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."
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."