Interesting discussion with a union member re Edwards and Kerry.

[AP]

Recently I talked to a woman who works in a hospital. Her union sent a bunch of members to DC to hear the candidate's presentations. When they got back they were asked to present their opinions on the candidates to the union higher-ups for her state. She said that, based on the presentations, she went with Edwards and said as much to her union at the meeting.

She said that one of the very highest of the highest-ups said that they had to go with Kerry because Edwards had 'cozied up' to Bush. The told the members that Edwards had accepted a ride on AF1 to NC with Bush and Libby Dole, and therefore he was too tight with Bush. So the members all were going with Kerry instead.

WHAZZA!!!!

I know exaclty the incident to which she was referring. I believe, when congress is in session, when the President appears somewhere around the US on official duty, the president is compelled to invite the congressperson for that district and both senators from that state to ride on AF1 to the event. Edwards -- as the senators and congresspeople always do -- went to the event on AF1. And I remember how the Republicans used that event to try to smear Edwards.

All's fair in politics, and it's good strategy for the Republicans to do that. They obviously know that one of Edwards's strengths is that he appeals to moderates. One way to take that quality and turn it into a liability is to use it to make the candidate unappealing to people on the farther left. So that part's fair. I would have done the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. (In fact, Clinton did this to Gingrich to such a degree that the far right wingers, like Bill Paxson, were convinced that Gingrich was too tight with Clinton and kicked Gingrich out of his leadership position.)

The thing that's fucked up about this is that higher-ups in unions should be a little more sophisticated than to fall for this shit. In fact, I find it extremely doubtful that higher-up DIDN'T understand what was going on. In fact, I think it's interesting that this higher-up had was regurgitating RW spin against Edwards rather than give members a REAL argument about why they should pick Kerry over Edwards (even after the members heard from the candidates for themselves and picked Edwards).

And, if they're not basing their opinions on the candidates and what they say about themselves and what they stand for, then on what are the higher-ups basing their endorsements?

[Warpy]

1. The real choice is clear

We will survive four years of either Kerry or Edwards.

We will not survive another four years of Bush.

[AP]

4. I totally agree with that. However, I think I accidently got a glimpse

of the internal machinations of union endorsements, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that the members weren't allowed to come back and push for the candidates they liked. Instead, they had to be briefed or debriefed or programmed or directed by their leaders who told them they shouldnt' trust what they see or believe.

It's interesting that, after hearing the candidates argue their positions, they were told to make their decision based on an anecdote instead (and an anecdote that didn't signify what they claimed it signified).

When I explained what that AF1 issue was all about, I could see the wheels turning in this woman's head. She was just as confused about what had happened as I was.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Kerry voted for NAFTA

NAFTA is the most anti-worker piece of legislation since Taft-Hartley.

I am a union member and labor activist. I was for Dean. I support Kucinich and Edwards. Since Edwards is the only candidate with a prayer of stopping Kerry, I am now fully behind Edwards.

[aquart]

3. Vote your conscience in the primary. You absolutely should.

Come November, vote the Democratic ticket.

This election is NOT business as usual.

[disenfranchised]

5. That's interesting.

It made me sick when my union endorsed Kerry. Edwards directly addressed the needs of our union, so I couldn't comprehend how they ignored the candidate who directly addressed our needs.

Now I see.

[katieforeman]

8. I think part of it is the bandwagon effect.

They want to endorse the candidate who most people think will eventually win so they will be able to call in favors once the person is in office. I think this explains why some unions endorsed Dean and then jumped ship when Kerry became the frontrunner.

It's ashame because I think Edwards is the best candidate to serve their members' interests.

[AP]

9. At least with this union, they had no good reason to prefer Kerry over

Edwards, so they made one up.

If I had to guess, I'd say that there's obviously some favor-trading and deal making at the top.

Perhaps it's motivated by some bigger desire to do good. Maybe it's really slimy and has to do with preserving people's power, rather than doing the right thing for members.

I don't know.

I just wish I had been in that room when the union higher-up made the "cozying up" claim. I would have liked to press them for a REAL reason to support Kerry over Edwards.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Did it make you sick when Edwards voted for the China Trade Deal in 2000?

Edwards is now campaigning as a born again populist; it began with his "Two Americas" speech in early January, 2004.

Edwards voted for the China Trade Deal on 9/19/2000 (where most US jobs have since gone) and also voted for fast track final passage, May 23, 2002. These are the reasons to question Edward's populist, labor credentials.

Edwards populist rhetoric simply does not match his Senate voting record. The union people should have told this woman what his record was. Voting against Edwards because he rode on AF1 is ludicrous on its face, and shame on anyone who would believe that.

[AP]

13. It makes me really happy to hear that a union member rank and file picked

Edwards after hearing both Kerry and Edwards make their presentations, and that the only thing that changed her mind was pressure and bullshit from higher ups in the union.

[flpoljunkie]

16. She ought to make her decision by looking at their voting records, rather

than listening to faux populist rhetoric, not backed up by votes.

[AP]

17. I think she made her choice talking to me.

However, read through the post. This woman was a rank and file member. She trusted her own judgment based on hearing the presentations of each candidate. Their voting records, no doubt, were part of their arguments.

She came back to town, and was "programmed" by someone much higher up -- the first time she reflected on why she distrusted her own judgment her knee-jerk response was that the rumor came from someone very powerful -- an insider.

Only on further reflection did she start putting all the pieces together and come to a different conclusion.

[littlejoe]

6. While it is true tha Kerry voted for Nafta, it is also true that he had

little control over how the agreements are enforced.

[AP]

11. Kerry never saw a trade agreement he didnt' like.

[HFishbine]

7. Edwards and Bush flew on AF1

to Camp Lejune in North Carolina shortly after the war started, where Edwards thanked the marines for "fighting for freedom."

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2003/0403-pr.html

[AP]

10. And what does that have to do with union members' selection of the

candidate they thought would look after their interests, after making an informed decision based on both candidates' in-person presentations?

[HFishbine]

14. Not much

if anything. It suggests why they accompanied each other, and it had nothing to do with policy similarities beyond the war.

[AP]

15. So, don't you wonder why a union leader would tell a member that that was

a good reason to support Kerry over Edwards after that member had just heard Kerry and Edwards talk about ISSUES WHICH ACTUALLY MATTER TO UNION MEMBERS (and picked Edwards)?

When I explained to the union member that that was an inconsequential event, she resisted at first. Her argument was that this person who told her the story was very high up and must have known even more, and she trusted the information for that reason. In other words, the smear was weighty not because of it's independent substance, but because of the authority of the person who offered it.

I said, on the contrary, if that union person had something substantial to say, he or she would have said it rather than rely on this contentless, irrelevant non-issue.

The more we talked about this the more this woman clearly started to wonder what the fuck her union was up to.