Was Obama’s Support for Wisconsin Unions Payback?
You know, its one of those things you just know but you can’t find proof of: that Obama sticking his nose into state financial restructurings cleverly spun as “labor disputes” was political payback for allowing the unions to basically purchase the Presidency. Luckily, for those of us who know where to find it, they leave a little trial of adorable quotes.
From last week‘s ABC interview with SEIU President Mary Kay Henry:
Our members in Wisconsin and Ohio were incredibly proud when the president spoke out about the real agenda in Wisconsin and Ohio being about eliminating workers’ voice and busting unions,’ SEIU President Mary Kay Henry told us on ABC’s ‘Top Line’ today. ‘And that was a huge step forward. We then saw the Secretary of Labor issue a statement and then an op-ed and then do a speech that said union is in her family — that wehave to have a way to solve problems at the collective bargaining table.’ ‘So we think the administration has stepped up in this moment. And that it’s up to us, the people all across this country, to hold our government accountable and get the private sector to reinvest in America.’
Sure, you say, that doesn’t really prove anything. She just said that the administration is “stepping up.” Maybe she, like everyone else who elected Obama to do a particular job, she’s just acknowledging that she not only had to wait almost four years, but that his contribution was so minimal that it was practically non-existent. Surely, she can’t possibly be echoing her forefathers’ and fore-mothers’ (if there is a such thing) wish for a President who did their exact bidding because of a significant check they wrote back in 2008…right?
Gerald McEntee, president of the influential American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told The Washington Times in an interview that EFCA was ‘payback’ for the labor movement’s massive campaign effort for Mr. Obama and the Democrats.
You know what’s great about liberals, especially ones in power? They’re just so darned predictable. Just like, you can totally predict that, despite a wealth of evidence that their cronies exist inside a payback scheme so incredibly complex it makes their relationship with lobbyists and George Soros look uncomplicated, that they’d immediately attack anyone who believes or acts in the opposite interest to be under the thumb of that dastardly capitalist behemoth, corporate America.
This week, for example, when Jim DeMint introduced a bill that would protect workers rights not to join a union and have a significant portion of their paycheck delivered directly into the coffers of the Democratic party, it was obvious to most Americans that he was acting in the best interest of American workers who, now more than ever, need to keep the money they earn. But if you go to the labor unions for a comment…?
Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of American Rights at Work, said it was disappointing to see [Senator Jim] DeMint ‘launch a national attack on the middle class [and] working families’ and called the bill ‘nothing more than political payback for corporate special interests.’
Yep. Thought so.
I interviewed Fark’s Drew Curtis last week, via phone, about his new book, It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass
I’ve talked about this before, but it’s worth noting that the illegal immigration debate has gotten so hot and heavy
A top Democratic donor says party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an “irritant” who is “despised.” No offense, but Republicans