The Truth In Arkansas Politics

How much does it take to “buy” a Senator (or for that matter a Caucus) in order to compel them into voting for legislation that is opposed by 79% of America? Legislation that is intended to subvert honest elections while encouraging intimidation and coercion? Legislation that is a major component of the Communist Party’s platform?

For eleven in-cycle Senate Democrats it costs around $10 million; over $450k since January alone (Figures are from http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/).

The legislation I am talking about is H.R 800 the inaccurately named Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation removes the secret ballot requirement from the union organization process and allows union bosses to coerce workers into signing cards authorizing an unwanted union. This legislation failed to muster 60 votes for cloture but did have the entire Democrat delegation vote for it including Sen. Pryor.

This is clearly a payback from Senate Democrats for the cash they have received from big labor and related PACs.

But let it not be said Senate Democrats come cheap. Below are some examples of the cash these eleven in-cycle Democrats have taken, overall and for the 2008 election cycle, from big labor and related PACs:

Senator Total Contributions From Labor

Pryor $436,000.00
Landrieu $919,300.00
Baucus $1,062,402.00
Harkin $1,680,086.00
Biden $479,677.00
Durbin $882,225.00
Kerry $51,556.00
Lautenberg $1,253,764.00
Levin $1,257,276.00
Reed $718,900.00
Rockefeller $983,728.00

Total Contributions From Labor Since January 2007
Pryor $50,500.00
Landrieu $46,000.00
Baucus $30,500.00
Harkin $36,500.00
Biden $5,000.00
Durbin $63,500.00
Kerry $42,000.00
Lautenberg $33,500.00
Levin $51,500.00
Reed $44,100.00
Rockefeller $55,000.00


Check out the NRSC Web ad condemning this un-American legislation as well as an op-ed from John Fund of the WSJ-Opinion Journal.

To recap, this Communist legislation…
…will remove the right of private elections in the unionization process for 140 million American workers
…is opposed by 79% of Americans, including 78% of Democrats
…is opposed by 78% of union members
…is co-sponsored by 46 Senators (all Democrats and Independents)
…is a pillar of the Communist party’s platform
…is a payback to donors of the Democratic party
Big Labor PACs to account for 6 of the top 10 political donations
Big Labor spent $100 million on get out the vote in 2006
Big Labor spent $59.5 million to political candidates, up 11% from 2004
…has the potential to ensure even more cash for Democrat candidates in 2008

Arkansas Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln caved to special interests of unions today when they voted for S. 800, a measure that would take away the right to a secret ballot for employees being intimidated into forming a union.

This measure would have made it more difficult for union thugs to intimidate workers who opposed the union process.

Instead our Senators voted to allow the unions to see who disagreed with them, making it more likely for the unions to intimidate the naysayers...

How to measure employees' support for unionizing? SECRET BALLOT REDUCES UNION INTIMIDATION

Doug Bandow
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Organized labor was one of the biggest winners of the 2006 midterm election. And the new Democratic leadership has begun paying off its campaign debt.

The House has passed, and the Senate is scheduled to debate, legislation to replace elections with the so-called "card check" process. This would enable labor organizers to intimidate their way to union recognition.

That's not how labor activists put it, of course. But they want to drop today's system, which requires a secret ballot election whenever 30 percent of workers sign a card supporting a union, with automatic recognition if 50 percent plus one worker signs a card.

Card-check supporters complain of employer intimidation, yet a secret ballot makes retaliation against rank-and-file workers well- nigh impossible. The National Labor Relations Board reported few cases -- less than 2 percent -- in which vocal union organizers were fired during 2003-05.

Yet secret ballot elections limiting opportunities for abuse is the primary reason that organized labor insists on secret ballots for union decertification elections. In a 1998 case the AFL-CIO, citing the U.S. Supreme Court, argued "that a representation election 'is a solemn ... occasion, conducted under safeguards to voluntary choice'." Moreover, the "representation election system provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are 'the result of group pressures and not individual decision.' "

But when it comes to organizing drives, unions have a very different view of "group pressures": It's OK for labor activists to routinely intimidate workers.

For example, Mike Ivey, a materials handler for the Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. in Gaffney, S.C., sought legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in response to pressure from the United Auto Workers.

He said union organizers misrepresented the significance of signing a card and visited employees at home multiple times. Ivey added that "relentless" union organizers "created a hostile work environment."

Karen M. Mayhew, an employee of Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Ore., tells a similar tale of fraud and abuse. She explained: "Throughout this whole ordeal, my colleagues and I were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure."

As long as unions claim that intimidation is not their official policy -- and are smart enough to avoid creating any written evidence to the contrary -- workers have little recourse, no matter what the real-life cases show.

In a 1996 case, a majority of National Labor Relations Board commissioners held that "alleged threats of violence, even when made in the course of card solicitation, cannot be construed by any reasonable person as representing 'purported union policies'."

In that case, a union activist went up to another employee and, reported the NLRB, "allegedly stated that the employee had better sign a card because if she did not, the union would come and get her children and it would also slash her car tires."

Unfortunately, there is little to stop future organizers from making similar threats, especially when a signed card is so much more valuable: It yields full union recognition, and not just an election that the union might lose.

Which ultimately is why organized labor desires card-check recognition. It is a lot easier to browbeat 50 percent plus one of the employees to publicly sign a card than to get the same number to vote for the union in a secret ballot.

Often employees sign to avoid union pressure, including threats against their children. In some cases, workers sign after being misled by union organizers' claims that the card has no legal effect. Workers can also change their minds after hearing both sides of the debate leading up to the election.

Labor officials might think elections are unnecessary for union recognition, but workers disagree. A Zogby poll found that 84 percent of union members believed employees should be able to vote about joining unions (only 11 percent were opposed).

Ironically, even Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chief House sponsor of card check, believes in labor elections -- for other countries.

In 2001 Miller and 15 of his colleagues wrote the Mexican government to urge it "to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections." In their view, "increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace."

Unions warrant recognition only if they win a secret ballot election. As the AFL-CIO rightly declared: The "representation election system provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressures and not individual decision." Indeed.

Dear Senator Hillary Clinton,

Upon your return to Arkansas this weekend, the state Republican Party wondered… Would the New York Senator feel out of place? Would she worry that she couldn’t fit in? Would she be mocked for using her fake southern accent after the embarrassing ribbing that she received for pandering in Selma, Alabama a few months ago?

Well fear not, Senator Clinton – Republicans are rolling out the red carpet and are dropping off a care package at the Arkansas Democrat headquarters today with a few tools intended to make you feel more at home once you’re south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Upon your arrival in Little Rock, we hope you’ll have some time to peruse the Dixie dictionary that we purchased, The Complete How to Speak Southern, which is “dedicated to all Yankees in the hope that it will teach them to talk right” in the South.

While this small token is simply intended as lighthearted suggested reading, we thought it could lend some helpful refreshers on ways to disguise your New York dialect with a southern twang – especially after your embarrassing performance in Alabama. (*In case you forgot about that mishap, here’s the video of your speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Farkansastruth%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F

According to one of your own home-state papers, “Senator Clinton may have drawn rousing ovations during her appearances at civil rights rallies in Selma, Ala., on Sunday, but it was not what she said that stirred the most buzz yesterday - it was how she said it. A 27-second snippet of audio clips … showed New York’s Illinois-born senator adopting a Southern drawl during parts of her speech at a Selma church.” (“Clinton Stirs Buzz On The Web With Her Southern Drawl,” The New York Sun, 3/6/07)

And MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson added that, “Hillary Clinton morphs into Scarlett O’Hara. Well, she talks like her anyway.” (MSNBC’s “Tucker,” 3/5/07)

In addition to adjusting your drawl, we thought you might feel improperly attired for the South, so we’re dropping off a Razorback’s cap that should help you fit in with the locals. Yes, our style might not be as refined as that of your New York constituents, but we hope these gifts will make you feel more at home here in Arkansas.

Unfortunately, no matter how you dress or what you say, there’s not much we can do to disguise the fact that you’re still a liberal Senator from New York who is out of touch with Arkansans’ mainstream values.

Your record on the important issues speaks for itself:

You voted against funding for our troops, bowing to pressure from MoveOn.org and your liberal base, even though you originally agreed with President Bush and voted to authorize the war in Iraq. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181, 5/24/07; H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237, 10/11/02)

By voting against the 2001 and 2003 Republican-led tax cuts, you voted against tax relief that benefits nearly one million Arkansans and approximately 224,000 businesses in this state. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196, 5/23/03; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179, 5/15/03; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170, 5/26/01; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #165, 5/23/01; United States Department Of The Treasury, Office Of Tax Policy, “Tax Relief Kit,” www.treas.gov, 6/20/07)

The Democrats are at it again. Recently, you may have seen Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln stirring up the pot and calling for an investigation into so-called caging activities in Florida in 2004. Those of us at the Truth Blog feel we must set the record straight on this whole issue.

Let us be clear - this is nothing more than an attempt to smear a good Arkansan for political gain in the midst of an historical Presidential election cycle. Nothing more.

To insinuate that Tim Griffin tried to keep black voters from the polls is wrong and our Senators should be ashamed of themselves.

Democrats have a history of making such claims and have even instructed their followers to make up claims even when they don't exist. Case in point:

In 2004, an internal memo from John Kerry's campaign instructed democrats that "if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike' (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past.)."

Here is an article from 2004:

The New York Post
October 15, 2004 Friday

DEMOCRAT PRIMER: PLAY A PHONY RACE CARD BY CHARGING VOTE 'INTIMIDATION'

VINCENT MORRIS
Post Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Republicans ripped into John Kerry yesterday over a stunning new internal manual that advises Democrats to launch "pre-emptive" strikes charging the GOP with voter intimidation - even if none exists.

The "Election Day Manual" - written for Kerry's Colorado campaign workers - includes a menu of options Democrats can follow next month to claim Republican intimidation, ranging from issuing press releases to organizing minority leaders to denounce the practice.

It was unclear last night whether the manual had been penned by the Kerry campaign or the Democratic National Committee, although questions about it were fielded by the DNC.

Democratic leaders dismissed the charge, insisting the manual was aimed at providing guidance for "preventing and combating" voter intimidation from happening in the first place.

"All of the states received some language on combating and preventing voter intimidation," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera.

In part, the manual reads: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike' (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past.)."

The manual goes on to provide ways in which Kerry workers can spotlight intimidation, including organizing ministers or other civic leaders to protest it, writing press releases and reminding people about past examples of GOP voter intimidation.

Cabrera said he wasn't sure whether the same guidance turns up in strategy manuals given to Kerry workers in other states, nor was he sure who wrote the section at issue.

Tad Devine, a top Kerry aide, defended the manual on CNN late yesterday. "What happened in 2000 will never happen again. We're going to make sure that people vote. We're going to make sure people of color are not turned away from voting places," Devine said.

Colorado Republican Party Chairman Ted Halaby told the Post the document was revealing. "I'm shocked that the Democratic National Committee would stoop to such low gutter politics," he said.

On behalf of Bush, the Republican National Committee called on Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Lewis to respond to the memo and he called it "outrageous."

"It's truly outrageous and callous to suggest to operatives that if you don't see intimidation, to sort of make it up,' Lewis said.

"I understand why Sen. Kerry has to do this. He has not as of this moment connected in a very strong way with African-American voters."
----
Colorado Election Day Manual
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past).

We know that the democrats tried to paint republicans as racists who would block black voters from the polls and filed numerous lawsuits. And now they want us to believe that Griffin was some mastermind to intimidate black voters? Ridiculous.

The democrats main reference on this issue is a shady reporter named Gregory Palast, who "broke" his story in 2004 with the BBC. At the time, the MSM accurately discounted his claims as political and outrageous.

Yet now they claim a list of 1800 registered voters titled "caging" is their "smoking gun" that voter intimidation was underway. However, the media never mentions the real definition of caging.

Caging is a technique used by direct mail firms to purge their lists of addresses where the mail bounces back or in undeliverable. According to a direct mail firm caging is "the process of receiving, processing, and reporting the mailing results." That's right, the so-called "caging" list was most likely a list from a mailing sent to newly registered voters urging them to vote.

In fact, Mindy Fletcher Tucker, the spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida sent a letter to the BBC refuting its claims in 2004 stating the list "was a listing of returned mail that came from a mailing that the Republican National Committee sent to new registrants in Duval County in Florida, encouraging newly registered Republicans, Democrats and Independents to vote Republican. Voter registration has been a heavy concentration of both parties this year and both national and state Republican parties have been reaching out to new registrants for the upcoming election. The Duval County list was created to collect the returned mail information from the Republican National Committee mailing and was intended and has been used for no purpose other than that."

Its clear that Senator Mark Pryor has had a beef with Tim Griffin ever since he was named U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Tim Griffin is a good Arkansan and believes in the right to vote. In fact, Griffin's family has a history of defending the rights of African Americans. In fact, in 1972 his father, then the pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Charlotte. N.C., stood up to threats from the Ku Klux Klan over his policy of allowing black children to play in the church gymnasium.

Tim himself has a record of fighting for the rights of black Arkansans. During his brief term as prosecutor his office indicted a person who allegedly used threatening, racist language to try to keep a black person from living in the person’s neighborhood.

We know that democrats will not let facts get in the way of a good political opportunity, but we thought the media would check the facts before reporting on such slimy and obviously political accusations. We urge our readers to contact our Senators and urge them to look at all the facts before jumping on the political band wagon.

Isn't time we had representatives in Arkansas who cared more about Arkansas then political rhetoric?

After watching the media circus surrounding Arkansas GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan's unfortunate use of words when referring to the war in Iraq, we feel we must address the truth.

We all know what Dennis said: "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing (in Iraq), and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on (Sept. 11), and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan was quoted as saying in the Sunday edition of Arkansas' statewide newspaper.

But for someone to actually infer that the Chairman of the Republican Party in the state was calling for more terrorist attacks is wrong and irresponsible. It is nothing more than a lame attempt by Democrats to use our veterans for political gain.

The fact is that VoteVets.org is just another front organization for liberal democrats who oppose the war. We have all seen how the Democrats will embrace someone like Cindy Sheehan and then dump that person the moment they are rendered no longer effective.

This is just more of the same.

Yes, Dennis Milligan should have said it differently. But the fact is that a group like VoteVets.org who runs TV ads against Republicans is hardly an objective organization. There are plenty of Democrats who voted for the war and support finishing the job, yet this liberal front group in the likes of John Kerry and Jane Fonda's vietnam veterans group is hardly credible.

But of course, the MSM is just looking for a story to help them sell newspapers and ad space...

Developing...