>On Behalf Of Seth Ackerman
>
> Exactly. Nathan, there are 21 right-to-work states, plus 9 non-RTW states
> that are not heavily union, and in some cases very anti-union, like
> Oklahoma. How exactly do you get 60 principled pro-labor senators?
And Democrats from most right-to-work states vote solidly pro-labor; it's only Southern Dem Senators who don't support labor law reform. In the 1994 vote on replacement workers, out of 56 Dem Senators, 50 Dems voted for cloture to end the filibuster.
They were:
David L. Boren-Okla. Dale Bumpers-Ark. Ernest F. Hollings-S.C. Harlan Mathews-Tenn. Sam Nunn-Ga. David Pryor-Ark.
Not only did non-Southern Dem Senators support the bill, even a few Southern Dems voted to end the filibuster. Add in the occasional pro-labor republican (they got three on this vote) and it is not impossible to see moving the number from 53 votes for cloture to 60 at some point.
> Has it occurred to you that a few of those congressional Dems may
> have ended
> up deciding to vote for labor-law reform because they knew it would get
> filibustered anyway? So they could go back to their labor
> supporters with a lost-cause vote, while reassuring business
>that they had no intention of actually passing a law?
This kind of conspiracy theory can wish away every evidence presented, so it's a little silly to try. White means black, and hate means love under your belief system - so counter-evidence is just proof of even more insidious conspiracies.
How about this-- the GOP passed the TEAM Act in 1995 that would have legalized company unions for the first time since 1935, a bill that could have had the most viciously antiunion effects of any legislation since 1947. Democrats almost uniformly voted against it, and when it passed, Bill Clinton vetoed it.
Just for blocking and vetoing anti-union legislation, supporting Dems makes sense.
Now, if anyone, anyone can try to articulate the step-by-step strategy where a third party can be built, grow and take power without suffering the same bouts of opportunism and centrism that afflicts the Dems, I would be fascinated to hear it.
Otherwise, it's all self-righteous feel-good denunciations of other peoples political work. If you think Democratic politics is a waste of time, that's your business but don't waste your own time criticizing other people who engage in it. If you want to propose an alternative, do so.
But don't sit in the peanut gallery, attacking other peoples integrity and motives, when you don't have a credible alternative.
--- Nathan Newman