Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ENDORSING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO. In one of the weirdest political moves I've seen in a while the International Association of Machinists has decided to endorse Hillary Clinton (surprising, but understandable) and ... Mike Huckabee. The Clinton endorsement seems to be straight-up pragmatism:
Hillary Clinton earned the IAM's endorsement by focusing on jobs, health care, education and trade -- the bread and butter issues of the American middle class.
Because Edwards and Obama totally don't care about jobs, health care, and trade.
The endorsement of Huckabee came, apparently, because he was the only one who bothered to show up to the Machinists' convention. Good for him, but shouldn't getting the support of a union involve a bit more than that? I'm willing to believe that he'd be the least bad Republican on union issues, but shouldn't he at least have to express some positive policy views to merit an endorsement? The explanation given by the machinists is pretty lame:
Mike Huckabee was the only Republican candidate with the guts to meet with our members and the only one willing to figure out where and how we might work together.
Shouldn't he at least give some idea of how he'd be "willing to work" with the union before he is endorsed? I mean, if he wins the nomination this makes it hard for the IAM to give much help to Clinton who is presumably much better on union issues than Huckabee.
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (6)
My word! Remember when the IAM was considered a radical leftist union?
Posted by: Lukeness | August 30, 2007 1:07 PM
My word! Remember when all unions actually were radical leftists?
The GOP should get down on their knees and thank FDR for bringing the union movement into the capitalist paradigm.
Posted by: The Ghost of Joe Hill | August 30, 2007 1:26 PM
This is a "BIG" endorsement for Mike Huckabee. Anything that get's him attention that's good for his campaign. The more people learn about him the better his chances for '08.
Posted by: Doug Storms | August 30, 2007 1:42 PM
Like union truck drivers, most of those high-paid union machinists will be replaced by imported Mexican slaves anyway, so who cares whom their crumbling organization endorses?
Posted by: Charsky | August 30, 2007 2:44 PM
In the very unlikely event that the Huck was the Republican candidate IAM's primary endorsement would not be serious problem. After all, the primary endorsement was just that, an endorsement for the primaries only and as you noted, they set the bar pretty low for the Republicans. The Democrat would almost certainly have better labor credentials and so a general election endorsement would seem completely reasonable and would likely carry just as much weight as it would otherwise.
That said, by endorsing Huckabee (who again, will not get the nomination) and at least showing some deference to its more conservative members IAM may have built up some credibility with them so that their general election endorsement might have greater sway.
Posted by: Greg Balzac | August 31, 2007 11:34 AM
Then again, I could be wrong:
Mitt Romney: 35
Rudy Giuliani: 12
Fred Thompson: 11
Mike Huckabee: 11
Tom Tancredo: 9
John McCain: 7
Undecided: 10
Posted by: Greg Balzac | August 31, 2007 11:39 AM