A Nightmare of a Presidential Debate

[Armstead]

Tonight we present the first of our series of presidential debates between President Obama and Governor Perry (or fill in the blank with another GOPPer)

First question for Governor Perry. Where do you stand on the rights of public sector workers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining?

Perry:I believe that we should eliminate all public-employee unions as part of the larger goal of stripping government back down to the basics.

Unions are the reason that government has gotten too big and they are the cause of our fiscal problems. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay the bloated salaries of these bureaucrats and people in phony make-work jobs that should be done by the private sector? Why should we give any power to the Corrupt Union Bosses?

In fact we should also eliminate all unions in the private sector too. Unions are job killers and they are stifling the ability of our wonderful American businesses to compete in the world. Why do you think countries like India are beating us economically? Because they don't have unions. If we eliminate unions, we will free up American businesses and we will free workers from the socialistic tyranny of unions and give them the ability to work where they want for whatever pay they want.

Moderator: Thank You Gov. Perry. Your response President Obama?

Obama: Well I disagree with my friend Gov. Perry, whom I greatly respoect. Unions should continue to exist.

I do say, though, to my friends in the public sector unions that it is important that you are on the side of reform where reform is needed. Because the truth of the matter is, is that at a time when everybody is belt-tightening, there is nothing wrong with a union saying to itself, you know what, we know budgets are hard right now. Let’s sit down and say we’re willing to negotiate so that we’re making some sacrifices to maintain the number of teachers in the classroom and keep class sizes at a reasonable level. We’re willing to make some modifications in terms of how our pension systems work so that they’re sustainable for the next generation of teachers as long as it’s a conversation, as opposed to it simply being imposed and collective bargaining rights being stripped away.

So I think it’s important -- remember we talked about shared sacrifice and burden sharing. Well, this is an area where there’s got to be burden sharing as well. If a public sector employee is able to retire at 55 with 80 percent of their wages, and the average public sector employee has got a 401(k) that they’ve just seen decline by about 20 percent and they have no idea how they’re going to retire, and they’re feeling burdened by a lot of taxes and they don’t feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities that are facing folks who are not protected, then there’s going to be a natural backlash....


On the other hand, we need unions because...

Moderator: I'm sorry sir time is up. Next question. What is more important, revitalizing the economy or solving our long-term deficit problems?


NOTE: President Obama's remarks are direct quote in response to a question about unions at a Town Hall Meeting. (Thanks to Madfloridian. See thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1749458&mesg_id=1749458)

(To be Continued with evasions on other issues.)

[ProSense]

1. What a great idea

start campaigning for Perry (against the President) in pretend debates!

Perry: In fact we should also eliminate all unions in the private sector too.

Obama: Well I disagree with Gov. Perry. Unions should continue to exist.

End of fake debate.

The President supports unions. Perry is a lunatic.

[Armstead]

2. No, the idea is that Obama should not echo Perry and right wing ideology

This is the kind of debate we are going to get unless President Obama changes his message of partisan and ideological neutrality.

[ProSense]

3. Nonsense

Claiming that the President and Perry's position are no different by adding inference to his comments is ludicrous.

This is the new revitalized NLRB under President Obama.

NLRB Orders Reinstatement Of Santa Barbara News-Press Journalists

Board Orders a Repeat of a California Union Election


Reality speaks louder than pretend. The RW media is fully aware of the President's support for unions. They're busy attacking him, and don't need our help.

[Armstead]

5. Not ludicrous at all, if Obama keeps up his style of playing it down the middle,,,,

and spending half his speaking time agreeing with those right-wing memes.

[flamingdem]

10. Prosense wins this fake debate thread! nt

[Armstead]

12. Ah yes, an unbiased referee. Well here's my response.

Obama says some really great things. His administration has done some good things.

But he continually allows his great side to be neutralized by his own waffling and sorta conservative side.

He also undercuts those good and great things -- and hurts the larger goal of advancing a liberal agenda and message -- by burying them in counterproductive reinforcements of GOP right-wing corporate messages and memes, both in his speeches and his actions.



Unions don't need a lecture from him on their "responsibility to be reasonable and share in the sacrifice" when they have already made many concessions and are currently fighting for their lives against the GOP/Koch/Corporate/teabag machine.

And the general public is less likely to want to support unions, when the leader of the party that is supposedly their advocate is browbeating those unions with GOP talking points

[flamingdem]

19. Did you read the transcript? nt

[Armstead]

21. I heard the whole thing live...And cringed at the time

[Sheepshank]

4. Is this another fucking Obama is like xxxxx (republican) thread?

geez, it's not even creative and new any more. It's bloody annoying and achieves NOTHING in promoting a Dem Party agenda...NOTHING. The OP can't even pretend to fall into the realm of constructive critism.

Bullshit and unrec.

[Armstead]

6. Yup, but I think it's a little creative anyway

Why is using President Obama's own words annoying? perhaps because his own words are not advancing a Democratic Party agenda.

Why does he feel the need to imply that unions are not "sharing the burden" or being responsible? You think those public sector unions were being unreasonable in Wisconsinwhen they agreed to Walker's cuts, just as long as they could keep collective bargaining in place? Why did President Obama even need to imply that?

[JoePhilly]

7. I love the use of the debate model to allow you to crop out the rest

of what Obama said.

The standard model around here is to simply crop it out and pretend it was never said at all.

[Armstead]

8. No, I am extrapolating what could very well happen in a debate

I have seen it many times in debates and other venues. Republicans get right to the point, do their attack and defense of their own position like a well placed shiv.

A waffling Democrat (including Obama) will spend much of their allotted time agreeing with the basic point of the Republican before actually getting to any differences. Then the clock runs out before they are able to actually get to the Democratic or liberal counterpoint.

If Obama does that in the campaign, we're toast.

That's the point.

[JoePhilly]

13. But it was not a debate.

Obama, in a town hall setting, with NO TIME LIMITS on his responses, took the time to describe the entire situation.

And he finished his comments on it with his strongest points.

But again ... at least you provided some indication that he said "more".

And consider this ... what if you take the two parts of what Obama actually said, and flip the order. Then put them in your "debate" format.

Then what?

[Armstead]

15. I listened to it....To be honest, by the time he got to that I was bored

And I pay attention. So I can imagine how it would get totally lost to someone who is only marginally paying attention.

Yes, it would have been better if he had flipped the order. But better yet, he didn't even have to say that extra lecturing to unions in a public forum. Better just to give 100 percent support to the concept of unionization and the rights of those workers, and call out the GOP's union-busting tactics. Leave it at that.

If he's got a problem with unions, talk to them directly later.

Personally, I think there was no reason for him to even call on unions to be "reasonable" and accept the need for "shared sacrifice." If anyone knows that, its the people in the unions who have given back on wages, benefits, etc. and yet still have to fight for the right of unionization and collective bargaining -- and to avoiding "death by a thousand cuts" to their wages, benefits and working conditions.

[JoePhilly]

18. Actually, it is smarter to finnish with your strongest points ....

Human memory tends to be best for what happened last. This is why politicians, and speakers of all kinds, CLOSE with the bottom line. Because people tend to forget the beginning and the middle, and remember the end.

Try this with a kid or an adult ... make a list of 10 items, read them off, then ask the person to recall as many as they can. The LAST items are the ones they recall best. Which is why a good speaker closes with their key points, that's what people remember.

Of course there are exceptions to this ... so if members of the audience are listening for specific things, they will generally focus on those, and discard the rest.

As President, Obama must speak to a very diverse audience. So he must speak to those who want a functional government, one that compromises (which is what the Founders actually set up). He has to explain that his main goal is not to run up the debt (which does actually matter), and talk about why Unions are important ... so on.

But as we see over and over ... the right wing hears the part it wants to hear, and then claims "Obama BAD" ... parts of the left only hear the parts that they want to hear and then claim "Obama BAD".

There reasons are seperated by 180 degrees but that does not matter ... just so long as the media propagates both, thus giving the insance GOP a chance in 2012 ... because if Obama was a runaway winner, the media loses ... and they need a close race.

[Armstead]

20. You can't be reasonable in response to lying Shock Docturne tactics by the Corporate GOP

Obama should not in his public statements give any credence to the phony case of the GOP that unions need to be reformed and make further sacrifices, or that they are the cause of current problems.

The current fiscal situation has nothing to do with public employee unions. They have and will continue to make sacrifices while also trying to protect whatever gains they have made over the last half-century.

Why are we having this fiscal crisis? Basically because the wealthy Financial Monopolies blew up the economy in 2008 with their stupidity, greed and dishonesty. And that was at the same time the chickens were coming home to roost from Bush's 8-year long looting of the treasury with two expensive wars coupled with tax DECREASES.

Unions did not cause that. But the same crooked GOP bastards and Oligarchs who caused this problem are now using it as an excuse to push for their long-term goal of eliminating unions and labor representation. They are using the Shock Doctrine to CONvince Americans to do things they would not agree to under normal circumstances.

Given all that, there is NO room at this time for any Democratic politician to be anything but 100 percent supportive of unions -- public and private. It is going to take everything we've got just to keep the GOP from continuing to erode unions and workers rights until they are totally gone.

Publicly, he -- and all Democrats --- should clearly be supporting unions, and explaining why they are important to the public.

If Obama has a problem with specific behaviors of unions, he should tell it to them directly in a less public venue.

[JoePhilly]

22. He did explain why Unions are important to the public.

What is also did was tell the truth.

Everyone at the table needs to be negotiating in good faith. Now having watched that town hall, it was very clear to me who is was referring to, the GOP. But in making that larger point he indicated that Unions need to act in good faith, and so do the industries they work with.

So Obama sets up the Unions as "honest brokers" ... they protect the workers, their cause is noble, and they negotiate in good faith. And says that we need both sides to do that. We need both sides to negotiate in good faith.

Sure, on DU, that is an evil message. But in the real world, it resonates.

My father, for a time, had his own small construction company. Which really means him, and some tools. He was a carpenter, learned from his father. He made connections with a few plumbers, and a few electricians. They were all small business guys. And if they had a job, they would reach out to each other for the special skills each had.

My father got a contract to renovate about 6 chain stores in a set of strip malls. He brought in the other small business guys from the other fields. When the local unions heard of this, they attacked the chain store owner and demanded that they hire only union guys.

My father had also brought me to the site. He wanted to teach me the business. But the Unions said that was not allowed. If I worked with my father, in his business, they'd picket him.

I point this out because at times, the unions go to far.

I also have teachers in my family and the unions have been great form them.

So, from my view, Unions are a bit of a mixed bag.

I'll also mention that my father passed some years ago, and my mother is remarried.

Her husband is an Amtrak guy. And he is a Union delegate. He gets to defend union workers who are at risk of being fired.

And even he talks about the need for some Union reforms. His view is that lots of union guys get hurt because other guys who need to be fired don't get fired.

[Armstead]

23. I'm not saying unions are perfect -- But this is no time to equivocate

As I have said before in other threads, by temperament, I'm actually very much like Obama. I believe (usually) that different sides have valid points, that the best solutions in politics and everything else is balance, etc.

And, as a human institution, unions are certainly not perfect. They are as subject to the darker side of human nature as any other institution.

But right now, at this time, the other side has made it a black and white issue. The GOP/Teabaggers/Corporate Bosses do not want to reform unions, to ask them to be more reasonable, to promote compromise in collective bargaining...or anything of the sort. They are on a Blitzkrieg selling the message that "Unions are bad and have to be eliminated." And they are acting on it, as Scott Walker has shown -- but he is just one cog in that machine.

That cannot be countered by a reasonable balanced approach. Unless Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party draw their own lines in support of unions, the unions, labor movement...all workers' rights are done for. Kaput. The gains of the last 70 years will be rolled back.

I wish that were hyperbole, but it's out present reality. In many states and on many levels, the bad guys are going for the Big Prize.

The only way to prevent that is if Democrats help and support the union movement -- and all of the workers rights that indirectly flow from that.

The imperfections can be dealt with in individual circumstances as they arise. But right now the first step is to fight for the survival of the labor union and workers rights against this assault.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Yeah, Obama is a bad debater

:rofl:

Do you even hear yourself?

:rofl:

[Armstead]

11. Debate style depends on the venue and the opponent

And when one is debating against simplistic lies and bad ideologies put into an appealing-sounding package, one has to counter in a direct fashion that does not reinforce the message of the other side.

[Whisp]

14. big healthy unrec, what a useless loser post

[Armstead]

16. Well thanks for the kick anyway

[treestar]

17. You have awful nightmares