AR-Sen: Lincoln gets an opponent

[Lunar]

Skipped this story when it happened, and I love breaking news.  I skipped it for a reason

It's an old dude who used to be a Democrat who has failed statewide multiple times before... while Lincoln is racking up an extremely impressive warchest thanks her opposition to EFCA.

[Lunar]

If a guy named "Butch Otter" can win in Idaho, anyone can win anywhere.

[Lunar]

Don't forget that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher or however you spell it from Orange County, CA or somewhere along those lines, he's a guy, and lol @ Butch Otter yeah that's definitely a unique name.

as I've said before, Google image's safe search is pretty much in existence for people like Governor Butch Otter

[Lunar]

is he running for office?

endorsed.


[you actually googled that?  shame on you, adventurer]

[Lunar]

Can someone confirm if Bill Halter is also running?

Haven't heard anything to that effect, figured he'd just be running for re-election to Lt. Governor. I know there was speculation that he'd run against Pryor, but I don't know why. Pryor was bulletproof.

You don't know why?  It rhymes with YFCA

labor's trying to find someone to show that they're pissed

[Lunar]

Biden and McCain have hilariously girly middle names too, Obama just has a terr'st middle name

[Lunar]

If a Republican held the seat, though, Obama's stimulus package wouldn't have passed

[Lunar]

PiT, it is sensible for lots of people.  The entire premise behind free trade is that it has winners and losers, but a net gain.

While I could see a libertarian argument that allows people to form whatever bargaining collectives they want (and compete with other such groups), I couldn't see one for government-enforced coalitions whenever 50.1% sign a contract in face-to-face confrontations/requests by union organizers.  A libertarian might also be inclined to point out that unions held a historically far more important role than they do today, since the government regulates a lot of the issues that keep the workplace humanely safe.  There might be some difference between a group of people deciding to organize through a representative and whatnot, and EFCA.

As PiT alluded to, my own biggest beef with unions is their efforts to hurt the majority of the country in exchange for protecting a small segment ... aka opposing free trade.  I have the same opinion about agribusiness and whatnot.  Also, the union organizers are unilaterally rejecting compromises which push for quicker elections (so that employers are less able to interfere) and higher than 50.1% margins for card check votes but 50.1% for anonymous votes... so I'm not too sympathetic.  There are legitimate beefs with the way the status quo is set up, as I understand them, although I haven't been following the debate too closely because EFCA as-is is obviously DOA.  There aren't 60 votes there for it, and thus you're  seeing Senators in low-unionization states up for reelection in 2010 bailing on it because there's not too much gain in backing legislation that's not going to happen in its current form.

[Lunar]

anyone, my point is that EFCA isn't merely a vote on whether unions should exist or not, it's a bill increasing government involvement in the unionization process in order to reverse the trend of less unionization over the past decades, and make it harder for employers to affect the vote... it's specific policy legislation and not a referendum on the vague idea of "unions=good"