Quick Hits and Deep Thoughts: 100% Senate Edition

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Can there be any doubt that this U.S. Senate race is the hottest in the country? After all, it's still the only one where the ad wars are fast and furious. Maybe it's the lack of humidity in Oregon during the summer.

On the jump, Gordon Smith's new TV spot - and a right-wing tracker trying to catch Jeff Merkley in a gaffe.

As always, full disclosure: I built JeffMerkley.com, but I speak only for myself.

  • RinoWatch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hide the women and children, folks. It's true: The Gropinator himself is coming,...Hmmm,I didn't realize Ben Westlund would be there...

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LOL... That was my first thought... about Sen. Ben ("Did you know that the word Harass is made up of two words?").

    I wonder what Libby think's of her ass? (Debbie Boone's)

  • (Show?)

    Heh - I read "gropinator himself is coming to Oregon..." and immediately thought, "Packwood? When did he leave Oregon?"

  • (Show?)

    Alright, stay on topic. We'll get to the Westlund story soon enough.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, why isn't Westlund on topic? "Gropinator" was the second issue in your post.

    OK so back to your opposition to the secret ballot.

    The difference between your silly analogy about joining a party and joining a union, is that there are not some thuggish Republican party operatives who are going to haunt you at work and follow you home to pressure you to join the party.

    Those kinds of things happen when the union thugs start getting engaged.

    Your employment is how you feed your family and how that workplace environment shapes up is an incredibly personal decision with the potential for major life changing events. People have personal private opinions all the time that they don't like to share at work.

    But the unions don't care about that. They want to KNOW what you are thinking so that they can influence you. How democratic of them.

  • RinoWatch (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic comment removed.]

  • (Show?)

    I like how Jeff was able to disagree with this rather insistent person and still remain respectful. It is obvious that the questioner was not really interested in the answer - just in trying to cause Jeff to lose his cool. Good job, Jeff!

  • admiral_naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey, if you have the weekend off, thank a union.

    If you have to punch a time clock, thank a Republican.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    [Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    Uggh, seeing that clip reminds me why I could never be in politics. It's nice to see stuff like that, because it reminds us what a crucible politicians are in--forever being sandbagged by foes who haven't the slightest interest in discussion. I'm sure this happens on both sides of the aisle, and I don't think it's anything separate from democracy (every job has its downside), but man, that would kill me.

  • (Show?)

    The difference between your silly analogy about joining a party and joining a union, is that there are not some thuggish Republican party operatives who are going to haunt you at work and follow you home to pressure you to join the party.

    No, they'd haunt you at work and follow you home to pressure you to NOT join the union. But more likely they'd just threaten to fire you or just go ahead and fire you as a preemptive measure.

    I find it interesting how you chide Kari for wanting to restrict the context here and then you turn around and offer an patently restricted analogy predicated upon pretending that only one side of the proverbial coin exists.

    I'm not a particular fan of unions, based mostly on my own personal experience in a union. But the simple fact of the matter is that for every story you wanna drop showing alleged union malfeasance, any one of us can match with a story showing alleged anti-union malfeasance.

  • Marshall Collins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hasn't the DNC or DSCC just done a huge ad buy in Oregon? It would be nice to see a TV spot with John and Barack setting the record straight. Gordon is scared and pulling out all the stops. He has gone "semi-Rove" already and I predict he will reach full turdblossom within the next month or so. The difference is we have the finanical backing to counter his tactics. The only question left is how hard and quick is Jeff and the DSCC going to punch back.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff... I think Gordon Smith would be a much better Senator if he ACTUALLY worked across the aisle with Kerry and Obama.

    And if he did, he'd be rightly credited with being a bipartisan guy.

    But he doesn't. Now and then, he cosponsors a piece of legislation. At least in the Obama case, it's VERY recent, he's done nothing to push it, and it's a bill that he's voted against repeatedly.

    It's just so much wolf in sheep's clothing.

  • (Show?)

    Marshall, the DSCC/IE tv spot is here.

  • (Show?)

    Regarding a question raised when Ahnold's visit was first mentioned here:

    UNITE-HERE Local 9 settled what seems to be a very good contract with the Hilton in late May, and it appears that the boycott of the hotel by called by union workers has been lifted.

    This page has a link to a PDF of a flier on the lifting that appears genuine. The phone number is the actual number of the boycott coordinator, Erin Slack, and the content conforms with a report on the contract in NW Labor Press, published after the contract was settled but prior to ratification.

    Erin Slack is on vacation until early next week, when I plan to talk to her to get more details of all of this, and write a column about it, as well as an impressive string of related UNITE-HERE organizing and contract victories in Vancouver and elsewhere in Washington state.

    However, it seems that Gordon and Arnold won't be violating the boycott call.

    But it still might be well worth trying to pull together some union support for an opposition rally, given Jeff Merkley's strong support for organized labor & vice-versa, and the several interventions anti-union groups have made with attack ads against Merkley.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But the simple fact of the matter is that for every story you wanna drop showing alleged union malfeasance, any one of us can match with a story showing alleged anti-union malfeasance.

    Believe it or not, Kevin, I agree with you. But I see this as exactly why card-check is a bad idea. We need to strongly enforce laws against anti-union intimidation by employers, but we also need to protect employees from union intimidation. Card-check simply matches bad behavior on the employer side by giving unions license to engage in their own bad behavior. Imagine how difficult it must be to refuse to sign a union card in front of your friends and colleagues who are all pressuring you to do it.

    I didn't find Merkley's response to be honest. It IS about elections and secret ballots, and Merkley supports taking that away from workers. He says the secret ballot is still available, but to whom? It's up to the union organizers to request a secret ballot; individual workers don't get that right.

    Card-check denies workers the right to vote on unionization. If the organizers get 50% plus one, everyone's in the union and everyone pays dues. That's just not right, and it's sad that Democrats are so dependent on union money. Even if the workers decide to unionize, it's important that everyone get input through a secret ballot process. It gives the ultimate decision more credibility.

  • (Show?)

    I didn't find Merkley's response to be honest. It IS about elections and secret ballots, and Merkley supports taking that away from workers.

    No, actually it isn't.

    The Employee Free Choice Act (which Merkley supports and what this is ultimately about) doesn't abolish elections or "secret ballots". The legislation allows workers to decide for themselves the union formation process.. Under current law, only employers can choose to recognize a union.

    Current elections involving "secret ballots" aren't like the secret ballots we cast during political elections. Employers manipulate the process through economic manipulation. Not to mention the fact that current labor law allows the process to be stretched out sometimes indefinitely. The current NLRB process is ridiculously corrupt.

    I suggest you spend some time reading David Sirota's take on this. Sirota is steeped in understanding of card-check and EFCA.

  • (Show?)

    You could also note what Ezra's look at the situation yielded.

  • (Show?)

    Wait just a minute.

    Kevin wrote... But the simple fact of the matter is that for every story you wanna drop showing alleged union malfeasance, any one of us can match with a story showing alleged anti-union malfeasance.

    In fact, for every incident of union malfeasance there are over 714 incidents of employer malfeasance.

    That's right, folks. Over the last 60 years, there have been over 30,000 citations of employer malfeasance - and only 42 of union malfeasance.

    Not 42 a year. Just 42. In 60 years. Roughly one instance every 17 months.

    Compare that to employer malfeasance. 30,000 citations in 60 years. Roughly one instance every 1.4 days.

    Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) explains how card check works on the House floor here, in about two minutes.

  • professional writing help (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i agree

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Employee Free Choice Act (which Merkley supports and what this is ultimately about) doesn't abolish elections or "secret ballots". The legislation allows workers to decide for themselves the union formation process.

    Carla, I can't characterize this as anything but a lie. Was that your intent, or were you just being sloppy?

    The legislation allows union organizers to decide for themselves the union formation process, not workers. You are purposefully conflating "workers" with "union organizers" in an attempt to make this bad legislation look better. Honestly, can you not see the difference? Can you not see how EFCA takes away the right of a worker to actually vote on union formation, in private, if the union organizers decide to use card-check? Why does that anti-union worker's view matter less to you? Are you really pro-worker, or just pro-union-worker?

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In fact, for every incident of union malfeasance there are over 714 incidents of employer malfeasance.

    Okay, so what? Keeping in mind that unions will always report any suspicious employer behavior, but employers will rarely even KNOW about suspicious union behavior since employees won't want to report their co-workers, I'll gladly concede that employers are far worse in terms of violating the law than unions are. Again, so what?

    Are you suggesting that because employers have acted badly against workers, it's okay to set up a system that makes it easier for unions to act badly? And that in the process you can deny 49% of workers the right to actually vote on their own unionization? What kind of f-ed up logic is that?

  • (Show?)

    Are you suggesting that because employers have acted badly against workers, it's okay to set up a system that makes it easier for unions to act badly? And that in the process you can deny 49% of workers the right to actually vote on their own unionization? What kind of f-ed up logic is that?

    What kind of fucked up logic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

    How about we prosecute union people if they engage in intimidating and corrupting tactics by..oh let me think here...enforcing the law? And since the law does in fact GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE TO VOTE SECRETLY when they start the organizing process, then by golly I guess they can do that if they'd rather.

    The current process isn't working. This is a reasonable solution that throws a lot of sunshine into what's going on.

  • (Show?)

    Keeping in mind that unions will always report any suspicious employer behavior, but employers will rarely even KNOW about suspicious union behavior since employees won't want to report their co-workers, I'll gladly concede that employers are far worse in terms of violating the law than unions are.

    That sure is an interesting alternative universe you live in. Send a postcard.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So you don't think employers are worse than unions, Kari? Funny, on that point I thought we were on the same island. One of us must have been voted off. Was it a secret ballot?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Miles, some year ago a local grocery store changed from UFCW represented to employee owned. The checkers said it was great because UFCW had been bullies.

    Does that paragraph have anything more to do with the US Senate election than your comments?

    Lots of people work in occupations that aren't and aren't likely to be unionized. But some non-union employers treat employees very well. Why should those folks care about card check or secret ballot?

  • (Show?)

    No, Miles. I was talking about your bizarre assertion that an employer wouldn't have any idea about what the union was up to.

  • nsr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "the ad wars are fast and furious"

    Huh? I'll take your word for it, but as a casual TV watcher, I think I've seen one ad from the Merkley campaign, and a couple from the national dems, versus a ton of ads from Smith that run every night on the news. If I knew we were running the Invisible Man, I'd have written in Claude Rains. Seriously-- where is he?

  • (Show?)

    NSR --

    Remember that ads are targeted at specific demographics. Unless you're working pretty hard to see ads, you're not likely to get a complete view of what's happening.

    For example, if a campaign is targeting young men, it's ESPN. If a campaign is targeting older women, it's Oprah. And so on...

    In any case, it's demonstrably true that Gordon Smith is the only U.S. Senate incumbent in the country that has been running attack ads on his opponent for several months now.

    <h2>Not to mention the 527s attacking Merkley (and two Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate) for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.</h2>

connect with blueoregon