Fiorina: The people of California have had enough. Apparently not enough of Fiorina, however.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Run time: 01:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5KPfOT6ycw   Posted on YouTube: June 09, 2010 By YouTube Member: AssociatedPress Views on YouTube: 155   Posted on DU: June 09, 2010 By DU Member: Amerigo Vespucci Views on DU: 764

 

[Bitwit1234]

1. Well they will probably elect a democrat governor because

I am pretty damn sure Arnold is a republican. ISN'T HE.

[DMNinFL]

2. If this administration keeps pissing off progessive groups

they can kiss 2012 goodbye. Comments like this:

'Organized labor just flushed $10 million down the toilet'

ain't how you win friends and influence people. My checkbook will stay in my pocket for the next Presidential election unless this President cleans out his communications department and get's a clue.

[activa8tr]

3. Yeah, that was a pretty crass statement to come out from anyone

anywhere near the White House.

Lincoln is no fan of unions, and she should get a clue from all that money spent.

[one-eyed fat man]

4. What about the rest of the quote?

"If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

I read that as questioning the wisdom of pouring money into THAT race when it may have done more good in other races?

You make it sound like they were saying if you spend 10 million to buy an election, you ought to get one that stays bought.

[demwing]

5. No - no one is making it sound like labor unions were trying to buy an election

That's completely disengenuous, and I believe you know it.

The Obama administration can go to hell with this attitude, and take all their blind apologists with them.

[liberation]

6. Huh? what?

[one-eyed fat man]

7. OK how do you read it?

It looks like the OP took this statement as Union-busting. 'Organized labor just flushed $10 million down the toilet' Or the very least got their shorts in a wad taking it as an attack on labor.

But the rest of the statement was "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

Now, to me that seems like a reasonable opinion. They aren't saying the Union shouldn't be trying to get pro Union folks elected, but they should spend money where there's at least snowball's chance in hell of doing it.

It's hard not to say they didn't pour cash down a rathole when after spending 10 million the 'wrong' candidate won anyway. Half the money to tilt 3 or 4 toss-ups seems more useful than a futile effort to influence a lost cause.