Joan Walsh: What Obama really said about unions

[dennis4868]

President Obama speaks during a town hall meeting in Decorah, Iowa, on Monday. On MSNBC's "The Ed Show" last night, Sirius XM radio host Joe Madison and I listened to a short clip of President Obama in Decorah, Iowa, answering a teacher's question about the importance of collective bargaining rights, especially for public sector workers. In the clip, Obama acknowledged the role of unions in improving wages and conditions for all workers, but quickly pivoted to his time-honored appeals for "reform" and "shared sacrifice." Madison and I both criticized the president for failing to back public sector unions more fully and for acting as though unions hadn't already sacrificed.

Tuesday a reader pointed me to Obama's full remarks, and having read the whole transcript, I think my reaction was unfair. In fact, Obama spent a lot of time talking about the importance of public sector workers and acknowledging the poor treatment of teachers particularly.

The entire article is here...http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2011/08/16/obama_on_unions

I know this editorial goes against the DU narrative of what Obama said yesterday about unions but it's still worth the read...facts mean something even on DU (I hope).

[ClarkUSA]

1. Thanks for the facts, dennis. Bookmarking.

Joan Walsh: What Obama really said about unions

"Tuesday a reader pointed me to Obama's full remarks, and having read the whole transcript, I think my reaction was unfair. In fact, Obama spent a lot of time talking about the importance of public sector workers and acknowledging the poor treatment of teachers particularly."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=748022&mesg_id=748022

[no limit]

8. Got a question to you and dennis.

What reforms do you think unions need?

or is this another thing you can't comment on until after you know Obama's position on it? Like cuts to socal security, extending bush tax cuts, public option, revenues in the debt ceiling deal, etc, etc.

[rhett o rick]

83. They dont give their stands, only bad mouth Democrats. nm

[FrenchieCat]

2. When my husband and I were by chance watching Ed last night,

while eating dinner, my husband laughed and said....
Well I guess this guy is outraged about a lot about nothing.

I know Fockx does this kind of taking the short quote and running with it,
but geeze, Ed too? :shrug:

[dennis4868]

3. Big Ed...

has been itching to bash Obama over something - anything - whether true or not. He was even comparing Obama to Todd Walker last night - WTF? And of course a bunch of DUers take his lead and then bash Obama (admitting they have not heard the remarks from Obama)...this stuff is getting old already...I am sure Big Ed/Duers will "find" something to bash Obama over his head today...doesn't take much or even facts :-(

[Enthusiast]

58. When Ed comes on I switch the channel

because all he does is kiss Obama's ass.

[rhett o rick]

82. An just how do you know what Big Ed has been "itching" to do?

Why dont you explain how you agree with the President that unions need to sacrifice more? Come out and tell us how you stand on unions.

[Inuca]

30. When Ed comes on, I switch

to CNN, I find Anderson Cooper more interesting and informative. Not for long, I must confess, I usually fall asleep shortly afterward (not Cooper's fault :-)). I cannot stand loud mouths that "make their point" by shouting and insulting. I don't care who the does the shouting and who the insulting is aimed at, in other words I find it offensive whether it comes from the right or the left. I watched Ed for a while when he got his show, not any longer. It's a problem that I started having even with Olberman, quite sometime before he left MSNBC. But he was and still is way, way better than Ed, and not only because of the quality and quantity of shouting and insults.

[elleng]

45. Really pissed me off yesterday, Frenchie.

Don't usually watch him. Sent him the Salon/WH piece, told him he had misled.
:hi:

[vaberella]

54. Ed and DU. n/t

[rhett o rick]

81. You can tell how much Obama supports unions by looking at his appointees. nm

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. But Big Ed said he hates unions, and puppies should be euthanised.

:shrug:

[mopinko]

79. not euthanized. run over by steam rollers.

NOT THE SAME THING DAMMIT.

[JohnnyRingo]

5. K@R... Thanx for the post.

Don't expect such common sense analysis to make the front page at DU where stories of Obama's failure is a top ten hit. I hope I'm wrong.

[ProSense]

6. Here:

This is the newly revitalized NLRB under President Obama:

NLRB Orders Reinstatement Of Santa Barbara News-Press Journalists

Board Orders a Repeat of a California Union Election

The RW and media are fully aware of the President's actions in support of unions.

His efforts paved the way for the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

[shellgame26]

76. That's some great news! nt

[hlthe2b]

7. Good on Joan for doing this... I too cringed, hearing that clip

And those that want to excoriate Ed, it is certainly likely he did not realize there was a much more broader context. Criticize him for not insisting on hearing more, having his producers always listen to the full answer (or reading a full transcript). I think that is valid. But, I do not believe ED is out to "get" Obama as some have suggested. Sloppy? yes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. The problem with Ed is that he is so emotional and refuses to wait until all the facts are out.

He jumps into knee-jerk conclusions so often. If you notice how one day, he's all over Obama, criticizing and whatnot, which is fine. But then, the next minute, he's excoriating those who criticize Obama and lavishes praise on him.

I swear, he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. The real problem is that Ed is often very unprepared and unknowledgeable.

Case in point: a woman called the other day named Virginia to bash *BOTH* parties for not doing enough for small businesses. Had Ed been up on the issues, he would have known that under Pelosi's leadership, the Democratic Party passed over 17 different small business jobs bills and tax credits in the last Congress, most of which were routinely blocked by the Senate Republicans.

Instead, Ed went on and on, agreeing with this woman that Democrats hadn't done anything. Ed should have reminded the good lady that even the health care reform bill contained provisions in it that aided small businesses and provided incentives for job creation.

Ed Schultz is grossly misinformed. It makes perfect sense why he is so emotionally unstable.

[frazzled]

48. Unprepared, lazy, and not doing his job

Look, it's his job as a (quasi) journalist to investigate the facts. They were right in front of his face. The whole town hall was only 30-40 minutes. He didn't have to do any fancy investigation or research. All he had to do was watch the farking video. It's not asking too much to ask someone being paid an enormous sum of money to influence public opinion to do his homework.

This would never happen with Rachel Maddow (or many others): she would have looked at the whole context and then researched the veracity of every statement and gathered statistics.

I stopped watching Ed several years ago after about the 3rd show I saw. Simply not worth the time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. You're right! Even Rachel didn't jump to conclusions! I like her tone now.

I can watch her. There was a time when I, too, had to turn her off because it was all about an Obama/Republican bashfest, and not enough about the reality of what's happening on the ground. I now enjoy watching both her and Larry O'Donnell.

I tend to skip through Tweety and Ed Schultz. And, I've yet to watch Sharpton. He's just loud and irritating.

Keith is o.k.

[shellgame26]

77. "The real problem is that Ed is often very unprepared and unknowledgeable."

BINGO!

[Enrique]

9. that's what I said

and I also said that he should acknowledge the compromises that unions are making.

[polmaven]

21. I will certainly agree with you on that.

He does need to acknowledge that many of the unions are making compromises and use them as examples of what he said. Unions like those in Wisconsin, for example. He ought to point out that they have made concessions, but the Governor didn't find that good enough.

[Whisp]

10. thankyou very much. and just like clockwork...

wait a day or so and someone will come up with the truth, like here.

meanwhile yesterday Obama was killing union leaders and hiding their bodies in his kids' toybox.

how many times do we have to go through this?

ty for posting, dennis. but you know the truth just isn't good enough for some here.

*spits

[no limit]

11. What reforms do you think unions need?

[Whisp]

12. I was talking about the shittalk that goes on here

the out and out fucking lies about what Obama, says, does, thinks.

if you want a real discussion on this you are in the wrong forum. reall discussion died a lot time ago here - its just somewhere to take a dump on the Democratic President now.

[no limit]

14. The "shittalking" here was in response to Obama saying unions need reforms

since you consider that shit talking you must think that Obama is right, reforms are needed. What do you, whisp, think those reforms should be?

[Whisp]

16. I was referring to the many threads here calling Obama anti-Union

all that shit talk. I don't care what You personally think, means nothing to me.

now we find out either
1. these people don't know how to read transcripts
2. oh, they know how to read, but they pick the parts that make Obama sound the most anti-union backstabbing double dealing ninja
3. Out Of Context R Us. Thats' our job.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

15. That's bullshit. Discussions here are only as shallow as people make them.

And you're doing a great job of lowering the water level here with posts like this.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

24. Ity had content -- You might not agree with it but it was not just sniping at other DUers

[Control-Z]

52. And posts like this one are raising the level of discussion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x747443

[Armstead]

80. Actually, posts to discuss such things are perfectly fine

It raises a legitimate issue, and things like that should be discussed and debated.

The problem is when such discussions descend to the level of "You're just a poopy poo because you hate our president." "Oh yeah? we'll you're a bigger poopy poo with your hero worship of Obama"..... "Nyah Nyah." "And a double nyah, nyah to you."

[rhett o rick]

85. If you cant stand disagreements, you are in the wrong party. nm

[Whisp]

86. copy/pasting RW talking points is not 'disagreement'. n/t

[rhett o rick]

88. How is criticism of Pres Obama's lack of union support a RW talking point?

I want Pres Obama to support unions, do you? But look at his actions and his appointees.

When he states that unions need to sacrifice, he isnt supporting them.

There are more RW'ers here in DU denigrating the left than Pres Obama.

The left wants strong union support. How do you disagree with that?

[Whisp]

89. go elsewhere with your nonsense

and fabrications and misreadings and trophy holders of Taking things out of Context to Fit the Picture of Obama being a Bad Man.

I've had it up to here with bullshit

there, I think we had just a 'discussion'.

you can go now

[rhett o rick]

90. I find your superior, dismissive attitude childish. nm

[rhett o rick]

84. You are right, just look at all Obama has done for unions. Oops. Well look at the pro-union people

he has appointed. Oops. Well maybe you are right and unions need to be sacrificed.

[Armstead]

13. Fact is -- Even in her semi-retraction, she criticized him for what we criticize him for

"There's still a little bit too much of his trademark "on the other hand," "I'm the only reasonable guy" rhetoric, as he insists "sometimes Democrats aren't good at ... acknowledging that not every program in government is working perfectly and we've got to make adjustments to become more efficient and more productive, just like the private sector does." And I think the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric is getting old, given that, as Warren Buffett reminded us, the wealthy aren't being asked to sacrifice at all...."

[dennis4868]

18. bullshit...

she and big ed last night critisized Obama for being anti union/anti collective bargaining for what Obama "said" yesterday...that's what she apologized for...and for the records, Obama is not president of the dem party; he's prez of the entire country.

[Armstead]

26. Bullshit? It was a paragraph from the same column you cited

Sghe was saying tghe same thing many of us are saying. So if she had elaborated on that part in a full column would you toss her under the bus?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

61. How do you think

Wisconsin and Ohio union Democrats will feel about the President's words? Do you think it will generate enthusiasm among these swing state activists?

[Dragonfli]

47. So you finally admit he is not a Democrat, the secret's been out for a while I hate to tell you.

[Enthusiast]

59. 77% of the entire country

want to preserve collective bargaining. It isn't "centrist" to promote concessions by unions.

[Enthusiast]

60. I would like to make one thing clear.

It is never acceptable for a Democratic President to bash unions in any way. Private sector unions now only comprise 7% of the national work force. Unions have been bashed quite enough.

The problem as "WE" see it is there are any number of groups that deserve bashing far more than organized labor.

[vaberella]

55. She said that when she thought she was in the right.

Basically, her following statements dismissed what she previously thought of his comments. Her retraction was a full retraction.

[bigdarryl]

20. So why the fuck did Big Ed only play a portion of what the President said

this is the shit that FIX NEWS does like the Reverend Wright tape only playing a portion to make the person look bad.I'm telling you guy's I have always had suspicions about Ed Schultz he was on first thing on his radio show this afternoon(8-16-11) getting on the President remember he was a REPUBLICAN not to long ago sometimes it show just a little bit

[OhioBlue]

50. cause he's an opportunist and flys whichever way the

wind blows to placate an audience and generate attention - get ratings and money?

[Hydra]

22. Obama said the word "sacrifice"

On the side who has already given TOO MUCH.

What he said was clear. He's not asking the 1% to give up what they have. He's asking working people to pitch in for more handouts for the Rich.

[no limit]

23. Notice how everyone here supportive of the president wont say what reforms are needed

I guess those specific talking points haven't arrived yet.

[Hydra]

27. They can't talk about it when the reforms do come in

It'll be like how "we don't have the votes for the public option" even though we are doing budget reconciliation and only need 50 now.

It'll be "those damn Republicans MADE us do it...again!"

[Enthusiast]

62. Yeah.

That "deal" with the public option really generated enthusiastic turnout for the 2010 election. Sorry but I simply cannot believe this is due to incompetence or poor judgment.

[Armstead]

28. They're coming Special Delivery

[Major Hogwash]

43. It has to do with seniority and how the contracts affect older workers.

Some of the contracts of late have cut the benefits the older workers get after they retire, but some of it is made up with the national healthcare plan.
It's a complicated issue and I'm sure you wouldn't understand what it is all about even if I tried to explain it.

[no limit]

74. Oh wise one, please do explain.

The national healthcare plan?

[phleshdef]

37. Except he advocated raising taxes on the wealthy in that speech, just like every other one.

You don't GET to have it both ways. If you are going to take this comment about cuts where public unions are concerned and swear it as Obama's gospel then you HAVE to consider everything else he verbally supported as well, period.

[Hydra]

44. I don't have to consider anything he "Verbally Supported"

After this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html?hpid=topnews

"I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.

So no, I don't have to listen to what he's "Thinking about fighting for" when he just told us what he WILL be fighting- the Unions and the rest of us who work.

It's much easier to hit the people who are hurting than to demand justice, after all.

[phleshdef]

78. LOL, now you just aren't making any god damn sense.

The fact is, you claimed he was making statements about sacrifice while not asking the rich for any sacrifice and you were wrong because thats a complete lie. He talks about the need to tax the rich pretty much everytime he opens his mouth and you are lying when you try to pretend he doesn't in order to attack him.

[treestar]

25. What have unions sacrificed anyway?

Union workers supposedly have it good.

[Armstead]

29. I hate unions too, those ungrateful bastids.

[treestar]

31. What?

This kind of black and white thinking I reserve for Republicans.

But I don't see what unions have sacrificed. They exist to collectively bargain and make things better for workers. What has that to do with sacrifice?

[sudopod]

35. Why should teachers pulling down 30k make sacrifices and give up rights

when the wealthy haven't given up a single thing?

When you ask, "What has that to do with sacrifice?" you are asking the wrong question.

[Armstead]

42. You don't think unions have sacrificed?

You might do a little catching up on the subject.

[Enthusiast]

64. Exactly.

:banghead:

[woo me with science]

68. Thank you. nt

[rhett o rick]

92. You cant be serious. But, somehow I think you are. nm

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. 80% of their membership over the last few decades. nt

[rhett o rick]

91. Are you being serious or just stirring up trouble? nm

[anAustralianobserver]

33. Yes to be fair the Ed cut was not a fair cut. You can see Obama's answer here:

I think it was around the 50min mark:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/President-Obama-Kicks-Off-Economic-Bus-Tour/10737423487-2/

His answer made me feel a bit uncomfortable, but relievingly it wasn't as bad as it looked on the Ed segment.

[anAustralianobserver]

41. It's at 53min 40sec

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Ed went off on Obama for nearly his entire radio show the other day simple because

he jumped to a conclusion without all the facts? Sound familiar?

That's what happens when one suffers from ODS.

Kudos to Joan Walsh for admitting her mistake.

Kick and Recommend.

[pacalo]

38. It's a given that Obama knows how to move a crowd; he gives great speeches.

Off-the-cuff speaking, especially.

I've learned, however, to pay more attention to actions.

And accountability. This new "super congress" panel is unconstitutional, imo, & only serves to deflect accountability & criticism for what is sure to be very harsh decisions that are going to further put the burden on the vulnerable.

[Tx4obama]

39. K&R n/t

[Scurrilous]

40. K & R

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

46. Ed is repeating his baseless outrage tonight. n/t

[bhikkhu]

49. Thanks for taking a second look...

DU would be a better place if we all followed the example, and went back to the original facts, statements, and context, instead of accepting someone's 20 second summary.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. Ed was/IS right...Transcript from the video of the speech:

Q Hi, my name is Bev Kromgezmi (ph), and I actually used to teach school in the district in which Seed Savers is located. And we have a number of students, former students here, that I taught.

THE PRESIDENT: How was she? Was she a good teacher? (Applause.) You got thumbs up.

Q What can I say?

THE PRESIDENT: What did you teach?

Q High school social studies.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s important stuff.

Q Many unions, especially public sector unions, helped you get elected in 2008. Those public sector unions and their members gained their salaries and benefits through collective bargaining. Recently, those benefits have been under attack. And I realize that this is a state issue mostly, but what can you do to help support collective bargaining in the states and, most of all, support the public sector unions, the middle class, many of whom are union members? Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let’s make one thing clear. The right of workers to come together and join a union is part of what built America’s middle class. It’s the reason why we’ve got a minimum wage. (Applause.) It’s the reason why folks have weekends. It’s the reason why you have basic protections on the job from an abusive employer.

There are a whole range of things that people take for granted, even if they’re not in a union, that they wouldn’t have had if it had not been for collective bargaining. (Applause.) So I think it is very important, whether you are in a union or not — and I speak particularly to young people, because you’ve grown up at a time when in a lot of circles “union” somehow is a dirty word — to understand all this is is people joining together so they’ve got a little more leverage; so they’ve got better working conditions, better wages; they can better support their family.

And a lot of us entered into the middle class because our parent or a grandparent was in a union. Remember that. (Applause.) When I hear this kind of anti-union rhetoric and anti-union assaults, I’m thinking these folks have amnesia. They don’t remember that that helped build our middle class and strengthen our economy.

Now, you’re right. Most of this activity right now is being done at the state level, although I will tell you that some of the assaults on collective bargaining are taking place at the federal level. You remember this FAA situation where they were shutting down the airports for — threatening to shut down the airports and we were going to be laying off tens of thousands of people? The reason that happened was because folks on the other side in the House of Representatives decided, let’s try to slip in a provision that could make it harder for people to collectively bargain in the aviation industry. And Democrats wouldn’t go along. And so they said, okay, well, we’re not going to renew funding for this.

So we’re seeing some of that at the federal level as well, and we’re fighting back, pushing back against these efforts to diminish the capacity to exercise their basic freedoms and their basic rights.

Now, at the state level, in addition to just providing vocal support for public employees, what I also have been trying to do is to help states so that they can meet their obligations to their public employees and to emphasize how important it is to our future collectively that we have, for example, teachers that are getting paid a good wage. (Applause.) We can’t recruit the kinds of teachers that we need in the classroom.

And in most countries that are doing well right now educationally, their teachers are revered. They get paid on par with doctors and engineers, because there is an understanding that this is a critical profession for the future of the nation. (Applause.)

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.

If there’s a feeling that unions aren’t partners in reform processes in things like education, then they’re going to end up being an easy target. So there’s got to be an understanding of, on the one hand, we’ve got to revere public employees — I was saying when I was in Cannon Falls that people are tired of politics, but they’re not tired of government. They may not realize it, but government are our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Government are our teachers in the classroom. Government are the FEMA folks who help people when there’s a flood or a tornado or a natural disaster. (Applause.)

But we also have to acknowledge — and sometimes Democrats aren’t good at this — is acknowledging that not every program in government is working perfectly and we’ve got to make adjustments to become more efficient and more productive, just like the private sector does. And the more we’re willing to be open to new ideas and reform and change, the more we’re going to be able to rally public opinion behind all the outstanding work that public employees do as opposed to public opinion being turned against public employees.

VIDEO and TRANSCRIPT at link:

http://www.shallownation.com/2011/08/15/president-obama...

[noiretextatique]

i agree...his statement is clear and no amount of spin

can change what he actually said....and what he means.

[noiretextatique]

56. i agree...his statement is clear and no amount of spin

can change what he actually said....and what he means.

[vaberella]

53. People are quick to judge. When context is taken in full then people shut the fuck up.

I'm tired of this.

[great white snark]

65. And nary a mea culpa.

No time for that, must quickly move on to next outrage.

[TheKentuckian]

67. What fails to be problematic about his full statement in context?

The meat of it is the same. Does he acknowledge the contributions of unions? Sure.

Does he lie about retirement (or at least stretch it like a taffy puller)? Yes.

Is he calling for more sacrifice from those folks who have renegotiated and renegotiated? Yup.

Is he still on the horseshit shared sacrifice stupidity? 10-4

Does he lay out a not so veiled threat that if the teacher's union doesn't support "reform" they would be a target? Inarguably.

Why would anyone be shutting up? More importantly, why would Democrats not be livid at his comments in full context? Why are his stupid comments even tolerable in the environment we are in or really at all? Why are some folks pretending that he actually said some acceptable (or even correct) and was actually taken out of context and his statement didn't mean exactly what he said?

Who the fuck is a Democrat and is willing to stand behind President Obama's statement? This shit really is getting stupid, but not for the spintastic reasons you think.

[great white snark]

57. K&R

[tomp]

63. as long as he's talking about shared sacrifice, he's wrong. nt

[woo me with science]

66. Anytime you need someone to come out and explain "what you really said,"

you have already blown it.

[vaberella]

69. Not when it's a consistent critique who wrote a retraction when she read anything you said.

That's a stupid statement. So Shelley Sherrod in your opinion blew it when Fox's Brietbart and then the Admin claimed she was in the wrong---because people read her statement out of context? You need to be a bit more serious. Context is everything. But I think your statement may be in line to make sure to get Obama on everything.

[SpiralHawk]

71. Thanks for posting

eom

[jeff47]

72. The full transcript doesn't absolve him of what I find offensive.

He still calls for unions to sacrifice. Despite the fact that they already have.

He does not call for management to sacrifice. He does not call for CEOs to sacrifice. He does not call for Wall Street to sacrifice. He does not call for bankers to sacrifice.

So the "little guy" has to sacrifice more. The people on the other end of the income spectrum? No asking for them to sacrifice.

[woo me with science]

87. Thank you. I think that is what MOST of us find offensive. nt

[Fearless]

75. If "shared sacrifice" comes up AT ALL it is bull shit. Unions feed families.

[BlueJac]

93. No matter what...........

Obama has been selling me since he took office. I am not even yelling just stating the facts. False promises one after another. I hated Reagan and I am getting that same feeling all over again.