Saturday, January 23, 2010


In an artical written in The Wall Street Journal, a poll showed 49% of union members voted for Scott Brown while 46% went for Martha Coakley.

You might think that’s pretty close but this is Massachusetts, bluest of the blue states, and very unionized. The AFL-CIO conducted the poll to find out what went wrong and why union members jumped ship and voted for a Republican.

The article states that union members did not see Coakley as being on “their side.”  Does anyone reading this blog right now believe that? If so, please comment because I’d love to hear the logic behind this lunacy, because if you really believe that, you are not in the realm of reality.


Working men and women, middle class America, has been abandoned by all three houses in Washington when just 12 short months ago, they were riding a euphoric rocket to the stars believing they were finally going to be saved by the great messiah.
At least now the rest of us know these blind followers know the meaning of false prophet.

The switching of their votes had nothing to do with B.O. wanting to tax their Cadillac health plans by 40%? It had nothing to do with that… nothing at all.

Nice spin guys.

Just the fact that The AFL-CIO had to take this poll and then get together to talk about how they had lost control of their membership says it all. They expect their members to fall in line and vote Democrat no matter what the individual members think. Suddenly Indians were off the reservation. There was independent thought going on here.

“We can’t have members thinking before going to the polls. God forbid the rank and file break out of their horse collars. Baaad sheep…baaaaaaad sheep!!”

Labor unions don’t care about the members, they want your money, period...end of story. If you are a union member, this really should not surprise you. Do you think for one minute labor unions would ask you if they should be giving money to the Republican Party because you feel they represent you better than Democrat candidates? You lemmings need to wake up. Your union is walking in lock step with the crazies in that colossus called the capital building and they don’t care what you think or feel or lose.

You are stuck on stupid. Stuck in the middle… With Unions.


Christopher said...

I agree with most of what you say and what you say proves the statement in your post;

"The article states that union members did not see Coakley as being on “their side.”

That said I do not understand why you say;

" Does anyone reading this blog right now believe that? If so, please comment because I’d love to hear the logic behind this lunacy, because if you really believe that, you are not in the realm of reality".

Your statements prove it to be in fact - reality.

Teresa said...

I agree with your post, although a little puzzled by the same thing that Chris stated. Or, do you mean that this was in fact a referendum on Obama and his health care policies and not necessarily the members of unions voting for Scott Brown versus Coakley?

jadedfellow said...

Rock on Dude,

I had to join a union back when I was 15 so I could work weekends at a grocery store. Guess what, I had to pay a flat rate dues amount the same as the other folks that were working full time, but since I did not work full time I was not eligible for the benefits.

$#@!%^%$# (Okay not English but I take a hint quite well) so at an early age I figgered out that unions and me weren't gonna get along. They had their time and place but have had a massive negative effect on the productive capabilities of both the worker and the everyday business fellas in this country.

Hey, Christopher and Teresa, we sure bump into each other alot, but I figger the feller that owns this here domain is as tongue in cheek as I am. And yes, correctness is not pathetic when stated as clearly as we found here.

Eman said...

Welcome to my blog Christopher and thank you for commenting. And Blessings to you Teresa as well. I am going to fix the post so it's a little more clear but I will take the time to explain myself now so you understand.

This was not about the candidate, it’s about union control.

It’s about delivery of a voting block and why they could not make good on their promise to deliver it.
To quote Karen Ackerman in the article: “"What happened in Massachusetts is that working families did not see the Democratic candidate as being on their side." She added that the AFL-CIO has "very good success" reaching out to union voters and did have a union program in Massachusetts in support of the Democratic candidate, state Attorney General Martha Coakley. Still, she said the group does have concerns about the midterm congressional elections in November.
My point is that the reasons stated for taking the poll, that being working families not seeing Martha Coakley as a supporter of unions is only cover. Their real reasons for taking the poll are to find out why members did not vote as they were told to. They could not deliver the union vote and Obama is not happy about it. But the reasons are two sides of the same coin. Obama says he supports unions, but has done nothing for middle class working Americans.

Unions could not deliver because Obama tried to tax their Cadillac health plans.

Obama wants to tax them and wants their support.
Nice try. It ain’t workin’.
It wasn’t Coakley’s lack of union support that they took this poll. What the AFL-CIO wants to know is why they didn’t vote like they told them to. They’re saying, “We don’t care if you don’t like who your voting for, you just vote like we tell you to vote.”
That better? Or do you need more? It’s a nuance I know, but when you are talking about big powerful unions, the real reason they do things is never the reasons they tell us. NEVER!

Remember, this was not about the candidate, it’s about union control.