Upper Left Coast

Thoughts on politics, faith, sports and other random topics from a red state sympathizer in indigo-blue Portland, Oregon.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Saxton is "Public Enemy No. 1"?

I meant to comment on this story when it came out Friday, but other events -- a few birthdays, one of which was our country's -- precluded that. (In other words, I got busy with other things and forgot.)

So the public employee unions have made a video labeling Ron Saxton as "Public Enemy No. 1" in this year's race for governor. My reaction?

More, please. And quickly.

The more the unions engage in this type of completely out-of-touch, over-the-top rhetoric, the easier it will be for Oregonians to see the truth about the unions. That the only people unions are interested in helping are . . . their members. Not the school kids. Not the residents who rely on state and municipal services. Not the people whose services are being cut in order to feed the monster that is PERS.

So, to the unions in Oregon and their buddies in the Democratic Party -- the only thing you demonstrate is that you don't have a clue about Oregonians, and that your goals to bankrupt the state will continue with Ted Kulongsoski in Mahonia Hall for another four years.

Keep it up.


  • At 7/06/2006 8:39 AM, Blogger MAX Redline said…


    Grieve me though it does to have to disagree, Ken, I must. Because you're wrong on this one.

    That the only people unions are interested in helping are . . . their members.

    Members are, in fact, a bother to Unions. The only people that Unions are interested in helping are the Union bosses.

    Unions steal "dues" from the paychecks of their "members" - and bear in mind that membership is required in order to work in far too many enterprises in Oregon. It's not an option. You can't even divert your dues to charity.

    There are exceptions, but these require that you prove long-term membership in a recognized religious organization that forbids such Union "contributions".

    Membership drives by Unions are simply a means for extorting more "dues", which means more money for the Union bosses to use in political campaigns.

    It doesn't matter whether or not "members" agree with the candidates, the positions, nor other aspects of political activity by Union bosses. You can request that the portion of your dues used to fund such activities be returned to you - but you won't get it.

    Once they have your money, they feel free to use it however they wish. And there's nothing an extortion victi - I mean, "member" - can do about it.

  • At 7/06/2006 8:56 AM, Blogger Ken said…

    Max -- actually...

    I think we're saying similar things, you just expressed it better than I did.

    I think a majority of union members do fall into the category of supporting their unions and their political gamesmanship, but I know there's a significant percentage (a minority, but significant nonetheless) who look at their dues memberships as an unavoidable and unfortunate byproduct of having that job. (Some of my teacher friends have said as such.) It's extortion and it goes toward unpleasant ends, but as you pointed out, it's required and they have no choice in the matter.

    So the people who are using the over-the-top rhetoric in labeling Saxton P.E.1. are, of course, the union bosses, not the unions as a whole. But that doesn't matter. To the non-union public, a union member is the same as the union, and the more over-the-top the bosses are, the more they hurt their cause and their candidate.

  • At 7/06/2006 4:02 PM, Blogger Capitol 3 said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At 7/06/2006 4:16 PM, Blogger Capitol 3 said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home