I think the Teamster's would disagree with you.The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking. Citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is "not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic" but a certain outcome if workers keep striking.
Old White Dudes in America hold a controlling percentage of just about everything. But the Democrats used to explicitly run on being the White Man's Party. It was on their party propaganda and everything. Far from a horrible rhetorical flourish, it was heavily reflected in their policy program too. Considering the party literally tore itself in half and conceded an entire region of the country, surrendering the presidency and effective control of Congress in the process in order to back integration, I think they're pretty far over being the white power party.
Actually, looking more closely at this. Hostess is owned by a private equity firm. They've been running up debt and paying themselves huge management fees, as per usual practice. Selling off pieces of the company too.
The strike just lets them lay the blame on the union, instead of where it belongs.
From the Sacremento Bee
Yeah ,I had heard that too .Im surprised the Goblin didnt-
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
...*ahem* never mind ....
I knew I smelled a rat when I read that story. Yeah, it's basically wall street fat-cats getting rich and pinning the blame on the union for not taking pay cuts.
From what I hear, pretty deep pay cuts. They're probably better off getting laid off and being on unemployment a couple years since, in that same time, the business will be sold off anyway.
I'm not. Their zealous dysfunction is a luxury we can hardly afford. The Democrats don't have a lockdown on the Hill so yes we need both parties sane and functional if the hard work that has to be done is going to be done.
I agree to an extent. I'm more of the opinion that it takes multiple voices to make government work. I may be democratic, but I do not care for the winner-takes-all attitude that seems to be becoming prevalent over the past 12 years. We are America. We need Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Independents, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Unaffiliateds, and all sorts of combinations thereof to work. *Out* of many, one, not *over* many, one.
I agree as well that we need multiple voices. If nothing else, entrenched one-party dominance leads to corruption.
Freehold DM wrote:
I don't think you quite understand my point. I say we need more functional voices. The one sane man in a room of nutcases isn't enough to get the job done.
It's not like we haven't had past eras where we had a Congress run by moderately sane Democrats in tandem with moderately sane Republicans. That's what I want restored.
And Winner Takes All isn't new, it's built into the very foundation of how elections are set up. It's just become much more extreme in recent decades.
I don't disagree, Lazar, but it's on the parties (either one) not to run nut jobs. If the Republicans spend the next century in a Democrat-esque state of disarray because they don't court any vote but the Old White Dudes, I'm fine with that.
Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.
Well, there's always been partisanship, but the levels we've seen from the Republican Party lately have been extreme. The degree of opposition to even the basic functioning of government is ridiculous. Of course, it's coming from a party who's basic modern tenet is that government can't work, so it shouldn't be too surprising.The abuse of the filibuster these past 4 years. The lack of willingness to compromise, even when the other party moves 90% of the way toward your position.
In the midst of economic crisis, proclaiming that the most important thing is to make Obama a one-term president.
Being more interested in blocking anything the Democrats try to do than actually trying to work with them and make the country better is, quite frankly, something of a disgrace.
Marc Radle wrote:
I have no love for the tactics of the current GOP, but it must be pointed out in fairness that the current GOP learned an awful lot about using the filibuster from Harry Reid himself.
Maybe, I'd have to see some numbers. Here's a graph showing cloture statistics. There's been a gradual increase over the years, but actually a drop when Harry Reid became minority leader and a huge spike when Obama took office.
I don't see how Reid can be blamed.
Boehner also deserves blame for the gridlock, but that's partly because he can't control his caucus. Several times he got, in his words, 98% of what he wanted in a compromise, then couldn't deliver the votes.
I didn't say Reid was to blame, simply that he was no slouch using the filibuster himself when George W. Bush was in office.
As for Klein's graph, it's informative but hardly indicative of the entire story, since it only plots cloture motions, not actions blocked. Sometimes the most effective tactic is to threaten a filibuster, in the same way a President might threaten a veto.
I am not a fan of the filibuster, no matter who's using it. But Reid's recent denunciation of the tactic rings hollow.
Why? He's used in the past, yes. He even argued last session to keep it, in hopes a deal with minority would allow the Senate to work better. Now he admits he was wrong and is willing to support change. Note that he didn't reverse course when the Democrats took control of the Senate, or when Obama took office or even after the first two years of obstruction.
If that makes him an unlikely reformer, it's not in a hypocritical sense, but only in the sense that he's the last person you'd expect to. That in itself speaks to how unprecedented the last two years of obstruction have been.
As for the chart not showing threatened filibusters, you're right. Those would be hard to track since they're often behind the scenes negotiations. Unless you're seriously going to argue that Democrats used them much more previously than the Republicans have the last 4 years, I doubt it changes the picture significantly.
Paul Watson wrote:
Technically, the drones fire from within the borders. So it's totally different and stuff. Besides, he obviously wasn't talking about gold-old American missiles but those icky foreign missiles.
Quite possibly manufactured in the USA. It's like the one manufacturing sector still alive and kicking.
Murder never goes out of business.
Marc Radle wrote:
Oh yeah? Then why did he have Philip of Pokanoket killed?!?
In reality, I was a little surprised to find this essay in my current read of choice, Irving's The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.
I didn't realize he was a fraternal member of the Blame America First Association.
Marc Radle wrote:
Meh. I trust him marginally more than, say, the man who ran against him, but that's admittedly not saying much. I don't have any illusions that a politician of any ilk gets elected without being essentially full-of-crap.
Parties wouldn't run nutjobs for office if the citizenry wouldn't vote for them.
Democracy simply can not be expected to function when a predominant slice of the citizenry not only refuses learn but insists on being wilfully ignorant. To the point where they start buying into the idea of government as being a fundamental evil.
If you don't come into the game with the notion that government CAN work,and SHOULD work, then it's game over before the first ballot is counted.
Good thing no one has done that. Least of all me.I just like honest comparisons between the two, not false equivalency. But it's good to know that you're willing to lie, through your teeth, to my face, just because I'm not ideologically pure. You're a good face for why liberals fail to affect any change.
Bill Maher wrote in HuffPo today that, yeah, now that he won? Time to hold his feet to the fire and make him be the flaming liberal the Republicans keep claiming him to be. Which is essentially what I said had to happen. He has NOTHING to lose, and if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem for Dems in the mid-term, not to mention 2016.
It remains to be seen how the cards will fall for the Republican party after this election cycle. If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise and perform some genuine reform.
Between you, me, and the wall, I'm half hoping for the "fiscal cliff" since it's the only way we're ever going to get defense cuts we so richly deserve.
I guess that's fair.
I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile "if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem" with "If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise"
Unless the Republican party is willing to change radically, and they've shown no signs of that yet, any attempts at compromise will again kill hope of progressive action.
I mean, Boehner's offer of compromise on the fiscal cliff is that he's willing to accept some new revenue if it comes through lowering the tax rates.
Maybe I'm just not being clear enough. There's a growing schism in the Republican party between the hardlineers (who happen to be in power) and the few remaining moderates. They're saying CRAZY things like "raising taxes on the rich probably won't kill us", and then there's none other than Ben Stein saying that, hey, we need more revenue, dog. The pundits and talking heads are coming around, even if the people under Norquist's thumb aren't.
There's also a lot of them who, for practical reasons, realize they should compromise for the good of their careers if not the country.
Obama should be reaching out to THOSE Republicans RIGHT NOW, making calls, sending fruit baskets, wtf ever. He should also be using the power of the bully pulpit to make it clear to the American people precisely what he is asking for and what is at stake, in numbers not in values and vagaries.
Boener and McConnell are powerful, but not all-powerful.
Obama needs to be AGGRESSIVE. I know he can play hardball, we need to see some of that right the heck now.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
If the "grand bargain" or the "fiscal cliff" actually results in substantial defense cuts, I'll, I don't know, eat my hat. (Safe one, I don't wear a hat.)
Yeah, I think this would actually be good for us in some ways. Probably the only way we'll see anything resembling serious defense cuts.
This is the part that I still dont get. So whats the magic plan? How exactly do you (I mean you in the plural sense, not singling you out meatrace) plan on holding his feet to the fire, now that he never ever has to worry about getting re-elected?