Unions Pouring Resources Into Nevada Caucus Fight

Source: New York Times

Published: January 13, 2008

With Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama eager to win the Democratic caucuses in Nevada next Saturday, labor unions backing Mr. Obama are in a surprisingly intense, expensive fight with those supporting Mrs. Clinton.

Several pro-Clinton labor unions with small memberships in Nevada have thrown major resources into the state to counter pro-Obama unions with big memberships there. This has caused leaders of the pro-Obama unions to complain that one pro-Clinton union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, is bumping against the limits of the law by sending nearly 100 paid employees to Nevada to mobilize its roughly 3,000 members in the state.

Under federal rules, paid union campaign workers are limited to communicating with members of their own unions, although after their paid hours, they can, as volunteers, reach out to anyone.

Officials with two pro-Obama unions — the service employees with 17,500 members in Nevada, and the culinary union — questioned this week why the pro-Clinton union of state, county and municipal employees would need nearly 100 paid employees to work with just 3,000 union members.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/politics/13nevada.html?ref=us

While nobody writes about him; to name a couple of unions, CWA (communication workers of america) and iron workers, are, to name only 2 here in Nevada pouring resources into John Edwards camp with direct mailings and volunteers to work phone banks and door to door canvasing among other things. It is sad that media doesn't even bother to tell people that there is STRONG union support for Mr. Edwards in Nevada. I hope any Nevadans reading this will understand what is going in in this country and stand up for Mr. Edwards and themselves. He is by far the most competent candidate to receive union support, not only is he BY FAR the most supportive union candidate, while the others were raising money for their election, Mr Edwards was walking picket lines for us and REALLY supporting our brother and sisters. I strongly encourage EVERYONE to research on their OWN the true qualifications and positions of each candidate to see who you would want representing you as president.

:hi:

:hi:

Swell the throng for Edwards.

:hi:

Good to see you on DU, however, I do want to correct your misconception about Obama and his record with Labor. He carried a 90% COPE rating when he was in the Illinois Senate. Illinois Labor saw up-close and personal that Obama walks the walk.

Edwards AND Obama are both good strong Labor candidates.


In solidarity!



Laura

The DU labor forum needs you! Welcome to the DU and please stop by sometime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=367

Source: ABC News Political Punch

With the stated purpose of ensuring voting participation by casino employees in the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, the Nevada Democratic Party created nine at-large precincts designed for the "4,000 or more shift workers per site who could not otherwise take the time off to go to their home precincts."

The sites will be located at the Bellagio, Luxor, the Mirage, the Rio, Caesar's Palace, the Paris, the Flamingo, Wynn Las Vegas, and New York, New York casinos.

But the lawsuit, filed by six Nevada Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association teachers' union -- whose deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council -- seeks to prevent those At-Large Districts from meeting in next Saturday's caucuses.

"The Democratic Party of Nevada has violated the principle of 'one person, one vote' by creating at-large precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants," charges the lawsuit -- posted HERE by Vegas pundit and reporter Jon Ralston.

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

---

Sleazy actions, if not statements, by surrogates is now the SOP of the Clinton campaign. She offers so little for her'35 years' is this it Hil? This is what you have become after watching Rove and Bush drive politics into the gutter. You can't rise above and inspire voters. You have become 'one of them'.

foot, all you HC haters would be up in arms complaining about HC getting favors from the "party machine."

If it's Clinton or Edwards, fuck 'em--they can't have the same treatment.

It's "sleazy" if they get the "one person, one vote" deal!

issue. You miss the biggest picture in modern american politics by doing so. The depth of damage she is doing to the political process is far more important than a voter wanting cast this away as just a Hilary hater. I don't hate her, I love the Constitution and the laws she is suppose to respect. Its more important than any one person. Those who have been here a few years will recall watching the election theft and our shock that it was so easily done. Those who sounded the alarm on Dre's were laughed at and shunned and called sore losers by opposing candidates. Now of course we know about central tabulators and how Diebold was hooked into them in Ohio running the numbers on their own website the night Warren County shut its court house doors to the public while they counted and stole votes.

I don't hate any candidate but I do deplore dishoest politics and demand a higher standard.

Four years ago? Or are you associating her name with that Republican theft because ....why, exactly?

i do not like hillary but if obama or edwards did the same thing for the same reason i`d feel the same

coming out FOR Hillary...

These same HYPOCRITS are now acting JUST LIKE THE REPUKES and forgetting what they said five seconds ago when the shoe was on the other foot...

THAT's one of the main reasons why I'm AGAINST obama, as opposed to being FOR Hillary...

till this sudden 11th hour law suit, shortly after Obama's union endorsements!

I'll vote for inspiration instead of encouraging voter intimidation.

This sucks.

Eight years of this shit, and it doesn't end! I could scream!

and all candidates had input and it was approved by the State Party. Read this from someone involved:

snip...



Derby is silent, which is good for now and John Hunt in not commenting which is very bad, because appearances have his fingerprints and a lot of fingerprinting toward him all over this tonight. He needs to speak up soon as Clark Chair and CEO.

Those Foley tried to purge were allowed to participate and almost all were put back on. I assisted several in getting back on, and nothing would have affected outcome during the Collins to Derby transition.

We adopted the rules in March and have been fine tuning since. The eboard had issues at times, I and others questioned the wisdom of same day, and still do, and us returning registrations to the County. We never settled how we're going to handle those same-days, and I want us to return them to the voter and let them mail 'em after we take their info. Others don't care how we handle that.

The actual sites, where they are located and who would be running them, was done by staff with each of the campaigns, and the eboard and SCC signed off afterward. No one was left out.

I frankly don't think we have enuf delegates for the Strip, and it has always been our intention to accept all comers.

Does that present challenges? of course it does. That regular lay folks won't be running the at-large Strip sites was a good decision as all are welcomed to poll watch 'em and keep an eye on everyone else.

This whole effort is a party meeting of gigantic logistical effort and expense, it is not an election....will there be glitches...yes...will there be nine Strip sites yes, because we are bound to the criteria and formulas we presented to our authorizing body, the DNC, which approved it all. yes, they approved it all and so did we.

We can't change the rules in the 11th hour because feelings are hurt, endorsements didn't go they way some thought, or because people now have some operational issues.

All you had to do was speak up, to me, or anyone else and I'm looking today at 4 SCC meetings with unanimous support in 2007...those matters not before the entire SCC were discussed and delved into by the Eboard and this is the final product kids.

It will be what it will be on 1/19, and we need your help to run the damn thing and that's tough to do sitting in the Sawyer Fed Bldg on matters already long ago settled.

Posted by: MikeZ | 01/12/2008 at 07:56 PM

http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2008/0...

more here ...

We are following the IA imposed on us by the DNC. The Strip sites were the brianchild of Harry Reid and Tom Collins. This is their baby albeit with colic and a diaper full of shit tonight

The Strip sites were the single most important thing in this whole process for NV's Organized Labor....they were ALL on board with the concept at the launch of the Nevada Caucus Commission and Harry and Tom cheer lead the idea... and now because the state's biggest and most powerful union didn't go the way some of the other unions wanted them to go, or the way Tom and Harry wanted them to go, now they're complaining and have damaged the candidates they prefer one week before zero hour.

Every Dem politician in the state supported the Strip sites. Every single one of them, so don't let 'em bullshit 'ya.

This is fact, there was no dissent.

Posted by: MikeZ | 01/12/2008 at 09:45 PM

I want to remind everyone that Tom Collins is the guy who signed the deal with Faux News last year for the Democratic presidential debate that never happened.

since "Nevada Caucus Commission and Harry and Tom cheer lead the idea"!

Amazing, how folks who rail continuously against the influence of machine politics are irritated when voters take issue with what the machine has rolled out....

If it weights the votes unfairly, it deserves to be challenged.

After it sat ready to be implamented for the last several months?
To Exclude voters because they are working is despicable.

All of those cops, firemen, soldiers serving overseas, cashiers, sales clerks, doctors, nurses, patients in hospitals and nursing homes, janitors cleaning offices, cabbies, security guards, tollboooth workers, everyone working the five to eleven shift in any job...FUCKED by the Iowa caucuses. All those working stiffs couldn't participate because they had to work.

No one cried for them, either, did they?

The teachers are saying that some of them are going to be ordered to be at their schools, so they'll miss the opportunity to caucus at their home precincts. So the question here is, who do you screw? Do you give the culinary workers representation that exceeds one voter/one vote, or do you level the playing field....

A judge is going to decide this issue. The politicians had an idea, and the voters had another idea. It will be sorted out eventually, Monday, in fact, the case is to be heard.

"The 300" (teachers disenfranchised because they have to work - and is it they HAVE to work or they volunteered to work?)

V.

"The 30,000" (Culinary and other casino employees who HAVE to work and who can't possibly attend the caucus if it's not in the hotel/casino where they work).

So, yup, let's not let ANYONE caucus who works on Saturday because we can't accommodate EVERYONE.

In fact, there are probably some felons from other states that might be registered to vote too... (oh wait, that's Florida, well, nevermind... purge away!).

The fewer voters who haven't declared for Hillary the better!

snark...

:sarcasm:

That's what we have come to. I don't know about Iowa... I'm sure it was unfair to someone. But I'm also sure that one candidate's supporters were NOT targeted. This one is directly aimed at the Culinary Union workers... and because they endorsed Obama (actually, not-Hillary).

So OK, because 300 or so teachers can't vote, let's not let 30,000 DEMOCRATS (and UNION WORKERS) vote either.

Never mind that the plan to let these workers vote was made sometime between March and September of LAST YEAR. Never mind that it was published Sept 24, 2007. Never mind that FOUR people named in the lawsuit as plaintiffs also approved the plan last year.

Nope, 300 teachers can't vote. That's the important thing.

Let loose the flying monkeys to cast doubt about what was done and who did it.

Did you individually poll the members?

In fact, there is one leader of the union who is trying to split it for Hillary. I think that would be a huge mistake for these people. I don't care if they caucus for Hillary, but to break up the union because of an endorsement? That's insane.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/11/power-culinary-union-hangs-balance-its-protege-kih/

Anyway, I don't care if they caucus for Hillary or Obama or Edwards or whoever.

But they should be allowed to do so under the rules adopted and published by the Democratic Party in the state for over 3 months.

For someone to come in 1 week before the caucus and two days after the union endorsed Obama and file a lawsuit asking for injunctive relief by not letting caucus according to the rules already adopted... it stinks.

It smells of Donald Segretti and RatFucking. Of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

And we are or should be better than that.

If its not Hillary but just some of her supporters... then she should be aware of it. (I'm sure, as a lawyer with years of experience, she is acutely aware of the lawsuit and its merits and ramifications... and I'm sure she knows the plaintiffs well enough to call them).
She should distance herself from this and publicly ask that the lawsuit be dropped.

If, as you say, it is likely that the rank and file are going to caucus for her, what would be the harm in asking that it be dropped? It would be to her benefit. Even if she isn't behind it and has no connection to it whatsoever, she can issue a statement that the plan adopted and published as of Sept 24th, 2007 be the plan of record and the lawsuit be dropped.

Let the voters caucus.

What part of due process don't you like?

some slick lawyer uses the courts to affect the outcome of an election. You know, kinda like what Goza, no, Gonzaga, no, oh yeah, Alberto Gonzales did by only hiring USAs that would prosecute bogus voter suppression cases against Democratic party personnel. Yup. That was some DUE PROCESS right there.

If someone objected and wanted "due process"... why wait until now? Oh wait, don't tell me, let me guess... maybe because they DON'T want due process, they just want to throw a monkey wrench into the caucus at the last minute... and what a coinkydink... let's file our "due process" two days after the leadership of a union endorses our opponent and let's make sure that our request for "due process" ensures that these same union workers and ONLY those union workers will have a devil of a time trying to have their voices heard.

Yup, the system can't be manipulated. Nope, no sir ee... not a bit.

This is all just a little dispute about some teachers and busboys... move along, nothin to see here!

:sarcasm:

I got your "due process" right here!

They can't attend their own caucuses because they are being directed to work on that day.

You'd also know that the result of creating Magic Precincts where none exist serve to disenfranchise those who live in actual districts and at the same time provide MORE bang for the vote for people BASED SOLELY ON THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

Would you like it if the vote of a policeman was worth .1 more than yours? Or a fireman's worth .2 more than yours? How about letting a Wall Street broker's vote be worth twice what yours is, is that OK with you?

That's the problem here.

Read the lawsuit filing, and stop making shit up. The flying monkeys are coming out of your ass, apparently, the same place where your 'facts' are stored. This isn't a nefarious scheme, it is VOTERS weighing in on a decision taken by politicians, it's to be decided in a court of law.

"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present." "


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t81179.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-lowers.html

It's just now that she didn't get the endorsement she was counting on that she has a problem with it. Now just close your eyes and try to guess the party affiliation of someone would would do this. Republican... right? That's what we need to change this year. No more tricks designed to gain a few more votes, or actions that happen to disenfranchise any voters, intentional or not.

But Obama people believe they are entitled to ALL the votes, and if they don't get them, it was fraud.

I just can't see why anyone who really likes an "open and transparent" process would object to this. It seems that people are going out of their way to crap on Clinton, ignore Edwards, and insist that Obama is a poor pathetic victim (which I certainly do not buy--but, if he is, and he doesn't speak up for himself, that makes him a wuss as well).

Of course, I am of the opinion that caucuses suck, for reasons just like these. When Obama was a slam-dunk for IA, I was told to shut the fuck up about the serious disenfranchisement issues, particularly among the working and lower middle class who get stuck working those shitty evening shifts, and that "the people of IA LIKE IT that way" and I had no right to weigh in. So much for "the people of NV" being allowed to weigh in on the process, either, apparently! If it stands a chance of not benefitting the Anointed One, they can get pretty fucking vicious, to say nothing of turning on a dime when applying the old logic to the situation!

Of course, that CW union's leadership isn't dragging the workers along in lockstep, any more than the firefighters marched in lockstep behind their 04 endorsement. They can probably bully them a little better in a caucus environment, if the shop stewards want to get rough, but it could get ugly, too...

And of course, the CW union, which has a fairly high percentage of non-US citizen members, ain't the only union in town, either. Some are supporting Clinton, others are supporting Edwards. One thing we do know, they're all busy--the state is being blanketed with union GOTV types from all over.

Well, who's more important, after all?

union support.
let the show go on.


.....Officials with two pro-Obama unions — the service employees with 17,500 members in Nevada, and the culinary union — questioned this week why the pro-Clinton union of state, county and municipal employees would need nearly 100 paid employees to work with just 3,000 union members.

'Several pro-Clinton labor unions'

Several chicken coops full of Col. Sander's fans...