Charlie Baker (Rep. Candidate for Mass. Gov.) attacks unions

[louis c]

Maybe I'm too close to the action to understand, but i don't get the politics of this ad.

Massachusetts is one of the most unionized states in the nation (17%). Gov. Patrick has alienated many unions by introducing Education reform that eliminated collective bargaining is some instances, Transportation reform that did the same, de funding police step scale increases (Quinn Bill), allowing civilian flaggers instead of mandated police details and a failure of a casino bill (he was really for it, but it died at the last minute through a break down of negotiations between a Democratic Governor and a Democratic legislature).

Many unions were going to sit on their hands. Even in this ad, Patrick's Republican opponent, Charlie Baker shows Patrick thanking 41 unions for endorsing him on Labor Day. There's at least 400 in the state. The Mass. AFL-CIO was not going to endorse Patrick, they were so angry. Then Baker puts out this ad. In the fight is also a Democratic Treasurer running as an Indy (Tim Cahill). All the police unions are already with him.

In the Brown-Coakley fight, Brown won 52% to 47%. Union households broke 50%-50%. That included many government employees.

Here's what I don't get. Baker rallies every labor union in Massachusetts to Patrick by denouncing "union bosses". Charlie goes on to say that he will cut 5,000 state government employees' jobs. We have about 125,000 in Massachusetts. I bet Charlie could have got 40% to 50% of those votes. Now, he'll get 10%. After all, who would vote for someone who says he'll put your job on the chopping block. He united all the unions behind Patrick, because he insulted the very people that were neutralized. Please watch this 30 second spot and see if you agree.

By the way, being described as a union "Boss" is insulting to me. I have to run in an election with labor board oversight every 3 years. No bosses of any type have elections. They only answer to an owner. In this commercial, Deval Patrick became Governor by winning an election, Tim Cahill became Treasurer by winning an election and every labor leader won depicted in this ad won an election or was appointed by someone who won an election. The only "boss" in that commercial is Charlie Baker, who as CEO of an Insurance company, fired 1,500 workers, raised insurance rates and took a salary of a million and a half dollars a year.


Link to 30 second spot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrfvRCwPcj4

[IndianaJoe]

1. Let's all mail Charlie a copy of "The Jungle". n/t

[Mass]

3. Wait until election day for that.

[Mass]

2. I wont complain about this mistake of his.

I think he misread totally Brown's election and think that he is riding on the independent wave of people who complain about cronyism and state employees abuse, that CBS has so much pleasure describing. He is missing a part of the equation.

[county worker]

4. who would vote for someone who says he'll put your job on the chopping block

Then in the upcoming election no one should vote since both sides are for putting jobs on the chopping block.

This is the crux of the Dem enthusiasm problem. Dems are planning on doing the same as repubs so there is no support for them and no enthusiasm is generated.

If the Dems would say "we are going to raise taxes on the wealthy and save jobs there would be enthusiasm.

I contend that "middle of the road" is synonymous with "let's shrink the economy to only those who have jobs now and forget the unemployed, some day they will pass on."

[louis c]

5. There's a difference

Between supporting policies that probably will cost jobs. However, it's quite another to put in writing that "if I get elected, I'm going after your job".

it really takes all the thinking out of the equation.

[county worker]

8. I agree there is a difference in how the message is delivered but

the message is the same. Some how it is communicated to voters that jobs will be cut no matter who wins the election.

[AllieB]

6. Democrats have to run an ad showing Baker's salary as CEO increase 200%

at Harvard Pilgrim while costs for subscribers went up 150%. I think most people in Mass are more disgusted by overpaid big insurance CEOs than union members.

[MikeMc]

7. Thanks Louis.

Repugs are attacking unions nationwide to intimidate us before the election.

[louis c]

11. It won't work here (NT)

[MikeMc]

12. Saw your sig line. I'm IBEW 5, Pgh. Nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. Baker's no fool. There's no political down side to this.

Unions get savaged here routinely. What do you suppose it's like outside the confines of a place called "Democratic Underground"? In thirty years, membership in one will not only be unheard of, it'll be illegal.

[louis c]

10. We'll see

When the pendulum swings back. When we really try to be a European style Social Democracy, we'll be at 40% union density again. I may not see it in my lifetime, but it's the only way a real Democracy can survive.

Germany, England, Spain, France, Italy, Denmark, Norway, even Canada.

Even these nit-wit tea baggers will see the light sooner or later. The poorer we get as a Nation, the more the average American will need the Government and a union. It may seem quite dark today, but in a few years, they'll be a difference, and it will be remarkable.

All the demographics are in the favor of left leaning voters. Woman, minorities, left leaning younger generations (especially in social freedoms)