Democrats finally find an enemy worth fighting

posted at 9:28 am on August 17, 2006 by Bryan

Democrats have met the enemy and the enemy is…Wal-Mart.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm applause from Democrats and union organizers here on Wednesday. But Mr. Biden’s main target was not Republicans in Washington, or even his prospective presidential rivals.

Or even people who want to kill us.

It was Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer.

Among Democrats, Mr. Biden is not alone. Across Iowa this week and across much of the country this month, Democratic leaders have found a new rallying cry that many of them say could prove powerful in the midterm elections and into 2008: denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits.

Six Democratic presidential contenders have appeared at rallies like the one Mr. Biden headlined, along with some Democratic candidates for Congress in some of the toughest-fought races in the country.

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

I’ve been in quite a few Wal-Marts. Not one time did I see anyone holding a gun to anyone’s head to force them into working there. Not one time.

Here’s the thing Democrats may not have grasped yet. Most Wal-Mart workers aren’t working there to support a family. They’re students, senior citizens or spouses working part-time to make a little extra cash. Forcing Wal-Mart to provide health care benefits for part-time workers will end up hurting those workers, as there will be fewer jobs for them in the long run.

What really gets under the Democrats’ skin is, first, that Wal-Mart is successful without any government help. Democrats hate that. Second, Wal-Mart isn’t unionized and its employees show no interest in unionizing. As the nation’s largest private employer, Democrats and their union labor backers hate that too.

Wal-Mart won’t take all this demagoguery lying down.

Wal-Mart has begun a counterattack. In interviews on Wednesday, company executives warned that they would alert their 1.3 million American employees to the anti-Wal-Mart campaign. They also pointed to a poll the company financed that reported that Americans were generally supportive of the company.

“There is far more evidence to show that this short-sighted political strategy will backfire than that it will actually work,” said Mona Williams, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores. “We believe our associates vote, and it is our responsibility to let them know when a politician speaks out for or against our company.”

In a letter to its workers in Iowa, Wal-Mart warned of the political events, including appearances by Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Wal-Mart “would never suggest to you how to vote,” the letter said, “but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.”

I don’t know how all of this will play out. I do know that in deep blue Maryland, the legislature passed a law specifically aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to offer up health benefits, and that that law was constructed so that it would only apply to Wal-Mart. Give Democrats the power and they’ll probably try that nationwide. Because where they may be divided over the war against al Qaeda et al, the Democrats are all too united over expanding the nanny state and beating down successful Americans.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said

My problem with Bozo Biden is I don’t see any indication that he’s cares about the fate of middle-class people. He cares more about unions that would raise wages astronomically and cancel any savings Wal-Mart passes along to it’s customers, mainly “middle-class people.”

Bryan: “Not one time did I see anyone holding a gun to anyone’s head to force them into working there. Not one time.”

‘Nuff said.

I know I shop there and save a bundle vs any other grocery or retail chain.

Thanks for caring about the middle-class people Joe, you friggin’ imbecile.

darwin on August 17, 2006 at 9:38 AM

When 19 Wal-Mart employees fly planes into buildings because they don’t have health benefits, then I’ll care about this.

Rosetta on August 17, 2006 at 9:42 AM

Damn you Wal-Mart and your low, low prices! We’ll get you! And your little dog, too!

Tony737 on August 17, 2006 at 9:42 AM

“They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

Uhhh…. Errr… I must have missed the part that we’re now guaranteed the right that our job will place us in the middle class.

So wait a second… I just thought of something else… If every job pays enough to put that employee in the middle class, where are the lower class people/ jobs going to come from? Hey! He’s solved the problem of poverty in one fell swoop! We’ll just pay everyone the same amount! They can have equal access to the nations resources too…

Socialism? Anyone? Bueller?

grendel on August 17, 2006 at 9:43 AM

This is precisely why the Dems are going to lose this Nov and in ’08. Instead of trying to confront international issues like terrorism they are attacking Wal-Mart and talking about college tuitions. They have proven time and again that they are the short-sighted party.

You don’t like Wal-Mart? Fine. Do not shop there. Encourage other people to not shop there. Unless Wal-Mart is doing something illegal, leave them alone.

JasonG on August 17, 2006 at 9:50 AM

Ahhhh, now I get it… Walmart is nothing more than an evil plot to… uhh… save people money???

Durka Durka, Walmart Jihad?

Now I’m just plain confused…

Romeo13 on August 17, 2006 at 10:06 AM

From Old War Dogs >> Democrats finally find an enemy worth fighting:

If Joe Biden really gave a damn about the little guy he’d take into account the fact that Wal-Mart’s prices, made possible by economies of scale and an excellent distribution system, are all that keep a lot of us in the payday-to-payday crowd from going completely under. I’ll lie awake tonight crying because the union isn’t getting its cut.

Dumb ass.

bdfaith on August 17, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Democrats acting as persecutors? Nothing new there.

Democrats have no plan on keeping Americans safe from terrorists, they have no plan to grow the American economy, and the only think they have managed to accomplish in recent years is to obstruct our work to make America stronger, and attack those in their party who try to be bipartisan. Soros has gotten a strangle hold on the obstructionist party, and Americans will pay the price for that eventually.

Wal-Mart is good for America, and that will not be tolerated by the I Hate America crowd.

DannoJyd on August 17, 2006 at 10:14 AM

I do know that in deep blue Maryland, the legislature passed a law specifically aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to offer up health benefits, and that that law was constructed so that it would only apply to Wal-Mart.

It’s all been done before. The City of Chicago tried this same nonsense a while back and Wal-Mart responded by building just outside of Chicago City limits.

BOO, Democrats seriously debating the issues that really matter.
HOORAY, Class Warfare!!!!!!

Kid from Brooklyn on August 17, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Submitting another request for Spellcheck here. :oP~~

DannoJyd on August 17, 2006 at 10:16 AM

A federal judge, Frederick Motz, in Maryland struck down their law that targeted WalMart, July 19.

So apparently someone still believes in equal protection under the law.

For how long, we don’t know, but for now, that’s where it is.

webproze on August 17, 2006 at 10:16 AM

Laura Ingraham is talking about this Walmart story on her radio show right now. She made a good point. Since Hillary used to sit on the board of directors of Walmart, how come she didn’t point out all those supposed problems at the time?

pjcomix on August 17, 2006 at 10:17 AM

The Wal-Mart that Kid refers to is within easy walking distance of my fathers house, and when it opened they got 25,000 applications for employment. Smart move, dummycrats!

DannoJyd on August 17, 2006 at 10:20 AM

The action in Chicago was to force Wal-Mart to pay its employees a higher minimum wage than any other business in the city. The city council targeted one business out of the others. Sounds like some sort of version of socialism. Not surprisingly, Chicago is an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

Targeting Wal-Mart will back-fire. From my observations, Wal-Mart shoppers are incredibly loyal to the store. An attact on Wal-Mart will be perceived as an attack on thier own choices, and possibly themselves. And when examples such as the Lamont hypocrisy come out (he criticized WM while he and his family own stock in the company), people will reject the critics.

Mallard T. Drake on August 17, 2006 at 10:25 AM

It’s all been done before. The City of Chicago tried this same nonsense a while back and Wal-Mart responded by building just outside of Chicago City limits.

Yep, although the Chicago law ensnared a few more companies, Target being one of them. Their immediate response was to bail out of two new shopping centers that they were going to anchor. How many of their constituents won’t have those jobs at all now, at any salary? How much sales and property tax revenue does this cost the City of Chicago? Why would any big box retailer build inside City limits, and if they did wouldn’t they raise their prices in those stores to reflect the cost of doing business there?

These wannabe tin pot communist rulers seem to forget one little thing: In America, “Screw You” goes both ways. Everyone knows how to find the door.

Pablo on August 17, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Ironic that the people the Dems claim to represent, the poor, immigrants, minorities, etc. are the people who benefit most from Wal Mart’s low prices and employment opportunities. Who’s next on the list, the 99 Cent store?

speed647 on August 17, 2006 at 10:26 AM

Thanks webproze. I didn’t know the law had been struck down. It doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats passed it but it’s nice to know there’s a sane judge out there somewhere.

Bryan on August 17, 2006 at 10:27 AM

I would submit that it isn’t Wal Mart’s function to worry about “the fate of middle-class people”. They are in business to make profit, period. People are free to work there, or not.

Liberal democrats are nothing socialists, or traitors, or worse. God help us.

NRA4Freedom on August 17, 2006 at 10:37 AM

They’re socialists AND traitors!

Hound successful US businesses, and undermine every effort to protect ourselves. Oh yeah, they’re on their way to majority status alright!

The Ritz on August 17, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Someone should tell Joe that in addition to providing consumers with a wide range of brand products at a fair price, part of Wal-Mart’s success comes from operating within a budget. Our representatives in congress might want to consider doing the same.

1.3 million employees you say. That’s a lot of votes come November.

Hard to believe, yet another Democrat strategy is destined to backfire on them. Who’d a thunk it?

fogw on August 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM

Why does Biden even bother opening his mouth? I have issues with Wal-Mart, but still shop there.
Bottom line, and some here have already mentioned it, but since it was Biden talking, it’s okay to plagerize:
Wal-Mart = successful business. As in big bad corporation raping the poor working slaves. “And you can’t go into a Wal-Mart without hearing a redneck accent. And I’m not kidding.”

Doug on August 17, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Many people that bash Wal-Mart, own stock in it.

They are just to stupid to check their retirement funds.

ar_basin on August 17, 2006 at 12:10 PM

Much as I hate and despise democrat polticians, I have to dissent here. WalMart is why every damn thing is made in China and why the USA is losing its manufacturing/industrial base. It is an urgency of national defense that this be reversed. As long as I’m able to I’m buying ‘made in the USA’, or doing without.
Leave it to the Dems that even when they have a legit issue to totally fack it up.

dhimwit on August 17, 2006 at 12:15 PM

Last two times I’ve been in a discussion of Walmart, liberals have admitted that either it’s no different than other stores like Target that they do shop at, or that they think Walmart=bad guys, but they still shop there to save money.

I guess I’m just nuance-challenged.

MamaAJ on August 17, 2006 at 12:27 PM

The Dems emulating the French more and more…good luck, with such a ‘successful model’.

dhimwit, your issues are to be considered but they are in addition to the dems wanting to regulate business from every end/facet, in their blind aim of robbing Peter to give to Paul, while Peters and Pauls shop at WalMart and their own 401Ks contain plenty of WMT shares.

Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 1:14 PM

The dems cannot operate without strawmen. That’s how they got into power in the first place – rescuing the underprivileged victims from big business villians. With equal rights for everybody and additional rights for the former victims, there is little traction for that approach anymore. They keep trying because they have nowhere else to go.

docdave on August 17, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Much as I hate and despise democrat polticians, I have to dissent here. WalMart is why every damn thing is made in China and why the USA is losing its manufacturing/industrial base. It is an urgency of national defense that this be reversed. As long as I’m able to I’m buying ‘made in the USA’, or doing without.
Leave it to the Dems that even when they have a legit issue to totally fack it up.

dhimwit –

I understand (and shar) the desire to but American. But business isn’t a zero sum game, though nanny state dems seem to think so. (“That man over there is making money! Who did he take it from!?”)

I look at it this way. The money I save by shopping at Walmart, Aldi’s, and Value City over the course of a year add up to an extra morgage payment. Walmart is shortening the term of my morgage from thirty years to twenty years and saving me about $10,000 dollars in interest. If that ain’t buying American, I don’t know what is!

If Walmart doing business abroad is a win for China, (and, unfortunely, it does promote some people and practices I don’t like) it’s also a win for us.

Kadnine on August 17, 2006 at 1:56 PM

That should read, “buy American.”

Kadnine on August 17, 2006 at 1:58 PM

WalMart is why every damn thing is made in China and why the USA is losing its manufacturing/industrial base

No, it’s not Wal-Mart – they just take advantage of the fact that stuff in China is cheaper because they aren’t REGULATED to death. Made in America is great, but remember that it the cost of those items are passed down to the consumer – costs such as: healthcare benefits for part time workers, retirement packages, union wages, insurance, and I could go on. Not to say that this is all necessarily bad, but it must be paid for somehow – and that ‘somehow’ is by increasing the price to the consumer. So, we either deal with it by paying the increased costs, or we buy stuff made in china. i think most people on a strict budget will choose the latter.

pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 2:20 PM

costs such as: healthcare benefits for part time workers, retirement packages, union wages, insurance, and I could go on.

Oh, and the biggest cost to business??? TAXES. forgot that one.

pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Myhair, Kadine,

An economist would agree with you guys, and unless we’re Bill Gates, we all have to be economists. But it’s short-sighted economics. You can get a $5 toaster at Walmart? Well,whoopie! The toaster factory in Michigan or Tennesee or New Jersey folds. Jobs are lost. Bad enough. But that’s a toaster factory that can’t be retooled to turn out stinger missle parts or night goggles or whatever else in heck you need to fight a modern war. Or do we plan to buy them from the most likely antagonist, China?
Madness.

dhimwit on August 17, 2006 at 5:02 PM

Agree with dhimwit. Nothing cheap is really cheap.

I wouldn’t be caught dead in Walmart, partly because they have driven a lot of companies to ruin, partly because they have dreadful stores and merchandise. I will give them one thing, in a time when wages for the average Joe have been stagnant over a decade and CEOs have had an average 25% per year comp increase (based on F 500 past decade) they have been pretty good about keeping their top execs within reasonable salaries.

honora on August 17, 2006 at 5:13 PM

The toaster factory in Michigan or Tennesee or New Jersey folds. Jobs are lost.

Not really. the toaster factory closed years ago because the management discovered that it couldn’t compete with China. It also discovered that with automation, those toasters could be made with less “manpower.” jobs were already lost.

Anyway, it’s an interesting conversation, but it’s not Wal-Mart’s fault. Like i said, too much government regulation and interference drives the costs up for all consumers.
The oil industry is a prime example.

pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 5:16 PM

And Honora, for the average Joe, Walmart offers merchandise at affordable prices. That’s good for everyone, my dear blue friend. :)

pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 5:18 PM

Lets make Walmart pay 25 bucks an hour and free health insurance, a guaranteed pension of 75% of their previous earnings after 25 years of service, and soon we will not see any more Walmarts.

gary on August 17, 2006 at 5:44 PM

While I dont condone BIG BOX stores everywhere (hundreds/thousands of small businesses, 10 employees or less, are put out of business each year) and they’re darn close to monopolies with their buying power & controls, I like ANY company that refuses to go labor union.
Just imagine a year or two without unions, they have so outlasted their usefulness. Miliions of dollars in workers pockets, not just a handful of union workers, no strikes, competition to level the playing field…

shooter on August 17, 2006 at 7:54 PM

Taxes, overregulation and union-driven “legacy costs” are what kills the competitiveness of the American manufacturer; much more so than Wal-Mart and Chinese dumping ever could.

Look no further than the automakers. The UAW, overregulation, excessive corporate taxes, and now SarBox have eaten the Big Three alive, while Honda and Toyota gain market share; even as they expand their U.S. manufacturing base. Mind you, they also break sales records while refusing to incentivize everything down to the bone. We need to dig a lot deeper than Wal-Mart if we want to resurrect our manufacturing base, my friends. A lot deeper.

Kid from Brooklyn on August 17, 2006 at 8:41 PM

Kid,

Totally agree. And if the Dems weren’t such pea brains they’d be yelling about this. I’d listen.

dhimwit on August 18, 2006 at 6:34 AM

The Hell if it’s good for all consumers and employees, so long as it’s a red state giant…

Entelechy on August 18, 2006 at 12:44 PM