Did he tag out until like May, June - what? Or perhaps you're saying that worker rights across the nation are unworthy of his grand attention. He has better things to do? Or he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, or what?

[ProSense]

30. No, you're saying that. n/t

[Gr8Dem]

31. I'm saying he ISN'T leading....

I make no opinion or judgment as to WHY he isn't (yet again). And I guess I'm not too crazy to notice because lots of other people appear to be noticing that as well.

[ProSense]

32. Well,

I'm saying...

[rpannier]

40. I do agree with you at this point

As long as the situation remains as is -- the Unions are on the offense it's fine (and preferable) he stay away.
This is not about Obama and the Republikkans, it's about collective bargaining rights and the governor who wants to take them away.
Should the situation change and the Unions need the help, I would expect a more forceful response (not sending in the Marines and dragging out the Governor for a public flogging response) from the President.

edited because piblic is not a word

[senseandsensibility]

13. k and r

eom

[Arkana]

21. He's got to be careful.

Issue statements of support for Wisconsin's workers, but any further involvement will allow the media to make it all about him--and it NEEDS to be about Wisconsin's unions losing their rights to collective bargaining if Tin-Pot Walker gets his way.

[flamingdem]

48. + 100

[TheWebHead]

25. it's not a difficult decision

on one hand there's a need to placate a special interest that has nowhere else to go since the other party is in an ideological war with them, and if the president did ramp up his rhetoric and join their cause, the capital strike by business that he dealt with in the first two years of his presidency would resume and those jobs that are vital to his re-election would be harder to come by.

[Keith Bee]

28. Progressive? No: LIBERAL!

Time for us to re-embrace this noble word.

[Kurovski]

37. if the unions strike, Obama will speak.

Didn't he say as much?

[polichick]

38. The prez will probably take that as a good sign for the election - when the left isn't happy...

...he can get more indie votes.

[Kurovski]

41. When the indies are getting poorer or losing jobs, housing , prices up,

they're going to vote him out. It will be economics, same as lefties.

[polichick]

42. Obama has said that he'd rather be a good one-term prez than a...

...mediocre two-termer - but it looks to me as if he's thinking too much about 2012 and not enough about simply spelling out and supporting what's right. He knows it's wrong to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class - and yet he has adopted that false narrative of "shared sacrifice."

[ClarkUSA]

45. He said that in response to critics who attack his every move.

<< but it looks to me as if he's thinking too much about 2012 and not enough about simply spelling out and supporting what's right. >>

Bullshit. Labor leaders have thanked him for his support in speeches to the WI protesters and he's made his position quite clear via the WH and his appearance on WI public radio.

<< He knows it's wrong to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class >>

Hmm... when did he do that? As far as I know, the House is slicing and dicing his budget to oblivion and Senate Democrats are the ones thinking of budget cuts to avoid a gov't. shutdown.

<< and yet he has adopted that false narrative of "shared sacrifice." >>

Provide the complete quote. He has used this approach against the wealthy and Big Business. What's "false" about it? Everyone is going to take a hit in the coming years. There are no sacred cows although he has said unquivocally that there will be no Social Security "reform" much to the dismay of the PUMAs over at FDL who have been screeching about it for months.

[dionysus]

43. why don't they go down there?