Eric Massa was the Grand Marshal of yesterday's Rochester Labor Day parade, and he's been endorsed by a long list of unions. That's a change from two years ago, when labor supported Randy Kuhl.
Labor's justification for switching is an interesting study in revisionist history. In the WHAM story on the parade, these revisions included charges of "betrayal". Union leaders want their rank and file to believe that Kuhl and other Republicans recently changed their minds on three key issues: "higher minimum wage, limits on CEOs' pay and pensions, and new 'fair trade' laws".
Who do they think they're kidding? Republican positions on these three issues haven't changed in years. The union leaders' post hoc justifications strain credulity and insult the intelligence of their members.
Short-term opportunism is part of the reason that union influence is so weak. When Kuhl looked unbeatable in '04, unions endorsed him and gave him money. Now that he's vulnerable, they switched their allegiance to his opponent. Why should any politician or party court an interest group as fickle as this one?
Comments
Actually, labor has turned against Republicans all over New York state. The SEIU just went all in for Maffei after being neutral the last 10 years. I'm not sure if this lends credence to the idea they want to back a winner or not.
Well, either they're opportunistically trying to back winners, or they've just clued in to the fact that the Republican agenda is less labor-friendly than the Democrats. Either explanation isn't too flattering to the union leadership.
I guess here's what has happened with Kuhl: as a state senator (i.e. puppet of Bruno) he may have been relatively friendly to labor, while as a Congressman (i.e. puppet of Rove/DeLay) he has been hostile to labor. I began this comment thinking I would defend labor, but now that I see things put in their natural terms, I agree: they are idiots for not knowing Kuhl would screw them once he got into Congress.