0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 02:40 am
Now that I have answered your question, Foxfyre, it is time for you to answer mine. Here it is.

The leader of a union is just that-a leader-and there are times for him to go far beyond contracts. The head of any organization at all understands that there are time a leader must speak out on behalf of the members.

Suppose a TV movie was made where the NYC firefighters were portrayed as a bunch of bumbling idiots who lollygagged around in their rescue efforts and who looked for as many ways as possible not to go into the flaming buildings.

Would the union leader have to take a vote of unanimity before he makes a speech condemning such a portrayal? No, he would not. Not only that, but he would be a pathetic excuse for a leader if he did not make such a speech, make it quickly, and make it on behalf of the union membership.

Care to tell us if the head of firefighters union has the right to condemn that TV movie right off, Foxfyre?

Or does he need to submit to a vote or a poll?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 06:43 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Now that I have answered your question, Foxfyre, it is time for you to answer mine. Here it is.

The leader of a union is just that-a leader-and there are times for him to go far beyond contracts. The head of any organization at all understands that there are time a leader must speak out on behalf of the members.

Suppose a TV movie was made where the NYC firefighters were portrayed as a bunch of bumbling idiots who lollygagged around in their rescue efforts and who looked for as many ways as possible not to go into the flaming buildings.

Would the union leader have to take a vote of unanimity before he makes a speech condemning such a portrayal? No, he would not. Not only that, but he would be a pathetic excuse for a leader if he did not make such a speech, make it quickly, and make it on behalf of the union membership.

Care to tell us if the head of firefighters union has the right to condemn that TV movie right off, Foxfyre?

Or does he need to submit to a vote or a poll?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 07:24 am
One wonders re this report. Is it accurately reported? Does Al Sharpton really have enough clout in New York to significantly swing public opinion? As I recall, his own previous presidential ambition didn't gather any steam at all.

Other burning questions:

Does a true liberal support tort reform?
Does a true anti-war advocate support Joe Lieberman?
Is Sharpton really jealous of Obama?
Will this help Rudy in New York?

Sharpton Rips Obama, Keeps Endorsement On Hold
Marcia Kramer
Reporting

(CBS) NEW YORK With the race for the Democratic presidential nomination already in high gear, the Reverend Al Sharpton jumped into the fray today with some tough criticism for Senator Barack Obama. The outspoken reverend offered the harsh comments to Obama just as he looked to build support for his candidacy in the black community.

"Why shouldn't the black community ask questions? Are we now being told, 'You all just shut up?'" Sharpton told CBS 2's Marcia Kramer Monday. "Senator Obama and I agree that the war is wrong, but then I want to know why he went to Connecticut and helped [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman, the biggest supporter of the war."

Sharpton also questioned why Obama supports "tort reform, which hurts police brutality victims."

What set Sharpton off was a published report that he is trying to hurt Obama's campaign because he's jealous. Sharpton says that claim is untrue, charging the story came from the Obama camp to pressure him into an early endorsement.

"I'm not going to be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate not for my support," Sharpton said.

Political pundits say Obama is anxious for Sharpton's support because it could hurt Hillary Clinton and help Obama raise money. "At this stage of the game, it's all about the money and I think you're going to see the candidates with the biggest fund raising making it through the end of the year," Political Consultant Joseph Mercurio said.

Does Sharpton's endorsement matter? CBS 2 polled some New Yorkers and the results were mixed, but the majority appeared to lean toward the side that believes Sharpton's endorsement will make a difference.

Team Obama did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Sharpton says they reached out to him this morning, but he didn't take the call. He adds he won't make his endorsement until after his National Action Network summit next month. Obama, Clinton and other candidates are scheduled to attend.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 07:29 am
Acknowledging an error in a previous post. I did say "suit" and then remembered that it wasn't a suit but rather a letter. I thought I had corrected that but apparently the edit didn't take.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 07:36 am
The New York Post headlined this yesterday ...

http://i10.tinypic.com/40cxamu.jpg


... and in today's Washington Times (page A6) there's this short notice:


Quote:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 07:43 am
This is a planned strategy. Attempt to minimize the chances of the black community building consensus on Obama (with all the consequences for huge voter turnout) through suggesting/promoting division within the black community. "Is barack black enough?" is another aspect of this.

It's fair enough as a political strategy (the left does what it can to promote divisiveness in the republican base too) but it's helpful for thinking folks to understand all of this.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 08:36 am
Why is it on this thread?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 08:44 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Suppose a TV movie was made where the NYC firefighters were portrayed as a bunch of bumbling idiots who lollygagged around in their rescue efforts and who looked for as many ways as possible not to go into the flaming buildings.

Would the union leader have to take a vote of unanimity before he makes a speech condemning such a portrayal?


Foxfyre wrote:
He has the right to personally condemn the movie. He can express his hope that the firemen will boycott or condemn the movie. He cannot order them to do so. He may or may not speak for the opinions or feelings of the rank and file about the movie and is in error if he presumes to do so without conferring with them first.


The question is whether or not an elected leader has the right to speak on behalf of the members of the organization without conferring with them on every issue, NOT whether he has the right call or enforce a boycott on his own. You clearly realize you have an position that is unsupportable and are now trying anything to throw things off track.

If what Foxfyre is saying about elected representatives is true, then representative democracy as we know it would be impossible. Senators would never be able to welcome dignitaries to the State by saying, "The people of the state of Ohio welcome you here". A Mayor or a Governor at the funeral of a murdered police officer would not be able to say, "I speak for the people of this great state in paying honor to this fallen officer who died so bravely in the line of duty". The President would never be able to go to a foreign nation and say to it's leader, "I come to extend the friendship of the American people to the people of this great nation."

Well, bunk. And eveyone reading this knows it's bunk. Elected representatives do this all the time, and the people who elected them expect them to do it. When there is a democratic election, the right to speak on behalf of the members in quite a few circumstances is transferred to the leader. Not only that, but in cases where the organization or it's members are attacked or held up to ridicule, the leaders is fully expected to speak publicly to defend the members of the organization. A separate election or poll is not only not necessary, the leadership ability of the organization head would be called into question for even thinking it was.

I the case of this movie, can you imagine a reporter walking up to the firefighter's union head and asking his reaction, and to hear the union leader respond, "I dunno. We have to vote tomorrow to see how the members feel about this movie which portrays our slain brothers and sisters as dolts and goof-offs. Until then, of course, I could never DREAM of speaking on their behalf."

According to Foxfyre, that would be the expected reaction from the leader. Or from any democratically elected leader.

Does this strike YOU as the way democratic organizations work?

How far into lunacy is Foxfyre willing to descend to support her unsupportable positions?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:13 am
kelticwizard wrote:
How far into lunacy is Foxfyre willing to descend to support her unsupportable positions?


Far as it takes for you to shut up and forget about it. Guaranteed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:15 am
blatham wrote:
This is a planned strategy. Attempt to minimize the chances of the black community building consensus on Obama (with all the consequences for huge voter turnout) through suggesting/promoting division within the black community. "Is barack black enough?" is another aspect of this.

I don't know. It could be planned on the Democratic part. Seriously.

Remember when Clinton ran for office in 1992? At that time, the Republican Party had been very successful in branding the Democratic Party as the party of "special interests". Not just the normal Republican pundits, but even general humor columnists such as Dave Barry were writing how it was sort of understood that the Democrats were like this.

Nobody ever comes out and tells us what these "special interests" are, but I think it has something to do with minorities and unions. And maybe women, not sure about the last one.

Clinton, who was promoting himself as a new kind of Democrat, went to a black organization where a rap artist, Sister Souljah, performed. She made some remarks which were reported to be anti-white, or at least anti-white by the standards of a political rally. Clinton got on stage and seemingly shocked the audience by attacking Sister Souljah, and informing the crowd that he no intention of sitting by and letting her say such things.

This provoked a supposedly bad reaction from black leaders around the country, who emphasized that Clinton had better watch it lest he lose his "base". But Clinton remained unapologetic.

Needless to say, this gave Clinton a great boost, for it showed he was willing to stand up to the more extreme people in the black community.

In fact, it gave Clinton such a great boost that to this day, I am far from convinced the whole thing wasn't staged from Day One. I don't know that it was-maybe it was just a skilled politician taking an opportunity to get a certain political charge off his back-but if wasn't staged, it could not have worked any better for Clinton if it were.

Once Clinton was in, of course, blacks supported him so much the notion, (originally intended to be humorous) emerged as Clinton being The First Black President. But by the time the second election came around, unemployment was dropping, GNP was soaring, the stock market was ascending rapidly, and nobody cared if any group was getting "too much", mostly because it seemed everyone was getting plenty.

Let's face it-if the knock against you is that you might favor blacks too much, there is nothing like having the black leadership talking about how they aren't crazy about you.

It worked for Clinton, staged or not. Now we see something like that happening with Obama.

I'm suspicious.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 09:26 am
Rudy-Rudy!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:15 am
sozobe wrote:
Why is it on this thread?


Leakage.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:25 am
I'm pretty sure Sharpton speaks only to the black community on such issues, because most others will see it differently.

Rabble-rouser comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:31 am
kw

Sheesh...you are becoming a cynical bugger. A certified medical practitioner might prescribe a hardy Canadian sativa and less conversation with foxfyre, I'm not sure. A retail jeweler, however, certainly would.

Like any community, african americans have folks all over the spectrum and there will be some who don't identify with Obama. But I think that if you look at the media which mainly carry, or concentrate on a narrative of black unease with Obama, it will be Washington Times, fox, etc.... the ususal suspects. It's reasonable, politically, for the right to push this.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 10:59 am
blatham wrote:
This is a planned strategy. Attempt to minimize the chances of the black community building consensus on Obama (with all the consequences for huge voter turnout) through suggesting/promoting division within the black community. "Is barack black enough?" is another aspect of this.

It's fair enough as a political strategy (the left does what it can to promote divisiveness in the republican base too) but it's helpful for thinking folks to understand all of this.

Sharpton is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, now?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:02 am
Do you remember the unsafe environment at Ground Zero--and how firefighters were becoming quite ill working there??--K-9 Unit dogs were dying...

Rudy did the right thing getting them out of there. To use it against him for political expediency is about as low as it gets.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:05 am
Lash wrote:
blatham wrote:
This is a planned strategy. Attempt to minimize the chances of the black community building consensus on Obama (with all the consequences for huge voter turnout) through suggesting/promoting division within the black community. "Is barack black enough?" is another aspect of this.

It's fair enough as a political strategy (the left does what it can to promote divisiveness in the republican base too) but it's helpful for thinking folks to understand all of this.

Sharpton is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, now?


When I think of Sharpton, I think of Lash. When I think of Lash, Sharpton comes to mind. Draw your own conclusions, Sharpton you asshole.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:10 am
Witness the great mind of Democrat politics fold into oblivion.

When proven wrong, say ****.

Bravo.

(watch out for that vast conspiracy.....BOO!)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:22 am
But what was that ****? Perhaps it was a complimentary obscenity.

My ex-wife, up until a few months ago, had been volunteering over the last three years helping first responders who had developed various maladies from their time at ground zero. I met quite a few of them when I'd pop in to visit. Wonderful guys, the sort upon whose backs the world turns in its daily course. I don't have any understanding of the decisions made in this matter you allude to. I don't like Rudy merely on the basis that you like him.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2007 11:24 am
Blatham:


I was cynical even back in 1992. Happy as all get out for Clinton, but still cynical.

I'll admit that right wing press is playing this up. I wonder if they know what they are doing.

Here in Connecticut, Ned Lamont, who challenged Joe Lieberman, had Al Sharpton up on the stage when he accepted the nomination. Lieberman got a lot of Republican support, along with a lot of money, and Lieberman supporters were following him around carrying signs about Sharpton. Leather-lunged sign carriers were screaming "Hey how's SHARPTON, Lamont? You had SHARPTON up on the stage with you, remember?". And so on and so forth.Clinton got a boost from the Sister Souljah incident. Now Sharpton doesn't like Obama. Hmmmm......

Come to think of it, Obama is modelling his campaign on Clinton's 1992 run in other ways. One of the themes Clinton and Gore touched on was that this was a new generation poised to take over from the WWII generation who had dominated so long. That fit well with the "new kind of Democrat" theme.

Barack has stated that he wants to get beyond the issues of the sixties and talk about the future. In other words, just as Clinton and Gore announced the post WWII generation, Obama is announcing the post sixties generation. Barack is running Clinton's campaign all over again, and he might just have the necessary charisma to pull it off.

Like I said, I'm sure the right wingers THINK they are hurting Obama by publicizing a rift with Sharpton. But if I'm a black man trying to position myself as a fellow who represents all Americans, or at least all Americans who might vote Democratic, I'm feeling positively spritely when the Post runs a picture of Sharpton criticizing me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:24:28