Bill Clinton makes it official: labor unions, who once supported him, are the "enemy"

[brentspeak]

President NAFTA aka President Wall Street Deregulation, while campaigning for Walmart Blanche Lincoln:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/28/bill-clinton-praises-lincoln-claims-unions-trying-to-manipulate-voters-to-%e2%80%98terrify%e2%80%9d-dems/

And, using very harsh words, Clinton accused national labor unions campaigning for Lincoln’s opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, of trying to manipulate Arkansas voters to “terrify” other Democrats in Congress into cowering to union demands.

snip

Reading from a Washington Post article that quoted a national labor union leader saying that forcing Lincoln to “fight this kind of fight” might make other senators “think twice about it,” Clinton said that national labor unions had decided to make Lincoln “the poster child for what happens when a Democrat crosses them.”

“In other words, this is about using you and manipulating your votes to terrify members of Congress and members of the Senate from other states,” Clinton told the crowd. “Now if you want to be used that way, have at it.”

The 42nd president continued to rip labor unions, which have largely supported him in the past.

Clinton, still pouring dirt on the graves of the American middle class he helped the Republicans destroy.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. LOL!

Simply amazing!

Clinton's words would have you believe that labor unions are dastardly and manipulative by engaging in politics to benefit their members while he completely ignores the vast armies of corporate special interests and lobbyists that have engaged in far worse campaigns designed to scare Senators from crossing them. His statement is so wildly out of proportion with the reality of our corporately dominated political landscape that he simply appears to be just another well paid carnival barker for big industry and Wall Street. HE has clearly shown his stripes with this latest bit of nonsense.

[Peregrine Took]

2. Was, is and will always be a "zero" with me. Never could stand him.

And never more than in his current weird ex-president who won't go away status.

[niceypoo]

3. One of the greatest presidents in US history

Love him or hate him

[ShortnFiery]

11. Yes, he made massive gains in deregulation and helped create an historical gap between ...

the super-rich and abject poor.

Yeah, that's "great." :eyes:

[Cleobulus]

24. He was, to put it simply, charmed by the timing of his Presidency...

It was relatively smooth, with no huge crises, economic or otherwise, and he was able to govern without the need to actually do much that would disrupt this in his time in office. We are now paying for that.

[pscot]

29. That is a bizarre take

on a presidency that was a mixed blessing at best. I voted for him twice, but have no illusions about his qualities as a man or as presaident.

[niceypoo]

50. Kosovo, Bosnia

1993 jobs plan/22 million jobs. Taxing the rich. Fiscal responsibility. Yeah, really bizarre stuff.

[pscot]

63. He was a mixed bag

He was far better at government than Bush 2, but when the ship is headed for the rocks, a captain who gets you there efficiently isn't doing you any favors. And the groundwork for the financial crisis was laid by Clinton and Robert Rubin.

[wolfgangmo]

54. Just like Reagan.

When did America start electing the best bullshitter for 400 Alex.

I'm going to vote for 1776.

[bvar22]

55. Correction: The Greatest Republican President .

However, his undisputed title to Greatest Republican President is now in jeopardy.
It won't be near as much fun being 2nd greatest Republican President.

[wyldwolf]

4. What does that make President Obama, who is also supporting Lincoln?

[Vincardog]

5. That makes them both DINO New Dems and worthless embarrassments to progressives everywhere

[wyldwolf]

7. ok, your position is clear. Glad to see you're on record with it.

I don't have a horse in this race. Lincoln and Halter and pretty much the same, policy wise.

[Vincardog]

10. My position has not changed since I opposed the Big Dawg on NAFTA. That is the nice thing about

principles, they keep you consistent

[Pakman]

12. Are you aware that economists say NAFTA added jobs?

According to economic studies cited by Factcheck.org? http://factcheck.org/2010/05/naftacafta-blame-game/

[AllentownJake]

18. Same economist who never saw the financial crisis is my guess

I can make a statistic say anything I want it to, I'm gifted like that...at the end of the day there is the truth.

Are we better off as a consumer nation or a producer nation?

[Cleobulus]

20. I noticed that factcheck.org uses the Carnegie Endowment for international peace...

as a Pro-NAFTA source, considering its president is on the board of a company(Hanesbrand) that uses sweatshop labor, I'm not impressed.

[AllentownJake]

22. Generally people who write reports these days

see what they are paid to see.

[Cleobulus]

51. I looked at the factcheck.org website...

particularly when it talks about fact checking claims made about NAFTA, it would mention that, for example, one group is backed by Unions, but fail to note the bias of the opposing group, and then basically they conclude the opposing group is the one spouting facts.

[Vincardog]

31. Adding minimum wage jobs by eliminating high paying skilled jobs is not progress in the correct

direction

[harkadog]

58. It certainly added jobs in Mexico

[Sebastian Doyle]

70. Yeah, NAFTA added lots of jobs

in third world sweatshops.

[blue_onyx]

75. You do realize...

that the man in your avatar voted for NAFTA, right?

[AllentownJake]

17. Do you want my answer? nt

[old mark]

6. Why the surprise? Big Bill did the same with Sestak here in PA, pitted the

democratic Party against the Democratic voters and the unions, got pissey when the voters won.

We should find more candidates Bill hates - we would have a better country...(The same seems to apply to Mr. Obama, too....)


mark

[Autumn]

44. Good post.. Agreed . That's our whole

problem we have too many Democrats who are for the main part Republican Lite. Now I like Obama and Clinton both, but just like beer, I don't want a Bud Lite, I want a Bud.

[Greyhound]

57. No lite about it any more if ever.

These assholes are further right than Nixon, Ford, Eisenhower, etc.

They don't give two shits about this nation or its people and have brought nothing but further death, destruction, and chaos with ever step they take.

Pretending that fantasy is reality is killing us.

[Pakman]

8. I can't find the word enemy anywhere in the article

Can you please help me find it?

[LooseWilly]

56. Let me give you a hand...

First, we'll start with the definition of "enemy": "one that is antagonistic to another."
Secondly, just for fun, let's provide you with a definition of "antagonistic": "1 a : opposition of a conflicting force, tendency, or principle {the antagonism of democracy to dictatorship}"

Now, let's look at the article. The seventh paragraph reads: “In other words, this is about using you and manipulating your votes to terrify members of Congress and members of the Senate from other states,” Clinton told the crowd. “Now if you want to be used that way, have at it.”

Clinton uses the term "manipulating your votes," which creates a connotation of underhandedness to attach to the unions and their position... and then goes on to say "to terrify members of Congress and members of the Senate from other states." A body, specifically a union, that engages in behavior "to terrify" another body, in this case Congress people and Senators, is obviously being cast in that statement as being "antagonistic," as actions "to terrify" are actions that result from a conflict and a desire to bully (by means of terror) another into behaving in a given manner. Thus, by the definition of the word 'enemy,' Bill Clinton is now declaring all union members participating in the primary in Arkansas as enemies of the Democratic party.

I will assume that you are not so superficial as to try to say that using words that carry a meaning which is the definition of the word enemy is not actually the same as using the word 'enemy' explicitly. Anyone so superficial would, in so arguing, prove a number of potential assertions regarding his or her cognitive faculties and the functioning thereof to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Pakman]

65. Do you know what quotation marks are?

Note that you needed several paragraphs with definitions to answer a yes or no question. Did Bill Clinton use the word enemy? Why is the title of this OP enclose "enemy" in quotation marks? Quotation marks are used to cite the exact words of a person.

To simplify your response, the answer to my question is No. Bill Clinton did not call anyone an "enemy." Thanks.

[LooseWilly]

72. Bill Clinton used a collection of words that MEAN enemy.

That was the point of the definitions.

I see that you did resort to the most superficial of approaches to respond. When your only tool is a hammer...

And, quotation marks are also used for a variety of purposes that are not exact language, such as:

Signaling unusual usage
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense.
Crystals somehow “know” which shape to grow into.
In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism, or slang, or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, metaphoric, or contain a pun:
Dawkins’s concept of a meme could be described as an “evolving idea.”
People also use quotation marks in this way to:
distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it. For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with.
indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy’s sake as someone else’s terminology, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes)
The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition<4> acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58, “Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense <…> They imply ‘This is not my term,’ or ‘This is not how the term is usually applied.’ Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused.”

Thus, the use of quotation marks for the word "enemy," because he used words that collectively mean enemy, without actually saying the word. Substituting another word that means the same thing is a bit unusual...

[Autumn]

9. I wonder who he is doing this on behalf of ?

Could that be President Obama ?

[ProSense]

13. What does Bill Clinton's comments have to do with President Obama?

Are you suggesting the President wrote a script for him?

President Obama is supporting Lincoln because she is the incumbent. He has nothing to do with Bill Clinton shooting off his mouth against the unions.

[Pakman]

15. Maybe Bill Clinton is also supporting her because she is the incumbent

Has Bill Clinton endorsed any non-incumbents this year? I know he was for Specter, who was the incumbent.
When was the last time Clinton endorsed a non-incumbent against a sitting Democrat?

[ProSense]

16. Who cares why he's supporting her.

What does his comments have to do with the President?

[Pakman]

19. But why do you care about the reason why Obama is supporting her?

You seek to justify the reason behind Obama's support, but you do not bother to wonder why Clinton supports her.

[ProSense]

23. What?

"You seek to justify the reason behind Obama's support, but you do not bother to wonder why Clinton supports her."

Who cares? The point is that Bill Clinton is the one bashing the unions.

[Pakman]

26. Are you aware that the OP falsely quotes Clinton as calling the unions "enemy"?

Do we all agree that the title should be changed? Why don't we keep it accurate?

Quotation marks are used to set off the exact words used by a person.

[ProSense]

30. Are you aware of this:

“In other words, this is about using you and manipulating your votes to terrify members of Congress and members of the Senate from other states,” Clinton told the crowd. “Now if you want to be used that way, have at it.”

The 42nd president continued to rip labor unions, which have largely supported him in the past.

[Pakman]

34. Are you aware that two unions lied about Lincoln in new ads factchecked by Factcheck.org?

They said she has received "millions" from oil companies when in fact the number is near half a million throughout her career.

They said she gave oil companies 14 billion in tax breaks, when in fact the $14 billion figure includes clean energy, hybrid cars, etc.?

did you know that at the end, the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan) concluded that the bill that Lincoln voted for actually INCREASED taxes for oil companies slightly?

did you know that an overwhelming majority of Senators (including Obama) voted with Lincoln in the 2005 bills in questions?

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/labor-falsely-attacks-lincoln-again/

At least we agree on something; The title of this OP must be changed.

[ProSense]

38. Why on earth would

factcheck.org be backing a tool like Lincoln over the unions?

"Are you aware that two unions lied"

Is this supposed to be your defense of Clinton?

[Pakman]

39. Who said factcheck.org is "backing" any candidate?

You do know they simply correct falsehood. they are not a political organization. They are an independent non-partisan body.

[ProSense]

42. Did you actually miss the point of the post or are you ignoring it? n/t

[Pakman]

45. The point of the post is the Clinton called unions "enemy"

What Clinton said about the unions is an opinion; neither you nor I can say that what Clinton said about the unions is true or false.

What can be proved as falsehood is:

1) The allegation that he called unions "enemy" in the title.
2) Several claims that i already cited, in the videos made by the unions, as indicated by factcheck.org

By the way, we are also discussing other points, such as Why you claim that factcheck.org is "backing" one candidate over the other.

[ProSense]

48. "we are also discussing other points,

such as Why you claim that factcheck.org is "backing" one candidate over the other."

Apparently, you're having a discussion with yourself.

[AtomicKitten]

35. Damn. It takes some balls to slime the labor unions. nt

[Pakman]

36. Atom, do you agree that the SEIU and AFSCME told falsehood about Lincoln?

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/labor-falsely-attacks-lincoln-again/

[AtomicKitten]

40. No doubt there were inaccuracies but that's par for the course in political ads.

My problem with Lincoln is that she bragged about killing the public option.

[Pakman]

41. I like Halter better

But I also like to oppose the other candidate because on truths.

By the way, many ads do not contain inaccuracies.

[AtomicKitten]

46. You know what they say, politics ain't bean bag!

I guess I don't mind so much because I've had about enough of Lincoln's conservative leanings. I'd like to dispatch Ben Nelson next.

[Jim Sagle]

71. The reason is obvious in any event. All three of them are corporatists.

[Autumn]

21. No I am saying Bill Clinton is , much like Obama

campaigning for Lincoln. They supposedly both belong to the Democratic party. So Bill is shooting his mouth off and Obama is silently supporting her.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Hypocrisy.

[ProSense]

25. "Obama is silently supporting her." Again

What does this have to do with Clinton's union-bashing comments?

[AtomicKitten]

14. According to Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton pledged her his support early on (link inside).

link

[Autumn]

27. I see. Clinton support BAD, Obama support

GOOD. She is the incumbent, seems to me not a lot of difference there.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Moving the goalposts?

You implied BClinton's support was at the behest of President Obama.

BClinton in his own words makes it very clear he's speaking for himself.

Your snide implication falls flat.

[Autumn]

37. Just pointing out that it

seems hypocritical to bash Clinton when the President is doing the same thing except for the speeches. I really should have added Obama and the Democratic party.

[AtomicKitten]

43. LOL! Had you added that bit, I would have agreed with you. nt

[Autumn]

47. I'm old. Sometimes I forget part

of what I'm thinking.:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

49. LOL! My brain doesn't kick in until after my second cup of coffee. nt

[proudohioan]

28. Bill Clinton:

Running dog philandering lackey of the Corporatist Regime.

Bastard.

Go Halter.

*edit to add philandering.

[Enrique]

33. i hope the unions terrify all the corporatist dems

make them shit their pants.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. There you go, Enrique............

SO DO I!

[wolfgangmo]

53. Clinton was the last good Republican president.

That's for sure.

[polichick]

66. Well, Obama's trying to keep up - maybe we'll learn our lesson...

...and nominate a progessive next time instead of the latest corporate tool.

[inna]

59. wow, and to think that he's to the left of the current admin...

[Radical Activist]

74. A fool would think that.

Obama has more progressive accomplishments in 1 1/2 years than Clinton had in eight. One of which was undoing Clinton's deregulation of the mortgage and credit card industries.

[1776Forever]

60. A little history lesson on the DLC - Corporate Buddies to Clinton et al:

I have learned a lot about the DLC through the years! The are NOT what I want to be associated with! Big buiness and corporate contacts! No thanks Mr. President, you are NOT what I had thought once upon a time!

A little history on the DLC:

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
Progressive, The, Oct, 2000 by John Nichols

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/

....Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention.

[flpoljunkie]

61. Am not sure calling out SEIU is a smart thing. They bust their butts working to elect Dems.

They are not the only Democrats who want to send Democrats like Blanche Lincoln a message. Donations are coming from all over from the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' You know, the base.

There's also a very rational reason to support Bill Halter over Blanche Lincoln. Halter has a better chance of beating the Republican candidate, Rep. John Boozman, in November.

[nichomachus]

62. Bill Clinton? You mean George HW Bush's bff?

What an asshole.

[polichick]

64. Shameless behavior by Bill - but I don't think it'll work. nt

[bonzotex]

67. i'm getting real tired of Unky Bill...

...telling the Democratic base how we suck and don't know what is good for us.

Go write another book Mr Pesident. You are not helping.

[missbleedingheart]

68. Say it ain't so, Bill...Ode to Unions

Ode to Unions by Beverly "Bleeding Heart" Jones
www.missbleedingheart.com

Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two
Didn’t think their plan all the way through.
When they favored the rich,
There was one little hitch:
The middle-class workers still knew
That their labor did matter,
Though unions were battered
And jobs had been sent overseas,
Though real-estate bankers and young
Wall Street wankers replaced high ideals with pure greed.

The middle class toiled for the big corporations
That blamed their low wages on “globalization.”
No more merit raises, pay more for your health care.
Don’t like what we’re doing? Then find a job elsewhere.

Folks worked and they worked in this lopsided system
While all that was dear to them slipped from their reach.
They couldn’t afford their kids’ college tuition.
New laws forced good teachers to test, not to teach.
They were pushed to the brink when they finally screamed,
“Yes, we can! Yes, we must save America’s dream!”
From November 0-8, time to re-regulate
So that people, not markets, stay free.

[NYC Liberal]

69. Bullshit title: nowhere does he call unions an "enemy."

He says this:

In other words, this is about using you and manipulating your votes to terrify members of Congress and members of the Senate from other states,” Clinton told the crowd. “Now if you want to be used that way, have at it.

He is making an accusation but it is nowhere near calling ALL unions "the enemy" as you CLAIMED.

[msanthrope]

73. You are making up the quote in your title. You are lying. n/t