2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Quote:

The democrats have a major aim - and I doubt they'll quibble once it's started.

From your lips to Terry McCauliffe's ears.

0 Replies

There's more to life than Terry McCauliffe, max. I notice he's brought up more by the republicans than by the democrats. And you had Haley Barbour, who's nobody to brag about.

0 Replies

Here's the latest Zogby poll report:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=719

Shows Bush slipping, and with more and more parts not doing well - the economy, Iraq, health care - the lies about the Niger uranium - should be interesting.

0 Replies

Tart - neo-journalism inflation? I love it. Now could you explain it?
------------------
I think it means she didn't like what they said. :wink:

0 Replies

Oh, I got that part, Sofia. But I really liked that turn of phrase, and would like to use it (with permission). I know what I think it says - would just like to know Tart's definition. There's so much stuff out there that poses as journalism by people who have no idea what the word means, and so love the sound of their own voices............. It's one of the reasons "journalists" have fallen into such ill repute.

One of the things I like on the PBS Newhour is that the journalists who report on various aspects of the news - the legal, the health, etc., do so in a balanced way. Their job is to report what's said, what's happened, without personal opinion. Professional, without having their own personae rule. We're the ones with opinions, and this is where that belongs.

0 Replies

You guys are such youngsters that you may not remember the days in which news reports were grey and forthright, without comment. Neo-journalism inflation -- conflation would be better -- is loud, aggressive neo-cons (as Traub pointed out in the Sunday Times, it IS a Republican style, vs. the low-key self-deprecation of the Dems) lighting fires with exaggerated language and style or writing or speaking. But you knew that!

I don't think Dean is that liberal, really. I think what his supporters are turned on by are 1) his sheer energy and can-do style, and 2) his unafraid challenges to the administration. He speaks in a measured way (no neo-con-flation), directly, and in a style which uses real American English, not the overblown issue-avoiding style of this and previous administrations. He cuts out the crap.

0 Replies

MJ,
Thanks for Zogby link...in the midst of so much opinion sharing, it's nice to have a source outside of the members. When will the next Pew poll be available?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Kuvasz - I am happy--proud, in fact--to concede that Republicans tend to be pro-business and that businesses tend to act in their own best interests. I am likewise happy to concede that Democrats are pro-entitlement and so reap the monies of labor unions that exist primarily to shield their members from having to compete on a level field in the labor market.

as to your last remarks, viz., "...unions that exist primarlity to shield their members from having to compete ...." is so devoid of historical context as to be as meaningless as saying that ice cream has no bones.

I don't argue that unions grew out of a historical need, my comment stems from my belief that they are no longer needed to do those things. We used to need buggy whips, but that doesn't mean you'd be wrong to say they are no longer needed by most people.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

While a participant in Abuzz discussions, Scrat, I was one of two who mined the FEC site for all we could get (not much!). A lot of labor for little reward. Even kept files on my hard drive full of stuff which made it clear the FEC didn't feel obliged to make its site useful! So no, I decline the invitation to go back in there again. Feel free! I think I pretty much laid all that out, in fewer words, in an earlier post.

I respect your right to refuse to cite anything to support your opinion.

0 Replies

I think there is a small Pew report out now, maple, but I haven't looked.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:

I don't argue that unions grew out of a historical need, but rather stems from my belief that they are no longer needed to do those things. We used to need buggy whips, but that doesn't mean you'd be wrong to say they are no longer needed by most people.

What was that need that has been so successfully satisfied? I've been reading novels through most of this Spring so maybe it happened when I wasn't looking. Are the interests of the employees of a corporation the same now as the interests of the corporation? When did that happen? I must have missed it.
Or does the management of a corporation, as it should, try to purchase labor the same way as it buys the other means it needs to produce? Have corporate heads become so cognizant of the health and safety needs of it's employees that we don't need any government input on medical insurance, or disability? Wow.
How about salary and wages? Do the boards of the corporations put the needs of it's employees on a par with the needs of the corporation and thus apply fairness and justice when negotiating with the workers on the factory floor? They DO? Oh, thank goodness for that, I thought, you said

Quote:

that Republicans tend to be pro-business and that businesses tend to act in their own best interests.

and that sounded true to me, but then you made it sound like workers don't need anybody watching out for them because the bosses do, that the work of the labor union is done. Equity, and respect for the value of labor, has been achieved. Well, maybe on your planet.
Here on Earth, Democrats will continue to try and find balance between the interests of business and the needs and rights of those upon whom business depends. They will endeavor to find ways to empower the less powerful while Republicans will continue to try to conserve power for the already powerful and then express their disbelief that anyone should disagree.

Joe Nation

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I don't argue that unions grew out of a historical need, but rather stems from my belief that they are no longer needed to do those things. We used to need buggy whips, but that doesn't mean you'd be wrong to say they are no longer needed by most people.

Good gracious, man, know you so little about capitalism, capital, and labor to think that labor unions existed merely for promoting a 40 hour work week, child labor and safety laws, and unemployment insurance?

You have bought into the narrative of looking at the efforts of organized labor for their rights as "event" instead of "process." Of course, you have done this either out of intent, or ignorance.

In a capitalistic economic system, corporations exist to be able to concentrate capital and reduce risk for the benefit of corporate shareholders and owners for success in the marketplace

The purpose of labor unions is to be able to organize and concentrate labor for the benefit of laborers as they sell their labor in the marketplace. This is called collective bargaining. It is a process, not merely an event.

In the former case, it is money and property that is concentrated; in the latter case it is sweat of the brow that is concentrated.

You seem to have the bizarre, ideologically driven, intellectual inconsistency to think that it is okay for capital to be concentrated, but not for labor to be concentrated.

At no time can one say with intellectual legitimacy that labor unions have no purpose simply because the rank and file have achieved some of their goals through collective bargaining, because one is pointing only to events, not a process.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration"

Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

If you wish to get down to the lick log, we can debate whether collective bargaining by labor in a capitalistic economy is obsolete or not, but don't try to dismiss labor unions because they have achieved some, only some of their goals while not addressing the real issue, the legitimacy of collective bargaining by labor in a capitalistic economy.

0 Replies

Unions are a necessary evil. In that without them there would be no protection for the rights of the working man. Both unionized and not. For unionized labor the benefits are obvious. And for the nonunionized the threat of a union gains the needed benefits and protections.
On the other hand unions have lost their way in many instances. Corruption and racketeering have taken hold of many of the labor unions. In addition the purpose of labor union which has been for decent wages and working conditions has been augmented to protect the lazy and incompetent and squeeze unreasonable wages and conditions out of industry and etc.
Yes, unions are necessary to protect the worker. But who is going to protect against the abuses of unionism?
I speak from experience having been on both sides of the table.

0 Replies

Just to get back to The Contenders,

Doesn't look like most Americans know or care much about the Democratic Candidate Sweepstakes so far. Two thirds of the respondants in a July 8-9 CBS Poll could not name a Democratic Candidate. The biggest obstacle faced by the Democrats remains widespread public indifference. Folks just aren't listening to them, it seems.
Interestingly, for all the media coverage he's been getting, particularly reports of "Growing Strength", Dean's support among Democrats, as indicated by numerous other polls, remains solidly single-digit. Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt are still the front-runners by a wide margin.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I don't argue that unions grew out of a historical need, but rather stems from my belief that they are no longer needed to do those things. We used to need buggy whips, but that doesn't mean you'd be wrong to say they are no longer needed by most people.

Good gracious, man, know you so little about capitalism, capital, and labor to think that labor unions existed merely for promoting a 40 hour work week, child labor and safety laws, and unemployment insurance?

You have bought into the narrative of looking at the efforts of organized labor for their rights as "event" instead of "process." ...

Your assertion that I think or have stated these things is not the same thing as my actually thinking or stating them. (Nice straw men, these!) Try arguing the points I make, rather than writing your own to debunk. I know the latter is easier for you, but also far less meaningful.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Unions are a necessary evil. In that without them there would be no protection for the rights of the working man.

Unions were a "necessary" evil. Now they are just an evil. The notion that without them workers would have no rights is absurd on its face. While unions may have been instrumental in winning many of those rights and protections, they are not rights and protections of the unions, but rights and protections of the government.

The primary--if not sole--functions of unions today are to force industries to accept artificial labor costs and unnecessary operating expenses and to shield workers from having to compete on their merits as individuals in the labor market.

0 Replies

Gee, Timber, maybe you're a candidate for buying the bridge I've been trying to sell! ("July 8-9 CBS Poll")!

0 Replies

I agree that unions have outlasted their usefulness. Now, its just another source of mobster influence.

0 Replies

Thank god there's no mob influence on our government...

0 Replies

Scrat
Just how much experience have you had in dealing with unions or management?
As bad a unions are consider for a moment how unprotected a worker would be without them or the threat of one.

The government is not a substitute. They have no influence on wages and benefits.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know