« Rich Man Poor Man Beggar Man, Thief | Main | Strategic Needs - Why Congress Is Helping the Financial Markets »

Where's the Outrage?

During his lackluster campaign for the presidency in 1996 Bob Dole did manage to leave us with one memorable phrase about the Clintons: "Where's the outrage?" The legacy media was famously silent on that question.

As we wind down eight years of Bush/Cheney and the Kos inspired mantra of Cheney/ Halliburton and Bush having been in Big Oil's pocket, it begs the question where is the outrage now? The Democrat Congress' biggest political benefactor (organized labor) is demanding tens of billions of dollars from Representatives they are heavily "invested in" through a scheme that makes the perceived Cheney and Bush oil connections look like pikers.

If the notion that Big Oil money supposedly poisoned Bush foreign policy then where is the outrage that Big Union money is poisoning the soul of House Democrats? Predictably, the same media that examined the Bush Cheney oil connections with the mannerisms of a proctologist can't seem to work itself into much of a fit about unions blackmailing congress.

Author: HughS


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (18)

You're a little light on th... (Below threshold)

You're a little light on the specifics don't you think? You can do better than this screed, I've read your comments.

Good point JFO. This was my... (Below threshold)

Good point JFO. This was my first post and I'm trying to get a feel for things and not bury folks in data.

You're a good writer...I us... (Below threshold)

You're a good writer...I usually disagree with you but you are thoughtful and articulate. Just give us something to debate.

While kowtowing to specific... (Below threshold)

While kowtowing to specific interests at the expense of the overall public good is generally a bad thing, one should consider the specific benefactors in these cases.

Unions, at least ostensibly, serve a large body of workers, none of whom make extravagant wages (though one could reasonably argue that a lot of union members--e.g. the Teamster caricatures--are lazy and overpaid and unaccountable). They protect workers from exploitation and, while driving costs of goods and services up, are more responsible than any other entity (government or private sector) for the increase in standards of living for the middle class.

Oil companies, on the other hand, bring to mind images of people like this guy.

Giving money to unions benefits a greater number of people than giving money to oil companies.

(And I echo JFO. My comment... (Below threshold)

(And I echo JFO. My comment was pretty glib and wildly generalized, but there's not a lot of specifics in your post. Glad to see you taking a shot at it, though, Hugh.)

Unions work for the middle ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Unions work for the middle class.

Oil Companies work for some stockholders.

Let's face it. The car comp... (Below threshold)

Let's face it. The car company executives AND the workers walked hand in hand to this crisis. To excuse the unions for their complicity is ignorant at best. ww

Yes, not a lot of specifics... (Below threshold)

Yes, not a lot of specifics but the gist of the post is that the MSM and dead tree media are in bed with the Democrat party and are loath to look for specifics when it comes to political corruption unless there is an "R" following someone's name.

"Unions work for the middle class."

I figured they worked for the blue collar guy but it turns out that the biggest percentage of union jobs now is government employees and teachers unions.

"Oil Companies work for some stockholders."

Who in all likelihood are middle class workers looking to supplement their retirement Social Security income with stocks and bonds from profitable companies. I sure as hell know that Ponzi scheme isn't going to give me back anything I was forced to invest.

Ted??? What color is the sky in your world?

Willie, I'm not saying the ... (Below threshold)

Willie, I'm not saying the unions didn't price themselves out of work. I'm saying that unions ostensibly serve their working class membership whereas oil companies are beholden to boards of directors. I freely acknowledge that some union advocates are wealthy and exploit their members for personal gain, and that some of the owners of oil companies are Joe Sixpacks with modest 401ks.

I'm not sure if we should b... (Below threshold)

I'm not sure if we should be discussing the post or critiquing the post (lol), so I'll do both.

First, it's an interesting, underlying topic: Why does the media respond to one crisis differently vs. another? My guess, arbitrary (or maybe even conscience) selection of stories they deem of more importance, and ones that don't undermine their agenda. Vetting or exposing the faults in unions, for instance, isn't in their interest as it would undermine a strong supporter in the Democratic base.

As for the post, I like it because it's short and sparks a conversation. (JFO: Go look up the word 'screed' at m-w.com. Three paragraphs doth not a screed make unless you have ADHD, which is entirely possible in your world.)

Peter F. From M-W<... (Below threshold)

Peter F.

From M-W

Screed:: a ranting piece of writing

Rant:: to scold vehemently;: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion...

Here's a "screed for you you pompous ass - go f*** yourself. No need to look up the meaning of f***. Jackass.

RE: "Where is the outrage t... (Below threshold)

RE: "Where is the outrage that Big Union money is poisoning the soul of House Democrats?"

The Democrats have no soul and no shame. Long ago they abandoned all moral, ethical, and legal standards. They will do anything to acquire and maintain power (e.g. winning elections through massive voter fraud and defending corrupt politicians who have broken the law).

The justification is that Democrats get a pass on all the misconduct because they are supposed to be the party that looks after the little guy, but when one or more little people get abused by rich and powerful Democrats, the DNC defends the powerful Democrats. For example, Senator Kennedy gets a pass for killing a young woman and helping buy-off the family that accused a Kennedy of statutory rape. President Clinton appears to have sexually assaulted several women and committed a felony trying to hide an improper sexual relationship. The DNC defended him - at all costs.

RE: Unions in general

Unions are not popular with most Americans because they understand that unions have few real restrictions on their power. Once they take hold, there is no good way to get rid of them or control them. Corporations have numerous regulations and the court system to control their power, but unions have few checks and balances.

The argument that was repeatedly made by the Left prior to the election of 2008 was that America needed to become more like Europe. We certainly can do that, and a big step forward is to turn over power to unions. A quick look at Europe shows what that means: unrestrained unions, lots of dissatisfied workers, and about double the unemployment of the US.

Our economy is in very bad shape. The problem has been growing for decades now. The most serious problem is the rapid loss of manufacturing jobs. We have a very good service economy, but we are loosing the ability to build things. We import more from overseas. There are several reasons why it costs less to make things in other countries and ship them here than it does to actually make them here:

1. Government regulations
2. Higher taxes
3. Higher costs of labor: unions, regulations, and higher expectations by the workforce (e.g. high cost of living)

Now, other than "higher expectations", what political party is most responsible for this?

Clinton raped somebody? Yea... (Below threshold)

Clinton raped somebody? Yeah, well, Larry Flint (Flynt?--don't want to Google him at work) wanted to publish a story about how GWB Jr. knocked up one of his father's housekeepers and then made her get an abortion. Go on, kevino, try to out-crazy the leftist conspiracy theories, you're nothing if not entertaining.

(The point: for every retarded, unsubstantiated story about a politician you hate, there's one about a politician you support. Stoop to that level if you feel like it, but don't get all mad when somebody points out that you're covered in pig shit after you proceed to roll around in it on purpose.)

By the way, lower regulatio... (Below threshold)

By the way, lower regulation leads to things like the credit crisis, toys/infant formula made with poisonous substances, and vehicles that catch fire and explode.

You're so full of shit that it's worrisome. If you want to live in a country with low business taxes and minimal regulation, move to Indonesia or Mexico already. I understand their manufacturing sector is doing fine. Go make shoes for twenty cents an hour in the South Pacific or build cars in Latin America for two thousand dollars per year, and then thumb your nose at all the suckers back home.

JFO - "You're a little ... (Below threshold)

JFO - "You're a little light on the specifics don't you think? You can do better than this screed, I've read your comments."

Funny, I don't see your name plastered on the bottom of any "Guest Posters" entries as yet.

And BTW your description of "screed" hardly fits.

And no don't try it. My name isn't there either, however I do author four of my own blogs and contribute to two others, that puts me ahead of you by 6.

hyper[BS] - "Clinton ra... (Below threshold)

hyper[BS] - "Clinton raped somebody?"

Since when does "sexual assault" automatically equate to rape? It doesn't in all states or countries.

.Peter F.Fr... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

.Peter F.

From M-W

Screed:: a ranting piece of writing

Rant:: to scold vehemently;: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion...

Here's a "screed for you you pompous ass - go f*** yourself. No need to look up the meaning of f***. Jackass.

Nice, convenient cherrypick there, JFO. Try including the WHOLE definition next time, which is as follows (keeping in mind that the first is the most widely accepted usage of the word):

1 a: a lengthy discourse b: an informal piece of writing (as a personal letter) c: a ranting piece of writing

A "lengthy discourse" the piece is not. The 'rant' part is in your not-so humble opinion.

"lawyer" marcAs lo... (Below threshold)

"lawyer" marc

As long as you don't author a legal blog, the world will be the better for it. Keep it to exhaust fumes and 'Junior" Earnhardt stuff.

Pete F.

You really are a jackass. That's 3 possible uses of the word, you to use your own phrase"cherrypicked" one and inferred it is the only one. I repeat:"... you are a pompous ass. Go f*** yourself....jackass."






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy