Barrett
President Obama should go to Wisconsin before June 5 to spend some quality time campaigning for fellow Democrat and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who’s running to unseat Gov. Scott Walker in a recall election with national implications.
Sure, if Barrett loses – a real possibility given the $25 million-plus that union-busting Koch brothers tool Walker has been given by out-of-state big-money interests – Obama will be tagged by the right-wing noise machine as lacking political horsepower.
But that charge can be easily cast off by the White House. It wouldn’t be as though Obama had spent days or weeks stumping the state for Barrett.
What Obama’s show of support would do is help convince organized labor, whose leadership, and especially whose out-of-work union members, have been less than thrilled with his support for them and their issues so far, that he really is on their side and willing to fight for them.
When you read this kind of statement, you realize the importance of a personal appearance by the president.
.
A Democratic strategist working for anti-Walker forces warned that union members would be less enthusiastic about working for Obama if he doesn’t step up for them.
“It won’t go unnoticed by labor the extent to which the White House ultimately decides to fight or not fight for working people the final critical days in Wisconsin,” he said. “The White House needs to move beyond being afraid of its own shadow. The Romney campaign has already been foaming at the mouth to pounce if Walker survives. If that isn’t motivation enough for the White House to start doing everything it can to help defeat Scott Walker, it’s hard to know what is.”
.
Reading that, we were reminded how Big Labor abandoned President Jimmy Carter in 1980, with legions of hardhats proclaiming themselves Reagan Democrats as they contributed greatly to Reagan’s landslide win.
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who has been all over the Wisconsin situation since it exploded last year, makes the case in more detail.
.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
.
It’s as simple as this. If Obama goes to Wisconsin, putting it on the line to help Barrett, he will shore up his union support and earn the gratitude of large numbers of emotionally charged Wisconsin voters, even if Barrett loses. If Obama stays away to avoid being tainted by a Barrett loss, many union people and disappointed Wisconsin voters will feel the president let them down. That feeling of having been let down could spread across the country — the last thing a president seeking re-election needs among those who should be his solid supporters.
For the sake of completeness, let’s turn to professor Robert Reich’s observation that Republicanas have made themsevles so thoroughly unacceptable to organized labor that its support for Obama should be assured — presumably, whether Obama shows up in Wisconsin or not.
.
“I said a year ago that there was a danger — Democrats faced possibility of the enthusiasm gap” sinking their 2012 prospects, said Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Bill Clinton and a professor at University of California-Berkeley. “But the Republicans once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory: they went on an anti-union crusade — some even call it a tirade — and they went at the heart of the union movement, which is the right to organize. And Washington Republicans essentially cheered them on.”
As a result, “the labor union has been galvanized, even though Obama may not have done everything they wanted,” Reich said. “They’ve done him a huge favor.”
.
That’s plausible, but the relationship going forward could be a kissing-your-sister thing, which wouldn’t bode well for 2016. Such mistakes have kept a Democratic presidential candidate from succeeding a living Democratic president by succeeding at the polls since . . . Hmmm, would you believe since before the 20th century?
.
I’ve been puzzled by the tepid support for Barrett by the president and the DNC. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been all over the place, and now going so far as to say that even if Walker wins, it will have no national impact on the Democrats.
A huge mistake, I think, and sends a very disappointing signal to not only labor but to middle-class Democrats as a whole. At least, send Biden to Wisconsin.
One thing the Republicans understand that the Dems seem confused about is, you need to actually oppose the opposition.
L.P., I, too, think Wasserman-Schultz’s comments on the limited help Barrett’s getting were feckless and unconvincing. It is a bad decision, one that flies in the face of all the brave talk about how we’re not all in this apart, “got your back,” etc. There’s a reason why current- and recent-generation Democrats have done less well at the national level than their predecessors, and this kind of thing is why.
Dave, well said. Equally true: there’s strength in unity.
I agree that Obama should take a higher profile in the Walker recall race. But it looks pretty hopeless for Barrett. According to Intrade (I just now checked), Walker has a 96.1% chance of beating the recall. It could be that Obama is adhering to the philosophy of “you have to pick your battles.”
I just read that Bill Clinton is trying to clear his schedule to make an appearance there. Not quite the same as the president or the VP even, but better than nothing, even if a little late in the day.
Re Wasserman-Schultz. No doubt she’s a bright lady, but I’ve been less than impressed with her as a spokesperson.
A couple of things here. 1. I’m sure most people in the state have already made up their minds about the issues. That is if they have an IQ higher than a grape. And 2. Most of the polls are done via the old fashioned land line telephone. Who still has those phones? Old conservative voters who refuse to join the 21st century. Even then I’m hearing that it’s about a dead heat statistically.
Tom, my post is about why this is a battle Obama should pick for at least for a couple hours out of one day before June 5.
L.P., Clinton could be a big help in getting out the vote. He’s still one of the best stump speakers and retail politicians in the country. But no, it’s not the same and wouldn’t show solidarity like an appearance by Obama.
Demeur, it’s common for a bunch of people with made up minds to not show up to vote. That’s especially true when we hear things such as there’s a 96 percent chance Walker will win. That can give some who’d vote for Barrett the idea there’s no use bothering because he’s going to lose anyway. You’re right about cell phones vs. land lines and polling. I still believe Obama should show up in Wisconsin, and not just for Barrett and the state’s sake.
Well, I just read this interesting tidbit, which offers up a little twist:
“It’s official that Obama won’t be going to Wisconsin in advance of the Koch Brothers owned Governor’s Recall Election. This has certain liberals fuming, but not everybody in Wisconsin agrees with that the President should come. Let’s do a little reality check. The Obama campaign in Chicago has a super computer, the smartest people in the world to run it, and millions of dollars worth of polling data to feed into it. They’ve decided that Obama’s appearance would only fire up the Republican base, who might otherwise let Walker be recalled since the FBI will get him soon anyway.
Obama has devoted considerable resources behind the scenes to promote the recall just the same. Democrats in Wisconsin don’t need to see Obama to be fired up, they already have their pitchforks sharpened, their torches are lit, the tar is boiling and every chicken in the state is naked, having given its feathers for a good cause. Governor Walker should be able to fly after Tuesday.”
http://www.prairie2.com/2012/05/chickens-are-naked-and-proud.html
L.P., if $30 million (I heard last night) and the idea of their very own sold-out, union-busting, anything-to-win jerk being thrown out of office by the people he sought to screw over isn’t enough to fire up the Republican base, bring on the embalming fluid because they’re goners.
The quoted post is one way to look at it, but not my way. Obama and all Democrats need organized labor’s active, enthusiastic support. Democrats need to rebuild a viable, durable coalition. Their 2016 candidate will need that coalition and for labor to be part of it. Loyalty must be earned. Not showing up for a flashpoint election like this one is not how loyalty is earned.
I totally agree with you. I think what I was trying to do by posting this quote was to counteract some of the MSM’s dire predictions and to show that there are those out there who still possess lots of enthusiasm re Walker’s recall. Of course, we won’t know if their enthusiasm generates enough votes to accomplish the task until election day. Maybe the debates, especially the last one, will have a positive impact.
Wasserman-Schultz is the reason I wouldn’t dream of giving a dime to the DCCC. And I completely agree that the President should show up in Wisconsin, whatever his political calculations may be. There is always a time to do the right thing, politics be damned.
S.W.,
Let’s face it: we thought we were electing a new FDR in 2008, but instead we got for the most part a weak moderately conservative Democrat who would rather switch than stand and fightk
I keep thinking about what Lyndon Johnson would have done. For all of his faults, Johnson stood up when it came time to do what he thought was right.
J.R., on the domestic side, Johnson was one of the best presidents this country has ever had. He was an unapologetic New Deal Democrat and idolized FDR.
Jack, there’s reason to feel as you do. Keep in mind, though, that even FDR had to be prodded and persuaded. It helped that he had Democratic majorities in Congress and high levels of public support. If you haven’t done so already, read about his labor secretary, Frances Perkins, and their working relationship. Obama has had to deal with exceptional disaster and unprecedented opposition, apparently without a Frances Perkins. I’m not excusing his mistakes, just trying to keep things in perspective.