Fed-Ex and UPS are embroiled in a nasty political fight. In short, UPS is seeking legislative changes that will increase FedEx's regulatory and labor costs. Specifically, UPS wants to force FedEx to be covered by the National Labor Relations Act, as UPS is, rather than than the Railway Labor Act. FedEx is currently under the latter because it primarily relies upon air shipping. UPS is primarily a ground carrier, so it falls under the NLRA. Unions also support the shift, as it would likely increase unionization within FedEx.
Many conservatives have been critical of UPS' campaign (see here and here). At least one conservative group, the American Conservative Union, also appears to have sought support for a campaign in support of FedEx, only to shift sides when its request was turned down. According to The Politico, ACU sent met with FedEx officials and sent them a letter seeking over $2 million to fund a "grassroots" campaign against the so-called "Brown Bailout." "We have reviewed your concerns regarding the NLRB and we believe we could strongly support your position," the letter said.
Apparently FedEx wasn't buying. So the ACU jsut turned its energies to other important issues, right? Within weeks of seeking money from FedEx for the anti-UPS effort, ACU Chairman David Keene joined other conservative activists signing a letter bearing the ACU logo that attacked FedEx for calling the pro-UPS policy proposal the "Brown Bailout." Labeling what UPS seeks as a "bailout" is improper, the second letter said, because "UPS was not seeking any taxpayer funds — only regulatory reform that would insure equal treatment of both companies under our nationʼs labor laws."
Bailout, shmailout. Whatever one calls it, UPS is engaging in special interest rent-seeking. While they don't seek tax dollars, their desired reforms would increase shipping costs for consumers, so we'd still be stuck paying for it. If UPS really wants "equal treatment," they should seek regulatory relief, perhaps a shift of UPS from NLRA to RLA jurisdiction, instead of asking the government to knee-cap a competitor.
As for ACU, it's one thing for activist organizations to seek support from organizations with common interests. So, for instance, there is nothing wrong with an anti-tax organization seeking money from corporations to fight increased taxes that could harm those corporations' interests. To the extent that such organizations can raise funds to support some campaigns and not others, this will inevitably influence a group's priorities, but does not necessarily compromise its principles. What is so unseemly here is ACU's apparent about face, from eagerly supporting FedEx's position to attacking the company's clever PR campaign, just after it failed to secure financial support. This sort of thing damages a group's credibility, and rightly so.
UPDATE: ACU has issued a press release disputing the Politico story, and claiming that the organization is still opposed to extending NLRA jurisdiction to cover FedEx. It reads in part: "ACU stands with the policy that FedEx should not be placed under the NLRB. This was ACU policy - before and after - any letters in question were drafted." It also claims that ACU did not endorse the letter attacking use of the "Brown bailout" slogan signed by David Keene and bearing the ACU logo.
Note: This morning, before publishing this post, I searched the ACU website for any indication the organization opposed extending NLRA jurisdiction to cover FedEx, and found nothing. I have just repeated my searches, and the only relevant document that comes up is today's press release.
UPS is wrong and it doesn't take $2,000,000 to see that either. It just is.
Why? I think most of us agree that UPS and FedEx should have a level playing field. So the question becomes whether that level playing field should be under NLRA rules, RLA rules, or some third set of rules. If the NLRA rules are reasonable and appropriate for the sort of business UPS is running, then why shouldn't UPS lobby for FedEx to be subject to those rules?
Put differently, if FedEx started manufacturing prescription drugs tomorrow and Pfizer started lobbying for the FDA to regulate FedEx, it would not strike me as valid to say Pfizer is doing something wrong by lobbying to bring FedEx within the FDA's jurisdiction instead of lobbying to remove Pfizer from the FDA's jurisdiction.
Sure, to a first approximation, every lobbying effort is rent seeking, but that coarse analysis misses what might be a more complete solution of the problem.
That said, I am not sure why UPS deserves to be castigated. When faced with an inequality of treatment, the two obvious choices are either a) my competitor gets treated the same way I do, or b) I get treated the same way my competitor does. Since UPS presumably knows, understands and is set up to deal with the regulatory burdens that come from it's current obligations, it makes sense to me that they would prefer option a to option b. Whether that makes sense from the standpoint of consumers is a different issue, but UPS's job isn't primarily to look out for the benefit of consumers--it is to look out for the benefit of UPS.
Someone get Bernstein on it!
.
I don't particularly care for ACU (for reasons unrelated to this), but as far as I know, they are still against the "Brown Bailout" [i.e., they still lobby "to eliminate a provision in the House-passed FAA Reauthorization bill that would expand the power of the NLRB and some unions"]. Participating in a multi-group letter to FedEx that indicates strong disagreement with the tactic of labeling the proposed law a "Brown Bailout" is hardly an "about face," in that all the organizations (FedEx included) are still in harmony as to the ultimate objective.
Should it be: "only regulatory reform that would insure equal treatment of both companies under our nation's labor laws." or "only regulatory reform that would ensure equal treatment of both companies under our nationʼs labor laws."
I'd think lawyers especially would see it this way, since we're so familiar with using "insure" as a term of art.
It's perfectly legitimate to lobby to lighten one's own regulatory burden; it's not legitimate to lobby to increase someone else's.
I'm not sure if I would agree with that distinction. (i.e. genuinely doubtful)
On the one hand, all rent-seeking is both legitimate because it is the kind of pursuit of profit that corporate managers are hired to engage in, and because it is an act of petitioning the government, one of the most important of free speech rights.
On the other hand, I can see the intuitive appeal of making a distinction between lobbying that concerns one's own position, and lobbying about someone else's. In football, everybody expects the players to beg the referee not to give them a yellow card, but if a player begs the referee to give the other guy a card, that tends to be universally condemned.
Still, from a utilitarian point of view, lobbying to lighten your own regulatory burden and lobbying to increase someone else's puts the two companies in exactly the same relative position. The only difference is the overall level of regulation that they both "enjoy". Certainly if there is reason to believe that lobbying for a reduction in your own burden would be futile, I don't think what UPS is doing is necessarily wrong.
That conclusion requires a normative judgment about the NLRA and RLA that is (a) not obvious, (b) not supported by anything in this post, and (c) not particularly reliant on the nature of UPS and FedEx's businesses.
How is that "not legitimate"? What does that even mean?
Did you really expect someone who calls himself a libertarian to have contingent normative beliefs about this case?
We know for a fact that one company is not significantly outselling the other's service, giving weight that the different regulations are appropriate.
The scheme is obviously to UPS' benefit as FedEx would have to make expensive changes in personnel, materials, regulations, training, routes, schedules and hours; etcetera. Without clear and convinving information that RLA is inappropriate, there should be a bias toward stasis. Change does not make sense.
Volokh's main point is valid: The ACU has no inherent interest in others' use of the term 'bailout'. The very fact they claimed 'regulatory reform that would insure equal treatment', when that isn't true, points to ACU's soft extortion.
I am not rushing to change. I don't know of one of the regulatory schemes is better than the other for Fedex. I just think jumping to the "rent-seeking" meme without any consideration of the merits is a huge rush to judgment. Yes, it does cloud UPS's involvement. But nobody is talking about giving deference to UPS's judgment. The fact that one is land-based and the other is air-based is certainly relevant, but not determinative, of the regulatory issues. Again, the merits question is whether FedEx is a better fit within the scheme of NLRA rather than RLA, or whether some consolidated regulatory scheme is more appropriate. Unfortunately, JA does not address this at all.
This makes no sense to me. The hypothetical upthread about FedEx manufacturing prescription drugs aptly illustrates why.
If I'm a contractor, and another contractor is taking business away from me because they hire illegal labor and thus have lower costs, it's perfectly legitimate for me to call the authorities on them. No one would say "sorry, your only option is to lobby for the right to hire illegal labor yourself." In a broader sense, if one of your competitors is taking advantage of a loophole, of course you can try to close the loophole.
The ultimate question is whether the request for increased regulation of a competitor is gratuitous or whether it comports with the intent of the underlying regulatory scheme. In other words, is it really a loophole? Here, the argument that FedEx ought to be governed by the NLRA like everyone else strikes me as non-frivolous.
The fact that the two are treated differently is the problem, and that is the fault of the government and not UPS.
Regulatory capture describes a situation where the agency regulating a sector is entirely in the pocket of the sector it is supposed to be regulating, sharing their perspective, etc. This happened to the old Interstate Commerce Commission, for example. When there is regulatory capture, there is no need for rent seeking.
So which is more damaging, this or the "C Street 'Family'"?
Cheers,
American Conservative Union: Principles for Sale - Washington Monthly
American Conservative Union: Conservative Group Offers To Sell Endorsement For $2M - Huffington Post
Conservative Group Tried to Sell its Support for $2M - Newser
.
Where does one find that the ACU is now in favor of passing "a provision in the House-passed FAA Reauthorization bill that would expand the power of the NLRB and some unions."?
So much for the credibility of Politico, Huffington Post, etc. Of course, anybody with a modest degree of reading comprehension would notice that "position support" is distinguishable from "agreement as to tactics."
.
What Politico says is "... the American Conservative Union switched sides, and now backs UPS." I predict massive backpedaling in the near future, where "backs UPS" will refer to the tactic of not naming something a bailout, rather than a position with respect to the bill.
.
The other signatories to this "we object to the bailout label" letter (signed by Ex-senator Malcolm Wallop) were: Frontiers for Freedom, Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), 60 Plus, Citizen Outreach (Chuck Muth), Small Business 7 Entrepreneurship Council, and National Taxpayers Union. Your position is that these signatories are likewise lukewarm in opposition?
I thought the lawyers are very picky about terminology. After all, doesn't law turn on fine distinctions and definitions? "Bailout is bad, UPS is bad, so it is OK to call it bailout" does not strike me as a well thought out position.
Besides, what evidence do you have that ACU would not complain about the use of the term "bailout" if it received money from FedEx. It seems your emotions are getting the better of your judgement in this instance.
I frankly don't know enough about these groups to understand their motivation, but I really have my doubts that an interest group signs a letter like this in a situation where they strongly support the agenda of the recipient, but just want to make a point about truth in labelling.
If fairness to the other signatories (and I agree that the ACU appears to have switched sides because they didn’t get the deal from FedEx that they wanted) I think one can oppose the regulatory change and be legitimately concerned about a misuse of the term “bailout” when we have actual bailouts which many of these other organizations have vocally opposed.
When a group’s activism focuses around their support or opposition to something that has a specific meaning be it “bailouts” or “tax cuts” or “user fees” or “corporate welfare” or “health care rationing” or “judicial activism,” they have to be very circumspect about other groups who use the same term but ascribe a different meaning to it. It’s sort of like how if you have a trademark (and I’m not saying any of these term are trademarked, this is an analogy), if you don’t use it, you lose it. If you let others dilute its meaning, you lose it as well.
If FedEx muddies the water by trying to redefine a term like “bailout” to mean something different from the way that these groups have and are using it, it could lead to groups that are actively hostile to the signatories’ views trying to redefine “bailout” even further to mean something like “by not taxing you at the rate that other countries tax your competitor’s, you’re being ‘bailed” out by the government.”
.
I inferred that to be your point of view, from your previous. So, your tentative position is that these signatories are likewise lukewarm in opposition. I'll grant that the identification of multiple signatories doesn't constitute evidence of their degree of opposition to the expansion of NLRB jurisdiction.
.
FWIW, I don't find an admonition in the nature of "careful with the 'bailout' label" to be an indicator of lukewarm strength of support. An entity that objects to false labeling is more likely to have STRONG support for the underlying substance, otherwise would not care about truth in labeling.
.
I also think the observation that an expansion of NLRB jurisdiction is NOT a bailout is correct. It's inappropriate to affix the label "bailout" to all forms of government regulation.
.
-- Is Politico generally a left leaning organization? --
.
Yes.
.
I'm glad you announced that conclusion.
I guess I agree that they can be legitimately concerned, but the tone of this letter ("essentially a disinformation campaign ... disingenuous and dishonest labels ... falsely and disingenuously ... deceitful website") seems to be beyond what one might typically say to someone who shares your legislative goals but is using exaggerated language which you object to in order to get there.
The use of UPS-friendly language in the letter ("only regulatory reform that would insure equal treatment of both companies under our nation's labor laws ... merely UPS asking that the government treat both competitors the same") also seems to carry a subtext of something less than fervent opposition to UPS's legislative goals.
I mean, ideological allies often have strong disagreements as to tactics in a legislative fight, but I really haven't seen many letters like this exchanged among people who supposedly share the exact same goal at the end of the day. It's one thing to say "you know, I really wish you guys wouldn't call it a bailout," but this letter is a complete broadside.
We’re supposed to be, I just spent fifteen minutes discussing whether we should use the term “academic” or “educational” in an intellectual property agreement which to 99% of lay people would probably think mean the same thing. It actually was important enough because we wanted to limit the scope of the license we were granting to the other party and “academic” is a narrower term than “educational” in the context that we were using it.
If you ever want to start an argument, go to a Republican function, walk up to an activist (especially a Ron Paul supporter) and refer to America as a “democracy” rather than a “republic” . . .
FedEx is the old airline, Flying Tigers, whose initial business was to transport by air, material between airline freight terminals. FedEx then decided to use trucks (didn't they acquire DHL recently) for home to terminal pick up and delivery.
One key difference between the RLA and the NLRA act is that the RLA requires representation elections by class and craft on a system basis where the NLRA permits representation on a point by point basis.
Union representation, therefore, is probably much more intense at UPS (Teamsters, as I recall) than at FedEx and both the UPS management and unions want the same intensity at both companies; management, because it would place a burden on FedEx, and the unions, because it would be easier to sign up new members.
Interestingly, the NLRA does have one key advantage over the RLA. Under the RLA there is no workable methodology to decertify a union. There is under the NLRA.
I don't agree with this logic at all. If you feel strongly about achieving a given objective, you're less likely to pick fights with your allies over tactical matters like labelling.
Let's attempt an analogy. There are some right-to-life organizations that use dramatic, attention-getting tactics such as "abortion is murder" signs, graphic photographs of aborted fetuses, and the like. There are other right-to-life organizations that, for reasons I assume are conscious, choose to take a higher road in terms of tactics. Yet I cannot recall ever seeing an organization in the latter category sending a letter to those in the former category, berating them for utilizing offensive tactics. I infer the reason is that the organizations feel strongly enough about the overriding goal - preventing abortions - that they are willing to accept their allies wherever they can find them rather than picking fights over tactics.
Now, if organizations like ATR and the NTU actually do care more strongly about preventing dilution of the word "bailout" than they care about stopping UPS' legislative proposal, that would strike me as a classic case of lukewarm support. But I can't get over my nagging suspicion that something else is going on here.
By the way, I notice that Keene offered to produce Op-eds in FedEx's favor, and mentioned that he writes a weekly one for The Hill. I wonder if the paper gets a cut of Keene's fees. SHouldn't they label his op-eds "Paid Advertisement?"
In the first palce, FedX is using bailout corectly:
That is what UPS is seeking. They are trying, through the government, to get more business because their rival's costs just went up.
Second, who made Keane and the others guardians of the English language?
Finally, they actually cite the Reagan Berlin Wall speech! Talk about a lack of perspective.
.
I don't know about formal letters, but I can assure you that there is urgent opposition to the "bloody baby on a flying banner" and "DC abortion truck" tactics, where the people opposed to the tactics are firmly anti-abortion.
.
-- if organizations like ATR and the NTU actually do care more strongly about preventing dilution of the word "bailout" than they care about stopping UPS' legislative proposal, that would strike me as a classic case of lukewarm support. --
.
It's false equivalence to convert a strong disagreement as to tactics into a finding of "weak" support for the underlying issue - nevermind Politico's conclusion that a disagreement as to tactics represents an about-face reversal of position on the underlying issue.
.
And unlike Politico, you phrased your opinion critical of ACU in a way that differentiates "tactics" from "underlying issue."
Speaking of the government treating two entities differently, wait for Obamacare!
Right. And even though oranges are orange and lemons are yellow, they're almost the exact same fruit.
None of this matters anyway.
FedEx has a lot of political muscle and has already threatened the nuclear option - canceling purchase contracts with Boeing and other struggling US suppliers. Translation: for every one of my guys you turn into a teamster, I'll put 20 of yours in the unemployment line.
Let's see how Congress responds to that threat in this economy.
Also, UPS and DHL (the forgotten little sister in the parcel delivery triangle) had a deal to consolidate their domestic air services last year (perhaps in the hope of achieving FedEx's regulatory status?) but it was killed by politicians (Obama and McCain) because it was an election year and the proposed plan would have eliminated 8,000 jobs in Ohio (DHL's domestic air headquarters and oh, yeah a very key battleground state). We all know how that game is played.
Anyway, when the deal fell apart DHL, a Dutch subsidiary and primarily an international operator, decided it had had enough of the bullshit and completely shut down all domestic carrier services in the US, leaving only the two giants standing. So not only did those cherished Ohio air service jobs disappear a month after the election but so did many others. Meanwhile UPS - already micromanaged to death by the teamsters and other unions (in the usual corrupt and incompetent way) - suffered the wrath of their organized labor divisions and their political arms in the fallout, hence the current effort to drag FedEx into their bed of fleas.
.
American Conservative Union Caught Whoring Itself Out to Highest Bidder
Conservative Group Exposed: Jesus Would Be Proud
Conservative group sought $2 million bribe
CNN errs too: ACU denies 'pay for play' lobbying charges
The Politico is trash. The people who run the site are bottom feeding filth.
.
One of my favorite examples of press error is the AP's "the crowd booed when GWB asked for well wishes for Bill Clinton's heart surgery."
.
That, and CBS "fake but accurate" documents relating to GWB's ANG service.
.
People who accept what the press asserts, at face value, are fools.
.
The "modified meme" will be that ACU is a "pay for play" organization. That is going to stick based on this story.
.
Of course, every outfit that does mailers, or lobbies, etc. is a "pay for play" operation. What's funny is the number who play for free, such as AP, CBS, etc.
And the Politico.
The endorsement costs 2 million dollars, the millions of pieces of direct (targeted) mail, phone calls, etc. are free.
.
I'm wondering, on the initial contact, if FedEx contacted ACU for its mailing list, etc., or if ACU recognized the issue and offered a direct-mail, phone bank program on its own initiative. The June letter mentions a meeting, and in bold typeface recites, "We have reviewed your concerns regarding the NLRB and we believe we could strongly support your position."
Conservative Group (ACU) offers to Sell Endorsement to FedEX
The Politico IS NOT a reliable source of information. It is nothing more than a mouthpiece of far-left "progressives."
Actually, Politico has been very center-right-establishment, as is most of the corporate media.
.
ROTFL. It's funny how a story can snowball. Near the conclusion of Erick Erickson's piece in RedState, he asserts that his beef with Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform is basically over the label "bailout," then goes on with some prose that makes it appear he thinks the ACU is actually in favor of the legislation it in fact opposes!
American Conservative Union asks FedEx to pay for its endorsement
Keene's American Conservative Union: For Sale For Years? (David Frum)
Conservative Lobbyists Try to Sell Endorsement to FedEx (TPM)
Yes. Essentially, the two companies have migrated into each other's method of operation. Also, FedEx took over Kinko, and no one one would argue that that business had anything to do with the air cargo business.
One difference between the statutes that has not been mentioned is that if a union wants to strike a RLA carrier, it has to go through an extremely long process that was designed to keep the strike from happening; the NLRA has no analogue.
UPS has been fully organized by the Teamsters, but I am of the belief that significant portions of FedEx's operations are non-union. As noted above, it is easier to organize under the NLRA, and I suspect that this is what UPS really is forcusing on.
Conservative group sought $2 million bribe | Capitol Hill Blue (Doug Thompson)
David Keene, Resign. Today. | savethegop.com
Maybe they need killin', I don't know.
.
ROTFL. Send me $2,000,000 and I'll think about it.
.
I'm just fascinated by the propagation of "bribed" and "payed to take a position." I figure a concise set citations is at least entertaining - even though the liars will deny they are lying.
If you are to the left of Mao and Stalin you might think that... I guess everything appears "center right" from your perspective.
Conservatives back UPS in possible pay-to-play switch
Is the ACU "Pay-to-Play" Racket Real?
Conservative group offered to sell its support
Ramesh on David Keene's in 2003 [NRO - Veronique de Rugy]
Yeah, but you probably think Rush Limbaugh is too "mainstream"
ACU offered endorsement for money UPI.com
Will The Hill now cancel its American Conservative Union column? - mediamatters.org
GOP watch: Selling an endorsement? MSNBC - Domenico Montanaro
You have somehow managed to not notice that "the liars" (i.e., people condemning Keane and ACU) include Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, James Joyner, Right Wing News, Reason Magazine, Conservatives4Palin and Weekly Standard. Crust already mentioned Redstate. Is there any major righty source defending ACU? I can't find any.
Most of those links can be easily found via memorandum.
What's entertaining is how curiously unthorough you are in your thoroughness. You've cited roughly 27 articles while managing to obscure the fact that every major righty source that covered this story lined up with "the liars."
I realize that you mentioned Fox, NR and savethegop (whoever they are), but mostly you've been citing sources like TPM, HuffPo, CNN and MSNBC. Meanwhile the major righty sources I mentioned are conspicuously absent from your list. I wonder why.
I realize that you mentioned Fox, NR and savethegop .. --
.
You've managed to contradict yourself in the space of two consecutive sentences.
ACU puts conservatism up for sale? - Ed Morrissey
Beltway "Conservatism" For Sale to the Highest Bidder - R. A. Mansour (conservatives4palin)
When It Absolutely, Positively Has To Be There In The Law - Jesse Walker (Reason)
Don't Mess With Fred Smith - Michael Goldfarb (Weekly Standard)
A Reluctant Open Letter To The American Conservative Union: Fire David Keene - John Hawkins (rightwingnews.com)
None of this is rehabilitating Mike Allen's story. The take by most secondhand authors depends on the ACU adopting one position (in favor of FedEx), then shifting to be in opposition to FedEx; i.e., "backing UPS" as expressed in this article.
.
Some people derive pride from the extent their expressions accurately convey objective reality; others are properly proud of their ability to deceive.
You seem to be implying that the three righty sources you cited (Fox, NR and savethegop) aligned themselves with ACU and against Politico. But they didn't. So there is no contradiction in what I said. Rather, there is an implied falsehood in what you said.
And this bogus claim is a feeble attempt at directing attention away from the question I raised: is it just an accident that you cited 27 articles and managed to not mention the position taken by Weekly Standard, Malkin et al?
Except that your first 27 citations were not a fair representation of "readers of all political stripe." They were seemingly weighted to allow you to unfairly make a point about "the press" ("people who accept what the press asserts, at face value, are fools"). And you have now corrected your glaring omission, but only after I pointed out that it was glaring.
People who accept what you assert, at face value, are fools.
.
Booga booga booga
.
Technically, your complaint is that there is an implied falsehood in what I didn't say. Lie by omission, as my 27 cites had no rightie representation.
.
Step away from the bong.
.
Is it your contention that people who accept what the press asserts, at face value, are not fools?
-- People who accept what you assert, at face value, are fools. --
.
A comical criticism, in that the commentary you are objecting to is light on assertion, and heavy on linked citation for people to check for themselves.
A Conservative Organization Is Accused of Offering Help in a Labor Dispute for a Price - NYTimes.com (Neil A. Lewis)
What can brown do for you? - Economist.com
Conservative Group Sells Endorsements to Highest Bidder?
Think Tank Thoughts For Sale - gawker.com
There was an implied falsehood in what you didn't say. But that was just my first complaint. Now you're falsely implying that there was only one complaint.
I also complained about what you did here, where you falsely implied that Fox, NR and savethegop lined up with ACU. They didn't. And your evasive non-response ("step away from the bong") doesn't change that.
What you're doing, repeatedly, is generating new falsehoods in a feeble attempt to direct attention away from your prior ones.
Why are you exaggerating? It's not that your "27 cites had no rightie representation." They had this much "rightie representation:" 3/27, or 11%. And you somehow decided it was important to quote the Memphis Flyer and the Yorktown Patriot while ignoring Weekly Standard and Michelle Malkin. How odd.
It's my contention that you're making a feeble attempt at changing the subject.
If you had started out by defining "the press" as people "of all political stripe," then I would not have spoken up. But you did something pointedly different, and conspicuously ignored (almost completely) a certain "political stripe." Until I pointed out what you were doing.
You said "the liars will deny they are lying." That's definitely an "assertion." So your commentary is not "light on assertion." It's light on credibility.
Michael B used to like to say "boo." Do you know why he's been gone for so long? The place isn't the same without him. Anyway, it seems that you and him both attended the GOP School for Erudite Argumentation. After all, it's hard to argue with "boo" and "booga."
Does the syllabus include a unit on when to use one versus the other? Just curious.
=================
nieporent:
If you can make sense out of what he said, feel free to explain how you manage to do that.
I made a claim: that every major righty source that covered this story lined up against ACU. cboldt implied that Fox, NR and savethegop are exceptions to this claim. Trouble is, they're not.
JBG: -- [that is] you falsely implying that Fox, NR and savethegop lined up with ACU. --
JBG: -- What you're doing, repeatedly, is generating new falsehoods in a feeble attempt to direct attention away from your prior ones. --
1) One thing that bothers me is that UPS in several of these quoted stories is being portrayed as stepping in and paying the ACU's fee, when there is no evidence of such.
2) The letter that everyone is referring to only discusses the use of the term "bailout" and not a position on the legislation.
3) While you can quote a dictionary to support your argument, bailout has taken on a different and negative definition: that of companies taking direct payments from the federal government. To use the term bailout to describe this issue is misleading and wrong.
4) Finally, while FedEx may have been an air carrier in the past, that is no longer the case. Thanks to several acquistions, they are a major player in the ground market. The switch to the NLRA would not affect air personnel (pilots, air support) but would affect the drivers and package handlers. It would put similar personnel under the same rules instead of allowing one to exploit a loophole.
Here's the key issue you're still trying to dodge. In this particular situation, sites like TPM and sites like Malkin took essentially the same position: they condemned ACU. Yet you created a selection of 27 citations that was heavily weighted with sites like TPM and generally omitted sites like Malkin. Why?
Trouble is, Cbolt had included Fox, NR, and savethegop, which are obviously "righty sources," which means he obviously did not "obscure the fact" at all.
Then you falsely claimed he had "implied" that these three sources had sided with the ACU, when he did nothing of the kind. He explicitly quoted them as lining up with the others in condemning the ACU.
Amusingly, you implicitly denigrated "savethegop" as nobodies by saying "whoever they are," but in your list of alleged major righty sources that he had omitted by not looking at "memorandum" [sic], you included "Conservatives4Palin," (whoever they are). (You also falsely included Reason, which is not a "righty source" at all, but a libertarian one.)
How I manage to make sense of what he said? Very easily: read the words instead of your false claims about what people "Seem to be implying," and then "what he said" is very straightforward. "What he said" was that your two claims:
1) that he "obscure[d] the fact that every major righty source that covered this story lined up with 'the liars.'"
2) that he "mentioned Fox, NR and savethegop"
directly contradict each other. Obviously if he mentioned Fox, he wasn't obscuring the fact that a righty source lined up that way.
.
The message conveyed by the repost is self-evident on inspection. I can point things out to you, but I can't think for you.
.
The post you are now objecting to is a concise showing that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. To wit, making false claims, and generating new falsehoods in a feeble attempt to direct attention away from your prior ones.
.
Your persistence in asserting these false accusations makes you out as imagining things that don't exist, hence "step away from the bong" was a direct and substantive response, that described the imaginary nature of your contributions.
.
You are now free to assert that I haven't provided citations, that you have, and that you've again kicked my ass and obtained glorious victory in argument.
American conservatisim in its decadent phase - (nationalpost.com publishes David Frum on 7/18)
American Conservative Union Accused of Shaking Down FedEx, Cutting Deal With Rival - Jackson Baker (memphisflyer.com) [links to POLITICO, adds little original material beyond the headline title]
Politico: American Conservative Union tried to sell its support - Laurie Bennett (muckety.com)
American Conservative Union — The World’s Most Expensive Hooker
I haven't found a report that challenges the conventional wisdom. Looks as though Mike Allen has, via Politico, successfully slimed ACU, and others have extended his slime using guilt by association (e.g., Norquist).
Politico's ACU "Pay-for-Play" Baloney - The Right Knight
You're engaging in your typical sophistry of overstating the evidence.
The key issue is this: every major righty source that covered this story lined up against ACU (as far as I can tell, and no one has shown otherwise). And cboldt obscured this fact, even though he mentioned, in his list of 27 citations, 3 righty sources that lined up against ACU. How does mentioning those token three communicate the idea of "every?" It doesn't. It communicates the idea of 'some,' or 'a few.' Especially because one of the three (savethegop) is a source no one ever heard of.
Consider these two statements:
A) every major righty source that covered this story lined up against ACU
B) Two or three (i.e., a few) righty sources covered this story by lining up against ACU
Your defense of cboldt depends on pretending that A and B are the same. Trouble is, they're not. What cboldt's list admitted and communicated was B. And by citing the Memphis Flyer and the Yorktown Patriot while ignoring Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air et al he was effectively obscuring A.
Admitting "that a righty source lined up that way" generally corresponds with B, and is quite different from A. I didn't accuse him of obscuring B. I accused him of obscuring A. But please continue to pretend that "every" and 'a few' are synonyms.
He did do something "of the kind," by saying I contradicted myself. But I didn't contradict myself, because "every" and 'a few' are not synonyms. Even though you and he are both pretending they are.
I didn't claim that Conservatives4Palin is a major righty source. I included them on the list because they are a relatively extreme righty source. And even though they are not major, they are way more major than savethegop. According to alexa, the former has a traffic rank of 133,657 and the latter has a traffic rank of 1,978,201. So your pretense that they are equally obscure is more sophistry.
savethegop.com is highly obscure, and yorktownpatriot.com is even more obscure. But they made it onto the list, while Malkin, Morrissey and Weekly Standard did not. How odd.
Who got more votes from Reason readers and contributors, Obama or McCain? Kerry or Bush? Do you really claim it's the former, in both cases? I doubt it. If it walks like a duck etc. For the purpose of a discussion like this, calling Reason righty is a reasonable simplification.
When you stoop to highlighting insignificant typos that's a pretty good clue that you have nothing substantive to work with.
Imagine there were a $1 million tax on all cars, regards of the manufacturer. Yes, in some sense, all the manufacturers are affected "relatively" the same -- but no one would buy cars.
If UPS and FedEx both have see their labor costs rise, they both will have to pass those costs on, either to their customers or to their investors. Investors can invest elsewhere and customers can always just not ship stuff.FedEx acquired Flying Tigers, but they already had planes; DHL was acquired by Deutsche Post.
So what? You consider nyone to the right of the CPUSA is an extreme righty source.
Since you have this amazing clairvoyance about my thoughts and preferences, can you tell me what I'm having for breakfast tomorrow? I don't know myself, but I figure you probably know.
And let us know if you're really claiming that conservatives4palin is actually not more extreme than, say, James Joyner. Also let us know if you need help grasping the word "relatively." It seems that you do.
Conservative nonprofit offered clout to FedEx - Andrew Zajac
No, it doesn't. It depends on noting that nobody would try to "obscure" that righty sources were saying something by listing Fox and the NRO as saying it. If one were trying to "obscure" the fact that righty sources were saying something, one would either list no righty sources, or only obscure ones like conservatives4palin. He did neither.
Now, on the other hand, consider these two statements:
A) Here are some people who said something.
B) Here is an exhaustive list of people who said something.
Your defense of your own hackery depends on pretending that A and B are the same.Trouble is: he didn't say that only "a few" righty sources said that. Nor did he imply it. Your insinuation that he did is a lie.
In 2004, I suspect Bush; in 2008, I suspect Obama. But I don't know, and I know you don't know.Funny how your incorrect statements are always "reasonable" falsehoods, whereas everyone else's are proof of dishonesty.
Ipse dixit.
Nonsense. Obscure means not well known. A blog being well known or not is a relative phenomenon, not an absolute phenomenon. savethegop is obscure relative to conservatives4palin, while the latter is obscure relative to Weekly Standard. And I notice that you and cboldt have still not attempted to answer the key question: how did it come to pass that cboldt decided it was relevant to cite the Yorktown Patriot, while ignoring Weekly Standard, Malkin and Morrissey?
More nonsense. If more people read something, it is more known, which means that it's less obscure. But I realize you're using your magic dictionary where that word has a special meaning that you invented.
If cboldt had posted 27 citations that included 0 righty sources, that would have been even more egregious than what he actually did (post 27 citations that included 3 righty sources). I could see how he would decide it would be unwise to take the more egregious course. It would have been too noticeable. But what he did was still egregious, even though he included a fig leaf.
By posting 27 anti-ACU citations, where only 3/27 were righty sources, he did indeed imply "that only 'a few' righty sources said that." Because if he was choosing sources in a fair way, the righty representation would not be so low unless it was the case "that only 'a few' righty sources said that."
.
I didn't bother to earlier link to Malkin's comments (they show little evidence of independent "analysis" of the Politico story), but it's clear she took Politco's bait, hook, line and sinker.
Number of hits in google search for american conservative union fedex PLUS:
bribe - 2680
extortion - 1650
.
Heh, here is NYT - Stephanie Clifford, on June 9, also objecting to the use of the word "bailout":
Campaign Against Rival Could Haunt FedEx
.
Only to those who infer and imagine a non-existent objective or point from the selection of examples.
.
Maybe the google search used to find commentary based on Allen's slime-piece came up weighted the way it did because of bias on the part of google.
That's interesting, because when I do that search, one of the top six results is conservativepoliticalreport.org. Their post of 7/17 linked to Weekly Standard, Hot Air, Malkin, Red State, Conservatives4Palin, and a couple of others. How peculiar that this particular item escaped your attention, even though you cited 27 other items.
Can you find any sources that show "independent 'analysis' of the Politico story?" I can't. Did you cite any such sources? I don't think so. So that criterion would not be a reason to exclude Malkin.
Yes, placing conservativepoliticalreport.org in position number six (ahead of HuffPo, Washington Monthly and various other lefty sources you cited) definitely shows bias on the part of google.
.
I used scare quotes around "analysis" as a means to imply that those parroting Politico's conclusion hadn't done analysis. I linked to one fellow "swimming against the current," above. He noted reading the two letters Mike Allen provided.
.
The difference between the type and extent of Malkin's direct commentary on the Politico article, compared with the other cites, is self-evident. Her substantive contribution was "The rotten American Conservative Union/David Keene pay-for-play scandal ..." after which she jumped to and tied into the GOP sex scandals.
.
You're entitled to your fertile imagination. If you think I was trying to protect Malkin (and/or the other righties) from fallout from her error, by not citing her here, well, that's your baggage. As I've said before, I consider you a liar, and your opinions are essentially worthless.
I guess that's your way of letting us know you're not going to bother trying to explain why you skipped past conservativepoliticalreport.org, even though it's one of the top results on the google search you were ostensibly using.
.
Morrisey's piece provides the ACU's response to Politico's false story and included "[bold] If [endbold] Politico has this right," which makes his position more like Adler's, here.
Goldfarb's piece in the Weekly Standard is akin to Malkin's. It links to Politico with a "The American Conservative Union gets caught in flagrante delicto" and no more
Next up is a link to this thread started by Adler - should I link to that again for your benefit? ROTFL.
The linked article from The Corner predates Mike Allen's Politico story, and doesn't even refer to the ACU
The Riehl World View story fits the pattern of something I'd cite - he claims to have read the June 30 letter, then he adopts Politico's characterization of the July 15 letter, "Keene put his and ACU's names on a document backing UPS. That means his position, or backing was, in effect, for sale."
Working from memory (not that I bother, in general, to develop reasoned justification for every citation I decide to omit) I probably skipped Conservatives4Palin on account of its low profile, and it pretty much just blockquoted Politico then added opinion
I mentioned Malkin's contribution above, she added a handful of words, and even though it's clear she bought the narrative, I was looking for unequivocal, directly accusatory blockquotes, not lifted from Politico.
And the last one is RedState, which I'd cited and blockquoted by the time you chimed in.
.
In closing, even though I did here, I don't feel any need to compose explanations to satisfy your imaginary boogey-men. I consider you to be void of good faith, and worthy of ridicule, at best.
Morrissey's piece is highly critical of ACU, and so is Adler's (at the top of this thread). So you are being doubly disingenuous to suggest that Adler and Morrissey lined up with ACU.
Indeed, which helps us understand why you were inclined to not mention Malkin and Weekly Standard. Their posts interfere with an idea that you and others have been promoting in this thread, that Politico is a lefty rag. If Politico is a lefty rag, why would Malkin and Weekly Standard uncritically accept their criticism of a conservative organization?
No, and I never suggested you should. I don't know why you're suggesting that I suggested something that I never suggested.
Naturally. As compared with, say, the Memphis Flyer, the Yorktown Patriot and savethegop.com. You cited all those because they're so high-profile.
You only mentioned Malkin here, which was almost three days after I pointed out your conspicuous failure to mention her. So you shouldn't be implying that you didn't omit her from your original list. Because you did.
You didn't mention RedState until after Crust mentioned them, here. So you shouldn't be implying that you didn't omit them from your original list. Because you did.
.
Assuming I saw Morrissey's piece, it (and Adler's) don't satisfy the basic criteria I was using to select citation and blockquote. In Adler's case, described in my 7.17.2009 1:39pm, and for Morrissey, see just above. Were they completely fooled? [e.g., ACU performed a policy reversal, motivated by not being paid by FedEx] Any "hedge" of equivocation as to the narrative, in the complete post?
-- you are being doubly disingenuous to suggest that Adler and Morrissey lined up with ACU. --
.
Pure exaggerated fabrication on your part. You are hallucinating me, suggesting Adler or Morrissey has "lined up with ACU." At best, they are equivocal in their condemnation - but equivocal they are. Not fooled by Mike Allen, as deeply as others are.
.
-- you were inclined to not mention Malkin and Weekly Standard [because] Their posts interfere with an idea that you and others have been promoting in this thread, that Politico is a lefty rag. --
.
Your conclusion of "why" I cited what I did (the KEY QUESTION, you say) is more active imagination. As I said, I was citing those who in their own words, made direct and unequivocal statements interpreting Politico as saying ACU reversed policy position, or was bribed, or was extorting FedEx, or similar. Malkin didn't, Weekly Standard (Goldfarb) didn't.
.
-- If Politico is a lefty rag, why would Malkin and Weekly Standard uncritically accept their criticism of a conservative organization? --
.
Why don't you just invoke your imagination to come up with an answer to that disconnect of a question? If it takes two sticks of dynamite to blow off a bull's horn, how many sheep does a sheepdog have to eat in order to crap a wool hat?
.
My point is that anybody who accepts what Mike Allen or Politico says, at face value, is a fool. Some of the fools will admit they were fooled - give it time. The liars will insist on sticking to the false narrative.
.
-- As compared with, say, the Memphis Flyer, the Yorktown Patriot and savethegop.com. You cited all those because they're so high-profile. --
.
More imagination. I cited those because they appeared in the "articles like this" search I'd invoked. In each case the authors unequivocally reached and clearly expressed the false conclusion that Mike Allen invited them to make. Other than that, I had no concern or idea where these operations stand on the political spectrum.
Endorsement intensifies fight between UPS, FedEx - CargonewsAsia.com
A house derided - Powerline (Scott Johnson) July 20
I have no problem whatsoever with the contention that one should look thoughtfully at this kind of story and not take the headline as some kind of Q.E.D.
But even if the article is factually incorrect or improperly exaggerates the ACU as having "switched sides", I think Steve's point that the letter is quite harsh and unusual for allies who agree in substance.
I cannot possibly see this as equating to concern about showing fetus's on flags or the most in your face tactics within the pro-life camp - although the example of disagreement over tactics among advocates who are clearly in wide agreement on the substance is instructive.
One bit of information missing is the timing in the relationship between the substantive and tactical concerns for ACU and, for that matter, other conservative groups.
The 'smoking gun' letter from ACU to Fedex following up on previous undated and apparently unrecorded communications is dated June 30th. The Whois look-up tells us that the brownbailout.com was registered on May 6th, 2009.
The letter was also copied to BKSH - which looks like a DC PR firm, which presumably was handling some lobbying/communication on this issue for Fedex.
It is unclear then, whether ACU might have had any information from these mulitple unrecorded contacts regarding the "brown bailout" campaign. They do not mention it in the letter, or suggest anything to the effect of: 'we agree with you on substance but are concerned about your tactical use of the term bailout and think a straightforward effort to engage grassroots conservatives would be more honest and effective in opposing this legislation', then their participation in a letter decrying that strategy would be quite natural, but no hint of this appears in the letter.
Whether or not ACU knew about the nascent "Brown Bailout" campaign (which I think is fairly clever, and certainly not outside the bounds of reasonable discourse, if , nonetheless imprecise) or not when it solicited a lobbying relationship with Fedex I think it was highly unwise of them to participate in the joint letter. It seems self evident what appearance anyone might attempt to attach to the events regardless of whether ACU actually "switched sides" on the substantive issue.
Indeed, if several other conservative organizations with records of commenting on bailouts in the context of the present recession take issue with the appropriation of the term, it defies imagination that ACU would not have had the good sense to forego participating after attempting such explicit arrangement with Fedex. the issue was going to be strongly and publicly raised by others and ACU could have (and should have) recused IMO.
Brian
Of course, if your eye for these advocacy groups has become completely jaundiced, I'll tell you the same thing I would tell my friends that bemoaned the existence of traditional lobbyists: you'll get rid of 90% of them just as soon as you get rid of 90% of the government.
More baloney. You must think you're dealing with people who can't read. You're claiming you omitted Morrissey because he was "equivocal." But you cited people who were at least as equivocal as he was. For example, you cited the Atlantic even though they followed the Politico quote by saying "I'm skeptical of this."
And you excluded Morrissey even though "in [his] own words, [he] made direct and unequivocal statements interpreting Politico as saying ACU reversed policy position, or was bribed, or was extorting FedEx, or similar." Morrissey said this:
That last sentence is definitely an instance of Morrissey making a "direct and unequivocal" statement in his "own words … interpreting Politico as saying ACU reversed policy position." Why did you claim that Morrissey did not say something that he did indeed say?
You didn't cite Morrissey, but you cited CNN, who said this:
You're claiming that you cited CNN but not Morrissey because there's allegedly some meaningful difference between what they said. Really? I'm glad you can see it, because I can't. If anything, CNN quoted both sides and avoided taking a position. Their headline was "ACU denies 'pay for play' lobbying charges." Morrissey's headline was "ACU puts conservatism up for sale?" You're suggesting that Morrissey was more "equivocal" than CNN. Morrissey's headline was more "equivocal?" Really? I would call it inflammatory. With friends like Morrissey ACU doesn't need enemies.
Keep digging.
.
I have no quarrel with that, except that ACU didn't itself participate in the July 15 "please don't label it 'bailout'" letter.
.
My observation is that Mike Allen's Politico story is almost universally taken as reporting that ACU has undergone a substantive reversal. Also taken by most is that this substantive reversal was triggered by having it's 2.5-3.5 million dollar "bribe offer" refused. That is the narrative circulating as conventional wisdom, and the narrative is damaging to ACU.
.
I see a "story within the story," that being the propagation of a false narrative. I assign blame to Mike Allen and Politico, and to the secondary reporters who are wither to lazy, too stupid, or both to read the source documents and reach a conclusion independent of Mike Allen.
.
On the other point you raised, in my dialog with Steve, I said that I would take participation in the July 15 letter as indicating strong support of FedEx's position. Turns out that is incorrect. I would restate that participation in July 15 letter indicates a strong position, either way - i.e., a person participating in that letter would not be "lukewarm" as to the underlying issue.
.
It turns out that Chuck Muth is firmly in UPS's camp on the underlying issue. See http://www.FedExcess.info/, Help Wanted: Peter Pan Delivery Drivers, and Chuck Muth on Section 806 of HR 915.
.
You are imagining a phantom. You're reading some sort of "intent" where there was none. You are fabricating a series of trivial diversions from my core issue, which is that Mike Allen's article is being construed for the false proposition that ACU reversed substantive position.
.
Mike Allen is a lefty hack - he's got as much credibility as you have, that is to say, ZERO.
.
I didn't. You are making yet another false accusation.
.
On Morrissey's post, similar to Adler's, there are unequivocal statements, and equivocal statements. Here is Adler in unequivocal mode:
I take the totality of both posts as equivocal. Others can read them, if they care, weigh them as to how deeply the authors were duped, and come to the opposite conclusion as to "should have been cited in the first place."
.
Anyway, I have no intention of protecting Morrissey or Adler either. They are big boys, each with a big megaphone.
.
-- You didn't cite Morrissey, but you cited CNN --
.
The CNN citation contains a direct factual error in their own words. It implies the author has read the July 15 letter, and then it states a false proposition about that letter. So, if it helps you in your feeble critique of my citation selection, add into the sort of article that I found worth citing, those that made errors in factual statement, even if the article was otherwise equivocal.
.
As for citing the Atlantic, I did so because it said, in it's own words, "According to Politico, the American Conservative Union is selling off endorsements to the highest bidder." That's a fairly clear take on how that author construed Mike Allen's hit piece in Politico.
And Morrissey made essentially the same statement. So you're being consistently inconsistent.
Then Weekly Standard (Goldfarb) and Malkin are either lefty hacks and/or complete idiots, since they uncritically accepted and promoted the work of lefty hack Mike Allen.
.
We agree on that point.
And Mike Allen is definitely something other than a "lefty hack" (link, link, link).
Shame on Conservatives by Jacob G. Hornberger (MWC News)
The fact that you do is simply proof that you are not reasonable.
A "fair way" for what? He wasn't writing a research paper or making any broad claim about left or right, so there's no reason he needed to balance them.
One Conservative's View of So-Called 'Selling' of the ACU - Bill Pascoe (CQ Politics)
Yup, creating a list of 27 sources that disproportionately emphasizes sites like TPM, HuffPo and Kos while saying "the liars will deny they are lying" is nothing at all like "making any broad claim about [the] left."
.
A conversation with Dave Keene of ACU - Erick Erickson (RedState)
ACU Chairman Responds to Politico Charges - David Keene (Human Events)
ACU chairman tries to reclaim reputation - Amanda Carpenter (Washington Times)
John Hawkins continues to equate disagreement over the tactic of using the term "bailout" with taking UPS's side, i.e., advocating passage of the provision of the FAA reauthorization that affects FedEx Express. He is persistent in expressing this, even given the time to read the damning letter, and after participating or listening to a conference call.
I'm confused by this. The .pdf that Politico provides of the July 15th letter has the ACU logo among others at its head and is signed by David Keene. do you mean to imply that they didn't draft the letter but only signed on - all the more reason not to participate if it might appear they have a conflict.
Keene says he agreed to participate before they're proposal was rejected. But I think the decision to join that letter in the midst of dealing with Fed-ex on ACU's willingness to be a vehicle for communication of arguments in favor of Fedex's position was poorly taken. The timing makes it even more likely that Keene had wind of this discontent of some bailout busters with the language chosen by Fedex before the submission to Fedex was made. If he approved participation in the joint language protest on July 1st, it is reasonable to assume that he had earlier notice of the effort. I would think they would have mentioned it in the letter, or would have some other letter sent under separate cover indicating that the ACU was participating in a coalition concerned about labeling the law a "bailout" but this should not be misread as disagreement on the substance but rather reflected the ACU's presence in this coalition of groups working on real 'bailout' issues.
How could you possibly agree to sign on to a letter bashing a group you are about to do 3 million bucks worth of trade with and not do something of the sort?
.
I am also confused by this. If by "underlying issue" you mean the question of whether the law should be changed to bring Fed-ex under the ambit of the NLRA, I see no need whatsoever for a participant in the language concern letter to necessarily have strong feeling one way or another about which labor law applies to Fedex.
Finally, reading the language of the language concern letter, while I agree it does not take a position on where fedex should be regulated, it comes pretty damn close and I don't think it a horrible example of journalistic laziness to read it between the lines .e.g.:
"What FedEx falsely and disingenuously labels a bailout is merely UPS asking that the government treat both competitors the same. You can oppose this change in the law if you like, but you cannot honestly call it a bailout."
Come on. That doesn't sound like agreement on the underlying issue or even much ambiguity of the signing group - disclaimers elsewhere notwithstanding. It says "you" can oppose, not, for instance, "some of us are with you in opposing".
Now I know Keene didn't draft the letter, and we do not have a copy of what he was looking at on July 1st when he approved participation. But if it was not substantially similar, again, he should produce the e-mail or communication associated with this early July approval and explain that the letter does not accurately reflect what he agreed or that's it's tone and approach, through his own mistake do not reflect his professed belief in fed ex's cause.
This stinks. Maybe it is smoke and not fire, but how is anybody operating on the where there is smoke there is _______ not going to think this stinks. He should stop trying to explain it away, and actually explain it.
I am not denying the possibility that it suits various agendas with which I disagree to see ACU portrayed in a poor light. And that some blogging about the issue might have ignored equities that ought to be afforded to Keene and company. But in trying to afford them a reasoned review, I can't find any good reason for them having acted the way they actually did.
Brian
.
The July 15 letter, which from your comments you appear to have read, was signed by Ex-senator Wallop, and appears to have been drafted by him or by committee. Turns out the signers are mostly agnostic on the FedEx Express provision, while Muth is on the UPS side, and ACU is on the FedEx side of that specific issue.
.
-- How could you possibly agree to sign on to a letter bashing a group you are about to do 3 million bucks worth of trade with and not do something of the sort? --
.
From the sounds of it, Keene didn't expect such a strong negative reaction from FedEx on the July 15 letter. I would say, from all appearances, that he honestly sees the "We're in your camp substantively" and "using the word 'bailout' is a losing tactic" as separate and separable issues. I do too, but it seems most people think they are approximately the same issue - or at least the being critical of a tactic is tantamount to substantive abandonment.
-- If by "underlying issue" you mean the question of whether the law should be changed to bring Fed-ex under the ambit of the NLRA, I see no need whatsoever for a participant in the language concern letter to necessarily have strong feeling one way or another about which labor law applies to Fedex. --
.
I agree. But everybody who signed onto that letter had a strong feeling about use of the label "bailout" in the context of exactly that dispute. At any rate, your sense of "not a strong feeling in any direction on the underlying issue" and the fact that many of the signatories seem agnostic on the underlying FedEx/UPS issue makes it appear that the tactical complaint and the substantive point are in fact completely separate issues of contention. Naturally, FedEx is being criticized and will naturally lash out against all who criticize it, friend and foe alike.
A Conservative Sellout? Quelle Surprise. - Thomas Frank (WSJ)
When conservatives go gaga over Big Business - Timothy P. Carney (Washington Examiner)
Apparently you didn't go to the second page of the .pdf which shows Keene as a signatory. I'm not suggesting that Keene took the lead in drafting the letter but I you said ACU "did not participate". I'm not trying to perpetuate name calling or gotcha on this thread. I understand your reasoning but I think your prose imprecise.
I certainly agree with that, and believe that Keene's account of the timing may even suggest a degree of principle over pragmatism in that he would not allow the possibility of working with Fedex on the legislation to chill him from participating in criticism of the bailout language.
However that is Keene's account of the timing. It sounds plausible, but it seems to me implausible that he would have participated in this group letter opposing Fedex tactics and not have communicated these concerns in some way to Fedex as a consequence of his close working relationship with them on the issue.
The thing that allows Fedex to make him look bad is the lapse of time between submission of the communications proposal and the letter criticizing the use of the term "bailout". It remains inconceivable to me that you would not give a heads up, verbal, written, e-mail something to which you could honestly refer as anchoring your opposition to the term "bailout" as pervasive in time and not impeaching your agreement on substance. Keene doesn't profess to know that the letter would not have been sent untill 2 weeks later. These things take a little time, but I've seen them pop out in a couple days. You would have to alert a potential partner that you might show up in apparent opposition.
Finally, all those saying that ACU didn't technically reverse it's position have not said how the strong language about UPS simply seekeing parity in regulatory treatment should not be read as an implicit endorsement of UPS's position.
Reading the letter again, it makes no explicit reservation on the underlying issue although some above have suggested it did. It says Fedex is free to lobby for the status quo, but makes no indication that any of the signing parties would be so inclined. In that sense it can be said not to take a position on the change, but it does not even explicitly say this. It seems to imply that the existing circumstance is inequitable and simply preserves Fedex's freedom to petition while effectively siding with UPS -- what, after all, are the chances of repeal or significant pro freddom/pro indidivdual amendment of NLRA, or removal of UPS employees even related to their air cargo business from its jurisdiction.
This could certainly be an oversite on Keene's part and perhaps he did not carefully read or consider the entirety of the letter as sent, even though his signature was attached -- in which case maybe he is guilty of negligence and not extortion.
While I respect concern about diluting the term bailout- I think the government intervention in the labor markets a far more egregious problem than the a squabble over the use of the term. That does not mean, per se, I agree that Fedex should not be subject to the same rules and attempts made to improve the rules. But, I wonder about the priorities reflected in sending a letter of that sort. Given that "Card Check" and various liberty threatening labor goodies are in the present mix and might be equally labeled a "bailout" for unions otherwise floundering for members, I don't think Fedex was out of bounds.
Nor do I think success at turning "bailout" into a bad word was particularly threatened by the Fedex campaign. If it merited a letter at all, it should have been far more agnostic or concilatory on the underlying issues - even if suggesting an equal regime was a reasonable goal acknowledging the legitmacy of opposing the existing stifling environment of the NLRA seems a minimum addition.
Everyone involved, including Malcolm Wallop who I know and have respect for his service in Congress and work on issues of freedom, was overly reactionary. If one is concerned about freedom, the freedom to work is far more important than the minor co-option of "bailout".
Brian
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.