"'We didn't get a response to our request for him to speak,' Kara Deniz, a Teamsters spokesperson, told Axios.
Rank-and-file Teamsters retirees have been invited to attend the DNC, a sign that O'Brien's snub is personal, The Bulwark reports."
So, my personal reaction to this is, he spoke to the Republican National Convention, so he can go fuck himself. And that must be the reaction of Democratic leaders. But is it the politically best reaction? Might they be shooting all of us in the foot, considering how useful the Teamsters Union could be in doing volunteer work for Democratic candidates, or would it have been manifestly stupid to give a speaking slot to such an unreliable individual?
None of the options in this kind of situation are unquestionably good.
I'd lean towards your last thought: it's unwise to give a speaking spot to someone who cannot be relied on. It has a risk of backfiring by pushing him further away from us, but letting him speak also has a risk of him doing something damaging.
At the end of the day if a prominent union head thinks that giving legitimacy to republicans with unions is an acceptable cost to get to be ignored by them, then his judgement is questionable. Questionable enough that I wouldn't trust him to avoid doing something stupid at our convention. It also calls into question the value of being in his good graces anyway.
But someone could make a fair argument that he's trying to expand the reach of pro-union messaging and if they ultimately endorse Harris then no harm no foul.
Right. I think the reaction to him from the DNC might have been different if he had already unambiguously endorsed Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.
Agreed that none of the options are good. But as a general practice, the Dems can't afford to let a thing like this happen without some sort of public consequence.
Otherwise, they'd be inviting union leaders -- and for that matter the heads of other organizations -- play both sides. And O'Brien would be getting a free ride for all the heavy lifting that Dems (pretty much, Dems only) do for labor.
They're basically saying that union chiefs need to decide "which side are [they] on."
I agree with you far more often than not, so curious as to your thinking here. What do you see as the downsides? Is he a popular leader? There are probably some people who will be offended on his behalf, but I would guess there are more people who would actually laugh in his face at being outplayed by the Dems.
Will admit itтАЩs based on zero evidence, but in most organizations support for leadership by the rank and file is lukewarm at best. Am not a union member so could be completely off base but I doubt this is much different.
Seems like unnecessarily snubbing someone who could be an ally. Unless they donтАЩt want the Teamsters endorsement and see this as a way of not getting it.
Fair, but I agree with the others that speaking at the RNC is a bridge too far. The snub in this case is necessary. If the Harris team were the ones pointing out they never replied to OтАЩBrien IтАЩd be more inclined to agree with you. But since itтАЩs his folks who are crying foul I think itтАЩs more a case of he fucked around and found out.
Bigger picture, the thing I am most delighted with from Harris is instead of тАЬwhen they go low we go highтАЭ, itтАЩs instead тАЬwhen they go low we kick them in the faceтАЭ. Seeing Democrats actually fight on even ground is wonderful to see.
Thanks for expressing your opinion. I definitely don't think they should have invited him to speak without knowing exactly what he'd say, though, and would they trust him?
Let's discuss this:
DNC makes Teamsters president sweat: https://www.axios.com/2024/08/20/dnc-teamsters-sean-obrien-democrats (hat tip to Politicalwire, as usual, since that's where I saw excerpts and a link from the story):
"'We didn't get a response to our request for him to speak,' Kara Deniz, a Teamsters spokesperson, told Axios.
Rank-and-file Teamsters retirees have been invited to attend the DNC, a sign that O'Brien's snub is personal, The Bulwark reports."
So, my personal reaction to this is, he spoke to the Republican National Convention, so he can go fuck himself. And that must be the reaction of Democratic leaders. But is it the politically best reaction? Might they be shooting all of us in the foot, considering how useful the Teamsters Union could be in doing volunteer work for Democratic candidates, or would it have been manifestly stupid to give a speaking slot to such an unreliable individual?
None of the options in this kind of situation are unquestionably good.
I'd lean towards your last thought: it's unwise to give a speaking spot to someone who cannot be relied on. It has a risk of backfiring by pushing him further away from us, but letting him speak also has a risk of him doing something damaging.
At the end of the day if a prominent union head thinks that giving legitimacy to republicans with unions is an acceptable cost to get to be ignored by them, then his judgement is questionable. Questionable enough that I wouldn't trust him to avoid doing something stupid at our convention. It also calls into question the value of being in his good graces anyway.
But someone could make a fair argument that he's trying to expand the reach of pro-union messaging and if they ultimately endorse Harris then no harm no foul.
Right. I think the reaction to him from the DNC might have been different if he had already unambiguously endorsed Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.
Agreed that none of the options are good. But as a general practice, the Dems can't afford to let a thing like this happen without some sort of public consequence.
Otherwise, they'd be inviting union leaders -- and for that matter the heads of other organizations -- play both sides. And O'Brien would be getting a free ride for all the heavy lifting that Dems (pretty much, Dems only) do for labor.
They're basically saying that union chiefs need to decide "which side are [they] on."
They should have let him speak. Spite might make you feel good, but in this instance the possible downside far outweighs it.
I agree with you far more often than not, so curious as to your thinking here. What do you see as the downsides? Is he a popular leader? There are probably some people who will be offended on his behalf, but I would guess there are more people who would actually laugh in his face at being outplayed by the Dems.
Will admit itтАЩs based on zero evidence, but in most organizations support for leadership by the rank and file is lukewarm at best. Am not a union member so could be completely off base but I doubt this is much different.
Seems like unnecessarily snubbing someone who could be an ally. Unless they donтАЩt want the Teamsters endorsement and see this as a way of not getting it.
Fair, but I agree with the others that speaking at the RNC is a bridge too far. The snub in this case is necessary. If the Harris team were the ones pointing out they never replied to OтАЩBrien IтАЩd be more inclined to agree with you. But since itтАЩs his folks who are crying foul I think itтАЩs more a case of he fucked around and found out.
Bigger picture, the thing I am most delighted with from Harris is instead of тАЬwhen they go low we go highтАЭ, itтАЩs instead тАЬwhen they go low we kick them in the faceтАЭ. Seeing Democrats actually fight on even ground is wonderful to see.
Thanks for expressing your opinion. I definitely don't think they should have invited him to speak without knowing exactly what he'd say, though, and would they trust him?