"No One Could Have Imagined"--Hilda Solis Edition

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 10:03



So, Obama signals weakness on EFCA through the WaPo:

The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.

"If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned," he said. "Let's see what the legislative docket looks like."

And Politico reports that GOP Senators start threatening the Solis nomination, saying EFCA would destroy the bipartisan tone Obama wants.  The first line of objection is she's not answering questions--but Dems point out that cabinet nominees are often limited in what they can say (Bush's certainly were). Then we get to the meat:

With several Republicans having indicated that they'll vote for her, and Democrats holing at least 58 seats in the Senate this year, there is little doubt that Solis will get confirmed eventually.

But a hold on her nomination would signal that Solis can expect a contentious relationship with the GOP and would foreshadow the fight ahead over the card-check bill, a top priority for organized labor that would largely abolish secret ballots during votes on whether employees want a union, potentially leading to millions of new union members.

"It puts them on notice that this is going to be an explosive issue," one senior GOP aide said of the possibility of holding up Solis' nomination....

Paul Rosenberg :: "No One Could Have Imagined"--Hilda Solis Edition
In some sense, thoroughly detailing her views on the controversial issues could give the GOP even more ammunition to block her nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that if Democrats try to force through the card-check legislation, it would squander the good will in the Senate. And the business community is launching an all-out campaign to quash its momentum....

Indeed, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who sits on the committee, said if she made a declarative statement on an issue he finds troubling, he might oppose her nomination. Otherwise, he said, "The president should have the ability to choose the people he wants."

Roberts added that he was not concerned about her testimony and said that the two had a "good talk" during a meeting after she was chosen by Obama. In that meeting, Roberts asked Solis why the administration would want to push the card-check bill "and tear the place apart."

Perhaps if Obama resigned in favor of McCain, that would ensure bipartisan peace in the Senate?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This I would have predicted (4.00 / 2)
from the comments by Rahm on the "priorities" of the administration which Pachacutec wrote about. You try to build trust and get people to buy into your economic package before you get to something like EFCA where it is iffy if you will have 60. I would encourage Team Open Left to whip EFCA but Reid is likely to slow walk it as well.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

EFCA will be a fight. (4.00 / 2)
We knew that.  What's the news here?

There Is No News (4.00 / 7)
It's the same old "duck and cover" from the Dems while the GOP comes out swinging.

Funny, I could have sworn there was an election in November.  And I even thought the Democrats won!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
When i read this article (4.00 / 3)
I actually laughed out loud, because the GOP is acting like they still have great power. They have 41 votes in the Senate, and they think they can filibuster Solis?

Give me a break. I don't think the GOP realizes how weak they are right now. This isn't 2007-2008, where the GOP had 49 votes locked up. I also don't think Obama or the Democrats realize how weak the GOP is right now.

We already have a few GOP senators on record saying they'll vote to approve Solis. She's fine -- she'll sail through even if someone puts a hold on her.

And if the GOP does put up a huge, nasty fight? Good. Then maybe Obama will start to see the Republicans for who they really are.

But the idea that the GOP has any power besides what Obama decides to give them is a joke.


[ Parent ]
Where's the ducking? (4.00 / 4)
I only see Republicans quoted.  That's not the Democrats' fault.  Here's the latest that Obama himself has said:
Here's my basic principle -- that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade.  That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth.  Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom.  I think unions serve an important role in that.  I think that the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions.  I want to lift that thumb.  There are going to be steps that we can take other than the Employee Free Choice Act that will make a difference there.

I think the basic principle of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important.  And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate.  I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.

You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have.  But, so that's the general approach that I am interested in taking. But in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items that I just mentioned.



[ Parent ]
The Fact That Solis Wouldn't Talk About This (4.00 / 5)
and the bit in the WP piece about "other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses" both show a lack of willingness to stand up and be counted.

Certainly, everything in her background indicates that Solis is not one to be ducking on this.  But she's Obama's nominee, and this clearly seems to be his strategy.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
stand up and be counted (4.00 / 1)
Well, is EFCA a flawless, perfect piece of legislation?  Is there more that we'd want it to accomplish?  Are there things that can be shaved or modified while still achieving the core goals?  Or is anything other than "pass -- as is" a policy failure?

[ Parent ]
Waiting for "perfect" pieces of legislation... (0.00 / 0)
...means you'll never accomplish anything. There is no such thing! Modifiying or polishing up the bill for a more streamlined vote would only result in holding up this important reform for much longer. But there's more to gain from a speedy enacting than from additional support from the right side, so this should be a no brainer.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
I Don't See This As The Issue Here (4.00 / 1)
Solis could stand up and say, "Yes, I support this in principle, I'm on record supporting it, but of course, modifications are still possible, and I look forward to working on this with both houses of Congress."

No ducking.  No signalling weakness. But no premature commitments either.

What's so hard about that?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Nothing. (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been following the hearings closely; have other nominees been making such policy commitments?

[ Parent ]
It's Not Unusual (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been following them either.  Caught a bit of Holder, that's about it.  But it's usually up to the President's team what they go on the record about, in situations where prominent pending legislation is involved.  And, of course, GOP nominees are evasive as hell all the time without anything coming of it.

This really could have been handled much better.  It's not clear at all why this happened, especially given they must have known the GOPers would be gunning for her on EFCA.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Capitulation.... (4.00 / 7)
Just what would an election have to look like to get the Democrats to do what they were elected to do?  This bi-partisanship is bullshit.  What we need is non-partisanship.  Science and facts needs to drive policy, not ignorant ideologies.   Unless Obama is the biggest sneak in the world, he appears to be caving everywhere.  Just like Merkley, this is the stuff that undermines voter confidence and trust.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich



Science and facts (4.00 / 2)
The problem is that the GOP has their own set of "science and facts" that affirm everything they stand for. Yeah, it's cherry-picked evidence and faith-based science, but they'll swear by it every time.

I think we do need partisanship, where Dems fight for their beliefs and their policies. The GOP policies proved a disaster, that doesn't mean Dem policies will also be a disaster. If anything, it means they'll probably work.


[ Parent ]
"own set" of science and facts? (0.00 / 0)
Gee, where can I buy a set for me. :)  There is truth as accepted, and then there are politicians and jesus freaks.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich



[ Parent ]
Elections aren't actually designed to make this kind of change (4.00 / 4)
If we want power to concede, we have to threaten it.  Elections don't fundamentally threaten institutional power very much.

Washington acts in order to preserve institutional stability (which serves the interests of the powerful, of course).  When a banking collapse threatens institutional stability, they act.  If workers did something to threaten institutional stability as much as the banking crisis did, then Congress will act again.

I see electeds as the mediators between us and the powerful.   The GOP are mediators in name only -- they're really against us in every way.  The Dems aren't even-handed, either, but their not as hostile as the GOP.  So elections can get us better mediators.  But I don't think they're designed to get us advocates.

I suppose it's possible for EFCA to sneak through by means of legislative arm-twisting and ordinary lobbying.  That's very unlikely, IMHO, but it's not impossible.  The more likely scenario, however, would involve American workers getting so angry, active, restless, and threatening that Capital comes to the conclusion that things will only get worse for them if they hold out on EFCA.


[ Parent ]
This Is Quite Realistic (4.00 / 3)
This is, in fact, perfectly in accord with William Domhoff's 40 years of research into how power in America works, from Who Rules America? in 1968 down to the present day.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 1)
...elections are part of the democratic political process.  Politics is about contesting for power, and the electoral aspect is just that, an aspect.  But electoral politics are indeed part of the picture.

We elect those who govern to be both trustees for and representatives of the people.  So they mediate, but they do so in varying degrees.  

That certain classes have taken hold of the reins of power through the democratic political process is an issue, but not one that wholly predetermines what elected officials do.  


[ Parent ]
Someone please tell me (4.00 / 4)
why the Democrats always have to pander to Republicans. The word "bipartisan" sort of indicates "give-and-take." I am sure someone can tell me what the Republicans are doing that indicates their willingness to work in a bipartisan manner.  If postpartisan simply means the Democrats cave to every reactionary demand of the Republicans then I don't see what's new; Democrats have always caved and they do it well.

Still in shock, and still on the payroll (4.00 / 4)
Democrats haven't always caved to the Republicans -- I think FDR, LBJ or even Tip O'Neill would be mightily pissed off to hear such an egregious rewriting of the history of our party.

One trouble is that since Reagan, the American people who've forgotten their own history -- too many jet skis in the garage and frozen pizzas in the fridge, I imagine -- have held the Democrats down while the Republicans pummeled them. Nothing like a good Depression to begin a re-think, though. The other trouble, of course, is that Democrats are lazy. It's easier to suck on the same teat as the Republicans, even if has to be the hindmost one, than to go out and create constituencies and raise money on your own.

After Obama's example, though, some of them may begin to find their sense of adventure again, but I wouldn't count on it happening soon.


[ Parent ]
In the end, Obama will (4.00 / 3)
push for EFCA.  

Obama's 2008 Labor Day message:

It's time you had a President who honors organized labor - who's walked on picket lines; who doesn't choke on the word "union"; who lets our unions do what they do best and organize our workers; and who will finally make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land.

Obama will destroy his coalition if he fails to get EFCA passed.

 


How about (4.00 / 2)
If a Lincoln or Specter vote against cloture. Would that be Obama's fault?

Fact is that we don't have 60 solid votes right now. It is POSSIBLE that the Franken will get seated, every single Democrat will vote for cloture and Specter will vote for cloture. However it's far from a done deal. EFCAC will come up in the House and the Senate no matter what Obama says or does. It will pass easily in the House and will get a majority in the Senate, I honestly don't think it can get to 60 in this current Congress but I'd like to be suprised.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Timing (4.00 / 4)
This is where Obama's support is crucial.  It really won't be that hard for Obama to coordinate with labor and Senate Democrats to swing a cloture vote if Obama puts his full weight behind it.

What he's doing now is indicating a reluctance to do that early on, when his political capital is at a peak.  So that's what all this is really about.

Your analysis is spot on, IMHO, without factoring in Obama's participation, and that's precisely why his participation is so crucial.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
It's still a big longshot (0.00 / 0)
The swing votes -- both GOP and Dem -- will only vote for EFCA out of fear.  Now, some of them can be made to fear political repercussions for opposing it.  But for people like Collins and Snowe, I think they need to be fear that workers will make things worse for Capital if they vote against cloture.

Obama has to do his part in this fight, but the American workers' part is much bigger.


[ Parent ]
Well, Of Course It's The Worker's Fight (4.00 / 2)
That goes without saying.

But labor's commitment to EFCA is not in doubt, which is why I was focused on Obama, and why the subject line said "Timing."

As noted below, I agree 100% with your underlying take on the power relations involved.  If we differ at all (not saying we do), it's with regard to the mechanics and timing.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Institutional Actors (4.00 / 2)
I think that Edward Kennedy would like to close out his illustrious career in the Senate with two major accomplishments: a universal healthcare program and a new Magna Carta for labor in EFCA.

I have to believe, and I am entirely skeptical of Obama at least on EFCA if not on a whole host of other matters, that people like Teddy Kennedy will be the institutional actors that make happen what we need on EFCA.  He can lean on other Senators, as I'm sure he will.  But someone like Teddy has tremendous clout with Obama and his team.

There will be dynamics of power at play in the Senate, but also personal dynamics between those in the Senate and between the Senate and the White House.

EFCA is an electoral winner.  I wrote two papers this year based upon different theories of the agenda-setting and policy-making process that really convinced me in the process of putting them together that EFCA is one of those matters that can be politically potent, both for those who are supporters and advocates of it as well as those who are uncertain (and even those who are wholeheartedly against it).  Those dynamics will play out and I would expect that we will indeed see serious labor law regime reform.


[ Parent ]
I still think it's worth saying that it's the workers' fight for 2 reasons (0.00 / 0)
1) The lefty blogosphere tends to fetishize elections and who's-doing-what-in-DC analysis of political change.  I don't think Open Left does this very much, but even here there's been an enormous amount of analysis of individual office-holders and of where they stand on specific issues.  That's not wrong or off-base, but given the tendencies of the whole blogosphere (led by DKos in this respect), I think it's important to make the point explicit.

2) Institutional Labor is committed to EFCA.  I'm not sure how committed actual workers are.  Check that -- I'm pretty sure that non-union workers are not committed to it.  I'd guess that the average non-union worker has no real opinion about it, and if they have an opinion it's not nearly as strongly for it as the Chamber of Commerce is against it.  

Institutional Labor's campaign falls into the "ordinary lobbying" category for me.  Now, it's possible that the AFL-CIO's and CTW's plans for mass mobilization on this will surpass "ordinary lobbying", but if it does so, it won't be by much.  (Disclosure -- my wife is an elected officer at a large SEIU local and is very involved in running that mobilization campaign in that local's state).  "By much" would involve dozens of Republic Window and Doors, much the way 1199 got Rockefeller to sign NY laws recognizing healthcare unions, which paved the way for the healthcare/nonprofit amendments to the Act in the 1970s.

All of which means that defining a campaign as "help President Obama pass EFCA!" is arguably necessary for big unions who supported Obama's campaign, but is unfortunately not the best way to build the kind of power and threat necessary to win in the end.


[ Parent ]
It IS hard though (4.00 / 2)
If you don't think so you don't have any understanding of the EFCA debate. Millions of dollars are being spent lobbying all these people. The pressure is huge, especially for people like Lincoln and Pyor in Arkansas which is a non-union state. Every single Wal-Mart heir and their executives have donated to one person, Lincoln. If she votes to let EFCA pass that's all gone. It's not a particularly union friendly state to be in and Obama calling her up and saying "Vote for this" won't make much difference. He got crushed in Arkansas.

If Specter votes for EFCA Toomey will primary him. He came within an inch of beating Specter in 2004 and since then he's ran the Club for Growth and developed a national following.

Neither of those votes are anything close to being sure "ayes" for cloture. It's a very tricky fight. I'm not convinced the votes will be there until 2011  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Filibusters, Cloture, and Majorities (4.00 / 2)
People like Specter, Snowe, and Collins - and perhaps the Arkansas Senators - can split the difference.  They can vote for cloture and then vote against EFCA; we can get to 60 to get the bill considered for a straight up-or-down vote where a majority passes it.

The aforementioned can get away with, in the minds of their attentive publics outside of just the most powerful individual actors, this course of action.  It's a lot harder for Toomey to primary Specter if the latter votes for cloture and then against the bill.  


[ Parent ]
Snowe and Collins (4.00 / 1)
will absolutely not vote for EFCA. They are moderate on some things. But they don't really have any pro-union leanings and Tom Allen's campaign probably will make it so neither of them think that matters in Maine. Specter may well do that, but he also may not. And Wal-Mart and the Arkansas 2's corporate allies don't care about the final vote (which will pass), they care about if the bill gets to that stage. Lincoln hasn't said anything that makes it seem like she is very sympathetic to unions and she will take a big hit to her 2010 re-election if she votes aye. Is that a risk she will take? I just don't know.

It's tricky. It could pass but Obama not saying it's the #1 priority isn't the end of the world beacuse what Specter and Lincoln say is what really matters and both of them are not sounding very good on this issue.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
What Peter Says (4.00 / 2)
Plus, getting the votes done now and out of the way gives the maximum amount of time to sell people on it after the fact.

And Obama might even be able to pick up a cloture vote or two from a retiring GOP Senator.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
EFCA (0.00 / 0)
is not something that the public in general really cares about or that is a winning issue (like SCHIP)

I suspect it will come up at around the same pace it did in 07 (late June). Depending on when Obama decides to make pushes on healthcare and energy/climate it could change.

Also we have  zero chance of winning any retiring Republicans support for EFCA.

Mel Martinez is a former RNC Chairman. Think he'll vote for it?

This is Voinovich

"To just have a situation where somebody can go out there and get X number of cards and then say, 'By the way, we've got 50-plus-one, now you're unionized' - it's undemocratic," he said.

(Isn't that how most elections work?)

He doesn't sound like a swing vote.

Sam Brownback is Sam Brownback and is running in a Republican primary in Kansas. Not happening.

Kit Bond has had a nice long career of being very anti-union. Again, no way he changes his vote.

It's just not a simple issue where you pick off a few votes and it passes. It's a giant issue which is the the number one priority of every union or corporate group and I'm just not convinced we've got votes to pass it.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Exactly… (4.00 / 1)
...Obama was measured answering that question in WaPo because now wasn't the time to answer it. I think it's going to take a quite a while for folks on Capitol Hill to govern without looking over their shoulders, but that's where Obama may have an advantage. He's relatively new to this game, and hasn't spent large parts of his political career backpedaling. All eyes are truly focused on him, and I'll bet quite a few Dem legislators will sort of let him take the lead on things in order to safely gauge public opinion.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with you. (4.00 / 1)
It is one thing to marginalize the "left", it really is another kettle of fish to leave labor blowing in the wind.

[ Parent ]
It's exactly the opposite (4.00 / 5)
"if we're losing 500,000 jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize". -Obama

Actually, there is palpable fear in the country on the part of the great majority who-for now-still have their jobs. And with passage of EFCA, that would spark a huge wave of unionization, almost overnight.

And that's what the GOP is afraid of.


Oh noes! Not the good will in the Senate! (4.00 / 3)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that if Democrats try to force through the card-check legislation, it would squander the good will in the Senate.

Would this be the good will that McConnell was engendering by threatening (idiotically, as it turns out) to filibuster the organizing resolutions unless Democrats agreed to voluntarily cut their advantages in committee ratios by 1/3?


Or Maybe The Goodwill Shown In Their Temper Tantrum Over Coleman (4.00 / 3)
not being allowed to squat in Al Franken's offices after the first week in February.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Oh Nooooooo, but we could've guessed... (4.00 / 3)
"We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure." Mitch "the grinch" McConnell, regarding the bailout for the automakers.

And what the hell have the Reeps been doing for the last eight years? We voted to change all that but it won't come easily and without a fight.  

Paul's right.  No "duck and cover" allowed.  We've got to push back hard on behalf of all workers in support of EFCA.  


[ Parent ]
Obama's secret plan isn't all THAT secret.... (4.00 / 2)

I think those of us who voted for McCain are going to be a lot happier with Obama than the people who voted for him, Valerie Schlink, 46, a Republican from Valparaiso, Ind., said in an interview after participating in the poll. A lot of the things he said he would do, like pulling out the troops in 16 months and giving tax cuts to those who make under $200,000, I think he now sees are going to be a lot tougher than he thought and that the proper thing to do is stay more towards the middle and ease our way into whatever has to be done.

I think they are too, and I'm not at all happy about it. So I'm an alarmist, right? Interesting, though, that this is the one thing that Republicans and at least some Democrats agree on. On what evidence are we basing our perceptions, do you suppose?


Forgot the attribution. Sorry. (0.00 / 0)
The quote is from today's NYT article: Poll Finds Faith in Obama, Mixed With Patience.

[ Parent ]
Paul, (4.00 / 3)
I appreciate you pushing Obama on this issue, and I think we need to.  There is no doubt that EFCA will be a fight and Obama tends to avoid conflict unless he has no other choice.  

That being said, I take issue with your statement "Obama signals weakness on EFCA through the WaPo."  If you read the whole transcript of the interview, I didn't get that impression at all.  Obama never says anything about caring whether EFCA does or does not "anger businesses."  This is a distortion by journalist who wrote the article.  One thing Obama did say, that the Post did not put in was one that I found pretty encouraging:  

You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me.

This is important, because the main reason why Republicans and businesses oppose unions is precisely because they are convinced that it is bad for business.  

Again, this not a "lay-off-Obama-because-you are-weakening-him" argument.  I write it only to point out that the WaPo can be counted on to take what Obama says and make it sound conservative.  In other words, the passage that you quote twists what Obama actually said.  Obama never said anything about businesses being angry or not being angry.  He did say this:

the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate.  I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.

This is typical Obama rhetoric, and I think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting business and labor "together" on EFCA.  But there's nothing in that quote which implies that his decisions will be influenced by whether or not businesses are "angry".  Again, that is the Post twisting his words to their own ideological interpretation.

I bring it up because even while criticism is important its also important to know what it is, that you are actually criticizing.  It makes for more effective pushback overall, no?  


I Would Agree With You, If Not For The Talk/Signs Of Delay (4.00 / 1)
As indicated in my response to Populista, I see Obama's forceful support as crucial to breaking cloture in the Senate.  And I see his support as having its greatest impact early on.  So any decision to delay is inherently worrying for objective reasons that count much more with me than what people may say along the way.

This is not to say I take words lightly.  It's just that signs of a delay that clearly weakens chances of passage will color everything else I read.  And the way Solis ducked those questions clearly reinforces the message of wanting to delay engagement.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I don't entirely agree with your premise (4.00 / 3)
that delaying EFCA inherently weakens it.  Given the losses that the GOP may suffer in the Senate in 2010, the democrats could well find themselves in an even stronger position to pass EFCA than they do right now.  

But you are entirely right that Obama's forceful support is crucial to taking on businesses and passing EFCA.  The more that Obama is forced to make public statements re-affirming his support for EFCA, and that there is an imbalance between business and labor, the more that EFCA will become a mainstream issue that gets brought into the public debate.  

I guess I would like to force Obama's hand on EFCA in the same way that his hand is being forced on closing Guantanamo.  He can say that it is difficult and that it might not happen immediately, but that it will get done.  

The funny thing is that right now only conservatives are bringing up EFCA in interviews with Obama.  When liberals interview Obama they should do what Markos and Sirota propose: give him a chance to codify and put his priorities clearly into words.  For example:

"President Obama, you've consistently indicated your support for EFCA.  However, you have been somewhat vague when it comes to signaling your commitment to making sure that EFCA gets passed in your first term.   Are you committed to speaking out in support of EFCA and making your case to the American people that it is important, or do you see your support of EFCA consisting exclusively of signing it into law?"

Something like that.  Anyway, keep the drumbeat of EFCA up, and that his support from progressives in 2012 is contingent upon him getting it passed before his first term ends.  


[ Parent ]
Bird In Hand = 2 In Bush (Or Palin, Or Whatever) (4.00 / 1)
So better now.  Not necessarily.  Just proverbially.

The additional point is, the sooner this gets done, the sooner those workers start joining unions.  A two year delay hurts a lot of people.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
It would be nice to have it now... (0.00 / 0)
...but, quite frankly, we have a better shot later... IIRC, many analysts agree with that assessment, including Reid himself.

And Reid needs to push this bill for his own re-election chances... so, that's good for us right there!


[ Parent ]
And the game is afoot (4.00 / 2)
Every step Obama's cabinet tries to make toward any real reform will be met with cries from the right wing that Obama's cherished bi-partisanship is at stake. This is where we see what kind of President Obama is going to be. If he buckles in the name of the "post-partisan" fantasy he currently clings to, the Republicans will succeed in crippling his presidency and likely make Obama a  one-termer, which is exactly what they want and what they will continue to strive for.

One thing you can say about Republicans - they are much better at this game than the Dems.


It will be a fight (4.00 / 4)
A few months ago I was in DC talking to staff of members of the Progressive Caucus and they too are worried that Obama has been signaling that this is not something he wishes to spend political capital early in his administration.  So we are not the only ones that are alarmed with the turn of events since this was something many people in labor felt he would take a strong stance.

 If you want to join the fight I would suggest if you do not belong to a union join an organization like Americans for Democratic Action. Their web site is www.adaction.org
They have also done a great job organizing with Working Families Win.

Of all the progressive organizations they have the strongest ties to labor and this is a top priority to get this particular piece of legislation passed.


Nah... (4.00 / 2)
Resigning in favor of mccain would still piss the GOP... NOW if Obama resigned in favor or Palin... or the resurrected Zombie corpse of Ronald Reagan... THEN the GOP will be happy.

Yikes! You're Right! (0.00 / 0)
"How could I have been such a fool?"
    --Frank Zappa



"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
So what are you going to do about it? I'm actually curious. (4.00 / 1)
Is all the handwringing leading to action?

Strengthen our lobbying efforts (4.00 / 1)
We have out of necessity learned to be more effective in electing Democrats but we have not worked as hard at learning how to hold them accountable.
It does work to remain engaged and in dialogue.  Many progressive groups are starting lobbying days.  Americans for Democratic Action has made EFCA a top priority and has asked their members to lobby on its behalf.  
There are other groups as well.  Some religious groups like Network, a Catholic social justice lobbying group is also supporting EFCA.  If you are a member of Union, then lobby with the union.
We need to have a coherent message and to organize together.  The blog is a start to let people know that this is not a done deal.  There are many things that we cannot just do a wait and see.   EFCA and Healthcare are among some of the top priorities if we want to get the country back on track economically.

Each member of Congress needs to hear that this is a priority for you.  If you can, get a group together to visit the campaign office in support of EFCA.  Meet with you Congressional representative if possible or at least a member of their staff.  Don't forget your Senator.

Believe it or not some members of Congress do believe they are a co-equal branch of government and I do not think if there is a strong desire to get this passed from Congress that Obama will veto it.

It means that there has to be a political will and the Republicans have to understand that standing in the way is a path to losing in the next election.


[ Parent ]
Obama wouldn't veto it at all so that's not an issue IMO. (4.00 / 1)
The issue is getting it through Congress but I don't actually think that's going to be all that difficult either. However, that's where any pressure needs to be applied but I don't see any organized effort to apply pressure. Just complaining based on speculation.  

[ Parent ]
Republicans need to shut up and sit down (4.00 / 3)
The economy is in a tail spin---because of the Republicans. Health Care is a disaster---because of the Republicans. Republican Foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place. They have been in power and weak-kneed democrats have enabled them. And the result is catastrophic for the world.

Republicans need to shut up and we need to keep reminding everybody that what they want just causes grief and woe and disaster.  


Why did we get beat on the messaging? (0.00 / 0)
Why does the framing of this issue force progressives to oppose secret ballots? You all know how ridiculous that sounds, right?

I know of a specific member of congress who is very strongly pro-union but making very similar statements to these--not the first thing on the docket, might be other ways of accomplishing the same goals, etc--because he's waiting for unions to get their act together on the messaging. It wouldn't surprise me if this reasoning explained the thinking behind Obama's statements as well.

I'd love to see the blogs spend a bit more time helping push the narrative--in fact, so far I haven't even heard of a framing job that precludes the "secret ballot or not" way of asking the question. That's not to say it's not out there, but it's certainly not prevalent.

It's not a coincidence that the party that does all the capitulating represents the issues and groups that get out-messaged so frequently. (Paul, you've done plenty of writing about this.) Unions had 5 years to get this one teed up, and conservatives are still kicking our asses.


Donate to Open Left
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS

MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.


OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
Tips
McCain
John McCain
QUICK HITS