Senator Ben Nelson(D) of Nebraska is opposing Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker, a labor lawyer, for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board. Here’s how this story is being portrayed by various media outlets.
NY Times
Senate’s Vote on Labor Nominee
MSNBC
Labor nominee vote tests GOP’s new power
CBS News
Ben Nelson Opposes Labor Board Nominee
Drudge
[not mentioned]
Fox News
Dem to Oppose Obama Nominee for NLRB
AP/LA Times/ABC News/Miami Herald
With Nelson, GOP blocks Obama labor board nominee
Huffington Post
Nelson Complicates Obama’s Plans To Demonize GOP As Obstructionists
Today’s headline is much more deceptive and Anti-Obama!~
You have to read to an update at the very end of the story to get the context, which is:”Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.”
That said, this is stupid politics on Obama’s part!
Why do you think it’s stupid politics? Because Obama said he “knew both guys?”
Also, we still do not have the transcript of the entire interview. Even the article’s author conceded that he did not have the whole interview and was basing his remarks on partial information.
I think it is stupid politics to sound at all understanding of Wall Street bonuses. There is real populist rage that this statement only fuels.
And further, to the Left, it sounds as if Obama is making conciliatory sounds to the Right. There are some issues on which it is not smart to sound like the voice of reason. Plus, personally, I do NOT think those bonuses are reasonable.
I think we’re going to see a lot of rhetoric we don’t like as a consequence of the latest Supreme Court ruling.
Congress had better get some legislation in place to push back against all that big money, and FAST.
Nellie, I am not sure I understand, but it sounds intriguing. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that because of the ruling, and corporate money, politicians are going to dial down the criticisms of corporations? To get corporate $$$ or to prevent ads against them? OMG, we’re truly doomed.
I think with the bushels of cash available basically to destroy any candidate or install any candidate, we’re going to see the democratic party become much more business friendly — like Clinton triangulation on steroids.
Although I do think Obama is already a business-friendly democrat. But that statement sends very mixed signals, considering what he has said in the past about these bonuses.
There’s nothing more important right now than correcting that corrupt ruling by that corrupt court.
I agree! Frankly, the most important letter writing campaign should be to Congress and the media about this decision and about how Congress should respond. I will compile addresses soon.
I’d love to help out with that, Cher. Let me know what I can do.
Nellie– I just posted something fast and sloppy. Can you add anything? I just wanted to post a start.
Cher, I see where you’re coming from but I think the comments Obama made are consistent with his previous comments on the issues of banks, corporations and wealth. Obama has always maintained that he is not out to punish the banks or corporations because they have been the foundation of our economy for centuries. Even with the health care reform debate, he stated that his intention was not to put the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies out of business because they help to stimulate the economy by providing jobs to “regular” people. However, he believes that corporations/banks should be regulated so that the compensation system proportionately reflects the merits and input of the ALL the workers, shareholders and the profits made by the company. I don’t think this is anti-populist in anyway.
Obama strikes me as someone who does not allow ideological bents to restrict his ability to consider something that may suggest a different bent if that solution proves to be more feasible or effective.
And based on what I saw from the interview excerpt, Obama did NOT say that he thought the bonuses were reasonable.
Hi Gretel! Yes, Obama’s comments are consistent, but I just don’t think they are smart politics. I am not even talking about policy, just the public relations aspect of his statement.
You are right– he did not say the bonuses are reasonable. But he did not use this interview to reiterate that he is appalled– as he stated earlier. He needs to state that over and over again, IMO.
There is smart- and Obama is the maybe the smartest president in modern times!– and there is savvy. I do not think this was savvy.
Cher, Paul Krugman is on the same page. In a NYT column entitled “Clueless,” he says:
“There
Thom Hartman’s guest blog for HP on corporatism/Fascism was “moderated” for 24 hrs, because he used the word Fascism in definition! 😆
AP has the most accurate headline this time. That’s encouraging.
HP’s headline is so bad, I don’t even know what the story is about. But it’s Sam Stein, so no big surprise. The front page headline has already changed to something else. At least the new headline makes sense.
This one wasn’t their main. Thanks for turning those into links, btw. It never even occurred to me!
Well, at least HP didn’t make it the main. I didn’t even read the reaction to the story. It’s so seldom I read the comment section at any site, now. The Heritage Foundation has pretty much polluted all of them.
It’s a pretty important story. The real headline should have been:
MOVE BY NELSON SHOWS DEMS NEVER HAD 60 VOTES
Nelson, like far too many Democrats, are corrupt as their counterparts in the GOP.
(did you enjoy your winning corn flakes?)
😥
Exactly. It still bemuses me that that myth of the ‘magic 60’ was ever given such credence anyway.
Of course HP spins the article to paint Obama in the worst light. We all know conservative Democrats are a huge problem for the president from the whole HCR debacle. But the Republicans are the most to blame for blocking any progress. HP continually wants to create a Civil War within the Democratic Party so they can get more clicks and giggles for their own ad money. BTW did anyone else notice that Huffy now has more and more anti-Obama and Dem ads on their website each week?
I think they might be coming out of the closet. How could anyone still consider this a “progressive” site with headlines that are more biased than Fox and Drudge? Yet I still see many, many commenters referring to HP as a liberal blog or a progressive site.
a) they don’t know any better, b) they drank the kool-aid, c) they don’t give a rat’s ass, d) they’re lemmings, or e) all of the above.
E, Boomer. Definitely E.
Just take a look at HP’s current headline and the accompanying picture of the President. Someone’s personal issues with Obama is becoming more and more obvious.
Talk about demonizing…
What is extra-interesting is that the article is fully moderated.
The BS anti-Obama articles tend to be the most heavily moderated. They want to screen out the comments which correct the misinformation and lies they peddle with those articles.