What's the deal????
Tom Lehman
Nathan Newman wrote:
> 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
> >