The AFL-CIO hates him, they really, really do:
Richard Trumka, president of union giant AFL-CIO, delivered a scathing review of President Barack Obama at a press breakfast Thursday morning. He accused him of abandoning Democratic ideals and aligning himself with the conservative tea party.
“This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie,” Trumka said, Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler reported.
I’m sure this will gain him lots of Independent and Centrist voters, because as we all know, a Democrat can’t get elected when the unions support him or her. I will just bet this was part of David Plouffe’s grand re-election campaign strategy all along.
But I thought he was the most progressive president of our lifetime?
meh, Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO are nothing more than professional leftists. Fucking retards.
Vote for Obama and defeat the Communist conspiracy.
So approval rating is at 38%, the left has left him, the right won’t elect him, and he’s lost the unions…is it too late for Obama to decide to not run?
Damn you play 50!
BTW, I meant this as snark.
But isn’t it essentially the implicit tone of this post?
I’m sure this post was meant as a “wake-up call”, but it comes off as another Obama losing his base argument, so my next thought was then okay, he’s lost his base, then why even fight for re-election? Obama should get out now right???
He should resign tomorrow at noon. Gerald Ford will become President.
great comment!!!!
I just don’t see what Trumka gains with this language. How will his goals in any way be enhanced by making people not want to vote for democrats?
I do get the frustration, but not the tactic.
Trumka is following through on stuff he said earlier this year. The unions have been very disappointed in the democrats, for quite some time now.
he warned them in 2010 and again in 2011.
The unions are in pitched battles in the states, and need to conserve their resources for where they are most needed.
Re-electing democrats who do nothing but give in to the republicans on labor issues (don’t throw Ledbetter at me, one good act does not make up for everything else that’s gone down) is not the wisest use of those funds when you’re fighting at the state level to protect your collective bargaining rights.
That all may well be true. But there is no universe in which the things they want become more likely by depressing democratic turnout. And there is no universe where Obama is in any way similar to tea partiers. It’s as stupid as Nader saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
Then what is the austerity bullshit? You can’t cut your way to growth. And unions depressing turnout? You certainly have no idea why people do, or don’t, turn out to vote. Frankly, President Obama needs to follow Phil Ochs’ advice.
What austerity? There is austerity in unemployment extensions and payroll tax cuts? there is austerity in infrastructure spending? where is the austerity in making cuts that won’t take effect until 2013?
Even talking about austerity now is stupid. What don’t you understand? And just look at Europe. Hell, have you seen the polls? The constant media drumbeat is taking a toll that people now, mistakenly, think the deficit is a big deal. Almost as much as jobs.
seriously?
you didn’t see the budget deal? or the tax cut deal in January?
all cuts. no stimulus.
He should just resign and be replaced with Hamsher/Greenwald/Krugman/Sanders/Kucinich/FDR/LBJ/JFK/etc.etc.……..
Yes Obama is better that all the Republicans. But for the sake of argument, let’s hypothesize that he’s a lot worse, progressively speaking, than he could be.* In that case what is a progressive to do? Continue to support the lesser of two evils? If the progressive does this then what influence does the progressive have over Obama’s actions? None.
It seems to me the key point of argument here is not whether progressives should support Obama, despite his poor performance in office, but rather whether his performance in office is indeed poor. A lot of people, the majority on this site in particular, blame Congress and see Obama as making the best of the situation. A lot of those people blame the “professional left” for the Democrat’s failure in 2010.
However, something to consider is that while Obama’s popularity plummet in the U.S. has been bad, it is nothing like his popularly plummet overseas, especially in the third world and in Arab countries. Consider the welcome he received on his overseas trip in the summer of 2008 – consider that the mere fact that he spoke well and talked of peace, in contrast to GW Bush, was enough to get him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Yet now American approval ratings in most of those countries are below where they were at their worst point under Bush.
You can’t blame that fall on the professional left, nor on Congress. On Foreign Policy the President has the large majority of the power. You can blame part of it on Wikileaks – the US press has largely kept the actual revelations under the covers and just focused on Assange’s personality and issues but the rest of the world has seen that the Obama-Clinton state department are just as evil and pro-multinational business as the Bush administration.
The fact is, the guy has fallen WAY short of expectations all around. You can blame all of us who had the AUDACITY to HOPE for significant CHANGE if he won election for having incorrectly formed bad expectations. And we are indeed guilty. But don’t then also blame us for not signing up for another round of the same.
“If they don’t have a jobs program I think we’d better use our money doing other things,” Trumka said….
Asked how Obama fell off course, Trumka explained, “I think he made a strategic mistake when he confused job crisis with the deficit crisis a number of months ago — when he would talk about job creation and then in the same sentence talk about deficit reduction and people got the two confused. And (Obama) helped with that.”
There’s nothing in his statements, either literal or implied, saying that Labor will work to depress Dem turnout. He’s calling Obama on his rhetorical and negotiating mistakes, neither of which are forced on him by Congress. For God’s sake, the President badly needs to be pushed from the left.
Any part of Trumka’s actual statements you’d care to dispute?
I’ve been arguing for months now that Unions should put their money and effort into state-level races. Maybe pick a few Sens/Reps to help out as well, but focus nearly all their attention at State legislators.
First and foremost, the most damage to unions that’s being done in this country right now is happening on the state level, not the national level. There are battles in Congress, to be sure, but those are one-off fights and of limited number. The state level anti-union push is death by a thousand little bills. Unions don’t have unlimited funds, and they can get more bang for their buck on state legislator races than they could for the higher profile ones.
Second, Pres. Obama doesn’t need their money or their help. He’s going to have an army of volunteers and personal fundraising like no one in history — again. Even against the flood of corporate cash, his win or loss of the White House won’t be determined by whether Unions get on board nationally.
Third, all politics are local. A local union working with a local politician on a local race gives them a chance to go with a more one-on-one approach. Not only can their operation be more focused on races that matter, but they create an opportunity to connect and influence people’s opinions on unions directly — not through some national ad campaign. Coalitions and Movements are built one door at a time.
Lastly, turnout is turnout is turnout. It doesn’t matter if Unions push their turnout machine for a local Democrat to the State Senate or for President Obama — the odds show that if they succeed at the former, they’ll succeed at the second by proxy. Not focusing their campaigns on Pres. Obama certainly won’t lead to people forgetting to vote for a President…but now they may have some knowledge about the smaller races as well.
Unions will be deeply involved in these elections. Citizens United opened the door for them just as it did for corporations. They have a finite amount of resources to decide what to do with and they are blessed with a Democratic President who’s going to raise more money than anyone in history, even if Unions don’t organize for a single cent of it. It’s time they focus on where the damage is being done, get more bang for their buck, and help rebuild the views of the public from the ground up. Against the corporatist GOP, Unions helping themselves IS helping Democrats’ in the long term.
“Means of Ascent” – the part of his multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson which deals primarily with his desperate run for the Senate in 1948.
Johnson was way behind in the polls to his conservative opponent Coke Stevenson. He came back by spending unheard of amounts of money on a media blitz painting the lifelong ultra-conservative as a communist sympathizer who consorted with “communist labor leader racketeers”. The irony of this was that the labor unions were providing much of the money with which Johnson spread these lies about Stevenson – under the table, of course.
The more things change…
Are The AFL-CIO going a slate of candidates on their own? Are they putting their money and GOTV operation at the disposal of non-Democratic candidates? Are they going to raise money and not spend it? Or not raise it? They will spend the money — why else the Super-PAC?
Strikes me as an exercise in Trumpka mollifying his base.
The Super-PAC doesn’t have to spend money on the Obama campaign in order to remain supportive of Democratic Party candidates who are TRULY pro-Union, pro-middle class. There’ll be plenty of those candidates in Congressional, State and local races. This would have the effect of helping out Obama not only at the polling booth, but with his next Congress as well.
Well, the answer is obviously “no,” in that Obama has never offered cuts to middle class programs including Social Security, does not pretend that the deficit is where our economic problems really lie, and advocates stimulative initiatives every time he opens his mouth, so Trumka is presumably as happy as the proverbial clam.
I disagree with you. Offering to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations was a radical departure for a Democratic Party President in the middle of an employment and economic crisis. Americans’ insecurity is so great right now, it is unresonable to expect the voters to parse the types of cuts Obama’s Administration has described.
Obama’s rhetoric has often linked the jobs crisis with the debt crisis. That’s a big problem. I’m good at parsing statements in order to try to read the tea leaves, but even I am beginning to believe that Obama is buying into austerity fever as a method of increasing employment, which is C-R-A-Z-Y and is harming Americans at this very moment.
People are scared and looking for an explanation of what is causing the acceleratng disappearance of the middle class. The Tea Party’s explanation is extremely mendacious, but exceedingly clear and strikes on many emotional points which could be considered sensible (they require a shitload of cognitive dissonance, though). Obama’s explanation is blurry and unpwersuasive.
And if polls are any indication, the majority of Americans actually believe that cutting government spending will lead to job growth. That’s what got the GOP the house in 2010. That’s why he has to at least, in the short term, accept some of that rhetoric. and, Indeed, it is very difficult to thread a needle that basically states that we can’t keep spending money the way we have, and yet we must make investments to move the economy forward. Both statements seem to cancel the other out. But from the state of the Union forward, this has been the basic message from this administration.
as for Trumka, I find nothing in his statement that suggests that the AFL-CIO intends to abandon the national party; indeed, he seems to want what just about every other rank and file Democrat wants.
Trumka asked a question. He’s urging Obama to go in the direction he’s already indicated he will go during the campaign, and Trumka is lobbying to get him to go a little farther.
It’s good politics, and we’ll soon be seeing the AFL-CIO giving Obama a hearty endorsement. Which then lead to the Steven D post about Trumka being a big sellout.
Yep, you betcha.
I’m sure the Trumka can get somewhere with The Green Party. Hey, maybe Republicans won’t eviscerate you right away.
I find it hilarious when the left gets excited over Union criticism of Obama. Obama loses and takes the Senate and House with him – Unions are fucking done. If the butt hurt over the last couple of years in Republican lead states aren’t enough then ya gonna learn the hard way in 2013 and beyond.
Unions and Dems need each other. Don’t think for a second that one has more leverage than the other.
Unions and Dems need each other.
The national Democratic establishment certainly doesn’t feel that way.
Nonsense. The Washington Dems can read a top donors list. They know what groups in the coalition matter.
The Unions aren’t the firebaggers. They actually need to be listened to, and they will be.
Trumka: {August 2011} “He’s talking about things like patent reform and an infrastructure bank, but that’s not going to do anything for jobs.”
Ought to talk to Trumka: (January 2011) “America’s working families and business community stand united in applauding President Obama’s call to create jobs and grow our economy through investment in our nation’s infrastructure.”
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/left-wing-elitism-richard-trumka-joins.html
Things have gotten much worse since January, though, haven’t they? Two rounds of massive cuts when the need for government programs is increasing, not decreasing. Another massive round of cuts to come.
Is the current infrastructure bank proposal of the same size as that proposed in January?
From the Article:
“Trumka didn’t lay much-deserved blame at the feet of the Tea Party Republicans control the House of Representatives and thus set much of the legislative agenda.”
I’m SHOCKED SHOCKED I tell you that a fucking Democrat would not hold the GOP or the Tea Party scum bags accountable. I look forward to hearing ‘thank you’ from these ass wipes when every Dem candidate is going to be riding in on Obama’s coattails in 2012.
Yeah cause that sh*t worked out so well in Wisconsin! GTFOH!
Yeah, it worked in ’68, ’80, ’00 so well! This strategy is brilliant.
BTW, Trumka is meeting with Obama during Labor Day activities, does that mean those “meetings” will be cancelled, particurly since the AFL-CLO really “hates him”. Why speak with someone you hate?
I can think of more than one reason to talk to your enemies, so why wouldn’t they talk to each other when they’re supposed allies?
According to Trumka, Obama aligned himself with the Tea Party so then why would you want to meet with someone who you believe aligns themselves with the people who you feel are trying to bring you and your’s down?
Trumka isn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch, is he? Is he trying to put the final nail in the coffins of unions? Turning his back on the Democratic Party, President Obama, is going to leave him with no friends at all in Washington. Doh!
Again, HE’S NOT TURNING LABOR’S BACK ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. No threat to sit out the election entirely. No threat to go third party. It’s just a matter of where they will spend their money and, importantly, their members’ volunteer time. It’s also an attempt to get Obame to change his rhetorical and negotiation choices so that Union members might actually carry some enthusiasm about the idea of voting and campaigning for him.
You only have to parse his statement a bit to understand this.
If you choose.
Why O Why does Obama Hate Unions?
https://www.nlrb.gov/news/board-issues-final-rule-require-posting-nlra-rights
WHyeeeeee?
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/freedom-from-fear-workers-right-to-know.html
https://www.nlrb.gov/news/board-issues-final-rule-require-posting-nlra-rights
“This is the Left, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Liberty/Valance 2012!