Note I meant the six listed Dems were the only ones to vote against cloture-- NN
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:39 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: WFP & HRC
>
>
>
> >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
>