Wisconsin State Senator Admits Union Busting Agenda Will Hurt Obama's Reelection
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
March 11, 2011 7:41pm CST
Below you can see Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on Fox News admitting the state's union busting bill was mostly political.
"If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you're going to find is President Obama is going to have a much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin," he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJdijPEBJE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117735163.html
If HE could admit it on a "CREDIBLE" outlet like Fox, will you conservative myLotters be able to do the same thing or will you feel the need to spin it into him not really meaning what he said or even not really SAYING what he said...
?
Annie
?
Annie1 person likes this
6 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Nope not spinning it. He is stating the obvious. You can go to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and see where President Obama's campaign cash came from. If the Union members told their Union on how they wanted their Union dues spent, you probably would see a dramatic drop in contributions to all political campaigns of any sort.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Their union dues don't go to campaign contributions, those donations are separate and the members aren't compelled to give. Anyway, it's no secret the unions donate primarily to Democrats and the corporations and other PACs run by the super-rich like the Koch brothers give to the Republicans.
Are you conceding this is purely political and really has nothing to do with balancing the budget?
Annie
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Mar 11
You are contradicting yourself. First you say the "union dues don't go to campaign contributions." Then you say that "it's no secret the unions donate primarily to Democrats." Where are the Unions getting their money if not from Union dues? It is their only source of income.
I am not conceding that. I am saying that Government Walker was stating an obvious assumption. That without "enforced" Union dues the funding for campaign contributions diminishes drastically. Which in turn will hurt President Obama come fund-raising time.
As far as private business is concerned, they can throw away their money on whoever they like. It is their money. I would have an issue if they were getting their employees involved in their political games but that simply has not been the case.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
12 Mar 11
I have about 7 regular clients I do work for.
But when I buy my groceries, I make sure I never use the money from client #4. And if I give to charity or contribute to political campaigns, I'm only using client 6's money.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Maybe you're both right and it's everyone else who is wrong. Maybe.
But maybe, just maybe, news in its full context is how news is supposed to be delivered.
A novel idea, surely, and unspectacular in many ways, but who knows - folks citing full context and not ignoring it to run with the more exciting version might be on to something.
I can't call it. I guess "news" has become another thing personal to someone, like religion and politics.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
12 Mar 11
It's so very amazing Annie! According to supporters of today's republican leaders, people are actually suggesting that WE ALL, ALL AMERICANS should avail themselves of right-wing news sources ONLY and/or what "they" consider "balanced and unbiased" news reports!! That is more incredible than ever!
To rally around a political party that would take away any American worker's right to assist in determining their very future is appauling. These supporters would uphold the RIGHT to give away their own control of life itself without shame or critical thinking! It's just amazing!
Just imagine had we no "liberal" news sources ... we'd ALL be ignorant!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
13 Mar 11
Oh NO, say it isn't so! Republicans really want to use their positions to hurt Obama's chances in 2012? WOW, what a gotcha!! ROFL
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
13 Mar 11
He never said that was the primary goal.
The thing is, both parties will claim credit for the economy getting better, just like both blame the other for economic failure. Gov. Walker has pretty much put his money (as in political capital) where his mouth is. He ran on a platform of balancing the budget without raising taxes, using one time federal grants, or raiding special funds to use in the general fund.
The main purpose is to fix the debt and deficit problems created and made worse by the last few governors (both republican and democrat). However, as State Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald points out, there can be secondary positive effects too, and one of them would be weakening Obama's position that government spending is the answer to everything.
As for the RNC in general, yes, I do think they hope unemployment stays up, I also think they hope gas prices are high when the campaigns are kicking in. One of the reasons I've denounced both parties is I was tired of this kind of crap. Neither party cares about the country as much as they care about their power.. as far as that goes, no union cares about the workers as much as they care about their power.
That is why I've said that political parties are nothing more than labor unions for politicians.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Mar 11
Of course their goal is to defeat the President in 2012 but isn't their MAIN agenda supposed to be to do what's best for the country or state and for their constituents? I think the Republicans are hoping unemployment goes UP instead of down because that will help them politically, which is why they haven't done a thing or even really talked about jobs since the beginning of the year.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Annie, you really need to get over this money thing. It really seems like the only reason you opposed this legislation is because you were afraid democrats would be getting less money from unions. It's not the JOB of unions to fund politicians. Their job is to make sure the employees they represent get a fair deal.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Taskr, I'm not going to get over "this money thing" as long as we have all this money in politics, pure and simple. My views about it are nothing new. Anyway, the point isn't that I oppose the legislation because the Democrats will be getting less money but that the Republicans only pushed for it so the Democrats would get less money.
I'd be perfectly happy if the unions were all forbidden from contributing a single penny to political campaigns as long as corporations, organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and the NRA and PACs like those run by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers were also stopped. I'd just like a more level playing ground, is that something outrageous to ask for?
I noticed you didn't address the actual topic of the discussion. Is there any reason for that?
Annie
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
12 Mar 11
Oh, he said what he said. He just didn't say what you said.
The scope of the interview was about Fitzgerald claims that the White House was behind the recalls in Wisconsin and the Dem goal was to flip the power in the state Senate. In the course of discussing it, Fitzgerald said:
FITZGERALD: Well if they flip the state senate, which is obviously their goal with eight recalls going on right now, they can take control of the labor unions. If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.
Nowhere did he say that the budget battle was about union busting or that it was political. He did state the obvious, that Obama depended heavily on union support and campaign contributions to get elected and will need the same to get re-elected. His point was actually that the battle going on in the state was political on the part of the unions and the Democrats. I have to think this is correct, since all the Democrats left the state under orders from the unions.
It's not just about credible outlets, it's about getting the entire story, hearing the entire interview and knowing what was being discussed while seeing the full text of the interview instead of a cherry-picked comment that is surrounded by speculation.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Mar 11
Rollo, can I ask where you got your information that the White House was behind the recalls or that the Democrats left the state under "orders" from the unions?
Kenzie, he didn't have to say in so many words, "The budget battle is political and about union busting". It's quite obvious just the same. Your state legislature in Ohio sure did some fancy switching in order to pass their bill, didn't they? Can I assume you're alright with that, dirty trickery or not?
Annie
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
13 Mar 11
Annie, you misunderstand. I did not say the White House was behind the recalls, Fitzgerald did. That is what the interview was about, or at least what Fitzgerald discussed. And his claims that the WH was behind the recalls was what he was responding to when he made he statement that is quoted in this discussion.
At no time did he suggest that the entire budget bill had a goal of busting the unions.
He did say what is undeniably true. Union donations and support are key to OBama being successful in any reelection bid.
I disagree, he did have to say so in so many words. If people are going to slice out two or three sentences out of context and assign interpretation to them, we are relying on that interpretation which is going to be imbued with the bias of the interpreter. This will happen until we demand full context.
We're allowing people with an ulterior motive to captivate our political energy and direct it at each other instead of at a productive plan for the future.
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
12 Mar 11
Thank you. He said what he said and he did not say what this writer said. He did not say that the budget battle was about union busting or political.
Frankly, it was Republicans following through on why they were elected. People poo-poo'd the TEA party conservatives. But that's what put conservative Republicans into many city, county and state positions where they can start to reign in spending and government unions.
Unions should have never been allowed in government. And what Walker wants to see is that all employees get to choose whether they join unions or not. We're having the same issue in Ohio and the governor and the conservative Republicans are doing exactly what they were elected to do.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Mar 11
I think all he said was what we all knew long ago. That the unions bought and paid for a president that would make sure they won't loose their cushy jobs as union officials.
1 person likes this
