Maddow: Democrats can’t win without the unions

posted at 10:01 am on June 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Actually, I don’t disagree with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on this point, but I do disagree with her on what it means.  Maddow argues that efforts to roll back collective bargaining privileges for unions — which she defines too broadly — means that unions will have less cash to spend on political activism, and that without the influx of that cash, Democrats simply can’t compete.  But Maddow blames that on the reforms when she should be blaming it on the Democrats themselves:

“The Wisconsin Republicans, under Scott Walker, were using public policy to essentially dismantle public sector unions in Wisconsin. And that — however you feel about union rights in the country — it had one very practical, partisan effect, which is that the unions had been big supporters of Democratic candidates and Democratic causes and had had a lot to do with the Democratic ground game. So if they go away — in terms of whether or not that corporate money that’s disproportionately supporting Republicans can be answered — at least on the Democratic side, before there is some kind of reform, Democrats do not have a way to compete in terms of big outside money in elections. And that is the reality now in Wisconsin. It is the reality in states where they have essentially eliminated unions rights.”

“I think,” Maddow added, “structurally, that’s a pretty dire electoral situation for Democrats.”

Democrats have every opportunity to raise the same kind of cash that Republicans do.  There are no industry assignments for donors to parties.  Barack Obama is in the middle of a two-day trip to raise $15 million in California, mainly from the entertainment industry, for instance.  Democrats have launched super-PACs and have their own sugar daddies like George Soros and Warren Buffett to match the Koch Brothers.

The problem for Democrats is that they have become the party of the public-employee unions, and therefore the party of institutionalized and unaccountable bureaucracies.  Maddow defines union reform too broadly; the reform in Wisconsin, for instance, dealt entirely with public-employee unions, not private-sector unions, and didn’t even include all PEUs.  Furthermore, the money raised by Republicans (and Democrats in other contexts) are entirely voluntary. Until Act 10 took effect in Wisconsin, the state seized dues on behalf of the unions whether employees wanted to fund the political efforts of the unions or not, which the unions then used to elect politicians that would keep enforcing those seizures.  Doesn’t Maddow have even a twinge of shame to see the vast exodus from the union membership after Act 10, which demonstrates that the only reason the “donations” for their political efforts was by force?

Democrats made the choice to become the party of institutionalized and unaccountable bureaucracy; in Wisconsin, they practically adopted that as a motto in the recall election.  They are now only beginning to realize that the public is fed up with the costs and gross inefficiencies of government at all levels, and especially of the sick relationship between PEUs and the politicians they help election.  In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I call this a watershed moment for the public-sector union movement:

Immediately, complaints arose over a disparity in financing between the two candidates in the recall election as an excuse for the unions’ failure.  Scott Walker raised a huge amount of money, a good portion from outside of Wisconsin, while Democrats and the unions circulated recall petitions.  However, the unions spent millions of dollars to get the recall election in the first place, and then provided a large boost to Barrett in organizing and GOTV efforts.  Those actually succeeded – turnout was high in Democratic areas – but Walker’s GOTV outpaced the union efforts as voters thundered to the polls to support the governor and his PEU reforms.

That is a bad sign for labor, with its modern reliance on organizing in the public sector.  Walker pulled back the green curtain on the unhealthy relationship between PEUs and politicians, which creates an accountability gap on spending and an obstacle to efficiency in government.  Instead of taxpayers controlling the size of government, the PEUs ensure that they control policy, mainly by forcing the state to fund political operations, through mandatory state-collected dues and ridiculously overpriced benefits from union-owned providers, such as the WEAC Trust in Wisconsin prior to the Act 10 reforms.

So yes, I agree with Maddow that Democrats can’t compete in the future with the kind of funding disparity that results when unions can no longer seize parts of workers’ paychecks without asking.  But Democrats can’t compete because of their alliance with these union bosses and the sclerotic, entrenched bureaucracies they spawn and grow.  If Democrats really want to compete, they need a reality check with actual voters rather than kissing the rings of Big Labor.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

I think I would grow up dysfunctional too if my parents gave me a girls name.

NotCoach on June 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Where did this dude come from?

tom daschle concerned on June 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Get used to the losing, Mr. Maddow.

JammieWearingFool on June 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Good! Wisconsin should be the model all across the United States!

CH on June 7, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Furthermore, the money raised by Republicans (and Democrats in other contexts) are entirely voluntary. Until Act 10 took effect in Wisconsin, the state seized dues on behalf of the unions whether employees wanted to fund the political efforts of the unions or not, which the unions then used to elect politicians that would keep enforcing those seizures.

Exactly.

On an individual liberty level, the forced seizure of cash to support a given political party is dangerous and offensive.

CorporatePiggy on June 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The union workers could always voluntarily write their dem candidate a check. Good luck with that.

msupertas on June 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Look at the picture of Maddow. There’s also a silly commercial for wind power she’s on. Now go look at pictures of Will Wheaton in “Stand By Me”. Seperated at birth? You be the judge

Minnfidel on June 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Alternate headline: Parasites Can’t Live Without Hosts.

The Count on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The light dawns, the fog lifts. The money laundering cycle of union dues to left wing campaign coffers to taxpayer money going to unions is what keeps these statists in power. It is starting to dry up.

Christian Conservative on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

For decades, the unions had a monopoly on the ability to buy elections. Now, after Citizens United, they still have the ability to spend as much money as they want, but there are now others who can do it too, and they have much more money than the unions.

This is the complaint we’re hearing. And unions know their days as a political force are numbered. And its a double-digit number.

BobMbx on June 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Aw.

What will the Democrats do now that they can’t force the public to subsidize their campaigns and political activities?

Poor babies.

Good Lt on June 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Now that workers can choose to be in a union and are leaving them in droves speaks volumes.

HotAirian on June 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Maybe Ms. Maddow could explain how it is possible for a public employee union to “bargain” with a politician that it just had hand in electing?

That is not “collective bargaining” – it is collusion.

SubmarineDoc on June 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Excellent post Ed.

ButterflyDragon on June 7, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Hmmm, agreeing with Rachel Maddow on anything is kinda bizarre (even if she happens to be right for all the wrong reasons.) Aren’t you worried you’ll get “madcow” disease by association, Ed?

Webrider on June 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Does it ever occur these idiot dems that having actual ideas that they can articulate may serve them? For the last several cycles they have refused to debate, lied about their agendas, in the case of Obama completely hid his background. These folks need to be set so far back in the process of governing we forget their names.

DanMan on June 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM

With all the dough the unionistas are saving in dues, maybe they should redirect it to the DNC.

antipc on June 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The problem for Democrats is that they have become the party of the public-employee unions, and therefore the party of institutionalized and unaccountable bureaucracies.

They’re the party of dependency. Well what happens when you rely on people dependent on government handouts(both of the crony capitalist and welfare variety) to contribute to your campaigns after the well runs dry? You wind up having a lot of trouble raising money.

Doughboy on June 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Public image and publicity

Maddow has been profiled in People,[37] the Guardian,[38] and the New York Observer,[39] has appeared on “The View” and “Charlie Rose”[40]

Keith Olbermann played a pivotal role in Maddow’s hiring at MSNBC. Olbermann was able to pressure Phil Griffin to give Maddow Dan Abram’s slot. A fan of Maddow’s, Olbermann was able to use his influence, which had become greater as his ratings rose.[41]

Oh dear…

tom daschle concerned on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Barbie in Toy Story 3 One of many things I liked about “Toy Story 3″ was Barbie’s line:

“Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!”

For the first time in the 21st century, it took an animated character, a fictional animated doll, to make Hollywood’s case for freedom and democracy (in this case, for toys).

J_Crater on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

i beleive her friends call her paul.

look when 20% of the population is feeding off the iother 80%, over time the 20% are going to lose. its always about math.

t8stlikchkn on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

If unions are for the protection of the worker from their evil employers, isn’t supporting public sector unions an admission that the government is evil?

Flange on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Oh cmon! Thats horseshit and you know it!

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Months ago Jonah Goldberg wrote a great piece on how Kennedy legalized public unions solely to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats. Google it. The country and states have been racing towards insolvency for the past 30 years as a result. Time for the democrats to adjust their focus so we can be adults and address our deficits.

Bensonofben on June 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Oh cmon! Thats horseshit and you know it!

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Are you saying she’s been rode hard and put up wet?

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES. NITE, JUNE 05 2012

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,108,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,973,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,802,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,441,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,147,000
FOXNEWS FIVE 1,590,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,516,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,256,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,226,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,119,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 790,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 771,000
CNN COOPER 630,000
CNN MORGAN 591,000

via Drudge

Flange on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Has anyone calculated the estimated savings if Romney were to enact the same changes that Walker made onto all federal workers?

chromium on June 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

…she truly is a MAD COW!

KOOLAID2 on June 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM

The other thing to remember here is that the unions not only didn’t win in Tuesday’s recall — they couldn’t even win within their own primary last month, since Barrett wasn’t their choice to face Walker, Kathleen Falk was.

Republican voters turned out huge for Walker on primary night, so this wasn’t a matter of crossover voters a la Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” efforts of 2008, it was Democats rejecting the union’s hand-picked candidate to face Walker. With a situation like that, the unions and their supporters probably need to be a little more introspective than to just whine about being outspent by Republicans, but if Maddow knows any better, she’s certainly not going to risk telling her MSNBC views and become the target of their latest “shoot the messenger” tirades.

jon1979 on June 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

With the tough economical climate, I would surmise it is an easy decision to bow out of union membership. “Honey, should I continue to spend cash so the union boss can tell me who to vote for or should I save the cash, fly to Cancun and we decide who we want to vote for”…libtards–earning that title every day…

hillsoftx on June 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Are you saying she’s been rode hard and put up wet?

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

No, Im saying that you clearly put the cart before the horse!

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Romney can’t enforce the same rules as federal workers can’t unionize.

Bensonofben on June 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

The problem for Democrats is that they have become the party of the public-employee unions, and therefore the party of institutionalized and unaccountable bureaucracies.
They’re the party of dependency. Well what happens when you rely on people dependent on government handouts(both of the crony capitalist and welfare variety) to contribute to your campaigns after the well runs dry? You wind up having a lot of trouble raising money.

Doughboy on June 7, 2012 at 10:13 AM

We have a 2 party system, and one of the parties is no longer accountable to the people – they are accountable to the unions.

Bouncing Beatnik on June 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I think I would grow up dysfunctional too if my parents gave me a girls name.

NotCoach on June 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Would you rather be a woman named Stanley?

The Rogue Tomato on June 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Are you saying she’s been rode hard and put up wet?

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM
No, Im saying that you clearly put the cart before the horse!

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:20 AM

You have to admit, SJP has some horsesense, backing Barry.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Are you saying she’s been rode hard and put up wet?

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

This thread has nothing to do with Barney Frank.

CorporatePiggy on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Why is she so upset? Larry O’Donnel said that the Wisconsin vote was a BIG win for Obama. Then why so many long faces?

Bensonofben on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Actually, from the union rolls statistics in Wisconsin it sounds like unions will just “go away” if people aren’t forced to join them in the first place. It’s science.

JeremiahJohnson on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Flange on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So essentially, 16.5 million viewers watching FOX vs. 8 million watching Obama porn…there is a conclusion there somewhere…

hillsoftx on June 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM

No lies, no corruption, no democrats? Who knew? Well, a lot of people actually.

Speakup on June 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Would you rather be a woman named Stanley?

The Rogue Tomato on June 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM

If a woman is hot, you could name her “Bruiser” and no one would care.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You have to admit, SJP has some horsesense, backing Barry.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Well, nothing so bold as a blind mare!

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I like the analogy of Wisconsin to Stalingrad.

Just waiting for Field Marshall Axelrod to surrender his baton.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Why is it that Maddow and her ilk always equate giving someone a CHOICE as to whether or not to join a union (and thus fund the campaigns of Democrats with their hard earned dollars) with “dismantling” or “destroying” unions? If they lose influence via an outflow in membership can’t she figure out that they must not having been very effective in representing the DIVERSITY of their members? In fact the only thing the public employee unions have been effective at is raising money for the Democrats and making sure inner city kids get a crappy education.

mxt on June 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

So, Maddow believes that people should be forced to give money to unions, forced to join unions, and forced to agree to union contracts, in order to keep a group of elitist liberals in power.

Welcome to the liberal’s concept of freedom.

hawksruleva on June 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Maddow appears to be smart, but in fact she is dumb as a stump because she has allowed herself to be hopelessly brainwashed. The unions have obviously been engaged in a shakedown racket on municipalities that were facilitated by democrat politicians that needed their vote.

A symbiotic scheme to soak the taxpayers resulted, and the greed just kept on growing until we got to where we are today. Fortunately, the bill paying tax payers are beginning to wake up and dismantle the abusing g alliance.

The vote farming operation run by the democrats is pricing it’s way out of business and the taxpayers hace had enough.

saiga on June 7, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Great post , Ed. You are correct, the dems don’t understand that people are fed up with THEM and their union thugs.

dogsoldier on June 7, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Alternate Headline: The plantation can’t continue to function without slaves.

ansonia on June 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM

That sure is a severe-looking gentleman in that picture.
Oh…never mind.

kingsjester on June 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM

http://comehithernow.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/the-value-of-bodies/

I’d hit it

Bensonofben on June 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Looks the the girl I took to the prom . . .

Wait, is that what happened to her?

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That’s one ugly dude.

JihadKiller1s1k on June 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Here’s a thought…

Rather than counting on the Marxists idea of appealing (and needing) groups of people to gain power, what about good old fashion ideas to win the masses over?

Clearly my statement answers itself.

katy on June 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Same arguments made here.Because the Democrats have had to let the PEOs set their agenda, no new compelling ideas have been forthcoming on how to make government more efficient, productive or responsive. The unions have stripped them of any ability to improve their idea of utopia, so it might look more appealing to the taxpayers who fund it. So,..they lose.

a capella on June 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I see what you did there.

nukemhill on June 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM

jon1979 on June 7, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Amen. More people on our side need to call out the Dems on this crybaby bullsh!t of “being outspent 7 to 1″. Clearly they’re not counting all the money the unions spent forcing the recall, bussing in the trouble makers that trashed the state capitol, and then waging an unsuccessful primary battle against Barrett.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Cool it, you two. While I can’t stand her politics, I rather liked her work in War Horse, Secretariat, and Seabiscuit.

JimLennon on June 7, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If the Donks need the union vote to get elected, they don’t deserve to be elected. No party should rely on a government-enforced, extortionist monopoly.

njcommuter on June 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I see…… Madcow….don’t mind Money in Politics….. just as long as it’s Democrats that get it…..ahhhhhhhhh

she ain’t bothered by da thuggery…..just as long as her guy is do’n da loot’n

roflmao

donabernathy on June 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Unions: Democrats can’t win with ‘em, can’t win without ‘em. Ergo, Democrats can’t win. That’s a thought to send a Matthews up your leg and put a Brooks in your pants. Ew.

curved space on June 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Looks like they can’t win with them either. :D

29Victor on June 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Love the cover photo…I’m sure that’s TAPE on his glasses.

blowing smoke on June 7, 2012 at 10:38 AM

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES. NITE, JUNE 05 2012

Flange on June 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Unfortunately, CABLE news race does not include the viewers of CBS, PBS, NBS and ABS. Suspect their lamestream totals exceed Fox. We’re still under a propaganda media.

Christian Conservative on June 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Your first mistake is assuming Maddow has something intelligent to say.

She has no special insight or expertise in these matters. Ms. Maddow is just another face that trumpets whatever thoughtless tropes are handed to her on the talking points sheet. Accordingly, what passes for “analysis” is simply very topical assumptions resulting from both a lack of intellectual insight and real facts.

With dropping union membership and dues, will unions have less to spend on political activities? Yes, actually my dog figured that out. It didn’t really take some type of Socratic insight.

Will the aforementioned translate into less cash, this cycle, as union see the coming storm? That’s yet to be determined and it would be foolish to count on it.

Marcus Traianus on June 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The problem for Democrats is that they have become the party of the public-employee unions, and therefore the party of institutionalized and unaccountable bureaucracies.

It’s not the only example, but a good one–California is now run by its public employees thru the Democrat Party. Yes, I know San Diego and San Jose “turned right”, but LA, San Fran, Sacramento and state government won’t follow. They can’t even scrap Jerry Brown’s 1970′s wet dream, the Bullet Train because unions don’t care how much debt you accrue throwing money down a hole as long as they have someone in that pit to collect it. Off the record,Gov. Schwarzenegger would relate how many Democratic legislators would admit to him that, yes, they knew the borrowing and spending couldn’t be sustained but the PEUs told them in no uncertain terms if they tried to do anything about it, they would be replaced. They see a federal bailout as the only way out eventually, and if that happens, then we are just enablers.

cartooner on June 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM

If union members are paying less in dues, then that frees them up to contribute more money directly to Democrats, which should actually reduce the a step of the process and ultimately give the Democrats more money, I would think.

…assuming, of course, that union members intended their money to go towards Democratic political purposes.

So, what’s the problem?

BlueCollarAstronaut on June 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I think I would grow up dysfunctional too if my parents gave me a girls name.

NotCoach on June 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Although Vivian was, in my opinion the most entertaining character in The Young Ones he would indeed fall into the category of “dysfunctional”. So far your theory stands.

rihar on June 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Doesn’t Maddow have even a twinge of shame . . . ?

This is a rhetorical question, I take it.

If Madcow likes socialism so much, she can just move to England and stay there the rest of her life.

I’m still chuckling over the PMSNBC clip that Allah posted on the Walker recall thread where Madcow looked and sounded like she would burst into sobs at any second.

MisterElephant on June 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Shorter version: Democrats can’t compete without public union dues confiscating money from taxpayers to buy votes from people already on the public teat.

johnboy on June 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I was kinda hoping I’d win the Obama dinner with her until I heard they’d be serving organic hay, which tastes a little bland for my tastes.

TXUS on June 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I think the Democrat party has outlived its usefulness in representing the American people and should go the way of the dinosaur. It will be fun watching their coffers dry up and their candidates lose against an onslaught of patriotic political contributions and motivated right-wing grassroots activists.

The end is nigh, Democrats. The end is nigh.

Punchenko on June 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Doesn’t Maddow have even a twinge of shame to see the vast exodus from the union membership after Act 10, which demonstrates that the only reason the “donations” for their political efforts was by force?

A liberal feel shame? C’mon, Ed.

Anyway, she would just tell you that the exodus from the unions are by people who aren’t smart enough to how great the unions are for them.

Bitter Clinger on June 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Sure wish someone would of asked either of them….. Since you two seem to thing GubRmint is so benevolent. WHY do ya think people that work for it need a UNION in the first place?

Hummmmmmmmmmmm

roflmao

donabernathy on June 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM

So Maddow finally seems to be coming to the realization that the Democratic Party is merely an amalgamation of special interest groups instead of an actual party. She also has finally realized how corrupt the unions are, and how dependent the Democrats are on all this money being forcibly confiscated from union members and used to pay off Democratic politicians. Awesome, now we’re actually getting somewhere.

eyedoc on June 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

What Walker actually did was take two legs off the union ‘three-legged stool’ – coercion (mandatory dues collection) and extortion (collective bargaining beyond wages). Both cost the unions huge sums of money. Without coercion – ‘members’ can now choose to pay their dues and without extortion – school districts can now negotiate for healthcare services outside of the WEAC slush fund.

The only way to keep a one-legged stool up – is to spin it like a top. Hence – progressives are spinning like crazy. Don’t watch too closely or you risk Mayor Booker’s malady – nausea.

NeoDawg on June 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Ed,
You may be wrong a bit yourself when you say “Walker’s GOTV outpaced the union efforts “. It is also possible that Republican turnout was high because The People are awaking to the problem of PEUs, not due to Walker’s GOTV effort. Republican turnout was very high for recall primary, where Walker was essentially unopposed. That sound like real passion to me. Milton Friedman said: a crisis is the point where the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable. We are nearing that crisis point, I believe.

fastphil on June 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM

So Maddow is admitting that Big Labor is funneling funds in for dem elections.

MeatHeadinCA on June 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Maddow admits Dems can’t win elections without twice-confiscated money (once from the taxpayers, then again from union members).

How sad for them.

Missy on June 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The union workers could always voluntarily write their dem candidate a check. Good luck with that.

msupertas on June 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

No need, the union ‘leadership’ will just collect your MONTHLY dues and send a portion of THAT to the Democrat politician of THEIR choice because they know what’s best for them… errr, ‘you’… this ensures passive ‘compliance’ on your part, whether you want to contribute or not…

Khun Joe on June 7, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Of course not. Their message is so morally and fiscally bankrupt that they need the PS union thugs to make sure we dumb hicks on the right feel too afraid not to march in lock-step with the left. Sickening.

totherightofthem on June 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM
I was kinda hoping I’d win the Obama dinner with her until I heard they’d be serving organic hay, which tastes a little bland for my tastes.

TXUS on June 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You can lead a horse to water . . .

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Walker out spent 7:1 unless you couont the union $. Money from out side WI, simply tell the thugs the entire nation is tired of public employee union extorsion and crony support for lib politicians. I hope the libs continue to ignore the mesage of WI and get wipped out in November.

StevC on June 7, 2012 at 10:50 AM

“We can’t win without the support our corrupt parasite criminal organizations who force the public to overpay for poor service.”

Well then, maybe you shouldn’t win then.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM

How pathetic! That’s like saying Republicans can’t win without the influence of Faux News.

If Dems need their unions to win elections, that would mean the party is so sad it’s time to scrap it and start over.

MelonCollie on June 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM

HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI COMBINED!

Obama & DNC raised $60 MILLION in May.

Romney & RNC raised $76.8 MILLION in May.

https://twitter.com/finnygo/statuses/210741520813391872

PLUS, (repeating for some), documents PROVE Obama joined the SOCIALIST “New Party” on 11 January 1996 despite his repeated denials.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

Resist We Much on June 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Valkyriepundit on June 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

.
Those horse jokes just never get old!
.
On topic, I don’t think Maddow could speak if someone tied her hands behind her back. It would be almost as frustrating for her as to hear a man speak.

ExpressoBold on June 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Someone with legal and/or political background please enlighten me: under Citizens United, is there a technical limit to money that a union can transfer from state to state, or to federal campaigns? Namely, cannot California PEU’s just quadruple their salaries via collective bargain “agreement”, ram the increase down the locals’ throat, collect the difference as dues, and bankroll Ogabe’s reelection so he would bail the ruined state out by royal edict executive order later?

Archivarix on June 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Doesn’t Maddow have even a twinge of shame….

LOL! That was funny, Ed.

William Teach on June 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You just had to trot that one out.

roy_batty on June 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM

lifelong registered “R” living in the home of the rino sisters. Top that off, I am a 12 year vet of state gov who absolutely hates forced contribution. Though it could be slicing my own neck, come on LePage, man up and lets get out Act 10 together!!

screwauger on June 7, 2012 at 11:03 AM

A real knee-slapper is when the contract for rebuilding the Oakland Bay Bridge that Japanese workers were going to be doing the job because unions in the San Francisco Bay area were just too costly to do business with. Same here with the extension of the DC metro out to Dulles Airport. Funding agreement tied up by Virginia’s refusal to let only union contractors work on the construction because the costs are too prohibitive and Virginia is a right-to-work state.

I really blame the union bosses (who really scam the membership) for this as well as any legislator at the city, state, and local levels who let the government become the bagmen for the unions. As Wisconsin, and by Exec Order in Indiana), once you force the unions to collect the dues directly, who get a whole different effect!

Bob in VA on June 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I think it’s a bit unfair to saddle her with that responsibility.

Ampersand on June 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Yeah, she’s right. I just can’t believe she actually said it because it exposes the truth about how the party that claims to protect our freedoms actually promotes, allows and colludes with union extortion and misappropriation of funds. Gotta wonder about the lack of morals and ethics of people who even think, much less actually say, this kind of thing is okay.

stukinIL4now on June 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Sarah Jessica Parker will just have to pony up to make the difference.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 10:08 AM
I think it’s a bit unfair to saddle her with that responsibility.

Ampersand on June 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM

C’mon, that woman has a TON of horsepower.

NoDonkey on June 7, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I always wondered what happened to Mitch Taylor. Now I see he is an MSNBC host. Good for him.

cyclown on June 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Maddow: Democrats can’t win without the unions.

What she meant to say, but doesn’t realise it is this:

“Democrats can’t win without forcing people to join unions and pay dues, which union thugs can then use to buy Democrat politicians, who will push through progressive policies that would never pass without the muscle, money, and threats of the union thugs, who will then be rewarded by the Democrat politicians. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Rule #3:

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.

Resist We Much on June 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Are these people so incredibly full of themselves or what?

After the Wisconsin election, the reason they will now get less money for their campaigns appears to crystallize right before their eyes in this “watershed” moment yet they just don’t see it. They realize they can’t get enough money to run elections w/out union money, and though they explore the issue, evidently there is no conclusion that includes, “because Americans want something else”!

Is this thick headed, sociopathic, delusion of grandeur? Who are these people? They graduate from famous schools, well healed backgrounds and yet they just can’t compute an easy answer. Americans don’t want what you want! sheesh!

beselfish on June 7, 2012 at 11:23 AM

The country is divided, just about into two halves.

The dependent class, who receive some sort of government benefit, or a makework job in government; The unions, who have ties to social movements that are more left than right (like, not policemen and firemen,); and the elites who view government largess as proper charity, and don’t give from their own cash, they want government to clean it up, and they want government to enforce their politically correct world view.

The other 50% is everyone else, tea partiers, republicans, conservatives and normal people. As we find in WI, some of the normal people are caught up in a union identity that they don’t believe in, and they feel screwed. Police and firemen have often sided with conservatives, because the liberals are always stabbing them in the back with the next thing some lawyer wants and gets a huge sum of money for coming up with.

Rachel Maddow is not pleasant to watch on tv, I really don’t like her voice, did she come from somewhere outside the media? Not a face for tv, and not a voice for radio. I know we all get what we get, I just wonder how she got there, when so many others seem talented.

Fleuries on June 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2