Candorville: 8/11/08- Gall-Mart, part 1
Candorville: 8/11/08- Gall-Mart, part 1 | Buy Reprint Rights | License Candorville | Get Candorville In Your Paper | Buy Candorville BOOKS
August 11th, 2008

Candorville: 8/11/08- Gall-Mart, part 1

From the Murdoch Street Journal (formerly known as the Wall Street Journal):

“Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart. In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don’t specifically tell attendees how to vote in November’s election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.”The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,'” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.”


  • Thank you. 🙂

  • amused2u

    No need to apologize for your opinion. You’re entitled to it, just as I am to mine. I envy your optimism about what an Obama victory would mean, I really do.

  • My opinion is to wait and see. Nothing is set in stone. Getting a Democrat into office is the MOST important item on my agenda. Everything else will fall into place AFTER he’s elected. We have to keep our eyes on the prize and not let the ins and outs of Democratic turns in the road bother us. Remember, you don’t play a game by only running wearing blinders. When Obama is attacked there is a “24 hour” focal point where the Democrats must respond and/or fight back. That’s how the political “game” is played. I heard that on TV. Sometimes each side must concede a little to gain something else. That’s the way of politics. Dirty? Yes, I think so. But, it is our America way and is much better than fighting a military civil war every four years. I personally hope that you and others on the fence or having second thoughts, will seriously reconsider what will happen if the Republicans make it in again. Sorry. Just my opinion.

  • amused2u

    I don’t expect perfection in any person, candidate or otherwise, but I do believe that Obama’s current standing in the polls has less to do with any negative campaigning by McCain or resentment from Hillary supporters and more to do with many of Obama’s primary supporters feeling like they’ve been had. That said, I just finished reading this article from the NYT on Obama’s economic policies:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all

    and I may yet change my position and vote for him. Not very enthusiastically, though, which is a shame.

  • What’s really sad is that there is no person on this earth who is perfect, or who will perfectly fill the bill. That’s why we all have to settle whenever politicians vie for power. In fact, if you or I ever ran for President, I’m sure we wouldn’t please all the people all the time even within our party. It’s the pits, huh?

  • amused2u

    Well, I would argue that the VP choice is very important, because that’s who becomes president if anything happens to the elected president, and history has shown us that something happening is always a possibility.
    But your other points are well taken. Perhaps by November I won’t care so much anymore and I’ll decide to go ahead and vote for the guy and dispassionately watch the crapshoot fallout.

  • Sorry. Typo. “Running mate’s STANCE IS” should be typed, instead of “it”.

  • It chokes me to think that Obama is kissing posterior to get elected; however, he HAS to do what he has to do. That is discusting, but it’s reality. I agree with Darrin in that AFTER he’s elected, he may change. But we need to realize that it will take YEARS to clean up after Bush’s bigoted and brash changes to our usury laws, our constitution, and our reputation in the world. THEN he may, and just may, make the changes we Democrats want put into place (he needs to roll back what Bush did first). Let’s worry about his running mate’s pro life stance later. In fact, why even worry. It won’t matter what his running mate’s stance it anyway. The VP doesn’t have the power to effect very much in the way of bills, laws, or appointments to the Supreme Court, right? So, bottom line. With Obama we have a MAYBE there will be change. With McCain we have a FOR SURE there will NOT be change. I think the maybe is the better risk.

  • amused2u

    Well, it is astounding how far we have already come in tolerating abuse from the government. But Americans are definitely tiring of losing their homes and retirement funds and not being able to afford gas to get to work and having their banks go under. I think they are both more fed up and more resigned at the same time. As any 12 stepper knows, you have to hit bottom before you are willing to do the hard work to get help.

  • I don’t know if I’d call that cynical. Maybe this is more cynical: I don’t believe we’d be shaken by another eight years of war-mongering, corruption, assaults against the Constitution, and scandal. I think Americans become accustomed to it. I think we adapt. I think the more we experience that kind of abusive government, the more we’re willing to tolerate abuse from government.

    Obama’s disappointed me, particularly when he implied the Bush administration hasn’t done anything impeachable, and when he rolled over along with the rest of the Democrats on FISA. But I don’t believe that as president, Obama would subvert the constitution himself. I believe the Democrats have decided not to challenge the White House because they think they’re going to have the White House themselves in January, and THEN they can set things straight.

    It’s cowardice. It’s scheming. It’s moral compromise. It’s politics. And there’s no way anyone’s going to make it to the White House without either compromising or hiding some of their morality. Not if they want people in places as disparate as San Francisco, CA and Selma, AL to vote for them. George W. Bush disguised his ambitions. He argued against nation-building and interventionism, and look at him. He argued against big government, and look what he did. Franklin Roosevelt sounded like a corporate, modern-day DLC Democrat when he ran in ’32, but look what HE did once in office. History shows that you often can’t judge a candidate by the way he moves toward the center during general elections.

  • amused2u

    I know that I’m probably coming across as very cynical, but I do believe that there is still a chance to turn things around in this country, and only a person like Obama has any chance of doing this. I do think there is a hunger in America for both change and a return to our core principles. Unfortunately, at this point in time, I do not think that Obama is going to deliver what we so desperately need. I truly believe if he becomes president, the next 4 to 8 years will be basically more of the same. Maybe there is someone out there who can turn things around, but we are not going to find that person by settling for someone who could have made a difference but chose not to. Do I want a President McCain? No. Today, I do not want a President Obama either. If we don’t all settle and say that’s good enough when it isn’t, there’s still hope. Maybe we do have to suffer through 4-8 more years of status quo (McCain or Obama) before we get shaken enough to hold out for real change.

  • amused2u

    Dear PeaceZGood-
    I don’t at all mind your 2 cents, I quite welcome it. I’m not usually very political; politics is more of a turn-off for me than a magnet, but it is refreshing to have an intelligent back and forth about the issues we all face. So many comments on the internet are barely literate, and quite rude, which is frightening. It’s nice to see that Darrin Bell’s audience is better than that. And to Obama’s credit, the fact that he attracted me more than any candidate ever has, and did indeed give me hope for the future for a time, is probably why I am so worked up about things now. If he had never promised to be different than all the rest and change the face of politics, given that he uniquely possesses the ineffable qualities that would give him the real ability to achieve a fundamental change, I would not be so despairing now. If between now and November he shows signs of being the leader I think he can and should be, I will be more than happy to eat all my words and vote for him.

  • Dear Amused: I hope you don’t mind my putting my 2 cents in, but something you said hit a chord with me. I was on a Democratic party platform meeting in my city, and the Constitutional issue was a very BIG priority with us. From what I heard from the Obama camp, it is also big with them. Remember, the actual Democratic platform has not yet been formed. They’re taking all of our opinions into a room and putting them all together to choose the ones which are the most repeated all over the United States. I would not be at all surprised to find that the Constitutional freedom issue is going to be on the actual finalized platform.

  • amused2u

    I completely agree with you that part of Obama’s appeal is his willingness to reach across divides and give disparate viewpoints a fair hearing. I’m actually the kind of person who usually can look at things from all sides myself, which is why for most of the issues that Obama has done some back-pedaling on, for which he gets accused of flip-flopping, I do not share a knee-jerk bad reaction with many of his more extreme critics. I think a nuanced approach to the issues facing us is commendable. I also recognize that in order to get elected, it is unfortunately probably necessary to compromise some principles and continually “adjust” your positions. I don’t see things in black and white or good and evil for the most part.

    But for me, Wal-Mart does epitomize what’s wrong with this country. Jason Furman admits that Wal-Mart does not pay its employees enough to live on, and believes that the answer to that problem (since Wal-Mart is so great for the country overall) is more government safety net programs to pick up the slack. I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to believe that Obama chose to hire the guy as Economic Policy Director because he agrees with him more than he disagrees with him. That’s not the kind of thinking that I want in the White House.

    As for Obama’s FISA vote, what do you make of that? The Bush administration has put the Constitution through the shredder, and the FISA bill continues that grand tradition. If there’s any one issue on which to take a principled stand, it would seem to be protecting the Constitution and the American way of life and liberty that our troops are supposedly giving their lives to defend.

  • It’s a principled stance. The same principle that caused people to vote for Nader in 2000. Nader voters argued then that it wasn’t the same as voting for Bush, but if they had voted for Gore, Bush wouldn’t have “won.” The polls showed Gore had an edge in Florida in 2000, so I wouldn’t be surprised if hundreds of those Nader voters (enough to make the difference) thought their votes couldn’t possibly put Bush in office.

    You don’t want to choose the lesser of two evils, and I completely understand that. But deciding there’s “evil” afoot just based on a few advisers the man’s hired is jumping the gun, big time. Part of Obama’s appeal has always been that he promises to bring disparate groups to the table. He’s willing to talk to Iran’s leaders, he’s willing to listen to Reverend Wright, he’s visiting right now with a grandmother who’s said a few racist comments in her time. I don’t think you’d believe (as Republicans and die-hard Clinton supporters would like you to believe) that his association with these people means he’s selling out Israel, or shares Wright’s cynicism, or that he shares his grandmother’s past fear of black people.

    Why, then, would you conclude that having a Wal-Mart supporter as an adviser means he’s selling out to corporate America or “upholding the status quo”? As far as I’ve seen, there’s no reason yet to come to that conclusion.

  • amused2u

    Thanks for your response, I really appreciate it. Believe me, I have put a lot of thought into my choice not to vote for Obama, and I have heard all the arguments about why that is a bad choice. He will be both the first political candidate that I once believed in enough to contribute a significant amount of money to, and the first Democratic candidate that I have not voted for since 1980, the first year I was eligible to vote. I happen to live in California, which I believe Obama will carry with or without my vote, but regardless, I could not now bring myself to vote for the man, and I disagree that not voting for Obama is the same as voting for McCain. I think this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and from the likes of it, it will get there just as fast with Barack Obama at the helm as with John McCain. Supreme Court? Obama is seriously considering staunch Pro-lifers as potential running mates. You have a wonderful forum for influencing public opinion and calling attention to the real positions behind the candidates’ personalities. I beseech you to use it to help influence Obama to uphold the ideals that people like me thought we were voting for when we voted for him in the primaries. If he is persuaded to become the person I thought I was voting for then, I will be overjoyed to vote for him in November. This election IS too important to settle for the status quo. Obama is worse that the other former lack-luster Democratic candidates PRECISELY because he actually had a real and honest opportunity to effect real change in this country due to his undeniable charisma. That he has chosen to use said charisma to uphold the status quo is bitterly disappointing and ultimately unforgivable.

  • Don’t tell me, tell Wal-Mart.

    From the Murdoch Street Journal (formerly known as the Wall Street Journal):

    “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart.

    In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

    According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

    The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don’t specifically tell attendees how to vote in November’s election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

    “The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,'” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html

    By the way, if you’re not voting for Obama because you think corporations would have too much influence in his administration, I don’t know what you think you’ll be getting from a President McCain.

  • amused2u

    Darrin Bell should do a little homework on Obama’s economic policies. He named Jason Furman, a known Wal-Mart cheerleader, as his top economic advisor. Obama is way more likely to be a friend to Wal-Mart than a foe. It is because of this fact (and his hypocritical FISA vote) that this former Obama campaign contributor and primary voter will not be voting for him in the general election. Nice cartoon. If only the premise were sound, I’d be a lot happier about our prospects for the next 8 years.

  • MCsweeTea

    Those people at Wal-… I mean, Gall*Mart sure are totally subtle.