- The Scott Brown Win.
- Speaker Pelosi announcing she lacks the votes to pass the Senate version of Health Insurance reform in the US House of Representatives.
- The US Supreme Court throwing our big chunks of McCain-Feingold and telling us Corporations are, indeed, persons.
- President Obama proposing stricter rules for major banks with regard to trading ("Volcker Rule").
- Concern on the part of Senate Democrats that they don't have the votes to reconfirm Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
- Secretary of State Clinton taking on the Chinese Government over Internet freedom.
- Some other item that was missed or hasn't yet hit the news.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Out Back Question of the Week
What is the top news story of this week, not in terms of current splash, but in terms of long term impact on the nation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I know you're talking long-term impact with this, but I'm still inclined to pipe up for Haiti.
Thousands of American boots on the ground, an armada off the coast, and a clear stake in seeing Haiti through, even in ways that might morph way beyond earthquake relief.
This is a tough question because of the list presented, any one of the items alone will have long term impacts, how severe those impacts become is yet to be seen.
That said, I have to vote for the Brownout of traditional MA politics. It is not the guy but rather, the underlying shift in the hearts and minds of the electorate, signalling a rejection of not only the unrestrained pursuit of the uber liberal agenda....at any cost apparently....but the arrogance of power associated with the whole process.
It seems that a basic civic lesson has been delivered once more, the so-called checks and balances have traditionally and currently ignored the operation of the most powerful check......the electorate.
How come Tiger Woods didn't make the list? Apparently that will also have some long term impact right???
While not at the top of the list, should be the relationship of unions (more importantly their workers) with the Democratic Party. There is a new article on the subject, just released from the Huffington Post.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100121/cm_huffpost/431942
"Coakley Could Have Won If Unions Had Gone In Sooner: Study"
"Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO's data. More surprising, however, was the explanation as to why union members voted the way they did. According to the data:
"Coakley won union voters who had heard from their union by 10 points, while losing those who said they had not heard from their union by 5 points."
I'm not anti-union, in the concept workers have rights to organize. To negotiate contracts and to ensure worker safety and health. My mother was union. My in-laws are union. My father-in-law was president of his union for many years. Unions though seem to spend more time and money contributing to political campaigns, then focusing on their own workers. Who knows how much money is spend through PACs and soft spending, and not with the new SC decision that corporations and unions are free to spend cash on campaigns?
I wouldn't want to be approached by my boss or management to persuade me how to vote in the relationship. It's one things as a friend or neighbor, fine, but an employer or union who can leverage your job or seniority/job promotion?
No Way!
What if I decline to hold the sign?
What if the union sees the opponents sign in my front yard?
Not sure if you saw the You Tube of the union worker saying he was voting for Brown, but was being paid to hold a Coakley sign?
Renee,
Unions work because of one thing, solidarity.
We all have to make choices. If one is inclined to bite the hand that feeds them, then they should quit the union and go join the dog eat dog world.
I'm Capt. Cliche today.
Solidarity in what though?
Hence the reason for union decline, and that's unfortunate because I believe in unions.
In many states they have laws for at-will employees from employers interfere in the political expression. Expressing political beliefs is a big freedom, that's a big sacrifice and trade off for solidarity.
Unions are big on secret money in the political campaigning. NPR (not Fox News) have followed "Citizens for Strength and Security" a financial backer of Coakley's campaign is really a union based PAC despite no good reference on their site.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/citizens_for_strength_and_secu.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/citizens_for_strength_and_secu_1.html
Their commercials were negative and misrepresentation of Brown. How come they couldn't make a positive of Coakley?
As Andy Hiller from WHDH. I believe said it, the Democrats are old and stale relying on far left progressives as their base and alienating anyone who is into owning up to 'solidarity' with an offensive label of 'teab*gger".
The use of 527's is abused by both sides. SCOTUS has opened the flood gates.
My taste in tea:
Teabaggers: a faux Libertarian calliope, enraged and frothing, set up by GOP groups like Freedom Works, to battle Obama's agenda. The one that was overwhelmingly favored over McCain's.
Tea Party: an organic Libertarian movement, bolstered by an angry working class that is sick 'n tired of our stewards in public service pimping us out to their corporate feudal masters.
What Trumka sez!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1ii9uWnJI
Post a Comment