Here ya go; dateline Seattle:
http://www.ibu.org/presidents_report.htm "As we enter the heat of presidential politics this fall it is important to be aggressive. Aggressive as a membership, as a movement, demanding not only of our elected union representatives but also of our elected government representatives that our voice be heard. It is time to put divisive issues like abortion and gun control aside. As blue-collar workers, it is imperative that the membership of the IBU prioritizes involvement in the political process both within the union and without."
Well, I doubt that the union is calling for abortion to be outlawed; so I don't see any basis for concluding that it is calling for gun control to be abandoned.
This ILWU local doesn't seem to have had any difficulty deciding where to put its money
The problem is that a lot of union members in pro-gun states own guns (often nonhunting guns) and care about the issue, SO even though 100% of the union money may go to dems, 50% of the union VOTES in a pro-gun state may go to national repubs if the dem is anti-gun--and in the end it's the number of VOTES a candidate gets that counts. Something like EIGHTY PERCENT of union members in Tennessee are gun owners. Bush pulled 50% of union members in West Virginia in 2000, largely over the gun issue, and I suspect you'd see the same in other pro-gun states.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
