Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

The most triumphant 9/11 tribute - courtesy of the NFL

Sunday was a filled with many appropriately solemn and somber tributes to those who perished on that horrific sunny morning ten years ago. I was moved to tears watching some of the wives and children of those who died in the World Trade Center read the names of their loved ones and I was even touched by President Clinton’s speech at the Flight 93 Memorial dedication on Saturday.

These were all very sad and serious moments as they ought to have been. Families are still grieving and many will never fully recover from the traumatic events of that day.

But as I was watching the Fox News coverage of the memorial events, they cut to Soldier Field in Chicago where the Bears were preparing to play the Atlanta Falcons.

A giant American flag was unfurled by a group of first responders to cover the entire field as the crowd cheered enthusiastically and chanted “U.S.A!” The roar only increased when players from both teams walked onto the field and helped to hold the flag up.

Then the crowd grew silent. Suddenly, the silence was shattered as tenor Jim Cornelison’s voice exploded with the opening notes of The Star Spangled Banner. Cornelison sang it the way it was meant to be sung – forcefully, defiantly, triumphantly. He left it all on the field, as they say.

The crowd continued to cheer throughout the song. Apparently, that is a tradition at Chicago sporting events when Cornelison is singing. I’m not a fan of disrespecting the flag (hats off guys!). I’m even downright offended when our Team USA Olympians can’t manage to mouth the words to the National Anthem when they’re on the medals podium. So I confess, I was a little uncomfortable with the protocol violation exhibited by the roaring crowd.

But my heart was in my throat when Cornelison hit the final note of the song. Somehow, this was needed on this day. We needed to show the world that the United States of America was displaying American pride and reveling in the triumph over terror and fear. And still playing football.

We needed this on 9/11/2011. It was a fitting end to an emotional weekend of memorial services and somber tributes.

The NFL's 9/11 Remembrance

Crosspost

Is Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) newspaper reporter wife campaigning on the Plain Dealer’s dime?

Is it appropriate for the wife of a sitting U.S. senator to report on political issues for a major newspaper in his state? If so, would propriety require that the reporter and the newspaper disclose the nature of the relationship between the reporter and the senator? Do the rules change as election activities commence? At what point are the reporter's activities (and the newspaper's subsidy of them) considered to be campaign contributions?


Those are questions people in Ohio are asking as the Third Base Politics blog reportedtonight that Plain Dealer columnist and wife of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Connie Schultz, was spotted at a recent Tea Party Express rally in Lorain County.


In her column, titled "Politely Crashing the Tea Party," Schultz "politely" ridiculed the number of attendees, the absence of presidential candidates, a speaker she didn't agree with and three men (out of hundreds of attendees) who made rude comments to her.


However, Schultz made no mention of the fact that her three-hour visit to the Tea Party rally included finding a comfortable seat and videotaping a speech by Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, who is her husband's likely opponent in the Ohio senate race in 2012. It couldn't have been easy to sit and listen to Mandel blaming her husband for Obamacare and calling him a leftist. On the other hand, as an avowed leftist herself, she may have been beaming with pride. Watch her and judge for yourself:

In a follow-up "apology" column today, Schultz brushed off the criticism saying she made a "mistake":

"I did not mention [Josh Mandel] because I wanted to avoid the appearance of singling him out for criticism, or promoting my husband. In retrospect, that was a mistake. You, the reader, should always be trusted to make up your own mind about whether my writing presents a conflict. That's why transparency matters. I am in the unique position of being a newspaper columnist married to a U.S. senator. My opinions are my own, but I must be ever vigilant to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I'm sorry I didn't let you know Mandel showed up."

Now, Schultz is no journalistic neophyte. She's a syndicated columnist with a Pulitzer prize on her desk. She's written a couple books and has written for the vaunted (ahem) Huffington Post. Holding her hands up to her cheeks and exclaiming, "Oh my goodness! I had no idea I would cause such a fuss!" just does not fly here.

On the issue of videotaping Mandel's speech, Schultz claimed that an operative for the Democratic party with a video camera was escorted out of the stadium and she felt compelled, as a journalist, to exercise her free speech rights:

"I did this because I think it's wrong for organizers of a public political event to cherry pick who is allowed to videotape a public official's speech. 

"As a resident of Avon, I knew taxpayers had approved a .25-percent income tax in 2007 to help pay for the stadium. I also knew the state exempted Avon from paying property tax on the facility, "with the understanding [that it] was devoted exclusively to 'public use.' " 

"When I held up my camera, I thought the journalist in me was making an in-your-face point about public forums."

All Pro Freight Stadium, home of the Lake Erie Crushers, rents its facility out for private events. I am guessing that the Tea Party Express event was one such private event. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that funding with property taxes would not give every property owner in the city the right to control and direct private events in the stadium. If a DNC activist with a camera was causing trouble, the group hosting the private event would be within their rights to have them removed from the event.

Schultz continued:

"What I failed to consider is that I am never just another journalist when the public official who is speaking is bashing my husband. 

"Taping the speech gave the appearance that I was covering Mandel for The Plain Dealer. That was not, and never will be, the case. It doesn't matter that I did nothing with my video, or that someone else posted a video of Mandel's speech on You Tube. I should have taken a deep breath and kept my camera in my bag."

Really, she just failed to consider that? During Brown's last campaign, Schultz took a leave of absence from her leftist column in the Plain Dealer. This time around the Plain Dealer has promoted her to the front page of the Metro Section. (You can make up your own mind about whether conservatives get a fair shake in the paper that employs Senator Brown's wife).
Senator Brown wanted to make it perfectly clear that his wife was not on campaign assignment, telling WKYC's Tom Beres,

"She was not doing campaign work. Somebody that wanted to tape the speech was thrown out, probably illegally, because it's a public-funded venue. And she taped it. She didn't give it to the campaign. She's a citizen. She was there."

Of course, now that she's been caught, she couldn't give the tape to the campaign. Because, after all, that's the most serious issue here. If Schultz was conducting opposition research on Treasurer Mandel on the Plain Dealer's dime - on behalf of Brown's campaign - then it would need to be reported as a campaign contribution by the Plain Dealer. Otherwise, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. That would be aside from the serious ethical boundaries the Plain Dealer would have crossed in having its employees conducting campaign activities.

Beyond that is the blatant impropriety demonstrated by the Plain Dealer and Schultz. Her bio fails to mention the connection between Schultz and Brown even though she writes consistently about political issues. Some recent columns have read like Democratic Party talking points: "Voter fraud is just a dark GOP fantasy," "Gay marriage just isn't a problem," "Teachers undeservedly face bashing and bullying" [by Republicans].

If Schultz is going to blatantly promote the policies of the DNC, she needs to clearly and conspicuously disclose her marriage to Brown.

In addition, if she is conducting campaign activities on company time, it needs to be reported as such. Furthermore, if there are other Plain Dealer reporters and employees engaging in campaign activities, they must report it. In fact, perhaps there should be an investigation to find out if Schultz or any other Plain Dealer employees are donating their time to political campaigns while on company time. These are lines than should not be blurred.

GOP Presidential Debate on MSNBC

"I can get you a gallon of gas for a dime," Ron Paul said.

A silver dime, that is.  Ha, ha....  Ron Paul also warned us that border fence might be some kind of government conspiracy to keep American citizens in rather than keeping illegal immigrants out.

WHY IS RON PAUL IN THESE DEBATES?  He is clearly off the GOP reservation. 

Now that I got that off my chest, I can continued with some more reasonable thoughts about the debate.

Oh, except for wondering why Jon Huntsman is in the debate.  I mean, he has a nice tan and everything (though I suspect he fake bakes), but that's not a reason to be permitted in the GOP debate. Though he continues to try to repackage himself as a Republican, he will not be able to overcome is close alignment with the Obama administration as the recent Ambassador to China and his left-leaning positions. 

Moderator John Harris from Politico baited Jon Huntsman by questioning him about his Tweet that mocked the GOP candidates who cast doubt upon man-made global warming and evolution.  Huntsman made it clear that the general voting public was way too smart to vote for some backwoods yahoo who didn't believe in the proven religion of man-made global warming!

Of course, the left-leaning moderators used him to push their agenda.  The question was a gem: "You yourself have said the party is in danger of becoming anti-science. Who on the stage is anti science?"  Huntsman responded:

"Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science. We can't run from mainstream conservative philosophy.  We've got to win voters. We've got to do what I did as governor when I was elected. We reached out and brought in independents. I got independents, I got conservative Democrats. If we want to win in 2012 we've got to make sure that we've got somebody that can win based on numbers and the math that will get us there. And by making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation we turn people off."

Like John McCain, right? Someone should tell Huntsman about the recent Fox News poll showing 45% believe in the "Biblical account of creation as told in the Bible" including 55% of Republicans and Tea Party members, 42% of Democrats and 31% of Independents.  Hardly the wing-nut belief that elitist Huntsman and his cronies in the MSM would like to portray.  Poll after poll repeats similar results showing that despite the State's mandatory evolutionary indoctrination in public schools, Americans still cling to their religion.  Also, 48% of Americans now believe warnings about global warming have been exaggerated.  So clearly, Jon Huntsman is outside the mainstream and needs a spell in the time-out corner for a big, fat attitude adjustment! But PLEASE STOP the sanctimonious lecturing!

I really don't understand why the Republicans go into the belly of the liberal beast for these debates.  They know the moderators are going to try to pit them against each other in a way that gives ammunition to the Obama campaign and they know that they're going to aim for "gotcha" questions that will provide soundbites for Tingles Matthews and Ed Schultz to salivate over for weeks to come.  Sure, MSNBC will get a 2-hour bump in their ratings, but why should the GOP air their family squabbles in this forum at this point in the race?  Of course, the eventual nominee will have to suffer through it in the general election, but it's counterproductive to subject our candidates to this process at this point in time. 

Harris then turned his keen moderator's eye on Rick Perry and asked, "Governor Perry, which scientist have you found most credible on this? Are there specific scientists or specific theories you've found particularly compelling?"

Right....because... Harris really wanted to know that....because maybe he had a list of approved anti-global warming scientists that he could compare to Perry's list? Or perhaps he wanted to have a substantive debate about some of the "specific theories" detractors have advanced?  As if Harris would recognize one if it hit him upside the head.   Why didn't he ask Huntsman to cite his sources?  Or Romney?  Like I said, "gotcha" questions. 

Perry basically blew off the question by patiently explaining that the EPA regulations based on something that is not settled science is crippling the economy. He should have known that the liberal moderators were going to throw that one at him.  I suspect he'll be better prepared next time and won't fumble that question again.  Still, it's an example of why primary debates in hostile venues are just a bad idea. 

It's becoming clear that the field is narrowing quickly.  Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll was almost a non-entity tonight.  Since Gov. Rick Perry entered the race, Bachmann has been barely a blip on the radar screen in recent polls. Sadly, tonight, she was barely visible. and was clearly bumped down to the 2nd tier. 

The moderators treated this debate as a two-man race. Most of the questions were directed to Romney and Perry and many of the other candidates took the opportunity to pile on them.  Perry, maybe because he was the new guy in the debate took most of the heat, saying that he felt like a "pinata." 

There were a couple exchanges that I feel were significant and give us some important insights into the candidates.  The first is a discussion of Social Security.  Gov. Perry was asked about the assertion in his book, Fed Up, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. 

For the record, here's the definition of a Ponzi scheme (thanks to Wikipedia):

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors." 

Perry: 

"And people who are on social security today - men and women who are receiving those benefits today [looks straight into the camera] and individuals who are on my end of the line pretty quick to get them - they don't need to worry about anything. The Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program. And it is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids who are 25 or 30 years old today, "You are paying into a program that's going to be there." Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids and it's not right. "

Can anyone refute that statement?  

Perry, responding to the moderator's comments that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have been critical of Perry's references to a Ponzi scheme:

"You know Karl has been over the top in his remarks, so I'm not responsible for Karl any more.  If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program we have in place today and young people who are paying into that expect that program to be sound and expect to receive benefits when they reach retirement age - that is just a lie!  And I don't care what anyone says. We know that.  The American people know that, and more importantly, those 25 -year-olds know that."

Romney [to the moderators]:

"The issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree, and have for years, that the funding system for Social Security is not working. Congress has been raiding the dollars for Social Security to pay for government expenditures. That's wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue.  The issue in the book Fed Up, Governor, is you say that by any measure Social Security is a failure.  You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and have lived on it. The Governor says, "Look, the states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security."  Our nominee has to be someone who isn't committed to abolishing Social Security, but is committed to saving Social Security. We've always had, at the heart of our party, the recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure, we save Social Security and under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure! It's working for millions of Americans and I'll keep it working for millions of Americans and we gotta do that as a party."

 Did you catch that? "Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it's a failure."

So does he think that the nearly-bankrupt program that will fail if not radically reformed is successful?  That should be a huge red flag.  We cannot afford a candidate who does not grasp the urgency of the Social Security  - let's call it what it is - Ponzi scheme. If Romney thinks it's as easy as halting the raids by the general fund, he's seriously delusional. Or lying to our children and grandchildren. 


The whole exchange brought back some memories of this debate:

Governor Perry, explaining the executive order he signed mandating that young girls and teenagers be vaccinated with the Gardasil HPV vaccine (my comments in red):

"There was an opt-out in that piece - it wasn't legislation it was an executive order. I hate cancer. We passed a $300 million cancer initiative that legislative session [big government alert!!] of which we're trying to find over the next ten years cures to cancers.  Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. We wanted to bring that to the attention of these thousands of - tens of thousands of young people in our state [and the only way they could come up with to educate them was to mandate a vaccine???] We allowed for an opt-out. I don't know what's more strong for parental rights than having that opt-out [um....how about an OPT-IN!].  There's a long list of diseases that cost our state and cost our country. It was on that list.  Now, did we handle it right? Should we have talked to the legislature first before we did it? Probably so. [No, you didn't handle it right. This shouldn't have even been a matter for the government to discuss. Period. It's a private matter between parents, their children and their physician. Period.] But at the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives. "

Rick Santorum's response echoes my own:

"Governor Perry is out there claiming about state's rights and state's rights.  How about parental rights being more important than state's rights? How about having instead of an "opt out" an "opt in?" If you really cared, you could make the case instead of forcing me as a parent...I am offended that the government would tell me - and by an executive order, without even going through the process of letting the people have any kind of input - I would expect this from President Obama. I would not expect this from someone who's calling himself a conservative governor."

Amen, Senator Santorum!  I really, really like Santorum. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says and wish that his campaign would gain some traction.  I'd love to at least see him as someone's VP.

Romney was asked to respond to the Gardasil flap.  It was clear that he couldn't care less about such trivial matters and rambled aimlessly along both sides of the issue for a few minutes before finding his way back to his own comfortable message:

"I believe in parental rights and parental responsibilites for kids.  My guess is that Governor Perry would like to do it a different way the second time through. We've each taken a mulligan or two. And my guess is he'd do it differently. He just said he'd do it though legislation next time through. And I recognize that he wanted very badly, that he wanted to provide better healthcare to his kids and prevent the spread of cancer. I agree with those who said he went about it the wrong way but his heart was in the right place. Right now we have people who on this stage who care very much about this country. We love America. America is in crisis. There are differences between us but we all see that this president's got to go. This president's a nice guy but he doesn't have a clue how to get this country working again."

While this was painful to watch, it's an excellent example of Romney's constant wavering in the middle.  Instead of having a willingness to take a stand on an issue and fight for it, he's more comfortable in the squishy middle where he can broker a deal and ask everyone to get along.  If that's what you think this country needs, then Romney is your man.


While I have some serious reservations about Perry (I hated his answer on Gardasil - hated it!), at least he's willing to stake out a position and stand by it. I will give him that. The problem is, I don't always agree with his positions.  That said, I probably do agree with him on 90%+ of issues.  It puts him far ahead of Romney at this point and since it's highly unlikely Santorum will be the candidate, we're running out of options.   


Winner of the debate?  No winner.  Romney didn't lose. Perry didn't lose, neither did he have a winning performance, though I suspect he'll get a bump in the polls because he is infinitely more likable than Romney.  The second tier candidates stayed at the second tier. The should-not-be-candidates still should not be candidates.   

The roaring, soaring, Constitution-ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer

This video is a year old.  Shocking that nothing - not the war, not the unemployment rate, not the media coverage of Obama - has changed:

...Kick back with Andrew Klavan and enjoy the roaring, soaring, constitution ignoring days of Obama's Recovery Summer. It's sunny. It's funny. But I'm out of work honey. With unemployment over 9%, what isn't there to love? At least it isn't the grim old days of George W. Bush when unemployment was below 6% and General Petraeus was leading a surge...

...Did you vote for Barack Obama? Feeling embarrassed by the results? Don't be so hard on yourself; DE is more common than you think. Nearly 70 million voters may suffer from DE. Have your talk today with Andrew Klavan and find out what you can do to treat DE. You - and your country - will be glad you did...

I sure wish they'd replace all those Viagra commercials during the baseball games with this one!

OH Union activist: Tim McVeigh would be a member of the Tea Party

Happy Labor Day from the Ohio unions!

From Facebook:

Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5

If Timothy McVeigh Was Alive Today, He Would Be A Member Of The Tea Party

Wall Photos

Share · 11 hours ago

• 2 people like this.
• • 
    

    [name removed] Doubtful and not a very good attempt at humor. Shame on you!
    

    4 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 The post wasn't meant to be funny, or a one size fits all indictment. The post was shared to provoke thought. If you feel that 99% of what I post is worthwhile , then shake your head when I post something you don't agree with. If you feel ONE controversial post is a reason to berate me as childish and shameless, that is your perogative. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate here offering to spend the 2 to 3 hours a day I spend scouring the internet and news feeds to supply this page with content. I have stated several times in the past that I would appreciate and encourage others to post relevant content but have seen little in the way of cooperation. If you feel strongly enough about particular posts, please feel free to comment..I reserve the right to ban users when they feel personal insults are the order of the day.
    

    2 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 ‎**A Prior Comment has Been Removed**
    

    about an hour ago

    
    

    People who like this

    • 
      

      [name removed]
    • 
      

      [name removed]

    
    
    

*********************************************************************************
The "prior comment" that was removed simply said, "sick." It unleashed a tirade from the Facebook page administrator who spends "2 to 3 hours a day" inventing new ways to insult and ridicule Republicans and the Tea Party yet feels personally insulted by the word "sick" attributed to her Tim McVeigh post. The detractor has now been banned from the Facebook page.

This is the beginning of the silly season in Ohio, where the balance of power has shifted to "we the people" in way that is detrimental to the state.

Though there hasn't been much national attention given to Ohio's union reform measure - SB5 - things are beginning to heat up. Governor Kasich and the Republican-controlled legislature succeeded in passing some common-sense reforms that give local governments better control over their budgets.
While still allowing public employees to collectively bargain over their wages and some benefits, it removed or reduced their collective bargaining leverage in the areas of health insurance and pensions and requires government employees to pay a certain percentage of those benefits. It also requires that employee performance be a factor in determining compensation. See here and here for some basics.

Although there were some protests at the Ohio Statehouse, it wasn't anywhere near the scale of Wisconsin because the unions knew that when Governor Kasich signed SB5 into law this spring the fight had just begun.That's because the Ohio Constitution gives "the people" the power to call for a referendum to challenge a law they don't like. If a special interest group can get 6% of the electorate to sign a petition, they can get it on the ballot and shift the balance from a republic form of government to a pure democracy in certain cases. This process can also be used to amend the Ohio Constitution. It was used in recent years to legalize casino gambling in the state after years of failing to get it through the legislature.

In this case, the unions needed around 200,000 signature. They collected over 700,000 and instead of protests at the capitol, where citizens are lobbying their elected officials as we usually see in a republic form of government, citizens are lobbying (and bullying) their fellow citizens.


"We are Ohio," the group working to repeal the union reforms, has already begun running the typical firefighters-are-going-to-die ads. They will likely follow this with the typical your-kid's-teacher-will-have-to-eat-dog-food-if-this-thing-isn't-repealed ads.


In Wisconsin, by the time the recall elections were held, the state was already benefiting from the reforms Gov. Walker and the legislature had put in place. Unfortunately, in Ohio SB5 has been put on hold, pending the outcome of the referendum. And while the law is in a holding pattern, local and county governments have been hit hard by cuts in state funding and many have made layoffs and cut services. It hasn't made Governor Kasich or the Republicans especially popular this fall, so they are starting 4th and 20 at their own 1-yard line, to use a football analogy.


That said, the economy has been so bad for so long that those of us in the private sector are seeing our 401K's decline at an alarming pace at the same time our healthcare costs are doubling and tripling. We consider ourselves lucky if our employers contribute anything at all toward our retirement plans.


Meanwhile, the unions are complaining because they're being asked to actually pay the employee's share of their pension contribution. Currently, many of them enjoy the benefit of the state or local government paying both the employer's and the employee's share of their pension contribution. Good deal if you can get it, but it's not sustainable in this day and age.


And most of us don't think it's unreasonable that public employees are being asked to pay 15% toward their health insurance premiums, when most residents in the state pay 30% or more. Or that government employees would be compensated based (in part) on merit rather than just seniority, like those of us in the private sector are.


It remains to be seen whether Building a Better Ohio will have the resources to overcome the rhetoric and the misinformation being spread by those who oppose the reforms. The unions are fighting for their lives and they are fired up.

How do you celebrate Labor Day? Wait, you celebrate Labor Day?

1978 International Ladies Garment Workers Union ad

I remember sitting in music class at Central School in Bedford, Ohio in the 70's  and being indoctrinated with this song - I can still sing it from memory.  In the evenings,  the commercial interrupted episodes of All in the Family and Welcome Back Kotter.  Not that I minded.  My dad worked for the phone company and was represented by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union. Nearly every family we knew was in the union. The union contract the CWA negotiated has taken very good care of my father in his retirement

For what it's worth, we also sang overtly Christian songs in that school.  Songs that would today cause ACLU-types to curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.  There was one boy in my class who was a Jehovah's Witness.  He was not allowed to sing the Christmas songs, participate in holiday celebrations or eat the birthday cupcakes the mothers sent to class.  I don't remember if his religion forbid him to sing the union solidarity pep rally songs or not.   

As we look to the upcoming Labor Day holiday,  I have to wonder what it is we are celebrating and whether conservatives should be celebrating at all.  

The Department of Labor offers this sanitized little revisionist-history description of the evolution of the holiday:

"The Labor Day holiday is interesting because it evolved over a period of years. In 19th century America, there was already a tradition of having parades, picnics and various other celebrations in support of labor issues, such as shorter hours or to rally strikers. But most historians emphasize one specific event in the development of today’s modern Labor Day. That pivotal event was the parade of unions and a massive picnic that took place in New York City on Sept. 5, 1882.... 

"...The park was decorated with flags of many nations. Everyone picnicked, drank beer and listened to speeches from the union leadership. In the evening, even more people came to the park to watch fireworks and dance. The newspapers of the day declared it a huge success and “a day of the people.” 

"After that major event in New York City, other localities began to pick up the idea for a fall festival of parades and picnics celebrating workers." [emphasis added]

Doesn't that sound like fun for the whole family?  What's not to love about it? But Tedd Watts, in his book The First Labor Day Parade says it was not quite such a festive affair:

"Those first parades were really protest rallies for the adoption of the 8-hour day, rather than the, often tame civic events they have evolved into. Participants had to give up a day's pay in order to march. The New York City Central Labor Union (CLU) even levied a fine on non-participants!" 

"In 1882, the New York City CLU was a lodge of the still-secret Knights of Labor, with a progressive tailor, Robert Blissert at its head. His right-hand man and Secretary of the CLU was Mathew Maguire, a machinist. The parade was timed to coincide with a national Knights of Labor conference being held in New York. This accounts for the presence of almost the entire K of L leadership on the reviewing stand. But their affiliation with labor was masked for the reporters who covered the parade. Grand Master Workman Terrence Powderley, for example, was introduced as the mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, which he, in fact, was."  

Union workers threatened with fines if they didn't show up for protests?  Secretive union bosses? Hoodwinking the media?  These folks have been at this for a really long time!


Also left out of the Department of Labor's history of Labor Day is the reason it's a federal holiday.  President Grover Cleveland, who had a contentious relationship with the unions due to the violent Haymaker Riot and the Pullman strike, needed to find ways to curry their favor in order to win re-election.  In addition to creating the Department of Labor,  just six days after the Pullman strike Cleveland rushed legislation through Congress designating the first Monday in September as Labor day.  It was too little, too late and Cleveland ultimately lost his re-election bid.   


American Federation of Labor leader Samuel Gompers described the purpose of Labor Day in the Washington Post on September 2, 1894 - the first national Labor Day celebration:

"Labor Day will this year be celebrated with unwonted vim and enthusiasm. All over the land organized workingmen are making ready to celebrate their holiday. There will be open-air demonstrations, speech-making, and a display of interest never equaled, probably since Labor Day was instituted." [emphasis added]

Clearly, from the very beginning, this was a holiday dedicated to celebrating and honoring union workers. 

President Obama had this to say in his Labor Day Proclamation (yes, I know he forgot Easter, but you didn't think he'd forget Labor Union Day, did you?):

"The right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value. Since its beginnings in our country, organized labor has raised our living standards and built our middle class. It is the reason we have a minimum wage, weekends away from work to rest and spend time with family, and basic protections in our workplaces. 

"Many Americans today are given opportunities because their parents and grandparents fought for these basic rights and values. The principles upheld by the honorable laborers of generations past and their unions continue to fuel the growth of our economy and a strong middle class. 

"This year has seen a vigorous fight to protect these rights and values, and on this Labor Day, we reaffirm that collective bargaining is a cornerstone of the American dream. From public employees -- including teachers, firefighters, police, and others who perform public services -- to workers in private industries, these men and women hold the power of our Nation in their hands."

Are you feeling the solidarity yet?  

I've always wondered why atheists who pontificate about the evils of Christmas displays and blather on and on about religion in the public square don't seem to mind taking the day off work for Christmas and Easter.  It always seemed rather hypocritical to me.  To be consistent, I thought, they should be suing their employers to force them to be allowed to work instead of taking advantage of the paid day off for a religious holiday.  


I wonder if we, as conservatives are demonstrating a little hypocrisy ourselves by "celebrating" labor unions with President Obama and Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO.  I suppose the argument can be made that we are celebrating what the unions were historically and the good that they accomplished in their early days. But at this point, most of us here realize that the unions are a huge contributor to the bankrupting of our country. It's nothing to celebrate.


Of course, unless you're self-employed, you probably don't have a choice about whether or not to go in to work on Monday.  If you're a student, the doors will be locked and no one will be there to teach you....


....unless you go to Hillsdale College.  That's right...possibly the only school in the country that recognizes the significance of Labor Day will be open for business and students will be learning about the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and the dangers of Progessivism.   My son is blessed to be a sophomore there and his classes on Monday will include American Foreign Policy, History of Theater, Western Religions, and Computer Programming. 


Perhaps while you're enjoying your family time and stretching out the last few days of the summer,  you can take a cue from Dr. Arnn at Hillsdale College and take a little time to defend liberty this weekend.  Here are a few suggestions:

• Make a donation to Hillsdale College (shameless begging - my kid is there on scholarship because of some generous donors)


• Visit the Building a Better Ohio website and learn about Ohio's common-sense union reforms.  The unions managed to get a measure on the November ballot to repeal the entire reform bill and the unions are pouring millions into the repeal effort.  They ran their first TV ad today featuring - of course - a firefighter. Check out the website and see how you can help. 


• Sit down and write a letter to the editor (or three) about a candidate or an issue that matters to you. It doesn't take much time and it can pay huge dividends. 


• Find out which organizations in your area are hosting Constitution Day celebrations on  September 17th and make plans to attend or even volunteer.

I'm planning to spend some time on Labor Day working on plans and strategies for local GOP candidates.  How about you?