Raw Story Created a dishonest spin on Union President's remarks

[NJMaverick]

If you read Raw Story you came away thinking this:

Quote:AFL-CIO president: Obama is aligned with tea party, not fixing jobs
Richard Trumka, president of union giant AFL-CIO, delivered a scathing review of President Barack Obama at a press breakfast Thursday morning. He accused him of abandoning Democratic ideals and aligning himself with the conservative tea party.

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said, Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler reported.

Trumka sits on the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which "was created to provide non-partisan advice to the president on continuing to strengthen the nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States," according to its website.

Trimpka told reporters that he had all but given up hope of the panel achieving any results.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/25/af...xing-jobs/

The only problem is Raw Story is guilty of typical Professional Leftist tactics of distortion and lying. Check out this less biased and far more honest source about what was said.

AFL-CIO chief: History will judge Obama if he 'nibbles' at jobs crisis

Quote:AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that if President Obama’s jobs speech after Labor Day does not “propose bold solutions on the jobs crisis,” and consists of “nibbling around the edge” of the issue, “history will judge him and I think working people will judge him.”

Quote:The labor chief said that, in a conversation with Mr. Obama in advance of his upcoming economic speech, “I urged him to propose what was necessary to solve the problem” as opposed to what the president thought was politically possible given Republican control of the House of Representatives.

Speaking at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters on Thursday, Mr. Trumka added, “I said to him, 'Do not look at what is possible, look at what is necessary. The American public wants solutions and just because [of] the Republicans, you think this is the only thing that is politically possible, that doesn’t mean you should propose that. That means they control the agenda.' ”

Quote:While crediting Obama for “bold leadership” in proposing an economic stimulus package and health-care legislation, Trumka was critical of the president’s handling of the persistently high unemployment rate. “He made a strategic mistake,” Trumka said, “a number of months ago when he would talk about job creation and in the same sentence talk about deficit reduction, and people got the two confused. And he helped with that. And I think that was a strategic mistake.”

Trumka is due to see the president when Mr. Obama makes a Labor Day appearance in Detroit.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/mo...isis-video

[Still a Democrat]

The snippets here aren't a ringing endorsement. He's threatened to withdraw from the convention.

Raw Story can definitely cook things up on occasion, but I see nothing here that makes me think anything they said was misleading.

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 12:42 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  The snippets here aren't a ringing endorsement. He's threatened to withdraw from the convention.

Raw Story can definitely cook things up on occasion, but I see nothing here that makes me think anything they said was misleading.

Raw story ran with a headline that had the union President accusing the President of aligning himself with the Tea Party. While the Richard T was acting like a petulant spoiled child, he hardly made such an accusation.

Raw Story's reality denying spin would do FAUX news proud

[sandnsea]

Like that clip...

"We have a short term job crisis. If you fix the job crisis, the deficit crisis goes away."

I don't know what all was said, but what's reported in this article makes good sense and makes it in a way that isn't inflammatory or overly partisan. I think Obama should listen to him, at least as far as this article goes. I'm going to look and see if there are transcripts or full video of this event.

[Cha]

So did Trumpka actually say that the President was aligning himself with the tea party?(I'm not playing the clip) Because if he did that says to me that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. That's just emotional dumbassness.

Didn't even mention the auto industry rescue in Detroit?

That should be interesting when they meet in Detroit on Labor Day.

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 12:49 PM)Cha Wrote:  So did Trumpka actually say that the President was aligning himself with the tea party?(I'm not playing the clip) Because if he did that says to me that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. That's just emotional dumbassness.

Didn't even mention the auto industry rescue in Detroit?

That should be interesting when they meet in Detroit in Labor Day.

To put it clearly "He accused him of abandoning Democratic ideals and aligning himself with the conservative tea party. " is a bold faced lie that would make Karl Rove proud.

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:49 PM)Cha Wrote:  So did Trumpka actually say that the President was aligning himself with the tea party?(I'm not playing the clip) Because if he did that says to me that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. That's just emotional dumbassness.

Didn't even mention the auto industry rescue in Detroit?

That should be interesting when they meet in Detroit in Labor Day.

To put it clearly "He accused him of abandoning Democratic ideals and aligning himself with the conservative tea party. " is a bold faced lie that would make Karl Rove proud.

And, greenham dumbots are also cheering on the tactics. I see we don't have the rawstory link on our front page anymore..GOOD!

That's just downright vicious. rawstory should be made accountable.

[sandnsea]

And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the he President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

[sandnsea]

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the he President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Here's the quote. It came straight from the TPM link I posted above, which is the story that RawStory quoted.

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 01:19 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the he President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Here's the quote. It came straight from the TPM link I posted above, which is the story that RawStory quoted.

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

This is the part Raw Story led with and is completely dishonest "AFL-CIO president: Obama is aligned with tea party, not fixing jobs"

[sandnsea]

(08-25-2011 01:22 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:19 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the he President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Here's the quote. It came straight from the TPM link I posted above, which is the story that RawStory quoted.

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

This is the part Raw Story led with and is completely dishonest "AFL-CIO president: Obama is aligned with tea party, not fixing jobs"

No. That quote came from the Talking Points Memo link. Trumpka said "will he continue to work with the Tea Party". That's what RawStory said he said.

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Found on TPM..

"AFL-CIO Pres: Obama Aligned Himself With Tea Party To Cut Middle Class Programs"

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor."

The President hasn't "offered cuts to middle class programs like Social Security", either. So who's full of shit?

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 01:40 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Found on TPM..

"AFL-CIO Pres: Obama Aligned Himself With Tea Party To Cut Middle Class Programs"

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor."

The President hasn't "offered cut to middle class programs like Social Security", either. So who's full of shit?

It's about balance, exactness and context. When you read the more whole article and what was said you come away with an entirely different message than the careful parsing of words and false paraphrasing used by the professional left. The union President admits to meeting with the President regularly, which means the President is actually working with the unions, not the Tea Party (which he doesn't meet with).

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 01:50 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:40 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:12 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 01:08 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 12:51 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  And the original story came from TPM, so I don't know if RawStory is to blame this time -- or whether it is really dishonest. Maybe CSMonitor was trying to downplay the animosity and focus on the words that could help move a jobs agenda forward.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg

Yeah, so now I'm confused. But, I know this..Whoever said the President was aligning himself with the tea party is full of shit.

TPM didn't make the false claims Raw Story did, I just checked their article

Found on TPM..

"AFL-CIO Pres: Obama Aligned Himself With Tea Party To Cut Middle Class Programs"

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor."

The President hasn't "offered cut to middle class programs like Social Security", either. So who's full of shit?

It's about balance, exactness and context. When you read the more whole article and what was said you come away with an entirely different message than the careful parsing of words and false paraphrasing used by the professional left. The union President admits to meeting with the President regularly, which means the President is actually working with the unions, not the Tea Party (which he doesn't meet with).

It's a crazy world we live in. The reality realm where it's a constant battle to make understood what's really stated while constantly surrounded by lies from both sides of the spectrum. And, a US "media" force pumping those lies into people's tvs 24/7.

[Born_A_Truman]

"If he puts all his emphasis and focus on job creation," it is one "picture," Trumka said. "And if he continues to do little nibbly things around the end that aren't going to make a difference and aren't going to solve a problem, that will give ...another picture."

Trumka made his comment during a breakfast session with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor in a lead-up to Labor Day as the national unemployment rate hovers at 9 percent. He also said it remains to be decided whether the AFL-CIO will fully participate in the Democratic National Convention next year in North Carolina. The convention question will heavily weigh on the details of the new Obama jobs package, Trumka said.

At the heart of Trumka's remarks was a concern that Obama--when he unveils his jobs program next month--will be letting Republicans dictate the agenda."Will he commit all his energy to offering bold solutions, or will he continue to work with the Tea Party?"

More ...

The AFL-CIO, traditionally allied with the Democratic Party, is changing strategies, creating its own "Super PAC" political action committee--rather than working with the Democratic Party-- in order to create a permanent entity to organize for elections as well as advocate and hold officials accountable in the off years. The goal is to "create a structure for working people that will be there year round."

[Drunken Irishman]

It's not entirely dishonest. Trumpka does say Obama is, at the moment, working with the tea party.

So while the headline is a bit of a hyperbole, his remarks still suggest that Obama is aligned with the tea party.

[NJMaverick]

(08-25-2011 01:31 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  It's not entirely dishonest. Trumpka does say Obama is, at the moment, working with the tea party.

So while the headline is a bit of a hyperbole, his remarks still suggest that Obama is aligned with the tea party.

Consider the question:

The question asked

was is President Obama going to go along with Tea Party ideas of cutting everything but not focusing on jobs, or is he going to take a stand.

[Born_A_Truman]

Deaniac weighs in ...

Lots there before this ...

Quote:The progressive movement is dependent on the labor movement and the labor movement on the progressive movement. Men like Richard Trumka may want to realize that President Obama is a friend of labor, not the enemy of it. Snipping at this President and pre-emptively attacking him for an economic plan that is yet to be released does not do any favors to the American worker or the organized labor movement. It only hands ammunition to the true enemies of labor and worker fairness.

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 01:34 PM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Deaniac weighs in ...

Lots there before this ...

[quote]The progressive movement is dependent on the labor movement and the labor movement on the progressive movement. Men like Richard Trumka may want to realize that President Obama is a friend of labor, not the enemy of it. Snipping at this President and pre-emptively attacking him for an economic plan that is yet to be released does not do any favors to the American worker or the organized labor movement. It only hands ammunition to the true enemies of labor and worker fairness.

I just love Deaniac..I was going over there soon to see if he'd picked up on this yet. It is pre-emptive. Thanks Pat!

[Still a Democrat]

(08-25-2011 01:34 PM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Deaniac weighs in ...

Lots there before this ...

Quote:The progressive movement is dependent on the labor movement and the labor movement on the progressive movement. Men like Richard Trumka may want to realize that President Obama is a friend of labor, not the enemy of it. Snipping at this President and pre-emptively attacking him for an economic plan that is yet to be released does not do any favors to the American worker or the organized labor movement. It only hands ammunition to the true enemies of labor and worker fairness.

Seems clear from the tone of that article Trumka was indeed very critical of Obama.

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 01:34 PM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Deaniac weighs in ...

Lots there before this ...

Quote:The progressive movement is dependent on the labor movement and the labor movement on the progressive movement. Men like Richard Trumka may want to realize that President Obama is a friend of labor, not the enemy of it. Snipping at this President and pre-emptively attacking him for an economic plan that is yet to be released does not do any favors to the American worker or the organized labor movement. It only hands ammunition to the true enemies of labor and worker fairness.

More from Deaniac..

Quote:I would call Trumka uninformed, but I know that is not the case. The debt ceiling deal offered no changes on social security - none - either as part of the initial package or as part of the triggers. In fact, the President has never offered the Republicans or anyone else any cuts to basic Social Security benefits, and in fact, for the poorest retirees, proposed to increase their Social Security benefits, while guaranteeing a base benefit above poverty. By the way, the AFL-CIO supported the Clinton economic plan in 1993 that raised taxes on social security benefits (in other words, cut the dollar value of the benefit for some beneficiaries).

[jaxx]

Raw story did make a dishonest spin on what was said. I read it this morning and it was red meat for the PLs and their minions. Made it look like Trumka was going to take his union votes and get in the republicans pockets because that bad old President Obama wasn't going to kiss his ass and do what he demands. This was mega stupid of Trumka.

[Eponine]

I've never trusted Raw Story.

[Cha]

A comment on ThePeople'sView..

"Called Trumpka's office as an AFL-CIO member. Said Trumpka seems to have joined the Tea Party in trying to undermine President Obama's efforts to save Social Security and Medicare. Suggested that he donate some of his $300,000 salary to out of work union members. Also reminded him that the UAW was hemorrhaging jobs before PBO rescued the auto industry.

The number is: 202-637-5000. Ask for Trumpka's office."

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/le...joins.html

[Drunken Irishman]

Regardless of the wording, Trumka stepped in it. He should have used that question as a time to reaffirm his support for the president and then ask his people to urge Pres. Obama to do this or that.

THAT is how you get your point across without diminishing the president or leading us down this path where your comments can act as right-wing and left-wing fodder.

"Well obviously we don't support cuts to social programs. I think it's important Pres. Obama hear that we're not going to support such cuts. We support him and we're doing everything in our power to make sure he's president beyond 2012 for this very reason - Republicans want to gut and cut social security and we can't allow that to happen. We need to demand our elected officials stand up for working class Americans, ask that Pres. Obama do the same and reaffirm what has made this country the envy of the world..."

Or something like that. He gets his point across without inserting his foot into his mouth.

[Treestar]

'bold" is lazy-speak for people who just want Obama to wave a magic wand.

Let him work on Congress then. What a loser. He's doing harm to the people he is supposedly representing.

Wonder if the Rs have paid him off somehow.

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 02:52 PM)Treestar Wrote:  'bold" is lazy-speak for people who just want Obama to wave a magic wand.

Let him work on Congress then. What a loser. He's doing harm to the people he is supposedly representing.

Wonder if the Rs have paid him off somehow.

A another comment on ThePeople'sView ..

"One of the things I didn't see from Trumka is anything looking like specific proposals. I'm getting pretty tired of supposed "advocates" bitching about what the President may or may not do or say, without having anything concrete to offer in return."
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/le...joins.html

[Peacetrain]

Some body better straighten this crap out now.. because I am seeing red myself.. I cannot even begin to imagine what others in the union are seeing.. and if this is a media mishap.. then they damn well better trot out an enormous apology

[azmouse]

As expected the usual internet sites that relentlessly bash Obama for every little thing are jumping all over this as an excuse to not support the president for re-election.

Trumka has done more harm than good. We should all send him congratulatory cards next year if a Republican wins. I'm sure he'll then get everything he ever wanted...

[Cha]

(08-25-2011 06:55 PM)azmouse Wrote:  As expected the usual internet sites that relentlessly bash Obama for every little thing are jumping all over this as an excuse to not support the president for re-election.

Trumka has done more harm than good. We should all send him congratulatory cards next year if a Republican wins. I'm sure he'll then get everything he ever wanted...

Or why not call him right now and let him know what you think?

The number is: 202-637-5000. Ask for Trumpka's office."

Posted on ThePeople'sView..
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/le...joins.html

[Still a Democrat]

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said.

That phrase - work with - is loaded. I don't think Trumka believes PBO is aligned with the Tea Party. But like many on the left, he feels he compromises too much with them. I believe, to be more accurate, he would probably say...

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to compromise with the Tea Party, which results in cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said.

[sandnsea]

(08-25-2011 07:08 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  "This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said.

That phrase - work with - is loaded. I don't think Trumka believes PBO is aligned with the Tea Party. But like many on the left, he feels he compromises too much with them. I believe, to be more accurate, he would probably say...

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to compromise with the Tea Party, which results in cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said.

In the CS Monitor article and tape, he said when the President proposes policies based on what he believes Republicans will place, we end up with their agenda instead of ours. That made a lot of sense and that's what I think he meant by work with the Tea Party. It was quite harsh, but I think what is coming from all these groups is a loud and clear message that we'd (and I include myself) like the President to present a strong Democratic Party jobs agenda and then trust the people to fight for it.

[Willinois]

(08-25-2011 07:23 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  It was quite harsh, but I think what is coming from all these groups is a loud and clear message that we'd (and I include myself) like the President to present a strong Democratic Party jobs agenda and then trust the people to fight for it.

Obama already has presented that agenda. It's a green jobs agenda that would continue the most successful part of the stimulus bill. Maybe Trumka's history as a former United Mine Workers President doesn't make him very receptive to that approach.

I've noticed a subtle attempt by some in the trade unions and their allies to shift the focus onto "repairing roads and bridges" rather than talking about creating jobs with new clean energy infrastructure. I wonder if Trumka is one source of that.

Of course, the cable news networks ignore Obama's green jobs message too since every other commercial is from the fossil fuel industry. And most left bloggers ignore it because it's not something negative to bitch about. So, personally, I don't think we can trust people to fight for it because they aren't.

[sandnsea]

(08-25-2011 07:44 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 07:23 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  It was quite harsh, but I think what is coming from all these groups is a loud and clear message that we'd (and I include myself) like the President to present a strong Democratic Party jobs agenda and then trust the people to fight for it.

Obama already has presented that agenda. It's a green jobs agenda that would continue the most successful part of the stimulus bill. Maybe Trumka's history as a former United Mine Workers President doesn't make him very receptive to that approach.

I've noticed a subtle attempt by some in the trade unions and their allies to shift the focus onto "repairing roads and bridges" rather than talking about creating jobs with new clean energy infrastructure. I wonder if Trumka is one source of that.

Of course, the cable news networks ignore Obama's green jobs message too since every other commercial is from the fossil fuel industry. And most left bloggers ignore it because it's not something negative to bitch about. So, personally, I don't think we can trust people to fight for it because they aren't.

I understand that. I'm referring to the upcoming speech.

Interesting point about shifting focus to repairing roads and bridges. That's DeFazio's big push too. He's always big on transportation spending, that's not new. I guess looking for the fossil fuel money connection is in order.

[Willinois]

And even the quote suggests Obama cut Social Security and Medicare, which he has not. He spared both programs from cuts even under threat of default. Both the original quote and the distorted headline its based on are hard to take seriously.

[RoyGBiv]

Just for giggles, I read the full, actual quote and the headline, removing the names and substituting "a politician" to 16 people who had a) not read or heard about this at the time, and b) are in the business of interpreting the things people say and distilling it down into its essential elements.

The consensus opinion was that the headline was "reasonably accurate."

There's room for criticizing the choice of words, of course, but to call it a "lie" is the actual inaccuracy in this case.

Now, the real question that should be the focus is whether what the union leader said is an accurate representation of what Obama is doing. He makes some pointed criticisms of his policies and current actions that are at least arguable.

Invoking the tea party was a gross distortion, in my opinion, but he did do it in a way that is reasonably well represented by the headline. What people do with the headline is another matter.

[Still a Democrat]

(08-25-2011 08:36 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Just for giggles, I read the full, actual quote and the headline, removing the names and substituting "a politician" to 16 people who had a) not read or heard about this at the time, and b) are in the business of interpreting the things people say and distilling it down into its essential elements.

The consensus opinion was that the headline was "reasonably accurate."

There's room for criticizing the choice of words, of course, but to call it a "lie" is the actual inaccuracy in this case.

Now, the real question that should be the focus is whether what the union leader said is an accurate representation of what Obama is doing. He makes some pointed criticisms of his policies and current actions that are at least arguable.

Invoking the tea party was a gross distortion, in my opinion, but he did do it in a way that is reasonably well represented by the headline. What people do with the headline is another matter.

I thought that originally, but think about it - is PBO really "aligned" with the Tea Party? Do you think Trumka meant to express they were aligned? Trumka didn't use that term - he said "work with", which can mean a lot of things. And in this case, it meant compromising. The term "align" carries a misleading connotation.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-26-2011 06:22 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 08:36 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Invoking the tea party was a gross distortion, in my opinion, but he did do it in a way that is reasonably well represented by the headline. What people do with the headline is another matter.

I thought that originally, but think about it - is PBO really "aligned" with the Tea Party? Do you think Trumka meant to express they were aligned? Trumka didn't use that term - he said "work with", which can mean a lot of things. And in this case, it meant compromising. The term "align" carries a misleading connotation.

No, Obama isn't *really* aligned with the tea party, which is what I tried to express by indicating the comment itself is a gross distortion.

Whether Trumka intended to convey that I cannot positively say. People's intentions are often quite different from their words. The point, though, is that it is not unreasonable to take his comments at face value as an expression of a belief that Obama was aligning himself with the tea party faction with respect to the specific policy positions he mentioned.

Perhaps people tire of my historical references, but I'm going to make one anyway. This is the point of being aware of history.

Was Lincoln an abolitionist in 1860? He most certainly was not an abolitionist. However some of his clearly stated policy positions aligned with abolitionist policy positions. It was not unreasonable for him to be questioned about that or even criticized by those who believed abolitionists were the problem.

I'm not one who often defends the press, least of all headline writers or editors who like to play games with words to sell a story. Certainly there was some of that going on here, focusing on an inflammatory interpretation of remarks in order to draw readers. It worked too. Both people who agree and disagree with the point being made were all over this story. (And I should make clear that this includes us. That link was posted several times here, and given the depth of discussion referring to parts of it not quoted, it's rather clear a lot of people clicked that link.) However, this is not a typical case of taking remarks entirely out of context and making up something from nothing. Suggesting that the headline was "reasonably accurate" does not imply that it was the holy writ of truth. It does indicate, accurately, that this is an interpretation a reader could take away from the remarks that inspired it.

It is not the job of the press to present things for us in precisely the way we want them to. As an interested observer who has a personal stake in these things, this does in fact piss me off, but from an objective perspective, I can't rightfully complain about the headline.

I can, however, complain about the original remarks that led to it. I think the association of Obama to the tea party faction is both wrong and tragically irresponsible.

BTW -- and I hope I'm clear on this -- I disagree with what was said and the way it was said, I am not, however, going to throw Trumka under the bus, which seems to be the first reaction of several people. This guy's overall history of support for Obama needs to be considered. No, he's not just falling at Obama's feet and has been critical, but I think that's needed. There is a difference between wild personal attacks with dubious reasoning and genuine criticism. Obama is not and never well be perfect.
(Please pardon weird typos and punctuation. I'm typing on a netbook with the sun glaring off the screen, and I can't see what I'm typing well.)

[nofurylike]

posting on the run, sorry. just had to say thank you for posting that, NJMaverick!

[Born_A_Truman]

Roy, I threw him under the bus when I read this and other articles--saying labor would not be donating to Obama and start their own PAC, sitting out the Democratic convention, etc. I have seen him on MSNBC supporting POTUS too in the past. But he wouldn't be the first to turn on POTUS (Joan Walsh, Ed Schultz for example) so after reading several articles about his comments I was pissed off.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-26-2011 10:11 AM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Roy, I threw him under the bus when I read this and other articles--saying labor would not be donating to Obama and start their own PAC, sitting out the Democratic convention, etc. I have seen him on MSNBC supporting POTUS too in the past. But he wouldn't be the first to turn on POTUS (Joan Walsh, Ed Schultz for example) so after reading several articles about his comments I was pissed off.

Being pissed off is fine, expected in fact. But it has to be turned into some sort of positive action.

Democrats cannot just write off labor and its leaders. Cannot. If we do, there is no more Democratic party. They're not going to hear our creative insults or rage. They've been getting that from business interests for over a century, and they're immune to it.

Another historical reference ... (These will be coming a lot I fear as I'm currently in a seminar dealing with Lincoln, and with the pile of stuff I'm reading, the brain hasn't room for much else.)

Lincoln had to deal with all kinds of straight up nasty insults from people in his own party. Seward thought he was an idiot and was going to be a puppet for him to play with while in office. All this irritated Lincoln, but he didn't get pissed or just throw all these people away to get them out of his sight. He drew them in, made them a part of his government, calmly and rationally maintained relations even with those who never stopped disliking him, and he achieved wonders as a result.

Obama supporters have been doing an awful lot of writing people off entirely. That's not going to help us. We don't have to sit here and take it, but there are more constructive ways of dealing with it than just calling the person a moron and moving on to the next controversy.

See Joan's letter published on the blog recently as an example.

[Cha]

(08-26-2011 10:11 AM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Roy, I threw him under the bus when I read this and other articles--saying labor would not be donating to Obama and start their own PAC, sitting out the Democratic convention, etc. I have seen him on MSNBC supporting POTUS too in the past. But he wouldn't be the first to turn on POTUS (Joan Walsh, Ed Schultz for example) so after reading several articles about his comments I was pissed off.

Give him a piece of your mind instead, Pat. I'm thinking he's heard from more than a few of us on this and it wouldn't hurt to let him know the damage you think he's doing.

The number is: 202-637-5000. Ask for Trumpka's office.

Posted on ThePeople'sView..
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/le...joins.html

[Treestar]

This asshole needs to be blaming the Tea Party, not the President. I am sick of the PL and others doing this! What benefit is it? None! Oh if the President were only just tougher! How naive and lazy!

Why doesn't this guy use whatever time he has in the sun to criticize the Republicans? I just don't understand these people and am suspicious of their motives, since they must know what they are doing. He could have used that time/money/effort to smash the Congress! Yet they get a free pass from these people.

[Baltoman991]

How are we not supposed to throw the man under the bus? He may not have said what the headline claims but it was damn close enough for me.

Does the man think a President Perry or President Bachman will accept him and unions with open arms? Take the shit behind closed doors. No fucking wonder the media wets itself daily with the joy of telling the world Obamas "base" has taken yet another swipe at him.

I just say good luck to these fools in 2012 should Obama lose, especially to any of the crop of pukes running. They'll have something to really piss and moan about then.

[Cha]

(08-27-2011 03:41 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  How are we not supposed to throw the man under the bus? He may not have said what the headline claims but it was damn close enough for me.

Does the man think a President Perry or President Bachman will accept him and unions with open arms? Take the shit behind closed doors. No fucking wonder the media wets itself daily with the joy of telling the world Obamas "base" has taken yet another swipe at him.

I just say good luck to these fools in 2012 should Obama lose, especially to any of the crop of pukes running. They'll have something to really piss and moan about then.

Pre-Cisely! Good Luck to us all..it's our Democracy they're fucking with loose lips.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-27-2011 05:20 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 03:41 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  How are we not supposed to throw the man under the bus? He may not have said what the headline claims but it was damn close enough for me.

Does the man think a President Perry or President Bachman will accept him and unions with open arms? Take the shit behind closed doors. No fucking wonder the media wets itself daily with the joy of telling the world Obamas "base" has taken yet another swipe at him.

I just say good luck to these fools in 2012 should Obama lose, especially to any of the crop of pukes running. They'll have something to really piss and moan about then.

Pre-Cisely! Good Luck to us all..it's our Democracy they're fucking with loose lips.

Interesting way of putting it.

So, let me ask you both a question.

How do you propose Obama wins the 2012 election without the assistance of the leader of the AFL-CIO?

[Baltoman991]

(08-27-2011 05:46 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 05:20 PM)Cha Wrote:  Pre-Cisely! Good Luck to us all..it's our Democracy they're fucking with loose lips.

Interesting way of putting it.

So, let me ask you both a question.

How do you propose Obama wins the 2012 election without the assistance of the leader of the AFL-CIO?

How do you propose that his bullshit words helped Obama in any way, shape or form? They didn't.

I never once said we didn't need the mans help. But really, does it sound like he really gives a shit? Not to me it doesn't.

[Cha]

(08-27-2011 06:24 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  How do you propose that his bullshit words helped Obama in any way, shape or form? They didn't.

I never once said we didn't need the mans help. But really, does it sound like he really gives a shit? Not to me it doesn't.

Here's Trumpka's number, Baltoman, if you want to pass along your thoughts.. I got it from another site where they think it's bullshit, too.

The number is: 202-637-5000. Ask for Trumpka's office.

Posted on ThePeople'sView..
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/le...joins.html

[RoyGBiv]

(08-27-2011 06:24 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote:  How do you propose that his bullshit words helped Obama in any way, shape or form? They didn't.

Of course not, but that's not the question.

Quote:I never once said we didn't need the mans help. But really, does it sound like he really gives a shit? Not to me it doesn't.

But you propose that we cannot avoid "throwing him under the bus." What does this mean to you?

If it just means you hate him and are going to say so regardless of anything he does from now on, then fine. That's really not going to affect anything one way or the other.

Does it mean you're going to try to get him replaced as head of the AFL-CIO? That could be a productive strategy if it can be done without initiating a destructive battle within the union itself that splits loyalties and lessens its influence.

Are you saying that Obama or his campaign should punish him for the remarks? Should Obama's supporters start a public relations campaign of their own denouncing the union leader? If so what does all this entail, and what will be the end-game? What's the productive outcome we're shooting for and how does this strategy fit it?

[Cha]

(08-27-2011 05:46 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Interesting way of putting it.

So, let me ask you both a question.

How do you propose Obama wins the 2012 election without the assistance of the leader of the AFL-CIO?

That's what I"m saying..how does the leader of the AFL-CIO think we're going to win with him dragging his perceived dirty laundry out in public?" Loose lips.

[RoyGBiv]

(08-27-2011 10:39 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 05:46 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Interesting way of putting it.

So, let me ask you both a question.

How do you propose Obama wins the 2012 election without the assistance of the leader of the AFL-CIO?

That's what I"m saying..how does the leader of the AFL-CIO think we're going to win with him dragging his perceived dirty laundry out in public?" Loose lips.

No, I'm talking about you/us. You and others want the leader of the AFL-CIO "thrown under the bus." (It would help if we defined what we mean by that.) I'm guessing this means we are now supposed to denounce him utterly and stop listening to anything he says regardless of whether it is a rational or correct statement. All I know is that when others are said to have been thrown under the bus, that's pretty much how they're treated.

As we say all the time, Obama can't do all this alone. Many of his failures, both perceived and real, are not his but ours. So, how are we helping Obama by either shutting our ears to this guy and/or saying nothing but bad things about him in public?

I liked your idea of calling him and letting him know we don't think the way he expressed himself is accurate or helpful. That's something productive to do, but it is not, as I understand the phrase, throwing a person under the bus.

[Baltoman991]

(08-28-2011 02:23 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 10:39 PM)Cha Wrote:  That's what I"m saying..how does the leader of the AFL-CIO think we're going to win with him dragging his perceived dirty laundry out in public?" Loose lips.

No, I'm talking about you/us. You and others want the leader of the AFL-CIO "thrown under the bus." (It would help if we defined what we mean by that.) I'm guessing this means we are now supposed to denounce him utterly and stop listening to anything he says regardless of whether it is a rational or correct statement. All I know is that when others are said to have been thrown under the bus, that's pretty much how they're treated.

As we say all the time, Obama can't do all this alone. Many of his failures, both perceived and real, are not his but ours. So, how are we helping Obama by either shutting our ears to this guy and/or saying nothing but bad things about him in public?

I liked your idea of calling him and letting him know we don't think the way he expressed himself is accurate or helpful. That's something productive to do, but it is not, as I understand the phrase, throwing a person under the bus.

Maybe throwing under the bus wasn't the right term to use. But IMO, thats exactly what he did to Obama.

You have your opinions, I have mine. Again, I never said we can win without him. What I did say was that this man caused a lot of damage with those words and theres no denying that.

He fed the media more bullshit to allow them to run with and they did. And no where did I say we ignore the man in the future nor did I imply it. I am talking about this specific incident and theres no sugar coating what the man said. He threw Obama to the wolves and theres no excuse to be made for that. In this one instance, yes, I have no problem admitting I threw him under the bus.

Wrong or right, I don't really care.

[Cha]

(08-28-2011 02:23 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 10:39 PM)Cha Wrote:  That's what I"m saying..how does the leader of the AFL-CIO think we're going to win with him dragging his perceived dirty laundry out in public?" Loose lips.

No, I'm talking about you/us. You and others want the leader of the AFL-CIO "thrown under the bus." (It would help if we defined what we mean by that.) I'm guessing this means we are now supposed to denounce him utterly and stop listening to anything he says regardless of whether it is a rational or correct statement. All I know is that when others are said to have been thrown under the bus, that's pretty much how they're treated.

As we say all the time, Obama can't do all this alone. Many of his failures, both perceived and real, are not his but ours. So, how are we helping Obama by either shutting our ears to this guy and/or saying nothing but bad things about him in public?

I liked your idea of calling him and letting him know we don't think the way he expressed himself is accurate or helpful. That's something productive to do, but it is not, as I understand the phrase, throwing a person under the bus.

No, no bus throwing under from me..but, he does need to be called on it. I can get mad at what some people do without them being dead to me.

Too bad Trumpka didn't heed your advice about not saying bad things in public with that disingenuous rant on the President.. "will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie".. and what was that about PBO cutting SS and Medicare? Weird shit.

Here's to Labor Day being one hella get together for them and our Country's Labor Force!

[RoyGBiv]

(08-28-2011 02:12 PM)Cha Wrote:  No, no bus throwing under from me..but, he does need to be called on it. I can get mad at what some people do without them being dead to me.

And there ya go. That's all I'm getting at.

The AFL-CIO can't be ignored. Its leaders can be questioned and held accountable, but we can only really do that through engagement.

I suspect Trumka is incredibly frustrated. He has a lot of pressure on him internally from people who are losing benefits and jobs while at the same time dealing with the standard BS from the right. Labor sees itself being marginalized.

That doesn't excuse how he said what he said, but it may explain it somewhat.

[Julie]

Anyone else think it's interesting that the top guns of labor are resembling more and more the top guns of industry? Fat, happy and OUT OF TOUCH with reality?

Believe me, I was "in bed" with labor for some years. Some of those guys at the top do their membership a great dis-service.

Julie

[RoyGBiv]

(08-28-2011 07:10 AM)Julie Wrote:  Anyone else think it's interesting that the top guns of labor are resembling more and more the top guns of industry? Fat, happy and OUT OF TOUCH with reality?

It's been that way to one degree or another for a century or more. Part of the reason the various campaigns to discredit labor have been so successful is that it hasn't been very hard to find gross corruption and hypocrisy among the leaders.

Decent, genuinely hard working people look at that, associate the leadership with the union in general, and decide they'd rather not pay those union dues, thank-you-very-much.