Bubba helps Blanche Lincoln beat the unions
Sometimes, revenge is a dish best not served at all.
Ten million dollars from the pockets of hard working Americans were spent by organized labor in the effort to defeat Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln because she defied union instructions and voted against a public insurance option during the recent health care legislation debate.
Despite the fact that Lincoln’s challenger was a considerably more progressive candidate who would have faced a difficult – if not impossible – race in November, organized labor elected to spend a fortune in the effort to defeat Lincoln solely to make an example out of her. In making their point, the unions were willing to allow a Democratic senate seat to slide into the hands of a GOP candidate who surely would have been no more supportive of the public option and a certain foe in the effort to accomplish union goals.
All pundits to the contrary, Senator Lincoln managed to pull out a 4% victory over Lt. Governor Bill Halter last night and will be the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in the State of Arkansas.
So much for labor tossing its weight around.
As an unnamed senior White House official said last night in a phone call to Politico’s Ben Smith -
Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.
What went wrong for organized labor down in Arkansas?
While Lincoln had the endorsement of President Barack Obama, it is unlikely it was Obama who did the trick for Blanche Lincoln. The president was trounced in the state during the 2008 election and is likely no more popular there today.
If you’re looking for the ‘difference-maker’, look no further than ex-president William Jefferson Clinton, the still popular ex-governor of the state who not only campaigned through Arkansas on behalf of Lincoln, but did not mince words in calling out the unions for using Arkansas, and its citizens, to make their point. Clinton has his own history of bumping heads with organized labor and was just the right man to communicate the message to his fellow Arkansans.
“This is about using you and manipulating your votes,” Clinton said in an ad which featured a clip of a speech the former president made at a rally for Lincoln last month.
It was the message that resonated. Arkansas voters apparently understood that they were being played as pawns by organized labor.
Smarting from the loss, labor attempted to frame the experience as a moral victory – suggesting that they hoped Senator Lincoln had learned a lesson from the pressure they applied during the primary campaign.
Mary Kay Henry, the recently elected president of the powerful Service Employees International Union, had this to say –
Tonight, Senator Lincoln won a narrow victory after a bruising runoff election where each and every day she was reminded that her success is only measured by doing right by working people and their families.
Via The Times Union
Let’s hope that it was organized labor that learned a lesson. While the unions have an important political role to play in the election process, at a time when their members are struggling, wasting $10 million in the quest for revenge may not be the best possible use of memberships’ hard earned money.
That unnamed White House spokesman was right. This kind of money could make a real difference in congressional districts where politicians supportive of union objectives need the help. To waste this much cash on a vendetta is an abuse of the power given to organized labor leadership by their members and should not be permitted to happen again.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
There was a decline in the vote count outright, but Halter had a sharper decline in return voters than Lincoln, which probably accounted more for the growth in Lincoln’s margin of victory.
Which is my way of saying that Bubba or not, it’s pretty clear that Halter never had the votes to win, although Clinton’s stumping for Lincoln probably helped more of her supporters stay fired up and ready to vote twice.
But this really is a sign that there’s no national political play that you can make – turns out that unions were about as persuasive to Arkansans in May-June as Sarah Palin was to the NY-23 last November – close, but no cigar.
Although last night turned out to be a pretty good one for Palin.
In response to another comment. See in context »“wasting $10 million in the quest for revenge may not be the best possible use of memberships’ hard earned money.”
Was it a “quest for revenge” or the exercise of corporate money (whoops, I mean personal money) in a free speech endorsement of the candidate they felt most likely to govern well.
This attitude, that we should vote for what’s possible, likely, advisable, imaginable, or negotiable, instead of what we want, is part of the current non-representative, manipulated, mess. Governing is not a chess game – it is far more critically important to the lives it governs. Strategy would be less important if politics were reported accurately, voters voted, and people knew what they were chosing. Instead votes are bought by propaganda, and there is no fourth estate to speak of with anything worthwhile to say.
No, it was not a free speech endorsement of the candidate they felt would most likely govern well – not by a long shot. Indeed, even organized labor admits that it was no such effort. For goodness sakes the candidate they backed did not even support their most pressing legislative issue in the last congress. This was absolutely an attempt to make an example out of Lincoln and show what happens when a politician bucks the union.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t believe that money was wasted – it at least showed that organized labor will spend money against a candidate that defies them (and conversely for candidates that push forward labor’s goals), and frankly, that’s how sausage is made in DC these days. Labor (and far more often, corporate) dollars talk, actual voter concerns walk. Look at Obama and BP. Or the Democratic party and the health insurance lobby. Or both parties and Wall Street. Politicians are terrified of the money that could be spent against them or for their opponents.
It wasn’t as strong a message as an outright defeat, but I think this will only encourage senators to think twice before thumbing their noses at labor. Lincoln had to hustle to win, and spend money that could have helped her win the general election, and she could have avoided that by looking out for the interests of her constituents instead of the health insurance industry. Sure, a Republican could wind up winning, but who cares if the Democrats are voting Republican anyway?
In response to another comment. See in context »“incoln had to hustle to win, and spend money that could have helped her win the general election, and she could have avoided that by looking out for the interests of her constituents instead of the health insurance industry. ”
Think this through as this is exactly the point. What have the unions accomplished if they’ve made a Democratic candidate spend money that could have been used to help her beat the GOP candidate in November? How is this good for the union? This is precisely why the White House was so annoyed with the unions’ behavior in this matter. The truth is that Lincoln has voted with the unions way more times than she has not. When a GOP senator is elected from Arkansas in November, how exactly will this have benefited the union membership???? It is a waste of money to try and make a point that they completely failed to make. If they are going to go after a Democrat to make a larger point, they sure as hell better win – and they did not. That makes the exercise stupid, wasteful and, ultimately, damaging to their membership.
In response to another comment. See in context »I disagree. The unions have been largely ignored in this nation for decades now. Passively supporting Democrats that go on to minimize and ignore the concerns of organized labor has gotten them nothing but gradual dissolution.
From the context of decades of slowly eroding labor relations and union power, then it is the support of Democrats like Lincoln that has been a waste of money that could have been much better spent by the unions. At least the current leadership was willing to try something different instead of pursuing the same policy of lesser evilism that has nearly destroyed the power of organized labor in this nation.
In response to another comment. See in context »I believe there is a town in Arkansas call Bentonville, where unions are scorned and outlawed forever and ever. Do you think Slick Willy and Blanche hooked up after the runoff? You know what they say about paybacks! Politics can be a messy business.
Right you are about Bentonville – but remember, Wal-Mart gets away with this because the workers are not all that anxious to be unionized. This is but one reason why Arkansas was a silly place for the unions to take such an expensive -and ultimately useless- stand.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oria Bjorklund
I have to say I’m having some trouble with the factual basis for your assertion. You should first understand that I very much tend to support unions. That said, based on collective bargaining successes up until the recent collapse of the auto industry, I can’t imagine how you can claim that unions have been ignored for “decades” now, particularly considering that it has only been decades since unions came into existence let alone reach the peak of their power. I honestly think that even the unions would disagree with your assessment.
Further, I’m not suggesting that the unions had any obligation whatsoever to back Lincoln – I don’t like her much more than they do. However, when you are dealing with members money, there is a responsibility to get the most bang for the buck. I would have far preferred that the money was spent helping candidates that support the unions around the country rather than try and fail to make a point with Blanche Lincoln.
It wasn’t just labor unions that spent a load of money to defeat Blanche Lincoln, a lot of progressives also contributed their hard earned dollars to Bill Halter.
In fact the ActBlue website shows that 39,000 donors contributed an astounding $1,200,000 to Halter through their website alone, and in the early reporting I heard before the polls closed last night it sounded like he was expected to squeak by Lincoln (granted, that was on MSNBC).
As far as I’m concerned, how unions choose to spend their money is their own business. They have to answer to their members, not the Democratic Party or the White House.
I hope they will now spend time explaining to their members how Bill Clinton swooped in and essentially flipped them the bird.
One could just as easily say that it was Bill Clinton who flushed the union’s $10 million down the toilet (not to mention the $1.2 million contributed by the increasingly angry “base” of the Democratic party).
“It wasn’t just labor unions that spent a load of money to defeat Blanche Lincoln, a lot of progressives also contributed their hard earned dollars to Bill Halter.”
That’s different. If someone favored the progressive candidate, they should contribute to him. The union was not contributing to him because they liked his candidacy – they did it because they wanted to teach Lincoln a lesson.
“As far as I’m concerned, how unions choose to spend their money is their own business. They have to answer to their members, not the Democratic Party or the White House.”
I never suggested they did have to answer to anyone but its members. But their members didn’t vote to waste 10 million of their dollars for a silly purpose. I’ve talked to a number of those members today. They aren’t happy.
And they shouldn’t be. What did all that money accomplish? Why not spend it proactively on candidates that favor union policies (which Halter does not) rather than pursuing a vendetta.
“One could just as easily say that it was Bill Clinton who flushed the union’s $10 million down the toilet (not to mention the $1.2 million contributed by the increasingly angry “base” of the Democratic party).”
Bill Clinton is not elected as a union official and doesn’t have the same resposiblity to the membership. Just as you note many contributed to Lt. Gov. Halter, Clinton certainly had every right to support the candidate he favored.
In response to another comment. See in context »My comment about how unions spend their money was directed at the White House, not you. If the union members are angry at their leadership for the way their dues were spent, heads should roll unless leadership can adequately justify their decision to the members.
What did the money accomplish? It almost brought Blanche Lincoln down. The day before the primary, Ed Kilgore on fivethirtyeight.com wrote: “…Arkansas’ runoff election between Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Lt. Gov Bill Halter is tomorrow, and while precedent and general atmospherics favor the challenger, it will all come down to a turnout battle. The one independent public poll, by R2K/DKos, showed Halter up narrowly (49-45)…” If Halter had won, would the union members still be angry? Probably not.
However, Bill Clinton didn’t just roll into Arkansas to support Blanche Lincoln on his own, without the consent of the Obama administration. They made that decision knowing that they were in fact supporting the more conservative candidate(!), that it would undermine the $10 million(!) union effort to oust Lincoln and that it would negate the hard work and money contributed by the very people who worked their asses off to get Obama elected in 2008.
Anyway, this is my own admittedly jaundiced view of the Arkansas fiasco.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s possible that the election squeeze did light a fire under Lincoln. If Taibbi’s latest (all in RS now) is correct, then she did fight hard for real derivatives reform in the senatorial financial reform bill. If constituents could get all the legislators to feel heat under their seats to pass meaningful financial reform, the country’d end up with an effective law.
It is true that she did fight hard for derivatives reform – but it is unlikely she did this to appease the unions. She has a pretty good record on financial matters.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t know enough about Lincoln’s record in the Senate, nor Halter’s views on everything to make really respectable comments. But I really like, really really like that unions take their power very seriously and by some contorted reasoning (whether for the immediate good of their members or for the long range good of the whole country) made their influence felt, got their wishes documented, and stirred up a hornet’s nest of political discord. Bubba is the real mess in this, but then he probably still has so much money invested in Arkansas that he wants Lincoln to guard it for him. It’s is really hard to trust anyone these days. Even, or especially, Bubba.