Kucinich Helps the AFL-CIO Prove a Point

When the AFL-CIO organized a presidential debate at Chicago's Soldier Field, leaders of the labor federation quietly went out of their way to make sure that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich would be on the stage.

While some debate organizers have talked about excluding so-called "lesser" candidates -- those like Kucinich with low poll numbers and small bank accounts -- from the debates, the AFL-CIO wanted progressive populist from Cleveland front and center Tuesday night. Why? Because leaders of the labor organization recognize the importance of candidates who stand on principle rather than merely engage in political calculations.

They also recognize that Kucinich's determination to express his principles -- which happen to parallel those of labor activists on worker rights, health and safety concerns and, above all, trade policy -- would put frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on the spot.

The senators from New York and Illinois and the former senator from North Carolina have shaky records on a host of issues that of high priorities for union members. Clinton close ties to Wall Street and have led her to support much of the free-trade agenda favored by multinational corporations -- a fact highlighted by Edwards when he referenced a recent feature in a financial magazine on Clinton's appeal to big business by saying, "You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on."

Edwards may be "the angry populist" now. But he has not always been on labor side. Edwards -- who supported North Carolina's anti-union "Right-to-Work" law when he ran for the Senate in 1998 -- broke with the AFL-CIO to cast several key votes in favor of the Bill Clinton administration's free-trade agenda when he served in the Senate.

Kucinich, a longtime union member who has maintained a 100 percent AFL-CIO ranking during his years in Congress, broke with Clinton to side with labor on those critical votes. In fact, he's often been more aggressive than union leaders when it comes to challenging trade pacts that are stacked against workers, communities and the environment in the U.S. and abroad.

On Tuesday night, Kucinich wowed the crowd of 15,000 union activists in Chicago when he promised to use a little-known provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement to pull the U.S. out of the deal.

"In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA," declared Kucinich. "I will notify the WTO, that the United States is withdrawing from the WTO."

As the applause rose from a rumble to a thunderous roar, Kucinich shouted, "How about it America? Do you want out of NAFTA? Do you want out of the WTO? Listen to the workers of America, let them hear from you!"

It was the most rousing moment of the night, perhaps of all the Democratic debates up to this point.

Kucinich did exactly what the AFL-CIO's leadership had hoped he would. He showed the most cautious frontrunners -- all of whom continue to back NAFTA, albeit with apologies and calls for reform -- just how much enthusiasm there is for a radical shift from the misguided trade policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush. That's a lesson that 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry never really got, to the detriment of his bid for blue-collar votes that year.

None of this is meant to suggest that Kucinich will win any official endorsements from the individual unions of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, which as of this week are formally freed by the federation to start picking their favorite contenders. Labor organizations tends to go with perceived winners rather than allies who are trailing.

But on Tuesday night, Kucinich won the hearty applause of one of the largest crowds ever to listen to a presidential debate. And he earned high marks from analysts like Hotline's Chuck Todd, who says the AFL-CIO forum was: "Easily (Kucinich's) best debate."

He also proved the vital importance of including non-frontrunners in presidential debates that, without candidates like Democrat Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, would be a lot shorter on ideas and a lot longer on empty political positioning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (74)

1. I'm sorry, but....the unions really don't matter.

   Otherwise, Dick Gephardt would have been the nominee in 2004 (or before even). Gephardt was "Mr. Union" and they didn't get him any primary wins. Or Howard Dean for that matter.

   And when the nominee IS chosen by the folks of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina...the unions will fall in line and support him or HER and they know it.

   The idea of Mr Nichols' piece is "Look, see, if those other guys don't watch it, the unions will let somebody like Dennis Kucinich embaress them."

   The reality is the ONLY person the unions could get...was Kucinich.

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 08:44am

2. I liked his line about hsuB/cHeney admin digging the US to China, essentially digging our nation into a deep financial hole. Or was it a moral hole-- was Kucinich also possibly implying that the hsuB/cHeney admin has made the US into the asshole of the world...UUUhmmm?

   Naw, but it's still true.

   Flushing the hsuB/cHeney admin turds is a top priority to world sanetation... Lets not forget to wipe correctly.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 08:49am

3. Especially Frita.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 08:51am

4. I don't know if it is true or not, but about 40% of the union members vote republican...

   so unions do not matter other than getting out the vote on election day with free lunches, cash and rides to the polls to vote Dem...

   Mask is correct, unions do not matter in the work place ,except govt of course, or elections.

   Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 09:02am

5. HSUB....

   ....only 3 months left.

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 09:26am

6. Thank God for people like Dennis Kucinich who are not affraid to speak with a sense of idealism and realism about the policies that are not just hampering the working class of this country, but are slowly destroying it. He is the only one of the candidates that has the guts and fortitude to tell the truth about the after affects of the failed trade policies and treaties that our elected leaders have committed the nation to follow. It indeed demonstrates that in order to have meaningful debates in this era, all voices must be given a forum from which they can sound the alarm about where these selfish, greedy and short sighted trade agreements have taken us as a nation. Now it is up to the rest of us to head the warnings and demand the change that is necessary to sustain our "structural integrety" as a society that values our working, middle class foundation.

   Posted by pauluaw at 08/08/2007 @ 09:27am

7. ....the unions really don't matter

   Noise machine.

   If this were true, then inertia is the only explanation for why the candidates were eager to debate in front of labor and why the media was hot to cover the event. In the media's competitive economic environment, such coverage would be an expensive luxury provided by media conglomerates who have pretty successfully discarded any sense of a public service obligation for their free use of the airwaves.

   Labor can no longer, if it ever could, deliver an election on its own coin. To say that labor does not matter in elections or to the last vestiges of the middle class is patent bullshit.

   Posted by canaar at 08/08/2007 @ 09:27am

8. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2007 @ 09:02am

   Their usefulness in the workplace can be debated, MAASCH (I tend to favor them, but only with a strong internal reformist movement. No more Hoffas!)

   My point is on their political efficacy, which to me seems negligible in the last 20-25 years. Historically the Reagan breaking of the PATCO strike, and then turning around to win a landslide against Mondale must be considered. Then the fact that they couldn't get Dukakis elected, and that Clinton basically snubbed them (over NAFTA) and still won re-election in 1996.

   By 2000, it became apparent that a Democrat could win without them (Clinton) and that a Republican could win despite their best efforts (Reagan, Bushs-41 & 43).

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 09:32am

9. Labor can no longer, if it ever could, deliver an election on its own coin. To say that labor does not matter in elections or to the last vestiges of the middle class is patent bullshit.

   Posted by CANAAR 08/08/2007 @ 09:27am |

   CANAAR, don't these two statements seem contradictory???

   Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 09:33am

10. . It's time to move inland.

    .

    China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

    WOW! Who could have seen this coming?

    Borrow and Buy Now, pay later.

    Well, now it's later and somebody is going to have to pay the baloon payment. We can blame our brilliant leaders for failing to see this coming, but honestly, we are all complcit in the stupidity. We've all been borrowing and buying now, refusing to pay our way since Reagan, figuring on passing our debt to future generations. Who cares what happens to our grandchildren after we're dead. That's the real meaning of Trickle Down.

    Let's hope the Chinese don't throw us all into Debtor's Prison, if they choose to foreclose on our nation.

    Of course, we could always nuke them. Show them who's boss!

    What a bunch of cheap, chiseling morons we are.

    . Back in the days before TV, radio and newspapers, people were not warned of impending hurricanes, but if they lived near the beach and saw the waves keep getting bigger and bigger, they moved inland. Those that didn't, didn't survive.

    It's time to move inland.

    We've got leaders that watch TV, listen to the radio and read newspapers, but they seem oblivious that the waves keep getting bigger and bigger.

    Hey, Dummies! A hurricane is coming!

    Impeach Now, or drown later.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/08/2007 @ 09:39am

11. Mask is correct, unions do not matter in the work place ,except govt of course, or elections.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2007 @ 09:02am | ignore this person

    HSUB....

    ....only 3 months left.

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 09:26am

    There you go again making my point yous two.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 09:41am

12. In response to John Maasch's comments and agreement with Mask about the relevence of unions in the work place, maybe he should tell that to the families of the six miners in Utah who work for a SCAB mine (non-union) where it is becoming evident that safety procedures may have been lacking which lead to this tragedy.

    Mr. Maasch shows a lack of understanding about the history of the union movement in this country. He obviously disregards the facts that is was unions that insisted on safety in the workplace, the forty hour week, the idea of a fair days pay for a fair days pay and oh by the way, the idea that health care should be provided for all Amereicans. He also may not be aware that since the Reagan Administration's war on unions that began with the Air Traffic Contollers, in 1981, and the loss of union jobs is in direct correlation with loss of pensions, health care in the workplace, downward pressure on wages of the working class in America, relaxation of safety in the workplace and the list can go on and on. As for the Air Traffic Controllers isn't it ironic that the same problems that existed in 1981 and that Reagan ignored not only still exist today and in fact may be worse than ever.

    I think Mr. Maasch's assertion that unions do not matter in the workplace, is not only shortsighted, but is absolutley wrong. Now more than anytime since the 1930's do unions not only have relevance in the workplace, but should be supported in their efforts to carry the dialogue on issues concerning working families.

    Posted by pauluaw at 08/08/2007 @ 10:04am

13. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 09:41am

    HSUB, just curious as to....

    hmm...never mind, let's just leave it at...

    ....only 3 months left.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 10:09am

14. Yeah, if 'everyone' did what was right and fair, we wouldn't need cops. And if the gov won't help us, we the people, the union will and have.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 10:09am

15. ....only 3 months left.

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 10:09am

    You go girl.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 10:10am

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 10:10am

    HSUB, curious, which are you more confident of....that I'm female or that Bush and Cheney will be impeached?

    (Taking into account, you have nearly identical evidence for both)

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 10:31am

17. Paqulk,

    "Mr. Maasch shows a lack of understanding about the history of the union movement in this country."

    Mr Maasch was a member of a union and based on my expeience, the history of unions, what I see them doing to the American auto industry(management, too),the disaster they are creating in the schools, the fact that their growth is in govt where there is no competition, and how corrupt they have become, and the fact they stiffle inovation...leads me to the conclusion that they are just another special interst group for the Dems to pander to, as they claim the repubs do to the corporation heads.

    Tell me, are there still brakemen and fireman on the railroads?

    The "International" unions should be over in China and India organizing to "help" those exploding economys in order to slow them down as they have here...

    As I stated ...unions are great at driving otherwise uninterested partys to the voting booth, but in real terms of grow,profitability, stregnth and productivity of an organization or company, they are an impediment.

    As far as Reagan and PATCO...they should have been fired...they struck illegaly, against what they signed up to do and put the traveling public in a dangerous place then hold them hostage to union demands...

    What you union leaders seem to forget...when you strike a company for whatever you think they should give you,... and it is me, the consumer, who is stuck on a canceled flight, or no bus to work..it is me you are screwing with, and I avoid doing business with companies that can put me in a bad position as a customer...I watch windows close in my face because,"I have my hours in "..types and will I not tolerate that crap anymore. So when someone strikes because they do not like something or want more...I move on down the road to the competition.

    I pay my people more than union scales and offer them opportunity to earn more, rather than pay them for showing up..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 10:45am

18. then hold them hostage to union demands...

    it's plainly obvious that, to maasch, unions are essentially pointless entities. and he bases all of this on two things:

    1) he used to be in a union.

    2) he bypasses unions in his own company, and opts for the "competition"

    so he's got an opinion, and it's a very weak one. so why does anyone bother listening to him?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/08/2007 @ 10:59am

19. NICHOLS: .....leaders of the labor federation quietly went out of their way to make sure that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich would be on the stage.........Kucinich, a longtime union member who has maintained a 100 percent AFL-CIO ranking during his years in Congress, broke with Clinton to side with labor on those critical votes....."

    Given Dennis' devotion to union causes, it should be a no-brainer for the AFL-CIO % all its affiliates, to back him "100 percent"! This shouldn't be a "Laboring" issue for Big Labor.....yet, "leaders of the labor federation quietly went out of their way to make sure that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich would be on the stage."

    Isn't this THE WORST KIND OF HYPOCRACY, by the bluest of Blue Dem constituencies? Is it so inconceivable that with ALL-OUT Labor support, Kucinich COULD rise enough to warrant the VP slot on the Dem ticket?

    Posted by Happy at 08/08/2007 @ 11:01am

20. ...more confident of....that I'm female or that Bush and Cheney will be impeached?

    (Taking into account, you have nearly identical evidence for both)

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 10:31am

    So Frita, you are saying to everyone: when Frito is impeached or resigns, then you'll admit to being a female. Or do we have to wait until both cHeney then hsuB are impeached, resign, or are simply disappeared in a secret rendition, before they're elected out, 'til you'll finally admit to being a female?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 11:15am

21. ". so why does anyone bother listening to him?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/08/2007 @ 10:59am "

    To perhaps be able to see another idea other than the old failed crap you have been holding onto for years...as you watch those who do something different blow by you as if you are standing still?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 11:26am

22. August 8, 2007

    Quote of the Day "Perseverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." – Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 11:43am

23. Isn't this THE WORST KIND OF HYPOCRACY, by the bluest of Blue Dem constituencies? Is it so inconceivable that with ALL-OUT Labor support, Kucinich COULD rise enough to warrant the VP slot on the Dem ticket?

    Posted by HAPPY 08/08/2007 @ 11:01am

    er, GOP pro-life, anti-gay,..., yet Rudy pop and pro-choice, pro-gay,... just as long as he 'might' win, bottomline no? GOP elected hsuB/cHeney twice seeing no contridiction in all his policies to repub traditions save tax cuts... talk about heights of hypocrasy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 11:57am

24. as you watch those who do something different blow by you as if you are standing still?

    oh, i see, it's all a sporting event. nevermind those who are slower, weaker, etc. just "blow by" those guys, and take the whole pie. seek out the cheaper "competition", and save a buck. go to china, screw the local guy. it's all about the grand prize: the cash cow. oh, and let's just keep cutting taxes. those just stifle "innovation", and cut into my prize.

    fuck innovation. and what the hell is innovation, anyway? are cell phones really that innovative, if people keep getting a new one every year? what happens to the old ones? they end up in a landfill, poisoning our water. the only thing innovative is the human body, nothing more, nothing less.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/08/2007 @ 12:01pm

25. Darla,

    Don't forget about our infrastructure falling apart while China gets richer... Bottomline,

    Greed

    Or, the

    People

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 12:07pm

26. He was great! and Unions do matter. They may not be ideal, but life for many of us would be a whole lot grimer without them. Apparently some of the libertarian thugs who troll this site to preach from their Greed-is-Good bibles could care less if people starved in the streets. After all, their models of success are the self-proclaimed Capts of entitlement who used whatever means necessary--fair or foul, to claw their way to the top and then grab the levers of power to gorge themselves even more. The notions of common decency and human charity, not to mention fundamental fairness are mortal sins in their religion of brutal self-interest.

    Posted by Lil at 08/08/2007 @ 12:16pm

27. "and take the whole pie. seek out the cheaper "competition", and save a buck. go to china, screw the local guy."

    No, someone has to bake the pie and make it bigger so more can eat a slice..the pie is not static, but can grow..

    As far as infrastructure, we are taxed $3 trillion a year...there is plenty of money already here..it is just a matter of priority in allocating...

    and these infrastructures didn't fall apart because of BUSH or Clinton...there are fed and state inspectors looking at these structures for years..

    perhaps we should privatise the inspectors and get a real inspection....

    example,

    In Darlas Oakland, after the worst bridge collapse in an earthquake,the state contractors in Sacremento said it would take 2 years and 2 months to rebuild...

    with a private company, union rules waved with co operation from unions, the incentives to finish early paid both more money...the bridges were open and running in...3 months...

    This is what I mean by blow by and work together and not the same old crapo...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 12:18pm

28. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 11:15am

    No, HSUB, I'm saying you have the same basis for your ideas....somebody told you something (either one of the innumerable "impeach.orgs" or WILL) and you believe them, because it fits some paradigm you want it to fit.

    Facts, evidence, contradictory statements, etc. don't play into it.

    It's your RELIGION now. And like the RIO fundamentalist, if you aren't "pro-Jesus and washed in the Blood"...you're a "minion of Satan". Same deal with you on me.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 12:21pm

29. Apparently some of the libertarian thugs who troll this site to preach from their Greed-is-Good bibles could care less if people starved in the streets.----Posted by LIL 08/08/2007 @ 12:16pm

    People are starving in the streets??!??!? Really? Where?

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 12:23pm

30. Mask,

    I will be more than happy to meet you and share some communion wine and break a little bread...to keep with the metaphors...or is is similie?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 12:33pm

31. Oh yeah, I forgot, one of the tenents of your religion is there is no real poverty, just like there is no racism-because you are colorblind, of course. And if someone were to point out that invisible poverty outside the gated, gentrified community, well then, it is all their fault for not getting an education or not putting off gratification and they are robbing the fruit of your labor, after all, damn scurge--welfare mothers! Right? Yeah, I've heard the simplitic preaching before, but tell me buddy, sitting there on your fat ass, day in day out, what more do you do other than just "show up" and hang out?

    Posted by Lil at 08/08/2007 @ 12:37pm

32. " damn scurge--welfare mothers! Right?"

    No, but 70% out of wedlock birth rate is suicide...and that is not the fault of those who looked at the chioces and decided on another path.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/08/2007 @ 12:40pm

33. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/08/2007 @ 12:33pm |

    "I never drink....wine"----a certain Wallachian noble-man

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 12:47pm

34. Posted by LIL 08/08/2007 @ 12:37pm

    Not sure if that was directed at me? All I asked was "People are starving in the streets? Really? Where?"

    or do you not back up what you say?

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 12:48pm

35. Easy to sneer at the plight of other, whose "choices" are more confined when they didn't have the same priviliges you simply take for granted. And now we'll hear the pulling himself up by the bootstraps story and how he made lemonaide and all the other cliches to defend the rights of Kings-to decide life and death. Like the Bush idiot who, if thrown into the same circumstances as any child starting out on the mean streets, wouldn't have the skills or the smarts to even get a boot with a strap.

    Posted by Lil at 08/08/2007 @ 12:54pm

36. Uh, LIL?

    Those "people starving in the streets"?....Where are they, again?

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

37. People are starving in the streets??!??!? Really? Where?

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 12:23pm

    Go to your nearest metropolis and head due east (usually on the west coast). There you will find a place called "skid row." There you will find people who starve in the streets. People do starve in our country and you need not look far to find it.

    Despite any alleged corruption of unions, their presence is a necessity because otherwise, who looks out for the worker? The boss surely won't! 1950's McCarthyism successfully made unions synonymous with communism, just like everything else perceived as "liberal", even though it was that very "liberalism" that was instrumental in bringing such economic tranquility to the 50's.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

38. Socialist koolaid poisoning? A bigot? You creeps slay me. Got nothing better to do, boys, then spend the long idle days of summer looking to get your jollies harassing the liberals? Must be nice not to have to work for a living. Unless, of course, this is your job. Which would be no surprise to me in this day of warrantless eavedropping that board gestapos seeking those unAmerican Socialists would be patrolling the Nation threads and then go report at the Free Republic circle jerk about beating up on the fairy libruls.

    Posted by Lil at 08/08/2007 @ 1:06pm

39. Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 12:21pm

    Oh Frita just can't help herself. Made another straw dildo...

    What convictions you don't have. If you were so sure there wouldn't be impeachment/resignation/removal of Frito/cHeney/hsuB and that you aren't a woman, you would make the wager:

    When Frito/cHeney/hsuB are impeached/resign/removed you'll admit you are a woman.

    If in the small chance it doesn't happen, I'll say you're a man.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 1:37pm

40. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2007 @ 1:10pm

    Oh, but look at the 3rd world! Doesn't that trivialize our own problem of poverty? You characterize poverty in America as a personal problem, and not a social problem. The problems you listed of drug addiction, alcoholism, (anorxia? really?) exist among the wealthy just as well as Rush Limbaugh himself proved to us...of course not with the anorexia! But the fact is that these problems exist as a function of social class. People addicted to drugs or alcohol are more likely to have kids on drugs and alcohol. If every victim of poverty had the living wages necessary to survive in this world, it would surely put the elitist, ruling class out a few extra dollars, and they definitely won't let that happen. It's so much easier to bitch that these people deserve what they get than to actually address the problem by offering social programs to get many of these people needed couseling. Elitist scum, you are the real drain on society.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 1:56pm

41. Posted by MATTMAN 08/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

    MATT, sorry, but...well....you just SAYING so (same for LIL), doesn't prove it.

    Got some data on people "starving in the streets"? Not "hunger is a problem" or "nutritional deficiencies exist"....but people LITERALLY starving in the streets of the United States.

    See, this is part of the great "throw-away lines" of the Left (the Right has them too, like "if we don't fight them there, we shall have to fight them here") and similar stuff.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 2:08pm

42. When Frito/cHeney/hsuB are impeached/resign/removed you'll admit you are a woman.

    If in the small chance it doesn't happen, I'll say you're a man.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Sure, HSUB...if you like. Not sure what difference my gender has, compared to the Final Destination of your interminable fantasy that the same Democrats that caved to Bush on Iraq funding...caved to Bush on FISA...are going to suddenly discover dorsal vertabrae and impeach and remove him, Darth, and Fredo in the next 90 days.

    But, sure, if it makes you feel better, happy to take that bet.

    (BTW, you'll never admit losing....I expect you're already working on your "excuse" posts for Thanksgiving!)

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 2:11pm

43. Time Warp, HSUB....

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 2:11pm...is now above...

    Posted by LIL 08/08/2007 @ 1:06pm

    (what is up with "The Nation" and their posting system?!?!?)

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 2:12pm

44. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2007 @ 2:09pm

    I will agree with you, Freiheit, that the family unit has broken down. However will we fix it by promoting "family values" rhetoric everywhere? That hasn't done much yet other than help capitalists feel better about themselves. A huge reason the family unit has broken down is that so many people struggle to live with their low-paying service jobs, just to barely make enough to feed their families and return to work the next day. I believe this is absolutely an economic situation. There are a lot of people (I won't pretend to know how many or what percentage) who are working and still live in poverty. Our society at large has the innate tendency to disrespect some of the toughest jobs out there. Pay people more. Tax the rich. Economic re-distribution. Over time, generations possibly, that burden of economic plight will lift and that correlation of crime and drug addiction with class will subside.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 2:29pm

45. We need to help people put food on their families!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 2:30pm

46. "Apparently some of the libertarian thugs who troll this site to preach from their Greed-is-Good bibles could care less if people starved in the streets".

    Don't try to sleaze your way out of it. No one claimed there were people starving in the streets (YET) but there are people living in the streets who, if it weren't for the decency of some other people (alien to you)they might well be starving. It is however, a fact that poverty numbers are rising in the US, but I am sure you will come up with some clever zinger like:

    "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?". (After all it was only that we were good men of business...)"

    Understandly, they are invisible to you, but then you were either deliberately deceptive or limited in your ability to comprehend a simple sentence.

    Posted by Lil at 08/08/2007 @ 2:36pm

47. Posted by RABBLEROWZER 08/08/2007 @ 09:39am

    good point about chinese credit.

    however, i don't think they will call the debt just yet as they need the american market (still) in order to sell their plastic.

    but, as more countries achieve more disposable (¿flushable?) income they will take over from the u.s. in buying all this stuff and then, it'll be time to pay the piper.

    better hurry up and get the finances in order

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2007 @ 2:41pm

48. ...more confident of....that I'm female or that Bush and Cheney will be impeached?

    (Taking into account, you have nearly identical evidence for both)

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 10:31am

    When Frito/cHeney/hsuB are impeached/resign/removed you'll admit you are a woman.

    If in the small chance it doesn't happen, I'll say you're a man.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Sure, HSUB...if you like. Not sure what difference my gender has,

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 2:11pm

    Frita, er, you're the one that asked about it!

    Frita might want to lay off the straw dildos she creates-- especially the ones that squirt cherries that she selectively picked...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 3:00pm

49. It's your RELIGION now. And like the RIO fundamentalist, if you aren't "pro-Jesus and washed in the Blood"...you're a "minion of Satan". Same deal with you on me.

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 12:21pm | ignore this person No, 'the deal with him on you' is that he knows you're a putz. It doesn't take a belief system, just observation.

    Posted by brantl at 08/08/2007 @ 3:10pm

50. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2007 @ 3:09pm

    Have you read "Freakonomics"? I don't remember the authors (there were two of them).

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 3:13pm

51. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/08/2007 @ 3:00pm

    No, I was just curious about the informational process that you use, SUBBY.

    My gender as female comes ONLY from WILL's claim, yet you seem to accept it. (Unless you feel that it's EASIER to "put down" a woman than a man, or that it's a putdown to call a man a woman. I consider that a compliment, since women are smarter than men).

    Your outlook on impeachment is less credible. People say things against impeachment (like Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, even Feingold, Gore, and Howard Dean) and you claim they "don't mean it" or mean the exact opposite...because it is opposition to your politico-religious beliefs.

    Hey, maybe that's the idea....my wife, son, brother, sister, father, mother, family and friends could come out and say that I am a male....and like Pelosi, Conyers, Gore and the Democrats...you can claim that "MASK's family and friends don't really mean it" and "come the investigations this Fall, they'll all be full-square in favor of me being a female!"

    ROFL!!!

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 3:16pm

52. Posted by MATTMAN 08/08/2007 @ 3:13pm

    MATT, it was economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 3:18pm

53. When Kucinich said he would pull us out of the WTO and NAFTA, he got my vote. Combine this with tariffs and you will bring Industries and jobs back to America, or grow new jobs and industries. This is how we became a major Industrial country, and the Arsenal of democracy through two World Wars. There should be a national holiday celebrating Alexander Hamilton's birthday. It was his plan of creating a protected internal market, that made us a world power.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/08/2007 @ 3:19pm

54. Posted by BRANTL 08/08/2007 @ 3:10pm

    BRANTL, what is the derivation of the Yiddish word "putz"?

    Would it apply to a female, as HSUB thinks I am?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 3:19pm

55. Posted by P. J. CASEY 08/08/2007 @ 3:19pm

    Here's the problem, PJ, in the SHORT TERM, you're going to have to explain to the "Wal-mart shopping families" why they just lost upto $2500 worth of buying power and why, if they wait 10-15 years for "re-industrialization", things will be okay for them.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 3:21pm

56. Didn't really have a point in mentioning Freakonomics-- just thought it was an interesting book about economics.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 3:35pm

57. So what did you make of the assertions about the effects of Roe vs. Wade, 20 years later?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 3:38pm

58. I'll have to put Sowell on my "to read" list.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 3:51pm

59. As inconvenient for you as that may be, I'm sure. Let me know how it is as I am yet to see it myself.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 4:04pm

60. The unions don't matter? Dems can win without their support? Okay, then union members should vote for Nader or any similar third party candidate. Just no whining about how Nader or anyone else cost the Dem an election. It'll be their own damn fault, as it has been for past failures.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/08/2007 @ 4:52pm

61. Posted by MASK 08/08/2007 @ 3:16pm

    Me thinks Frita protesteth too much.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 5:55pm

62. Createth to much straw dildo-ths.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/08/2007 @ 5:57pm

63. CANAAR, don't these two statements seem contradictory???

    No, and the stretch that one would have to make in order to even ask that question would make that fellow in the Fantastic 4 jealous. Same as the question you posed to Lil. She inquired whether it would take people starving in the streets, etc?

    Hell of a long way from a question to a statement unless you're in the business of stuffing words into strawmen in order to conduct Webb-ian intercourse with them.

    Posted by canaar at 08/08/2007 @ 8:13pm

64. Here's a new idea.

    Instead of the usual, "Can't everybody just ignore mask?".

    How about,"Mask, can't you just ignore the people that obsess about your gender?"

    Some of them were actually kinda interesting before...

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/08/2007 @ 9:17pm

65. Edwards raised a good question because businesses have never been pro-labor or pro-Dem or anything like that. Biz will not vote for Hillary or Edwards or any Dem nominee, they just want to prod Dem candidates to fight each others. So Hillary should be careful in her relationship with those sobs. Extra populism would help this time aroud. Read this.

    ----------

    Edwards Slams Hillary For 'Fortune' Cover, But Spoke At 'Fortune Global Forum' In 2002

    Former senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) during last night's presidential debate over her photo on the cover of a recent issue of Fortune magazine:

    Answering a question about NAFTA, the 1993 trade agreement signed by Clinton's husband former President Bill Clinton, Edwards said NAFTA was negotiated by Washington insiders and that "you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying "I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on'" -- a blunt jab at Clinton who recently donned the cover of Fortune. But in 2002, Edwards spoke in Washington at the "Fortune Global Forum," a premiere event where attendance is "limited to the chairmen, CEOs, and presidents of major multinational corporations." Edwards told the forum attendees, "People in Washington sometimes overstate government's role in the economy."

    Posted by Helen DAO at 08/08/2007 @ 10:16pm

66. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/08/2007 @ 9:17pm

    Posted by MADLIB 08/08/2007 @ 10:03pm |

    Sadly young WILL and my good buddy HSUB are now almost totally insane and obsessive.

    WILL, well, he's young and stupid (with definite "issues" with women).

    HSUB, is slowly going mad as his dreams of impeachment fade like a Harold Stassen Presidential bid. By Halloween, he'll need Thorazine.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 10:34pm

67. Wow, now Mitt Roomney's taking on Rudy Giuliani. And you may get a little surprissed to hear that none of the five (5) Romney's sons served or serves in the military.

    -----------

    Romney: Giuliani's NYC 'Sanctuary' for Illegal Immigrants Republican Presidential Contender Calls Giuliani's New York a 'Sanctuary' for Illegals (Reuters) By JAKE TAPPER with RON CLAIBORNE In one of the strongest conflicts yet between Republican presidential front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 08/08/2007 @ 10:41pm

68. But in 2002, Edwards spoke in Washington at the "Fortune Global Forum," a premiere event where attendance is "limited to the chairmen, CEOs, and presidents of major multinational corporations." Edwards told the forum attendees, "People in Washington sometimes overstate government's role in the economy." ----Posted by HELEN DAO 08/08/2007 @ 10:16pm

    Edwards can't run "to the Right" of Hillary. He knew that 2 years ago. He HAS to run to her Left and that means "eating" all his former pro-business stuff and trying to sound like Bobby Kennedy with his "Two Americas" talk and "anti-corporatism".

    The Edwards fans will be greatly disappointed if he gets the nomination and by July next year starts sounding more and more like Hillary...which he will.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 11:43pm

69. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/08/2007 @ 11:51pm

    Curious RIO...what's your solution to losing manufacturing jobs in the USA?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 12:02am

70. I'll have to put Sowell on my "to read" list.

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/08/2007 @ 3:51pm

    AND FRFEI,

    Read "LIFE AT THE BOTTOM"

    by Theodore Dalrymple.

    Absolutely facinating study on the worldview that makes the Underclass.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2007 @ 04:57am

71. Poverty: Lack of resources, opportunity, education, cultural exposure, physical hardship, lack of security, lack of mentoring and advantageous social networks, lack of nutrition, healthcare decent housing, the basic decent standard of living among other things and, oh, lack of capital resources and political representation that in our increasingly pay-to-play "democracy" only the wealthy(you know, your "free market" gods of mergers and monopolies--yeah so much for competition)get the welfare. Meanwhile your nasty little spoiled, beligerant drunk rich punk, Bush, whines about entitlement programs like social security and healthcare for children. Don't that just make your greedy little shrivled heart bust with pride. Damn straight I don't like you or the religion you are attempting to peddle in a pathetic attempt to convert the bleeding heart libruls, with fabricators of the lie, Saint Thomas Sowell, sitting at the right hand of Ayn Rand. I have no desire to forge bi-partisan cooperation with the likes of those who see advocating furthering class divide via free market fantasies that only serve to enhance unequality, lack of justice and fundamental unfairness in complete contradiction to the common good. Angry, yep, and I'll bet you the American patriots who fought the British were too. It has it's place--outrage is the appropriate reaction towards those whose religion advocates greed and hate.

    Posted by Lil at 08/09/2007 @ 07:29am

72. Hey LIL....

    How many people "starving in the street" again?...and where are they?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 08:58am

73. Poverty is a social problem. Capitalist enterprise seeks not to enrich everyone. Class matters. If you work for someone else, even if they are a benevolent autocrat, they are nonetheless concerned with exploiting you and keeping your costs down to remain economically viable in a profit oriented compeititve market (aka your cost to the boss is your wages, which determine the opportunities and privileges you may bestow upon your children and the level of financial comfort or stress you must contend with)

    Anyone who contends that we can all be rich if we just try hard enough doesn't understand basic principles of competition. If 10 of us want to play every person for themself basketball, some will get more points than others. It's how competition works. Only in the economic system you are competing against deeply entrenched wealthy families and corporations that hold monopolostic might in virtually every industry. It's like playing basketball against 8 foot tall giants with no referee and when you get no points you starve to death and get evicted from your apartment.

    Please remove excrement from eyes and develop some compassion. The union movement has been the most important movement in America for making gains for the generally non-millionaire population. Weekends, 8 hour days, paid vacations, sick leave, maternity leave, pensions, health and safety initiatives, minimum wages, human rights codes, etc etc etc... these would not have come about without the immense struggles of organized labour and their allies.

    Posted by felixcommi at 08/09/2007 @ 11:20am

74. The unions don't matter? Dems can win without their support? Okay, then union members should vote for Nader or any similar third party candidate. Just no whining about how Nader or anyone else cost the Dem an election. It'll be their own damn fault, as it has been for past failures.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/10/2007 @ 4:45pm