|
by BooMan
I have something to say about this spew from David Sirota:
[Al] Giordano, in particular, self-importantly lectures us about his "decades of studious participation in authentic social movements" and about his allegedly awe-inspiring experience in politics. But I just have to say: If you put pen to paper (or, as it were, keyboard to Internet) arguing with a straight-face that it's realistic to believe that coddling Republicans now will mitigate their "This Will Be Armageddon" opposition to bills like the Employee Free Choice Act, then you shouldn't be bragging about your political experience or acumen because you are making very clear that you spend your life frolicking with ponies in a psychedelic fantasyland that most mere mortals never even dreamed existed. At a recent appearance at the National Press Club, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent passage of the Employee Free Choice Act:
"I came here to speak about bi-partisanship, but this is an issue on which there will be no bi-partisanship. … This is an outrageous proposal. It will fundamentally harm America and Europeanize America and we will have a big political fight over this." So, let us stipulate that David Sirota is correct to note that the Republicans will not be "cajoled with candy and niceties into supporting bills to help make union organizing easier." However, we should be careful to consider other facts that are in the record. On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51-48 in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act (but they needed 60 votes to invoke cloture). Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican except Arlen Specter voted against it. Assuming that Specter votes for it again when it comes up in this Congress, and assuming that all the Democrats that voted for it in 2007 vote for it again, and assuming that all the newly elected/appointed Democrats vote for it, the Employee Free Choice Act will have the support of exactly the sixty votes required to pass. So, when Mitch McConnell says that he is going to fight like hell to prevent passage of the union-friendly bill, what he really means is that he is going to do everything he can to pressure Arlen Specter to flip his vote, to prevent any other Republicans from wavering, and to apply some pressure on veteran Democrats to change their mind and freshmen Democrats to take his side. We are not talking about convincing the Republicans, in the aggregate, to support the bill. We are not talking about picking off two, or three, or ten Republicans. We're talking about holding our caucus together and convincing Specter to hold firm. Or, we might convince someone like George Voinovich or Olympia Snowe to flip. Efforts by Obama to maintain a positive working relationship with various Republican lawmakers are aimed at future battles like this. That was the point Al Giordano was trying to make and Sirota's rebuttal is not on-point. Of course, Al's response might have been a little intemperate.
Update III: Poor David Sirota. He became laughingstock over at Daily Kos back in November and now fills the Matt Stoller memorial dunce stool over at Open Left. His peewings were apparently hurt by my observation, above, of the embarrassment he's caused himself in his schoolyard attempt to mix it up this week with the maestro Nate Silver. These arguments don't need to be so personal. We can follow Obama's advice to disagree without being disagreeable.
On David vs. Al | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
On David vs. Al | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
|
Login
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris
|
|||||||||
Booman Tribune Homepage admin@boomantribune.com powered by Scoop
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
|
|||||||||||
© 2009 Booman Tribune