Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Yes, labor lost yesterday. And?

Chuck Todd and the gang at First Read say Bill Halter's narrow loss was a "crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left."

Of course it was a loss. But John Cole has a solid rejoinder to such simple-minded "loser, loser" catcalls:

I simply refuse to see how it was a bad decision to support Halter. Lincoln is just a horrible candidate who is most likely going to lose in November anyway, was notoriously and openly hostile to just about everything important to the Democratic base, and the netroots were able to find a good solid candidate to attempt to primary her. If ever there was a case to primary someone, this was it -- there was quite literally nothing to lose and everything to gain.

And Halter came very, very close to beating her. I just fail to see why anyone should be embarrassed, or feel foolish or demoralized. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you always lose if you never try.

This is precisely the point that eludes those who are looking at this through a simlistic "who won, who lost" prism. For labor, not doing anything was tantamount to losing. Blanche Lincoln is terrible on issues important to labor. As long as she remains in the Senate, unions lose.

Yes, labor dumped $10 million on the effort. But they, you know, almost won. If anything, the closeness of the contest -- recall that Halter forced Lincoln into a runoff three weeks ago -- underscored that labor was right to undertake this effort. And putting aside that $10 million, unions are in some ways in a better position than they were before: It's a simple fact that other Dems will think longer and harder before crossing labor on issues that are dealbreakers for them.

If labor had never entered this race at all, they'd still be in a losing position with Lincoln in the Senate. This is an unbearably simple and obvious point, but the only way for labor to reverse this situation was to try to replace her with someone better on their issues. They couldn't do this, of course, without running the risk of losing. Doing nothing would have amounted to a loss, anyway -- with no chance of ever winning. They were absolutely right to give it a shot. The alternative was much worse.

UPDATE, 3:52 p.m.: To be fair to the First Read crew, I wasn't referring directly to them in describing the "cat-calling" we've been hearing. And it should also be noted that they were pretty aggressive in faulting the White House for anonymously dumping on labor.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 9, 2010; 2:57 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle: In wake of Gulf spill, we need to "deregulate" Big Oil
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

"Chuck Todd and the gang at First Read say Bill Halter's narrow victory was a "crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left.""

That is a truly remarkable statement from Chuck Todd. I saw him on TV a bunch of times discussing the AR primary and I never even heard him say that Halter was connected with "the internet left." But now that's he's lost? This strikes me as a turf war going on between the Villagers and "the internet left" they seemingly despise just like the Est Dems do.

Oh, and if Halter losing by 4 points was a "crushing blow" then I guess Sestak winning by 8 was a "pulverizing victory." God save us from the Village. (Which reminds me of a quote from Bright Shining Lie (an excellent book about the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Todd turned into an utter moron the minute NBC converted him from a some-time analyst to a full-time reporter. His observations on politics since that point have been as insightful as Cokie Roberts': useless to the public, useful to his corporate overlords.

Posted by: john7 | June 9, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree that supporting Halter against Lincoln was the right thing to do -- and it was a win even if he just came close. It sends a message.

Commentators are also making a mistake if they think ONLY labor unions were opposed to Lincoln. I am not a sectarian leftist at all, and I am often critical of stands taken by labor unions -- for example, I thought they put health reform at risk with too much fuss about the Cadillac tax trim back on employer health plan tax breaks. But Lincoln has been awful for MAINSTREAM Democratic issues, not just labor union matters. She votes for tax breaks for multi-millionaires -- in no way representing families in Arkansas beyond maybe one super-rich family.

I gave money to Halter when I do not always give to progressive challengers, because I believed -- and I still believe -- that we Democrat-Democrats would be better off with a Republican Senator from Arkansas than with Lincoln. She deserves to lose this fall, and because I cannot trust the DNC or the DSCC to use my money without channeling some to her, I will not give to either this cycle. I will give all my money to the DCCC, or to particular Democrats.

It is NOT crucial that every Democrat who opposes "progressive" positions on this or that issue be primaried. But when a so-called Democrat votes across the board against the socioeconomic interests of ordinary Americans, as Lincoln has done, above all with her many tax cut votes, that "Dem" deserves to go.

Apart from organized labor, I think progressive Democrats need better vehicles to endorse and support candidates -- to allow many of us to bypass the official party committees that are too corporate-oriented.

Posted by: skocpol | June 9, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"I think progressive Democrats need better vehicles to endorse and support candidates -- to allow many of us to bypass the official party committees that are too corporate-oriented."

Suggestions?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

And yet, they ran a very competitive race, in one of the most hostile to unions, state in the entire nation.

With apologies to the Bard;

Labor's Love Was Not Lost.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, if he didn't over-dramatize political races he'd be out of a job and someone else would take his place.

#corporatemediafail.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh and I totally agree with Greg's analysis.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "Chuck Todd and the gang at First Read say Bill Halter's narrow victory"

I do believe you mean his narrow LOSS.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 9, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

fixed, thx sue. and thx all.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 9, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Obtuse Angle is the gift that keeps on giving.

From TPM.


"The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in April 1999 that the state assembly, of which Angle was a member, voted 26-16 for a bill that required fluoridation in two counties including the cities of Reno and Las Vegas. Angle was a strong opponent of the measure. The paper reported (via Nexis):

Before the vote, Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, sought to postpone the vote so she could add an amendment to block fluoridation in Washoe County. The Washoe County Commission in 1992 rejected fluoridation, and Angle said the Legislature should not approve fluoridation in her county without a vote of its people.

While another member of the Assembly suggested opponents of the measure were worried about the financial implications of fluoridation, the Review-Journal reported: "Angle said she simply does not like fluoride." Angle added she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain "lead, arsenic, [or] mercury.""

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

As much as national labor leaders were looking to punish Lincoln, it was the local unions on the ground that made the Halter candidacy a reality when they told their union's PAC directors that there was no way in hell they were going to tell their members to go out and help her this time.

People also forget that its not like the Arkansas is a labor power house. It's a right-to-work state with one of the lowest union density rates in the country. Despite that fact, labor took on the state Dem. party establishment in a very hostile climate and nearly cost a sitting Dem incumbent the nomination by a margin of 3,000 votes.

I'm guessing Democrats in more unionized states are thinking very cafefully about taking labor for granted after yesterday.

Posted by: alexmhogan | June 9, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Labor's losses send a message all right: "It's a rejection of the ideas the unions are peddling."

(Weekly Standard)

Posted by: sbj3 | June 9, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"It's a rejection of the ideas the unions are peddling."

What idea is that? Fair wages? Good benefits?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"It's a rejection of the ideas the unions are peddling."

A loss by 10,000 votes out of 260,000 is a 'rejection' according to the Weekly Standard? When did Chuck Todd starting writing for WS?

Posted by: bmcchgo | June 9, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg:

Wanna bet that those "shadowy groups" who helped Lincoln in the primary turn against her now? Live in the shadows, die in the shadows. Bye Bye Blanche.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Greg. Spot on.

The Village wants spectacle. It's like they're pissed that there isn't more "story" from the AR race.

There is, actually, but they are not digging deep enough to get at it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I asked Greg on an earlier thread if he knew who Americans for Job Security will be supporting in the general election in AR. Wonder what kind of sleazy ads they'll be running against Blanche.

Seriously people, we fought hard to help Halter win because he was the better candidate. Labor came in and we came close. Remember how two days ago everyone was talking about Obama stepping back from the AR primary because it looked like she might lose. It still sent a message whether the powers that be want to admit it or not. I've thrown a lot more money at losing candidates over the years than winners, you can't win if you don't run.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Over Regulated, My Arse!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/08/v-print/95535/feds-knew-of-gulf-spill-risks.html


"Feds knew of Gulf spill risks in 2000, document shows
Shashank Bengali | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 09, 2010 01:12:42 PM

WASHINGTON — A decade ago, U.S. government regulators warned that a major deepwater oil spill could start with a fire on a drilling rig, prove hard to stop and cause extensive damage to fish eggs and wetlands because there were few good ways to capture oil underwater.

The disaster scenario — contained in a May 2000 offshore drilling plan for the Shell oil company that McClatchy has obtained — is now a grim reality in the Gulf of Mexico. Less predictably, perhaps, the author of the document was the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, the regulatory agency that's come under withering criticism in the wake of the BP spill for being too cozy with industries it was supposed to be regulating.

The 2000 warning, however, indicates that some federal regulators were well aware of the potential hazards of deepwater oil production in its early years, experts and former MMS officials told McClatchy.

Yet over the past decade, the risks faded into the background as America thirsted for new oil sources, the energy industry mastered new drilling technologies and the number of deepwater wells in the Gulf swelled into the thousands. Then-President George W. Bush ushered in the new era with an executive order on May 18, 2001, that pushed his new administration to speed up the search for oil.

"I think it was certainly overwhelmed by the excitement of all the oil and gas that was starting to show up in the seismic studies and the technical excitement of how to drill these reservoirs," said Rick Steiner, a veteran environmental scientist who reviewed the document for McClatchy. "I think that had a way of subduing the real concern about the risk of these things."

The Shell plan, which Greenwire, an environmental news service, first reported last week, described a worst-case scenario for a deepwater blowout that in several instances reads like a preview of what's happened since BP's Deepwater Horizon rig began spewing crude into the Gulf seven weeks ago."

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

So using the logic in this column, card check will pass easily because Labor flushed $10M down the toilet in Arkansas.

Sure.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | June 9, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely right, Greg. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The Club for Growth learned this long ago. Look what happened to GOPers like Chuck Grassley when there was a whiff of a primary from the right. The Halter primary was much better because Halter would actually have been a stronger candidate than Lincoln. Will Wal-Mart bail her out now? Why should they, when they can have a GOPer in the seat?

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 9, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I notice when Spector looses its a referendum on Obama's endorsement. When Blanche wins, its a referendum on the unions.

By using the same logic wouldn't Blanche winning be an endorsement of Obama's policies since he backed her?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I love how they call us the internet left until they need us for GOTV or money or actual votes, then all of a sudden we're grassroots supporters. Stupid.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

@cur10:So using the logic in this column, card check will pass easily because Labor flushed $10M down the toilet in Arkansas.

Well lets say it has a better chance after a challenger came within 10,000 votes of defeating an conservative incumbent in a primary in a conservative state.

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Slave Sargent:
"If labor had never entered this race at all, they'd still be in a losing position with Lincoln in the Senate."

No, not really.
First, they;d have 10 million bucks still in the bank, (but hey, they can always squeeze the members for more PAC donations!).

Second, Lincoln MIGHT have been willing to work with them on something else somewhere down the line. NOW they've bought themselves a sworn enemy for their money.

"This is an unbearably simple and obvious point, but the only way for labor to reverse this situation was to try to replace her with someone better on their issues."

They COULD have simply stayed out of the Arkansas race and saved their ammo for somewhere and someone else.

"They couldn't do this, of course, without running the risk of losing. Doing nothing would have amounted to a loss, anyway -- with no chance of ever winning."

If you say so.

"They were absolutely right to give it a shot. The alternative was much worse."

So, are we supposed to believe that Labor's failure was a "noble" one?

If you accept your "we HAD to do SOMETHING" meme...I do not.

A failure is STILL a failure.

And the funny thing is the White House let the Labor Bosses do their dirty work, and then "shot them in the back" for their troubles.

The AFL-CIO has the same Moonbat Memory Hole that you cattle do.

I reckon that hey all COMPLETELY forgot Clinton's first two years, like the Alleged Hawaiian, with a DemcRat Congress.

They "fast-tracked" NAFTA alright, but could never quite seem to get the Permanent Striker Replacement Bill, (banning Permanent Scabs), out of Committee.

Y'know, that was one of the first inklings I had that the DemocRats were right there at the corporate money trough as much as, if not more so, than they accused the GOP of being.

At any rate, this is sad, meme-master. This post sounds like you've got your eyes shut tight, your fingers in your ears, and are hollering:

"LA-LA-LA! I can't HEAR you!"

to keep from internalizing what is in front of your face.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Clear Proof That God Is Gay, And Loves To Ruin Traditional Marriages:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Media/fiancee-killed-lightning-wedding-proposal/story?id=10860008

"Fiancee Killed by Lightning During Surprise Wedding Proposal
Lightning Kills Some and Spares Others in the Same Place, an 'Unpredictable' Force
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

June 9, 2010

Richard Butler was about to ask Bethany Lott to marry him last weekend when the cruelest hand of nature interrupted. They were at the top of North Carolina's Max Patch Bald, a 4,600-foot mountain on the Tennessee border.

Before the ring was out of his hand, the couple was struck by lightning. Lott, 25, was instantly killed and Butler, 30, was knocked down"

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Bilge, when can we expect all that oil to just wash back out to sea?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

An Island Without Oil.

You can watch the video at this link.

You will have to cut and paste it to a search engine, since this site likes to block live links; even more than the Chinese Government does.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/environment/an-island-without-oil/1328/

Also: If you go to the home page of the site, you may want to bookmark it in your browser. It is worth perusing on a daily basis.

I am in the wind. Keep the faith. Back tomorrow, provided the grim reaper does not have other plans made for me.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, Labor Day, August 31, 2008.

"America was built by its laborers, but today our workers are struggling just to get by in an economy that no longer works for them. That’s why we can’t afford four more years of the failed George Bush economic policies—policies that Sen. McCain has proudly embraced and promises to continue.

It’s time we had a president who will stand up for working men and women by building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but work and the workers who create it. It’s time you had a partner in the White House who knows that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, and that hardworking families need immediate relief....

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.

That is the choice in this election. We can choose to remain on the path that has abandoned workers and gotten our economy in so much trouble, or we can reclaim the idea that in America, opportunity is open to anyone who’s willing to work for it."

h/t TomP at Dkos

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Ugghhh.....just depressing.

""Kill, don't clean," is the recommendation of a German animal biologist, who this week said that massive efforts to clean oil-soaked birds in Gulf of Mexico won't do much to stop a near certain and painful death for the creatures.

Despite the short-term success in cleaning the birds and releasing them back into the wild, few, if any, have a chance of surviving, says Silvia Gaus, a biologist at the Wattenmeer National Park along the North Sea in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,693359,00.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Liam, re the Grim Reaper, how will we know? LOL, have a good one and BTW, I'm glad we seem to be agreeing more than usual.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

scat, that's just depressing isn't it?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Tracking back to the stupid statements by Angle and the Libertarian folks posting here, you realize that the distinction between "foreign oil" and BP is mostly semantic, right?

Unless there is an embargo, the oil pumped out of the gulf does not generate funds for the USA directly.

You want "domestic drilling and production?" Fine, let's nationalize us some oil companies and start using what we get without the corporate middleman.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I know, Imsinca.

The worst part is I just saw a story last night about the great job they were doing washing the birds off and releasing them into clean areas and then I read this. How sad.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Unless there is an embargo, the oil pumped out of the gulf does not generate funds for the USA directly."

Great point, BG.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

scat, between that story and some of the photos coming out of the dead fish and turtles etc. it's pretty hard to imagine anyone could change the perception of BP as environmental criminals, not to mention their negligence in the death of 11 men.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The Club for Growth learned this long ago."

Yes, and I think that is the model for Liberals to follow. Grassroots. Lower level candidates. Think tanks. (P.S., I love to think, even in the tank.)

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Agreed, Imsinca. And you bring up another important point: why aren't we hearing more about those 11 workers who died?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne, I think pretty well in the tank, too.

I was thinking of opening a bar called the Think Tank. You know, because Chicago needs more bars.

Greg, the Plum Line needs to endorse a bar for each major (and minor) city.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

And there goes Blanchie giving a post-victory exclusive to ... FOX News and lying her ass off as usual:

"Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, who scored a major victory Tuesday in a rough and tumble Democratic primary in her state, says the unions, who staunchly backed her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, threw "a lot of money and a lot of anger" at her, but her message to them is: "To any group that expects legislators to be with them 100% of the time...come to the middle, figure out the common ground so we can move forward...There's not one group out there, not one legislator out there that has all the answers." Lincoln, sounding a bit hoarse after her long night, told Fox News in an exclusive interview upon her return to Washington Wednesday afternoon, it is the anti-incumbent mood in the country and not her position against the so-called "public option," a favorite of Labor, that nearly sunk her."

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/09/blanche-lincoln-on-labor-opposition-a-lot-of-money-and-a-lot-of-anger/

Hey! What's not to love? With BS like that, Blanchie could be FOX's new Sarah Palin after she gets clobbered in November.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Greg, and anyone else following the story of the guy who won the SC Dem Senate primary?

Crazy.

TPM has coverage up right now.

Check out his felony....something not right here. But hats off to SC for keeping politics interesting. Guessing Blago will move down there after the trial.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Have it your way...Great way to blow $10M, Greg....No doubt about it!

Posted by: carolerae48 | June 9, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The horror of this thing is only beginning:

"A wildlife rescue center in Louisiana says it has gotten more than five times as many oily birds in the past few days than in the previous six weeks combined."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4s6OK30ismLKTm5J2-Y29J3W2KQD9G7UV4O0

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Link to the SC biz:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/this_is_real_fishy.php#more?ref=fpblg

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

SlaveinChi:
"Unless there is an embargo, the oil pumped out of the gulf does not generate funds for the USA directly."

Hello....royalties? Oil pulled from beneath Federal Waters is subject to payment of royalties to Uncle Sammy,(not to mention the cash he gets at the MMS drilling/exploration/development auctions).

Oil production royalties has been a hot-button issue for the Gulf states for quite a while.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg, I tried to give you the push but now Sam Stein beat you to it, he actually talked to the people at Americans for Job Security. Guess what, they probably won't be running any ads in AR, as their goal was to fight against the unions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/anti-halter-business-grou_n_606328.html

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Ooops, forgot to give their quote to HuffPo:

"We don't really have [a strategy] yet. I think, like everyone, we are assessing the national environment. The one takeaway from last night was the rejection of the American people of Big Labor and their radical agenda."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Mayonnaise Mike from Aryanton:
"Bilge, when can we expect all that oil to just wash back out to sea?"

It'll happen a lot sooner than when Arlington becomes as racially and ethnically diverse as Manassas will.

That good enough for you?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"Agreed, Imsinca. And you bring up another important point: why aren't we hearing more about those 11 workers who died? "

Scat, I posted this CNN article earlier today with testimony from survivors of the ordeal and a lot more, good article, worth a read:

* Rig survivors: BP ordered shortcut on day of blast *

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/oil.rig.warning.signs/index.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bilge, I realize the US gets royalties from leases, but when you hear pols touting "domestic production" and so on, they always act like it comes out of the ground, passes through a long pipe, then is loaded into a tanker truck and brought directly to your local gas station.

But then again, most people now don't know where their meat comes from either, so it's hardly a surprise.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that should be SCat not Scat! heh

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, one thing I'll give credit to CNN for is the interviews they've done with the survivors. Interesting stuff and very revealing. They also have been getting some better scientific experts on the air lately, I like that as well.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/happy_hour_roundup_25.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 9, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, likewise, lmsinca. Otherwise, I can't stand that channel.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Big Labor is completely out of touch. They push the socialist agenda. They blow 10 million dollars trying to buy an election and lose. Wake up Big Labor. The leaders of Big Labor need to go. The socialist agenda needs to go. The greed needs to go. The American people are fed up with paying so much in taxes for Big Labor pensions and benefits. The writing is on the wall. Greece is a warning. And the American people are not going to put up with that kind of mess.

Posted by: bobbo2 | June 9, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Anderson Cooper is Mr. Disaster. Expect to see him soon in scuba gear rescuing a red snapper.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

"Clear Proof That God Is Gay, And Loves To Ruin Traditional Marriages"

I interpreted that as proof of God's benevolence, providing the man with a quick and painless death rather than the slow and torturous one he was otherwise setting himself up for.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"I simply refuse to see how it was a bad decision to support Halter. Lincoln is just a horrible candidate who is most likely going to lose in November anyway..."

OK Bozo. John McCain carried Arkansas in 2008. So why would you expect Halter, a more leftist candidate then Lincoln, to win the Arkansas general election in Nov 2010?

Posted by: Azarkhan | June 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent claims that organized labor "almost won".

Sorry, in American elections there is no such thing as "almost winning." There is winning, and there is losing. You get no points for losing by a small margin.

Organized labor poured everything they had into the race against Lincoln, who was already viewed as a weak candidate. And yet they LOST.

If organized labor couldn't knock off Lincoln, they would have even more trouble trying to knock off stronger Democratic candidates.

Rich Lowry summed it up perfectly: If you set out to buy an election, you had better make sure that you win.

Posted by: sinz52 | June 9, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent: "If labor had never entered this race at all, they'd still be in a losing position with Lincoln in the Senate."

If labor had never entered this race at all, they'd have $10 million do so something useful with--like organizing people to join unions and increase their political power by increasing membership.

I never saw the utility of trying to defeat someone who isn't good on labor issues with a candidate who was almost certain to lose in the general election anyway. Sending a "message" to an incumbent seems to me to be a poor use of funds when that seat is probably lost anyway. Lincoln probably won't win. Halter probably wouldn't have won either. So those "views" won't wind up having any political clout in the legislature regardless. Given that political reality, whatever message was deliered seems a poor use of $10 million.

"This is an unbearably simple and obvious point, but the only way for labor to reverse this situation was to try to replace her with someone better on their issues."

It seems unbearably simple and obvious to me that labor would have done a better job reversing the situation by spending money on a race that was actually winnable in the general election--or spending money increasing their ranks so that candidates with more labor-friendly positions had more support the next time around. Labor's expenditures in this race seems to me to have been an exercise in self-aggrandizement with little payoff, regardless of whether Halter won the primary or not.

Posted by: dasimon | June 10, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

The National Academy of Sciences did a thorough review on fluoride in 2006. They documented numerous deleterious effects of fluoride on many organ systems including increased potential risk for bone fractures (the well characterized disease of skeletal fluorosis) possibly increased risk of osteosarcoma, reduced IQ, thyroid dysfunction, endocrine dysfunction and others all 300 pages is online if anyone cares to confirm it. Of course don't forget fluoride induced dental fluorsosis (i.e. teeth mottling and a sign of toxic exposure to fluoride) They ended with recommending that the EPA should more strictly regulate fluoride. Their findings mirror those in the peer-reviewed medical literature, while Harvard trained toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix also extensively documented behavioral changes in mice upon exposure to blood levels of fluoride not far greater than those experienced through water fluoridation and other sources of exposure. Former, well credentialed EPA scientists have been fired for bucking the political line on this issue. Meanwhile 90% of the fluoride placed into our water supply is not industrial grade sodium fluoride, it is silicofluorides, quite simply, scraped from the sides of Florida phosphate plant smokestacks. If it weren't thrown into the water supply it would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste. You can read more on this starting here http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/water-fluoridation-part-i.html if you suspect I am just making this all up.

Posted by: LincolnsWisdom | June 11, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes the Right is right!

Modern science indicates that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health. After 65 years of adding fluoride chemicals into U.S. public water supplies (fluoridation) costing big cities, alone, tens of millions of dollars, yearly - tooth decay is still a national epidemic as described by the US Surgeon General and US children have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay.

Instead of spreading less tooth decay across the country as enjoyed (and predicted to) in naturally calcium fluoridated US communities, the silicofluorides used in artificial fluoridation have spread dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) across the land. The CDC says up to 48% of US school children now sport dental fluorosis from ingesting too much fluoride, which opens up the potential for lawsuits at taxpayers' expense. See:
http://www.spotsonmyteeth.com

Adverse health effects of fluoride are here: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health

Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation is probably the biggest medical blunder of all time - no matter what your political affiliation.

Posted by: nyscof | June 11, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company