Jim And Tammy Faye Bakker’s Old Shows Up For Sale
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An Atlanta investment banker is auctioning off more than 15,000 videotaped episodes of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s iconic Christian talk show.
“The PTL Club,” which aired from 1974 to 1987, featured Jim Bakker offering upbeat sermons from a couch and Tammy Faye, wearing her trademark heavy mascara, singing about Jesus. Most episodes were taped at their empire _ which included a hotel, campground and theme park _ just south of Charlotte.
PTL, which stood for “Praise The Lord,” came crashing down in 1987 when Jim Bakker went to prison for fraud after a sex scandal. The couple divorced and Tammy Faye remarried and changed her last name to Messner. She died in 2007 from colon cancer.
The 15,069 hourlong tapes went to a Charlotte church, then a cable content provider, said Ben Dyer, president of Gospel Properties.
The cable provider defaulted on a loan from Dyer’s company and he got the tapes, which he plans to auction in San Francisco on March 27.
A spokeswoman for Jim Bakker, who now lives in Branson, Mo., said the televangelist has been told the tapes have been appraised at around $8 million. He considers them part of his legacy.
The tapes provide enough content to create a channel exclusively showing “The PTL Club,” said Dean Becker, vice chairman of Ocean Tomo, the Chicago-based merchant bank handling the auction.
And, Dyer pointed out, the audience already knows about PTL’s fall.
“People can watch these shows knowing how their story ended,” he said. “It makes them even more intriguing to watch.”
Jane Hamsher: Mortgage Write-Downs: Why Does Ellen Tauscher Value Banks Over Constituents? Ask Adam Pase
<p><a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGxR7n”>President Obama says</a> that allowing bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages to reflect fair market housing values is an important part of his plan to arrest the downward spiral of the mortgage crisis. So why is Ellen Tauscher, head of the New Democrat Coalition, working so hard on behalf of bank and mortgage industry lobbyists to stop it from happening? </p> <p>That’s a good question. When Chris Bowers <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11850″>told readers to write and urge her to stop watering down HR 200</a>, her communications director contacted him to point out “that <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/26/115126/814/304/707″>she voted in favor of the rule on HR 1106, which implies support</a>.” Not only is the vote not reflective of support for the bill, but numerous House sources indicate that former Wall Street investment banker Tauscher is the one who recruited Blue Dogs and New Dems to join with the Republicans to render it meaningless. She’s the undisputed leader of the opposition, speaking boldly in the caucus meeting and negotiating with Zoe Lofgren on behalf of the banks. <em>Fer chrissakes</em>, even <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/charles-payne–stocks-charles-choice-571636588/”>Fox News</a> is reporting she’s taking the lead on this. It’s downright insulting that her office tried to pass off something this outlandish and easily disputed.</p> <p>Tauscher’s office also said she hasn’t met with any bankers or lobbyists on the matter, and that may well be true. She doesn’t have to. Adam Pase, the executive director of the New Democrat Coalition which Tauscher chairs, <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://mobile.politico.com/politicopro.cfm?cat=topnews&plink=adampase”>works directly out of her office</a>. </p> <p>Pase is is a former lobbyist for the Twenty First Century Group, whose client, the Coalition for Fair & Affordable Lending, is an <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues.php?lname=Coalition+for+Fair+%26+Affordable+Lending&year=2004″>astroturf</a> group, <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/issuesum.php?lname=Banking&year=2004″>financed by the banking industry,</a> that lobbied on behalf of. . . you guessed it. . . sub-prime lenders. Contrary to what you might hear on <em>Morning Joe</em>, it was <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64650-2005Mar24.html”>national civil rights leaders who joined together</a> to <em>fight</em> the Coalition’s predatory lenders as they tried to pass the Ney-Kanjorski bill, which would have enabled banks to <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/predatory.html”>get around predatory lending laws</a> and make <em>more</em> bad loans. This they justified based on the oh-so-high-minded need to <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:XYC2R12L87wJ:financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/110503sn.pdf+%22coalition+for+fair+and+affordable+lending%22+minority&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a”>provide loans to low income and minority borrowers</a>. It was true scumbaggery.</p> <p>Pase was also the <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2254″>senior policy adviser for Dennis Moore</a> when Moore organized Blue Dogs to oppose mortgage write-downs on behalf of the banking industry in 2007, and he is evidently the one driving policy on this one for the New Dems. But one has to wonder — what is Tauscher thinking? Her district is <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/quick-references/projected-foreclosures-by-congressional-district.html”>one of the hardest hit by the mortgage crisis</a>, as you can see from the map. Why is she trying to limit mortgage write-downs to subprime loans only, on behalf of banks, when every foreclosure brings down the value of all houses in a neighborhood? Her claim to <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/26/195049/322/314/713″>care so very much</a> about people still struggling to pay their mortgages rings hollow.</p> <p>Credit Suisse says that this bill would cut the <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/bankruptcy-cram-down-could-reduce-foreclosures-20-percent/”>rate of foreclosure by 20%</a> and it wouldn’t cost the taxpayers a dime. Why? Because it would force banks to write down the value of the loans on their books to their <em>true value </em>– which would quickly show that they are probably insolvent. They’re also hoping that the taxpayer will pick up the tab and they’ll be able to escape taking responsibility for their own bad business decisions. Taushcer’s own bill would <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-906″>provide mortgage relief from TARP funds</a>. </p> <p>Tauscher and others are hiding behind the mantle of “fiscal conservativism,” but it’s little more than self-interest on behalf of banks that are incomprehensibly still writing our legislation again.</p> <p></p> <p><a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://firedoglake.com/files/1/files//2009/02/7.jpg”><img src=”http://firedoglake.com/files/1/files//2009/02/7.jpg” class=”imgRight” alt=”7.jpg”/></a><p></p> <p><em>Jane Hamsher blogs at <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://firedoglake.com”>firedoglake.com</a></em>
Michael Fauntroy: Live Blogging the State of the Black Union Symposium — Panel 1
I’m in Los Angeles today to blog the State of the Black Union conference. I’ll be posting throughout the day with observations about event. Note: All times are Pacific Standard.
10:55 AM Q & A session: Morial gives “action items” for making sure that the stimulus money gets to the neighborhoods. He urges everyone to ask their elected officials to publicly state their plans for spending the stimulus money. Jackson calls for a squatters movement on foreclosed homes.
10:45 AM Michael Eric Dyson bypasses Raymond Brown’s question about how we should measure Obama at the end of his first term to sermonize on other things.
10:29 AM Les Brown: “Recession, restores, resourcefulness.” He emphasized the importance of studying success.
10:15 AM Michelle Singletary begins her remarks with a tribute to Jesse Jackson and her husband.
10:02 AM Iyanla Vanzant gave a personal twist to this notion of the tough time people are going through. She lost her house and two major contracts that left her unable to pay her bills, including health insurance. She emphasized personal accountability and gratitude for her life and used that to pull out of her troubles. She’s a beast. I love her honesty and willingness to share her story.
9:38 AM Peter Harvey, former New Jersey Attorney General, lays out the fact that aggressive prosecution alone never eradicates social ills — overemphasis on prosecution and incarceration will lead to greater destruction in Black communities. Harvey offers a clear, intelligent plan for dealing with social problems. He emphasized the importance of mentoring programs as a mechanism for addressing gangs and other problems. No bluster. Just real solutions.
9:21 AM Q. to Professors Ogletree and Rose regarding the negative narrative regarding Black youth. Tree identifies the importance of voting as a mechanism for changing the narrative. Black youth turned out for the November 2008 election and made change in many states in which Blacks have generally not been able to take the reins of power.Rose cites the role of commercial hip-hop as a driver of racial stereotypes. It’s a particularly problem given that 70% of those that buy commercial hip-hop are not African American.
9:11 AM Jesse Jackson speaks to the governors around the country who are threatening to not take stimulus from the government. He believes that Bobby Jindal and others are posturing for political purposes. I’ve written about that. Jesse also argues in favor of greater expenditures for student grants (not loans).
9:03 AM Marc Morial lays out how the stimulus package provides funds for important initiatives that could have a positive impact on Black communities. He commends the Congressional Black Caucus for their work to make sure that money that was originally cut from the stimulus was restored. He emphasizes the need to hold local officials accountable to make sure the money gets into Black neighborhoods.
8:52 AM Maxine Waters takes out a stick and beats the banks on sub-prime mortgages when asked about the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP). She goes after Wells Fargo, a sponsor of the SOBU, for their unwillingness to re-do loans. A WF Executive Vice President told a gathering last night that their bank didn’t do sub-primes. Either Waters or the WF rep got it wrong. The first two rows of people behind me include many WF staffers, virtually all of whom cringed and moaned when Maxine went off.
8:45 AM Michael Eric Dyson gets the first question and it is on this notion of “post-racial” America in the wake of Barack Obama’s election as President. He associates “post-racial” with “post-gender” as lens put upon how we view race and gender.
8:40 AM Raymond Brown brings the heat in his introductory statements. He associates Obama’s election as striking a blow against White supremacy. He further puts the beat down on this notion of a “post-racial” America. I’ve written about this before. Put me on the list with Brown and others who think “post-racial” is real. It isn’t. In fact, it’s bullshit.
8:33 AM Tavis introduces Tom Joyner, who been with SOBU from the outset. Joyner introduces the panelists: Maxine Waters, Charles Ogletree, Stephanie Robinson, Peter Harvey, Michelle Singletary, Marc Morial, Michael Eric Dyson (flashing hand signs!), Iyanla Vanzant, Les Brown, Jesse Jackson, Tricia Rose, and moderator Raymond Brown.
8:20 AM Tavis takes the audience through Accountable explaining its layout, which includes solutions for particular issues. He lists President Obama’s campaign promises and how he is living up to them in office. The book includes similar lists for Congress, governors, legislators, corporations, community leaders, and individuals. At the end of the book is an “accountability check list” which allows us all to identify the extent to which elected officials are on their jobs.
8:13 AM Tavis discusses the Covenant with Black America, the Covenant in Action, and Accountable: Making America as Good as its Promise, and how it prepares an action plan for ensuring that the President, Congress, and other elected officials live up to their political promises.
8:08 AM Tavis introduces a video from President Obama who brings greetings from the White House. Obama lays out some of the policy changes he will lay out with is domestic economic agenda. Toward the end of his statement, he notes that the African American unemployment is five points higher than that of the rest of the country. I was hoping he would encourage the audience to keep him accountable for what he’s doing as President. He didn’t.
Jeremy Scahill: Obama’s Iraq: All Troops Out By 2011? Not So Fast
<p><em>Originally posted at <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/129362/all_troops_out_by_2011_not_so_fast%3B_why_obama%27s_iraq_speech_deserves_a_second_look/”>AlterNet</a></em></p> <p>Some anti-war analysts find hope in President Barack Obama’s address at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina on Friday, in which he appeared to spell out a clear date for withdrawal from Iraq.</p> <p>”I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” Obama said in a speech that quickly generated headlines announcing that an end to the occupation is on the horizon. As far as rhetoric goes, Obama’s statement seems very clear. But in reality, it is far more complicated.</p> <p>Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”</p> <p>Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.”</p> <p>Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy.</p> <p>Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.</p> <p>Whether this job is performed by State Department Diplomatic Security or mercenaries from the company formerly known as Blackwater (or else a corporation more acceptable to the Obama administration), the U.S. will have a substantial paramilitary force regularly escorting U.S. VIPs around Iraq — a proven recipe for civilian deaths and injuries. Obama’s speech on Friday did not even address the question of military contractors — a crucial omission given that their presence rivals that of U.S. troops by a ratio of over 1-to-1.</p> <p>Finally, the Status of Forces Agreement, which supposedly lays out a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, contains a gaping loophole that leaves open the possibility of a continuation of the occupation and a sustained presence of U.S. forces well beyond 2011, “upon request by the government of Iraq.” Article 27 of the SOFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, “or any other measure,” inside Iraq’s borders “In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq.” Could this mean an election where the <em>wrong</em> candidate or party wins? What is the definition of a threat?</p> <p><strong>The Democrats’ Response</strong></p> <p>Earlier in the week, when details of Obama’s official Iraq plan began to emerge, expressions of surprise poured from the offices of the congressional Democratic leadership over his intention to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the country beyond 2010.</p> <p>”When they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I anticipated,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was “particularly upset” according to the New York Times and did not understand “the justification.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., exclaimed, “Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought.”</p> <p>The response from the Democratic power brokers was embarrassingly disingenuous. Obama said early on in his presidential campaign that he intended to keep behind a “residual force” of the scope he laid out. Those who have long protested this aspect of his plan were marginalized and ignored in both the corporate media and the Obama campaign.</p> <p>The same Democratic leaders expressing their disappointment ignored the credible voices of dissent for years while supporting the occupation through votes and funding. That they would wait to express their dissent until long after it would actually have had an impact is one of the best examples of what has been so wrong with the Democrats’ role from the beginning of President George W. Bush’s declaration of war against the world and his 2003 invasion of Iraq.</p> <p>If Pelosi, Reid, et al., really had a problem with a 50,000 troop residual force, they certainly had ample time to say so when Obama was running for president.</p> <p>On Friday, however, these same Democrats welcomed the announcement that combat missions would be out by 2011. Reid praised Obama’s plan, while cautioning that we “must keep in Iraq only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people.” Following Obama’s speech at Camp Lejeune, key Senate Republicans praised Obama’s plan as well, while reminding everyone that it was an outgrowth of the Bush administration.</p> <p>”It is encouraging to see the Obama administration embrace the plan of Gen. David Petraeus that began with the successful surge in 2007, and continues shifting combat responsibilities to our Iraqi allies,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.</p> <p><strong>Adopting the Bush Narrative</strong></p> <p>Beyond the headline-generating news, Obama’s speech at Camp Lejeune delivered a number of lines — wrapped in laudatory rhetoric — that could have been delivered by Bush himself.</p> <p>”I want to be very clear,” Obama told the military audience. “We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime — and you got the job done.” Perhaps it bears remembering that “removing Saddam” was justification two or three offered by the Bush administration after the WMD fraud was exposed.</p> <p>”We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government,” Obama went on, “and you got the job done.” (The idea that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki regime is either sovereign or a government is hotly debated in Iraq.) “And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life — that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.”</p> <p>As much as could be said about this, perhaps the best response was delivered on Friday by Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks, who knows the situation in Iraq about as well as any journalist.</p> <p>”We won’t know for 10 or 15 years whether we actually did something right, even in removing Saddam Hussein,” he said on MSNBC. “We may very well end up with a strongman, stronger than Saddam, closer to Tehran and certainly will be anti-American. That’s in some ways the best-case scenario if that country holds together.”</p> <p>Regardless of what happens down the line, the world knows the truth about the lies that both Democrats and Republicans promoted in support of Bush’s war against Iraq. Rather than inspire hope among Iraqis, the U.S. occupation has devastated their country and opened Iraq’s gates for unprecedented violence and instability in their country and the region.</p> <p>Obama, the candidate, used to riff on these truths on the campaign trail. The contradiction between President Obama’s speech at Camp Lejeune and his rhetoric before he was elected should serve as a warning to those who take his words at face value. But more important, combined with his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Obama’s adoption of key lies from Bush’s Iraq narrative should be seen as a dangerous indicator of things to come.</p>
Stanton Peele: Drug Policy Reform: Is the Timing Perfect, or Are We Ahead of the Times?
<p>So far, Barack Obama has indicated no penchant for pushing a drug policy reform agenda — his selection for Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, formerly police chief of Seattle, is an unknown quantity who has neither espoused reform nor opposed it. Are those of us who seek changes in the American approach to drugs whistling in the dark, or is now the time to strike?</p> <p>Drug violence is running wild in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, and it is now spilling over the border into the United States. In Mexico itself, violent drug-related deaths numbered 5,000 in 2008. The pace of these murders has increased this year, with over 1,000 people having been reported killed so far through February.</p> <p>As a result of this violence — and the widespread corruption and intimidation of local police — Mexican President Felipe Calderon has called out 40,000 federal troops to combat the drug trade. When the Mexicans speak of a War on Drugs, they mean it literally! Recently, a Mexican general was killed in Cancun — which most Americans still think of as a vacation destination.</p> <p>Worse still are the towns bordering with the U.S., where constant drug violence rules. Ciudad Juarez (just across from El Paso in Texas) stands out as Mexico’s most violent city. But the drug war has spread widely within the United States–including surprisingly far-flung locations. The AP reports that Mexican cartels are operating in over 230 U.S. cities. Five men were killed recently in Alabama over drugs: their throats were slit after they were tortured with electrical shocks!</p> <p>Texas Governor Rick Perry has now asked for 1,000 American troops to guard the border with Mexico, with special attention to El Paso. I watched as former General — and the Drug Czar under Bill Clinton — Barry McCaffrey, who serves as a military consultant and news analyst, was questioned about this step. McCaffrey was dubious about the chances for success — since, after all, the cartels are already present throughout the U.S.</p> <p>McCaffrey suggested other military alternatives — the man knows how to wage war, after all! I imagined asking him about the February 23rd W<em>all Street Journal</em> editorial by three former Latin American Presidents (from Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico) — which claimed that the drug war had definitively failed, and was decimating the continent. These respected men want to address drug harms, and since marijuana is less harmful than heroin and cocaine (except for the warring dealers, that is), it should be decriminalized.</p> <p>Shocking! McCaffrey would only grimace and sneer at this proposal — he certainly never entertained any such suggestion during his regime, being matched in his intransigence by Bush Drug Czar John Walters. These men (I wonder when we will have our first woman as Drug Czar) are charged, after all, with combating drugs, not permitting their use. Such a discussion is completely outside the pale in the U.S.</p> <p>If someone were to confront McCaffrey and Walters with the current rampant violence throughout the U.S. and Latin America — “Well,” they’d say, “it’s not on my watch.” Both men claimed great success for their tenures. Walters was just trumpeting marginal reductions in high school drug use as he left office. As for McCaffrey — he’s been out of office since 2001 — his successor Walters bollixed this deal up!</p> <p>In the midst of this mess facing the new Czar, a California state legislator from San Francisco, Democrat Tom Ammiano, has proposed selling and taxing marijuana legally for those over the age of 21. Other legislators immediately denounced the bill — Republican Paul Cook, of Yucca Valley, declared, “I think substance abuse is just ruining our society.” But you wonder if Ammiano’s logic — “why not tax something which is already being widely used?” – will be more appealing given California’s financial woes. Simply taxing the $2 billion medical marijuana trade — a fraction of overall use of the drug in the state — would bring in an estimated $100 million.</p> <p>Ah, I’m daydreaming. Any true reform requires U.S. government approval. Barack Obama’s got two young daughters. He <a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.peele.net/lib/candidates.html”>quit drugs</a> when he got over his own identity crisis as a youth. Conservatives are already assailing his economic stimulus package, and he hasn’t been willing to take on the risk of nodding his approval of gay marriage. So legalizing marijuana is a couple of steps too far down Obama road. I guess we’ll have to wait for his Republican replacement!</p> <p>Aww, I’ll just go back to my pipe dreams.</p> <p><br />
</p>
Karzai changes date for Afghan vote
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai issued a decree on Saturday that sets an earlier date for the country’s presidential election, a move that could spark a constitutional crisis.
Major Labor Unions Consider Reuniting After Bitter Split 4 Years Ago
WASHINGTON — Union leaders are talking about reuniting under a single, more powerful federation, nearly four years after a nasty breakup split organized labor.
Leaders from 12 of the largest unions, along with rival federations AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have held three meetings since January aimed at setting aside differences and taking advantage of the most favorable political climate for unions in 15 years.
“We’ve had very positive discussions and we’ve reached some significant agreements,” said David Bonior, the former Michigan congressman who is brokering the discussions.
But Bonior stressed that significant hurdles remain as leaders work out how a unified labor federation would be structured and what its goals would be.
Seven unions, led by the Service Employees International Union, bolted from the AFL-CIO in 2005. They complained the federation focused too much on political campaigns and not enough on recruiting new members. The break reflected frustration with steadily declining union membership, from a peak of 35 percent of the work force in the 1950s to about 12 percent today.
The political landscape has changed now that Democrats control the White House and Congress. Union officials see a chance to accomplish goals such as passing legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize unions.
“There’s obvious benefits in terms of efficiency, message delivery, financial savings and a host of other reasons,” Bonior said. “You can always be more effective if you’re talking in one house as opposed to three.”
Talks have included the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, the nation’s largest union, which was not previously aligned with either federation but could become part of the new structure.
None of the leaders involved has talked publicly about specifics, but the pace of negotiations has picked up. The issue is prominent on the agenda during the AFL-CIO’s annual winter meeting in Miami in the coming week.
“We are still talking,” Change to Win chairwoman Anna Burger told reporters recently.
Some breakaway unions swore they would never return to the AFL-CIO, so there’s talk of changing the name identified with organized labor for more than 50 years.
Leadership is tricky, too, with AFL-CIO president John Sweeney set to step down this year. The federation’s secretary-treasurer, Richard Trumka, is a likely successor. But some unions, particularly the Teamsters, would oppose him.
Robert Reich, former labor secretary in the Clinton administration, said the labor split didn’t really matter when Republicans ran Washington and unions didn’t stand a chance at changing labor laws.
But with Democrats in charge, unions realize that “strength lies in unity,” said Reich. “A divided labor movement is inherently weaker than a united one, especially when it comes to national politics and policy.”
Nowhere is unity more important for unions than in efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act in Congress this year. The measure would take away the right of employers to demand secret-ballot elections by workers before unions could be recognized. Instead, unions could gain representation if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing it.
Unions believe passage of the bill would spur a renaissance in the labor movement, perhaps doubling union membership with the ranks of workers now discouraged from organizing by employer intimidation. Business groups have railed against the bill for months, saying it would deprive workers of secret ballot voting and subject employees to union bullying.
Barack Obama indicated strong support for the measure during the presidential campaign. But with Obama primarily focused on the economy now, the White House has not given a clear signal on when it wants Congress to consider the bill. At one point, unions hoped Obama would push the card-check legislation within his first 100 days in office.
___
On the Net:
AFL-CIO: http://www.aflcio.org/
Change to Win: http://www.changetowin.org
Coulter: McCain v. Obama Was Like Helen Thomas v. George Foreman In His Prime
One of the more interesting dynamics of the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend in D.C. has been how eager conservatives have been to cleanse themselves of the Bush years and how timid they’ve been in going after John McCain. Matt Cooper at Talking Points Memo noticed this on Friday, and I picked up on it as well.
Last year, when he took the CPAC stage as — for the first time — the defacto Republican candidate, the crowd nearly booed McCain off the podium. This year, after he fell short in the general election, the only punches thrown at the Arizona Republican have been thrown largely in private.
On Saturday, that changed. Ann Coulter, in an otherwise mild performance (one filled with political jokes seemingly recycled from the campaign), lambasted McCain for his lameness, equating him to longtime Washington scribe Helen Thomas taking on a heavyweight boxing champion.
“In a poll taken in Germany during the election I showed that 80 percent of the German people supported Obama over McCain. And we all know how infallible the Germans are at picking great leaders,” said the brash conservative author. “Meanwhile, we were running John McCain. It is amazing he lost by only seven points rather than 75. Obama beating McCain is the equivalent of George Foreman, in his prime, beating Helen Thomas in the 12th round by technical knockout. Which, come to think of, I wouldn’t mind seeing.”
The line, a rather mild ribbing of the Senator but a ribbing nonetheless, earned a spattering of applause from the crowd. Far more popular, in fact, was Coulter’s defense of Bush (and, by extension Obama), which came after an attendee asked her to asses the president’s national security policies.
“Actually on national security, I think we all ought to be gloating because Obambi seems to be continuing the policies of George Bush,” said Coulter. “It is MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Code Pink, and the New York Times who ought to be weeping, weeping. Apparently Obama got into offce and got the national security briefing and thought, ‘I can’t let the New York Times run national security.’ So I think we do owe a thank you to George Bush for keeping us so safe, and we ought to acknowledge that.”
Obama Gets His Post-Speech ‘Bounce’
<p>In the days since President Barack Obama’s televised address to a joint session of Congress, he has reclaimed the level of public approval with which he started his presidency.</p> <p>Sixty-seven percent of Americans surveyed Wednesday through Friday said they approve of the job that Obama is doing as president, according to the findings of the Gallup Poll.</p>
GOP Trying To Drive Wedge Between Pelosi And Obama
<p>Barack Obama might be the new president, but to hear Republicans tell it, Nancy Pelosi is really running things.</p> <p>At least that is how it appears from the way Republicans single out the speaker as the cause of everything from their near-blanket opposition to the economic stimulus legislation, to the 9,000 earmarks in the overdue spending bills.</p>
