- Guest Users: 6
Designed by iFrame
evoskin by Rob M. Worley
captainkona © 2006
Speak to Power
Left Wing Cracker
Tim Valentine TI&S
Shuck and Jive
Crooks and Liars
Vaults of Erowid
Apr 2 '09
I hate seeing normally good bloggers do electronic face-plants, but David Sirota kinda crossed the line and I have no choice but to examine his lyrics.
Thanx to our collegue, S-townMike at Enclave, for bringing this to our attention.
I have no problem with Dave Sirota. But neither do I have a problem with challenging obscure, if not obtuse rhetoric about our President.
David Sirota, a very good blogger at the “Our Future” Organization, decided to level an attack on President Obama over the Auto Industry Bailout and his not-so-great choice for overlord of the action, Steve Rattner, that contained uncharacteristically absurd accusations.
Granted, Steve Rattner is a corporate-whore punk. But the Sirota article was an attack on Obama, not Rattner.
Sirota went off into wingnut land and we can’t have GOP type fantasy attacks against the President unless they’re based on fact.
His rant assumes that Obama’s appointee (Rattner) will be able to act on his own and has an agenda of destroying the UAW (United Auto Workers). Steve Rattner will do what the President tells him to do and nothing else.
First, Sirota cites the Wall Street Journal. A Rupert Murdoch tabloid.
Basically FOX News in print.
Not that the physical facts involved aren’t correct, but the assumptions and assertions are unrealistic.
Funny how Sirota constantly attacks Wall Street big shots yet draws conclusions from their own News Rag.
That’s not good credibility, nor is childish references to movie characters like Gordon Gekko.
….It was a movie for chrissake.
The UAW supported Obama for a reason.
Ask yourself, why would Obama alienate one of his strongest voting blocks by seeking to destroy them? If Rattner attempted to “crush” the UAW, Obama would be disowned by ALL unions and much of his voter and money base.
Hey, it could be a problem. Sirota could be right.
But in order for him to be right, Obama would have to have already ruled out running again in 2012. I don’t see that as being the case.
The union has made concessions in the past and they know they will have to make more due to the fact that we’re dealing with a global economic crises. Not because someone is trying to fuck them. Obama will (should) insure that the UAW make fewer concessions than anyone else, but that’s how this game is played. Concessions. And there is such a thing as temporary concessions.
The objective is to keep the companies afloat, fix them, make them profitable again and give people back their jobs and then some.
The company goes down, the jobs go with it. The union knows this and they know the difference (hopefully) between necessary concession and being abused by the greedy.
“DETROIT – President Barack Obama’s recovery plan for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC appears to take aim at union retirees,”
They used the word “appears” because they don’t know. That’s ok, they worded it right. Just pointing it out.
“As the Wall Street Journal reports, Rattner’s strategy is to use the government’s leverage to try to specifically crush auto workers and force them to accept even more contract concessions than they’ve already agreed to”
Firstly, since when does the WSJ care about unions enough to uncover such a dastardly plot and warn the world?
Did anyone stop to think that the President may not allow Rattner to have a “strategy” other than his own? Was Barack going assign Rattner and just forget about it?
What “leverage” is this that will be deployed against one of Barack’s strongest political allies? This I gotta see. Just the run-of-the-mill “leverage” or some special, never before seen mega-leverage with the kung fu grip?
Must be the latter because it’s going to “crush auto workers".
I’m sorry, but I think the “auto workers” would take exception to such an effort. Being “crushed” is such a drag.
“Force them to accept"? Sirota doesn’t know the average union member.
They will accept concessions if it’s necessary and won’t be “crushed” or “forced” to do anything.
Whatever the proposal, the union body will vote on it. If it amounts to “crush", they will vote it down.
Fact is, the only thing that’s going to “crush” auto workers is not having an industry to work in. That’s why it has to be salvaged. And that will take a lot of money and a lot of concessions on all sides.
Barack Obama is not Ronald Reagan as Mr. Sirota would have us believe, nor is he George Bush or any other such piece of shit. And until I see a “crushed” UAW these accusations against the President are simply chin music and nothing more. The UAW will let us know if the President fails to keep the promises he made to them to win their support away from Clinton and McCain.
None of Sirota’s assertions concerning the President “wanting to crush unions” make any sense whatsoever. At least not at this time.
Again, unless Barack Obama has decided not to run in 2012, he will protect the UAW and honor his pledge to support American labor.
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
|<< <||> >>|
- Democraps and Republitards (100)
- Florida Edition (2)
- Had to post it (97)
- Legacy of Evil (18)
- Obamarama (57)
- Religofascism (35)
- Right-Winger Wringer (245)
- Subhumanity (59)
- The Founding Father's Flying Circus (87)
- Tennessee Politics (25)
- Bristol Local. (22)
- High Witness Report (33)
- Chris Lugo (32)
- How Many Bongs Would A Bong Ban Ban If A Bong Ban Could Ban Bongs?
- Ray Manzarek: Rest in Peace and Love
- The Footbath Blues
- Meningitis Maybe
- Summary of Current Events
- Liberals In Name Only
- Attorney General Eric Holder Must Go
- Newtown Massacre: Solution vs Reality
- Tony Shipley Whines to MSM About Strongly Worded Blog
- Silvestre Reyes Beaten in Texas: Finally, Those Roadkill Eatin' Goobers Did Something Right
- Jon Lundberg doesn't like the way God made us
- Tony Shipley's Ass is Mine...
- RSS 0.92: Posts, Comments
- RSS 1.0: Posts, Comments
- RSS 2.0: Posts, Comments
- ATOM 1.0: Posts, Comments