Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

$10 million down the toilet - off-the-record comment or talking point?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 03:55 PM
Original message
$10 million down the toilet - off-the-record comment or talking point?
Two different sources anonymously stated that the labor unions flushed $10 million down the toilet in the Lincoln-Halter primary. Now, it's not an uncommon thing to say, flushed down the toilet, it's a common enough phrase, so maybe the fact that two different sources said it is just a coincidence, but there's also a possibility that it's an unofficial administration talking point. And it fits in with their general narrative that primaries are bad, establishment is good, etc.

So what do you think? Do you think it was a coincidence or an orchestrated talking point?

And btw, is anyone else as disappointed as I am to see Obama, the so-called insurgent primary candidate against the Clinton establishment, is now crushing primary challenges to candidates who are fighting against progressive causes?



BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. John Harris and another reporter (The New Yorker) both said
it was deliberately put out. Orchestrated is a good description.

IMO, Dissing your base may bring some migraines in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What purpose would it serve to deliberately put this out?
I'm not asking a rhetorical question, but if you were a senior aide, why would you try to push this idea out there. How does this help you out at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. An attempt to intimidate the unions from putting money into supporting real progressives
Thats what this seems to be aimed at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. If one assumes the source is Rahm...
...which I do, then the motive is obvious. Intimidation, and an attempt to control the terms of debate. The point of both is to discourage others from mounting the same kinds of challenges against the anointed ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I guess my point rather is why put this in the press...
instead of just calling Trumka or Andy Stern?

Instead what this winds up doing is look like you're talking shit about someone behind their back, but right to their face. Not a smart way to get people to do what you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. There are two basic ways to get people to do what you want...
...the carrot, or the stick.

Rahm likes the stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. No, it's also just general union bashing. That's why it's public.
They're trying to bash the unions and make them look bad to the general populace so they can continue ignoring union issues and just have one more issue they can agree with the Republicans on. They probably even think they can convince union members to get mad at their leaders for spending their money on primary challenges. I'd like to hope that they're wrong about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. A Sister Soulja moment?
They must think they can get some benefit from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Put out BY WHOM? That's the question. Ratfucking Grover Norquist?
Edited on Fri Jun-11-10 04:25 PM by KittyWampus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Please remind us...
...when the White House disavowed the statement?

Waiting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Im not surprised anymore that Obama is campaigning for establishment candidates
I have reached a painful conclusion after supporting him against the establishment candidate in Hillary during the primaries....... that we were set up by that same establishment into thinking Obama represented a different direction as a hedge against them losing control after their boy Bush had screwed everything up.

Obama's campaign was a Trojan Horse, and he is the ultimate stealth representative of the establishment's continuing iron grip on this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. ..ya i fell for the bullshit too...
not again..i ain`t wasting my time. i`ll put my energy into the local and state elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. I'd love to see a strong, national progressive movement
focusing on local elections and then working their way up

If I even had enough money to put together a website and advertise it (which I don't by far) I'd try it myself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. The ultimate Manchurain candidate, huh?
Edited on Fri Jun-11-10 04:25 PM by prolesunited
Does anyone here realistically think that anyone from outside the Establishment can get elected? If the news doesn't provide the narrative and steer the course, it simply isn't going to happen. Since we really don't have an independent media, no candidate from outside the box will ever get in.

Obama is still the same man and candidate I voted for. I did hope he would make more headway, but Congress hasn't exactly been easy to work with. Those who are so bitterly disappointed bought into the hype. He never was a far left progressive, no matter how loudly Fox claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. How far will labor go? That is the question for Dems
Will the unions just swallow this defeat, and the put-down, in search of a larger good, or will they simply refuse to have anything further to do with the Obama White House?

Of course, it is never that cut and dried in real life but November is approaching fast. If the unions sit on their hands and only support pro-union candidates (not a lot of them around) while letting the Blue Dog types see if corporate money will keep them in office, without the folks on the street, on the phone banks and so forth.

Hey, maybe they're right. Maybe they don't have to cater to the unions at all.

We'll see...

By the way, I have no complaints about Obama (hey, I'm Irish too) but I am saddened by the liklihood of his being a one term President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. Either way
its kind of crappy to say they flushed their money down the toilet by supporting the candidate they wanted.

And no, I am not disappointed to see President Obama throwing his support behind the candidates he believes have the best chance to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is this why people pay union dues - to pay salaries for union leaders and elect Repubs
which is what will happen if the union boycotts the election. Thats not the way I want my union due payments spent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. it`s a cover up of the garland county problem
people think chicago democrats are crooked well those guys behind blanche are just as good.plus no one has come forward to admit who said those statements and no one cares to find out.

obama has nothing but contempt for the labor unions in this country. he knows he no longer needs them to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Ummmm......
I spend enough time in Arkansas to claim residency there, was born and raised there, have family and extended family there, and can document connections in the state that extend back to the early 1800s.

Only 14 of the state's 75 counties have a population of over 50,000. The population of the entire state is less than 3 million. Eleven counties have a population of less than 10,000 people. An additional 27 counties have a population of less than 20,000 people. An additional 15 counties have a population of less than 30,000 people. Most of these smaller counties have extremely high poverty rates - rates that sometimes exceed those of the poorest Appalachian areas. How many polling places do you think these counties had?

I can't help but note that nobody is complaining about the difficulty some of these folks had voting in the limited number of polling places. In the meantime there were only about 12,000 voters who bothered to vote in the May Dem primary in Garland County.

Garland County May Dem primary results here:
http://www.votenaturally.org/electionresults/index.php ?...

It is a predominately rural state. Only a small minority of voters have polling places near their homes. The majority of voters travel to a polling place. No fucking way those Garland COunty voters were more disenfranchised than voters in the majority of the state.

BTW, you may also want to inform yourself as to just exactly how primary elections are conducted in Arkansas. Do you have a clue whether or not it is an open primary state? Or who exactly is permitted to vote in a primary run-off election? Those things just might be relevant to your complaint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. 42 polling places were reduced to--2 in garland
early saturday voting was stopped during the voting. blanche`s friend said he made a mistake. there`s plenty sources about this in a simple google search.

he may not have had enough votes but just like florida...we will never know for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Sooooooo.......
It should have been easier for the folks in Garland County to vote than for those in two thirds of the state? There were likely less than 12,000 voters spread over those two Garland COunty polls. Complain all you want about Garland County polling places. Just recognize that there wasn't anything fucking unique that happened there. Those Garland Colunty voters were no more disenfranchised than Izard COunty voters. Or Stone County voters. Or Randolph County voters. Or voters in another 50 or so counties.

Trust me, Dollar Bill didn't have the votes. Before the carpetbaggers threw all the money at this election Blanche polled more than 20% higher than Dollar Bill. Neither were unfamiliar to the people of Arkansas. Blanche was the incumbent. Dollar Bill is an elected state official well recognized for pushing through the lottery. She may well have benefitted from the long seige against her. And Dollar Bill may well have suffered some backlash against the Obama administration. Arkansas has consistently given Obama some of his lowest approval ratings. There are strong Clinton loyalties in the state. And the President damn sure could have shut up the Dem carpetbaggers had he wanted.

I fucking resent the outside inrterferrence in this election. How arrogant and insulting. Who the fuck do these people think they are? Why should their priorities and agenda be substituted for that of the people of Arkansas? I hope somebody goes and shits in thir neglected little backyard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. Arkansas voters
are pissed. They resent the arrogance and disrespect of the fucking carpetbaggers - labor included. A year of obvious intrusion by out of staters combined with a long history of CLlinton loyalty and it is small wonder that Obama has such dismal approval numbers in the state. It also makes it a long shot that Blanche will be re-elected this fall - despite the fact that 6 months ago she had a 45/45 approval/disapproval rate in a state where Pukes outnumber Dems. If she loses this fall I'm blaming the fucking carpetbaggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-11-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
22. It's a deliberate statement.
The statement being, "We run the party. You shut up and fund who we say."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC