Georgia run-off: Chambliss up big early; Update: Chambliss wins
posted at 8:29 pm on December 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Surprisingly big: With 28% reporting, he leads by 30 points. He’s expected to win but not by much more than five, so expect a long, agonizing evening of watching the blue counties roll in and slowly wash away the margin.
If Martin pulls the upset, that’s 59 seats, which would mean 50 votes in Minnesota are all that separates us from filibuster Armageddon. Somewhere in Maine, a nervous Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe watch the returns, wondering just how much ass Harry Reid will end up having to kiss…
Update: The filibuster lives as the AP calls it at a little after 9 p.m. A surprise blowout: With 81% reporting, Chambliss leads by 17.
Update: Good point at Hotline. Now that a filibuster-proof majority’s unlikely, the stakes of getting Franken elected are much lower. Maybe that means the Dems will eschew the nuclear option of challenging the Senate not to seat Coleman.
Update: Whatever happens, The Hill’s reading the tea leaves of Martinez’s departure and hinting that even if the Dems haven’t beat the filibuster this time, odds are good that they’ll beat it in 2010.
Still, the fact that the GOP exodus is continuing just one month after the 2008 election is bad news for Republicans, with their deficits in both chambers appearing insurmountable in the near term and 30 House members and six senators already having retired last cycle…
The GOP also has to deal with more seats to defend (19) than Democrats (16) and a less appealing target list.
When the 111th Congress begins, four of the five oldest GOP members will be facing reelection. Most of them have already insisted they are running, but questions remain about some of them.
Update: What would black turnout have been like if The One had campaigned personally for Martin?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
DeathToMediaHacks, you call this “Dems in Congress are falling in line, but quick“?
The Left will be fun to watch. Now they have to actually lead, instead of yip, yip, yip. The times of playing poodle are over. America is watching.
Schadenfreude on December 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I don’t know about that, but it looks as if the Obama administration may be such an ideological hodgepodge that it won’t have much relevance or long-term influence (aside from the judges Obama will appoint, of course). But who knows.
ddrintn on December 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I was just hoping that the majority of the voters were not going to be so dumb and shoot themselves in the wallet for a bunch of inexperienced hot air.
Schadenfreude on December 3, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Don’t you just love the smell of desperation?
theregoestheneighborhood on December 3, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I think that’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said on Hot Air.
I get a kick every time I see your screen name and see you attacking everyone on the right, just like all the media hacks you supposedly wish death to.
Let me guess. You’re one of those people who are so liberal that you believe the media is too conservative. Classic.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 3, 2008 at 1:01 AM
What you really wanted to say. Plus, who are you, and what have you accomplished in your life to call others idiots? I always thought that you liberals are sensitive and feeling people, who empathize with the lesser among you.
Schadenfreude on December 3, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I could be completely wrong, but I think this means that the Obama win was just about Obama and wasn’t any sort of “realignment” election like the Dems like to say it is. Which is good for us.
blackknightgt101 on December 3, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Somebody should set up a site to smooth over any hard feelings: From 57 to 42.
Jim Treacher on December 3, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Oy, where to begin. You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of doing what one thinks is right regardless of whether it’s popular.
Obama is trying to expand the power of the State to run individual lives. He thinks he is doing good by pursuing this goal, but I disagree with him. Since I don’t agree with his goals, I do not want him to succeed in his pursuit of those goals. It’s pretty simple.
Obama openly disparages the Constitution because it is a charter of “negative” rights, as he said on NPR. Of course it is. That’s the whole point of the Constitution. To prevent the State from acquiring too much power. Obama wants to throw that all out and has said as much.
Because his orientation is all off, I don’t want him to “do something” anymore than I would want a Christian Scientist to “do something” if somehow he were appointed the head of the Centers for Disease Control. If a Christian Scientist said his goal was to replace epidemiologists with experts in prayer, at that point I wouldn’t want him to succeed, I wouldn’t want him to “do” anything, and I would welcome any attempts at thwarting him, and I wouldn’t care if it made me unpopular.
I don’t expect to “gain” anything by obstructing Obama, and even if it’s politically unpopular, I don’t care. Just as virtue is its own reward, so is holding the State and a megalomaniacal head of state at bay. We are in the wacky situation where our next President is going to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution which he has already said is something he doesn’t believe in. It’s kind of hard to cheer him on.
shazbat on December 3, 2008 at 1:47 AM
I agree with your points that Palin’s presence was not the deciding factor in the race. There were certainly a number of things that motivated Republicans to turn out, with the possibility of 60 Democrats in the Senate high on the list. Democrats, particularly many black voters, who were excited about Obama probably felt no excitement or sense of urgency to go out and vote for Martin. And, of course, runoffs are all about turning out your base. Whoever does that most successfully usually wins. With that in mind, I do think that Palin’s visit added a few points onto Chambliss’s total, and her efforts for him showed that she’s willing to expend some political capital to do her part for the team.
+1 That could change depending on what happens in the future (as is always the case in politics), but right now she is the leader of the party. Others are trying to nibble around the edges, but they’re going to have to step up their games (Or she’ll have to make a mistake or step back for other reasons, which is certainly possible) if they want the mantle of leader.
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Palinpower=automatic 10 point bounce for GOP candidates
lodge on December 3, 2008 at 3:04 AM
…… anyone think Robert Bryd or the Swimmer will last this Congress, among others?
………….. as Mr. Reid would say, “you can smell them rotting….”
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 3:06 AM
I apologize for changing the subject but in a broad sense this has to do with the mindset of the people that elected Obama, the subject of political correctness and the danger to free speech. Today Sean Avery a hockey player with the Dallas Stars gave an interview in which he made an indiscreet comment about an ex-girlfriend of his now dating a player on the opposing team he was playing tonight. For that he was suspended indefinitely by the NHL. In the NHL for fighting you get a five minute penalty, for mouthing off to the referee a 10 minute penalty, for deliberately trying to injure an opponent you get thrown out of the game, for a vicious hit from behind that could permanently injure an opponent by breaking his neck that earns a 3-5 game suspension, but for mouthing off about an ex-girlfriend you get suspended indefinitely and you get treated worse than a leper. So now a precedent is set. If a Senator complains on camera about ex-wife or ex-girlfriend who is now sharing a bed with a fellow Senator does he face indefinite suspension from the Senate. What is implied in the right of free speech?- that one should not face any punitive consequences due to that speech unless one become subject to a lawsuit or one is divulging information that jeopardizes national security or a public or police investigation. To get all the way back to national prominence I strongly believe that the GOP will have to understand these cultural trends and the damage that political correctness is doing to America and free speech and how sinister forces are using political correctness to suppress free speech. Do you have any wonder now that Obama could tag Sarah Palin with being a racist by accusing Obama of being a socialist in order to suppress her right to free political speech?
technopeasant on December 3, 2008 at 3:41 AM
The definition of a political leader: one who leads by example, who has coattails, and is a winner. NB: the latest definition: Sarah Palin
technopeasant on December 3, 2008 at 4:03 AM
Why do you concern yourselves with the big-eared freak’s cabinet. They don’t matter. The decisions are His. The “vision” is His. The cabinet will carry out His policies like good little lemmings marching over the cliff. If Hildabeast goes off the plantation, he can fire her with no consequence and then she’s out of any power position; at least until the brain-dead of New York put her back in. So even she doesn’t matter.
Put the crosshairs where they belong.
SKYFOX on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 AM
Congratulations Senator Chambliss! There is still some joy in Mudville, cause mighty Saxby knocked it out of the park.
Done That on December 3, 2008 at 5:45 AM
No sweetie, Chablis did not win tonight. Tonight’s win was pure sweet tea-and-barbecue. I can guarantee you that.
RD on December 3, 2008 at 5:57 AM
Way to go, Chambliss. May the force be with you.
silverfox on December 3, 2008 at 6:01 AM
Whew!
Terrye on December 3, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Heh. Saved my sticker too. Stealth election protocol was definitely in effect yesterday!
Yeah, I was hoping for campaign buttons along the lines of “I voted for the chicken sandwich“, similar to the ones in ‘91 saying “I voted for the crook“.
Who knows, maybe ol’ Zaxby will grow some Snickers next season now that his new 6-year term is assured. (Well, I can dream, can’t I?)
RD on December 3, 2008 at 6:30 AM
Complete agreement with SKYFOX @4:53 am
Anybody seriously think he went to all this trouble just to be Clinton v. 2.0?
dhimwit on December 3, 2008 at 6:44 AM
I agree with the suspension. Freedom of speech means that you can say things without fear of the gov’t agents coming to imprison you; it doesn’t mean that you cannot be fired for indiscreet comments. The NHL felt that the comments violated league policy, so they had the right to punish the player in charge.
Illinidiva on December 3, 2008 at 7:01 AM
And you seem to be unfamiliar with the recent history of the Republican party, which has demonstrated a complete inability to govern based on principle. Why would anyone buy that obstruction was based on principle, rather than partisanship, when no one trusts that Republicans in Congress even HAVE principles.
An assertion I’ve seen often here and in right wing media in general. And one I’ve yet to see backed up with any evidence.
But you’ve mischaracterized his goal. More to the point. The questions is not whether any Americans would like someone to obstruct Obama. A minority of Americans do. But a majority want to see what the guy can get done, he was elected to do things, “change” is the slogan remember? And my question was purely about what the GOP should do in this political climate. Not what individual Americans should do. Support or don’t support his policies, who cares.
Wait a minute. You did a cute little trick there. You borrowed the Limbaugh smear that Obama “disparages” the constitution for being a document of “negative” rights. And then you essentially AGREE with Obama because, no doubt, you are not an idiot and you recognize that describing it as a charter of “negative” rights merely means that the document frames civil liberties as a series of limits on government authority. The shall not do x or y. If you know that’s what Obama meant why must you assume he “disparages” the Constituion. What Obama argued is that, in his interpretation, the Constitution can also be used to guarantee rights in an affirmative sense. A right TO something, rather than a freedom FROM something. You may disagree, but it’s not an anti-constitutional view. It’s just not YOUR constitutional view.
As a progressive I sincerely hope the GOP follows this logic and continues to marginalize itself with the American people. Moving conservatism futher and further from the engines of power is a good thing.
I responded to you silly smear about the constitution above.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 7:32 AM
Note to Saxby Chambliss…… DO NOT cross the isle!! this crap about shamnesty and working with the dimocraps will get get you voted out the next time!!! This is why you had to have a run off election!!! ( off soap box)
grapeknutz on December 3, 2008 at 7:45 AM
Now, let’s see if the sheepish, pandering Republicans can muster the courage and unity to effectively challenge the leftist majority in the senate. I’m not optimistic.
rplat on December 3, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Bwahahahahaha! Do you honestly think that the typical Obama voter knows what a filibuster is?
Is this the kind of action you’re hoping for? No doubt Michigander David Bonior, member of Democrat Socialists For America and newly appointed member of Obama’s Economic Transition Team, is all too happy to assist.
Buy Danish on December 3, 2008 at 8:04 AM
McCain will be #60 when the major issues come up like amnesty, judges, etc.
angryed on December 3, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Ultimately this is a good thing that Chambliss won. It raises Palin’s profile which makes her more likely to get the nod in 2012 where she’ll lose by margins Walter Mondale couldn’t even dream of.
Typhonsentra on December 3, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Typhonsentra on December 3, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Well, thank you, Nostradamus. I am sure you have seen the poll where Sarah is listed as the favorite among possible Republican Candidates. Where’s your proof that she will crash and burn? How do you know?
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Thank you Georgia!
For whatever reason you did it, you may have preserved the nation. The vitriol of the left when they don’t get their way makes it increasingly obvious why we can’t allow them unlimited power. They are crazy, and things in this country are already too crazy. A one party government led by a bunch of people who hate the confines of the Constitution, disparage every tradition and belief that calls for reason and moderation in life, and who despise the idea that free men should live for their own sake and not for the sake of the government; that is what the good people of Georgia have averted.
At least for the moment. I pray that the rest of our country is capable of seeing the truth about the left before the next election cycle. If so we will owe our saving to Georgia. The people of Minnesota seem to have lost their opportunity for saving the union, because they are having a harder time deciding if they believe in truth or prefer dishonesty.
MikeA on December 3, 2008 at 8:30 AM
As you know from the howling of the left, Obama’s economic transition team is ideologically balanced. Indeed, the most powerful positions are held by centrists. Of course there are some far leftists involved, that’s part of his coalition and it’s part of the electorate. But they are inputing on policy not controlling policy. I just think that conservatives can never hope to win if all they do is have negative things to say about far leftists. That’s just not working anymore as a slogan.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Woo Hoo!
mindhacker on December 3, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Leave it to AP to spin a good news story into a Debbie Downer…sheez!
MechEng5by5 on December 3, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Exactly right. I must remind everyone that it is going to take EVERY tactic in the book to keep the US from sliding into the abyss of obscurity and worse. Chambliss may not be perfect in any stretch, but he is not THAT tone deaf politically. You want proof?
He called upon our gal Sarah to bring home the base. Which I am sure contributed to the win. ;-)
Let us now end this talk about how she was a drag to the national ticket.
itzWicks on December 3, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Uh, maybe a little bit of logic here.. (1) Obama himself has repeatedly said he admires socialism/marxism (2) Marxism/Maosism/Socialism are not known for individual rights.
Here’s a little list for you
1. Obama said he ’sought out marxist professors’
2. Obama’s mentor was the pedo Frank Marshall Davis
3. He launched his political career in the home of Marxist/Maoist William “the bomber” ayers
4. I don’t consider forced community service (his ‘young pioneers’ crud to be supportive of individuality
5. He voted against protecting homeowners who use a firearm to defend themselves and their family
6. He publically stated he want’s to “spread the wealth around”. Hey deathtomediahacks.. Whip out your communist manifesto and borrow someone’s copy of the Federalist Papers and Constitution.. Which one has “Spread the wealth around” in it.
7. His general stance on increasing taxes.. He wants to confiscate money that people earned and redistribute it. IOW, punish individual effort and use that money to buy votes.
8. He is for removing the rights of workers to vote in a secret ballot. IOW, the union thugs will be able to make you vote in their presence.. Yep, that is really for individual rights ….
Thank God that Saxby won.
bullseye on December 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM
It is terrific to have our side win a battle like this. Thank you very much Ted Stevens you old depository for hanging on long enough to lose a sure Republican seat.
Hilts on December 3, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Saxby Chambliss (with Sarah Palin coming out of the bullpen) just threw a 3 hit shut out against the Democrats. We are back on the board!
Hilts on December 3, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Palin is the anti-Jonathon Broxton
joey24007 on December 3, 2008 at 9:34 AM
The One cares only for himself. Don’t look for him putting ouch much effort to help anyone else.
pseudonominus on December 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM
OMG. How dare Barack Obama demonstrate intellectual curiosity while at an institution of higher learning. I mean, how DARE he. This isn’t America. You can’t pursue something intellectually in your 20s and then accept people to believe that in your late 40s you may think differently about it than you did while in college? Once you read a book with the work “Marx” on it you are tainted for life. That’s it.
I’m sorry but that is what you’re advocating here. So the man sought out Marxist professors. No one who he has appointed to any position thus far could be described as anything CLOSE to a marxist. Obama ran to the right of Clinton on healthcare and education during the primary. He has been running on a centrist message since then and clearly his cabinet picks represent a diversity of opinion, from the right to the left. It’s EXACTLY what he said he was going to do. Why is that less important than what classes he took as an undergrad?
Um, are you kidding? Are you claiming Obama knew Frank Marshall Davis was a pedophile when he was a child? Is the claim that Obama was indoctrinated into communism by Frank Marshall Davis. Is there a shred of evidence to any of that? What was the nature of the “mentorship”.
So? And I’m not saying so about William Ayers, guys a douche. Obama may have attended a dinner at Ayers house. But Obama’s political career was borne out of his own work and organizing. First for state senate, then in a failed congressional race in 2000 and then by clearing the table, Daley style, in more than one election. Is that “marxist”? Or just old school rough and tumble politics. William Ayers didn’t make Obama forge relationships with Emil Jones. William Ayers did not push Obama onto the stage at the 2004 convention and William Ayers did not right the speech that got the netroots excited about Obama. William Ayers didn’t fundraise, develop the grassroots organisation or, in any way, shape policy in what Obama proposed during the campaign. Here’s the big point. You MAY have an argument about judgement. But you’re trying to prove Obama IS a marxist. And that’s just not borne out by the Ayers connection.
Um well for one thing, no such law has been signed into law yet, so you need to pump your brakes.
That’s not a marxist vs. capitalist issue though.
I will conceede that his stance is more to the left of Republicans. But Obama is talking about an increase on the top 5% of three percent. Three. Percent. That’s no where near what tax rates where in the 60s and 70s. That’s exactly where they were under the Clinton Administration. Is HE a marxist too? You may think that tax increases are good or bad for the economy. But this isn’t a large tax increase, it’s a very small one, it’s not so far from the tax rate John McCain one supported. I’m not sure if you can call McCain right wing, but he’s no marxist.
Now about the “spread the wealth” quote itself. The U.S. has had a progressive tax system for a very long time. And while we have a lot of (bad) amateur historians here. Without the progressive tax rate it would have been impossible to fund the massive expansion of government that occured during and after World War II that saved the U.S. economy. You see, people are correct. The New Deal didn’t work initially. It took World War II in order to really save the U.S. economy. But WHY did World War II save the U.S. economy. Because the government spent unprecedented amounts of money to back the war effort which put. people. to. work. And it also engaged in a massive propaganda campaign encouraging Americans to save. save. save, to invest in America. And then after the war what happened? The U.S. government funded the creation of the national highway system, the U.S. government funded housing loans to create the suburbs, the U.S. government paid for college education for every veteran, the U.S. government subsidized college education in general, the U.S. government formed partnership with defense manufacturers and helped them to transition to dish washer manufacturers, the preservation of the American way of life was seen as the responsibility of the government.
The “free market” did not lead to the massive expansion in wealth after world war II. Direct government intervention in the economy did and we created stable growth because we built things, instead of just buying things. I find it hilarious that so called capitalists don’t actually know where American wealth came from.
How odd that a law which is SUPPORTED by workers will somehow “take workers rights away.” And the people who are against this law are not the people who would have their “rights taken away” rather it’s management. Which has suddenly become a worker’s rights advocacy group? I’m not that daft and I certainly hope that you are not that daft.
If a person signs a union membership card, then they want to be in a union.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Sweet gig.
Just vote no to all Dem bills and go play golf.
Good for him.
getalife on December 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM
“I love the smell of fresh napalm in the morning. It smells like . . . victory.” – Apocalypse Now
This Georgian is savoring today what may the sole bright spot for our party this year. I am proud of my state, and I was glad to have voted in this runoff election.
However, whether Saxby lives up to his conservative billing remains to be seen. I was not keen on his positions on immigration, his participation in the “Gang of 10″ on drilling, and his having voted for the bailout. But certainly I prefer Saxby to what would have been the alternative.
OneVision on December 3, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Your entire post was nothing but opinion; namely number 8. How you can spin taking away a person’s basic right to vote privately into something that’s beneficial to or desired by workers is beyond me. I guess you must have asked them all.
In non-union organizations a person should be able to keep private, or make known if they wish, their vote to unionize or not. That law would take that basic right away. If I voted no for the union and then the union passes, how would I then be received by the union? If it fails, how would I be received by my peers who voted for it and lost? If I vote in a unionized organization no to something the union supports, do I get blackballed? Prop 8 is a great example of how your life can be destroyed by thugs who know what you do or don’t support.
You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama.
hawkdriver on December 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Send letters and hold his feet to the fire. And good job down there.
hawkdriver on December 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Do you know how things work now? Unions get enough card signatures to unionize and then there must be a THREE MONTH period between that and the silent vote where management can doo all kinds of things like fire those who organized, intimidate workers who signed cards, etc. etc. The “secret ballot” protects management not workers. The law should be that if you sign the card and you are willing to say you signed the card, then you are in the union. Period. If enough people do that and publicaly say “I want a union” then the place should be unionized.
How is that a basic right again?
Why shouldn’t you be accountable for your own decisions? A union represents everyone the same.
Boo hoo.
You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama
DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM
No, the secret ballot and NLRB processes protect everyone involved. If you want to be unionized, there is a standardized process to follow. If you get the votes, you get a union. If you don’t want to be unionized, and enough vote “no,” you don’t get a union.
This “card check” mess takes away a basic protection of a secret ballot, to vote for or against a union without either management or unions finding out your stance unless you volunteer it publicly.
cs89 on December 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Hypothetically, the secret ballot protects the workers, not the management and the union. Card check, unlike the secret ballot, makes it clear who is for the unions and who is against the unions, so management and the organizers can intimidate people into voting a certain way. Ironically, only the unions are in favor of card check. This is because laws (as well as awful PR) prevents management from intimidating workers, threatening their jobs over their vote, etc. However, the unions are still allowed to intimidate away. The whole practice is a ploy to get more union dues and therefore more money for Dem. candidates.
You really have that little basic civic knowledge?? Let me try to explain… We live in this thing called a democracy, and one of the rights is to have your vote kept private. People expect this from everything from their Presidential ballot to their son’s vote for freshman class treasurer to be private, so others aren’t angered and intimidated by their votes.
So basically, you’d be okay with signing your name on your Presidential election ballot and then allowing your local county to keep it on record, so that everyone knows how you voted?? Because that is what we’re talking about.
Boo hoo.
You can’t explain away to rational people the lefist associations and leaning of Obama
Illinidiva on December 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Romney, Huckabee and Guiliani all campaigned for Chambliss last weekend. Polls afterwards showed Chambliss leading by 5 points.
Then Sarah came in Monday, and Chambliss won by 14 points on Tuesday.
Yeah, she was a HUGE benefit to Chambliss, and he is confirming it today.
Sarah is a star.
Norwegian on December 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM
It made sense for Obama to not go down to Georgia and campaign for Martin. Most people figured that Chambliss would win so why would Obama go down there and campaign for a losing candidate? It would take a little luster off his shine of invulnerability IMO.
MFn G I M P on December 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I agree, but isn’t that an example of a lack of political courage?
technopeasant on December 3, 2008 at 1:41 PM
when is the last time someone referred to Obama as being courageous?
MFn G I M P on December 3, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Never, but I can think of a time that a Democrat called him out as “not politically courageous.”
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Well, that’s a good idea. It’s amazing how quickly that “52 to 48″ feeling of tingly love and brotherhood and sisterhood evaporated, eh? Maybe a better idea would be a “From 42 to 57, with love” site, to keep up those good feelings.
ddrintn on December 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Actually, it must have been an agonizingly short evening for you when this didn’t materialize, eh? Sorry that your fluffy, stuffed Eeyore was kicked to the curb.
Sultry Beauty on December 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM
DeathToMH – You almost had me on a point or two, but then you wrote this:
Whoa – accountable to *whom*?? To an affiliation that doesn’t even *exist* at the time your decision was taken??
In case you failed to notice, your debate partner was referring to voting “no” *before* a union were set up at the workplace, not afterward. Covenants and responsibilities are important to most of us (I hope), but most of us consider ourselves accountable to only those entities that one is actually a part of. Until the union exists, the only accountability you have is to yourself and those institutions to which you already owe fealty. In fact, I’d venture to say that this is one of the reasons *why* there currently is a recognized right to secret ballot in union elections. (Just pointing that out, in case the connection was lost on you entirely…)
Or is there something else big I’m missing here? Please enlighten.
No, bingo.
“A union represents everyone the same” – you’d be wiser to stop parroting the party line and respond to the *actual points* brought up by your interlocutor. He just made it crystal clear that unions have engaged in a lot more than mere “representation”, including and not limited to intimidation, retaliation, discrimination, favoritism, nepotism, and other dangerous -ations and -isms. Anything to say about any of that, or is this particular individual right just not that interesting to you?
RD on December 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
In other words: Even if you held the belief that union bosses and members owed each other “full disclosure” or some such notion, until the union exists, it’s none of the union’s *business* who voted which way, as the union leadership has no basis whatsoever for presuming any disclosure rights, nor any grievances against those who voted “no”. Nor any entitlement whatsoever to any information that could be used against those voting “no”. (Though Hacks may disagree.)
RD on December 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Of course, there is also darn good reason to preserve secret ballot rights after one is a union member as well, but I could see more legitimate dissent with that proposal than I ever could with whatever abomination Mr./Ms. Hacks is suggesting, akin to implying you owe Nazi Germany a tipoff as to whether you want them to annex your country, with one well-guarded pillbox marked “Ja!” and the other one marked “Nein :(”…
RD on December 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
He wasn’t brave enough to go to Georgia.
Kerry now admits to being a liberal.
They are both simple political animals. Only Obama was able to dupe a few more million idiots.
Jamson64 on December 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
DeathToMediaHacks
Go back under the bridge, troll. There is a bigger goat Coming
Caststeel on December 3, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3