RUSH: This is from The Hill, the blog Briefing Room: ‘Democrat Urges Unions to ‘Get a Little Bloody When Necessary’ — Sometimes it’s necessary to get out on the streets and ‘get a little bloody,’ a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday… Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union
”Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” Well, things got ‘a little bloody’ in Tucson, as I recall. Things got ‘a little bloody’ in Tucson, Arizona, and the leader of the Democrat Party and the leader of the unions said, ‘That kind of stuff has to stop!’ Now, that happened some weeks ago, and yet weeks later here is a Democrat advocating that the streets get a little bloody because of what’s happening in Wisconsin. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama’s speeches in Tucson don’t change the behavior of Democrats, then who is it that leads that party? Well, let’s see. The unions pay the bills, and they provide the votes.
In fact, let me just put this out on the table. Whatever else unions are, it is now clear that they function as a highly effective money laundering machine for the Democrat Party. That’s really what’s going on here. In some cases (the case of the public sector unions, which is now most of them), it’s money sucked of the taxpayers’ pockets and put right into the war chest of the Democrat Party. When you talk about ‘collectively bargaining’ public sector workers — teachers, I don’t care what they are. When you talk about public union members, public sector, collective bargaining, they’re collective bargaining against us, the taxpayers. We are the people. We are the boss. We are paying.
The stimulus bill, just to remind you again, the purpose of the stimulus bill was to make sure that the people who end up contributing the largest amounts of money to Obama and the Democrat Party did not lose their jobs. Public sector unions and their dues. So just think of it as a very sophisticated, highly sophisticated money laundering machine. Here you have the stimulus. You can’t just take that money and give it to public sector unions. Well, I take it back. You can’t just take that money and put it in your campaign war chest, but you want it in your campaign war chest. So who did you give it to you? You give it to the unions to launder. Ostensibly, ‘To keep them employed during the recession.’ Yes, and to keep their dues flowing again so the money circuitously ends up in the coffers of Obama and the Democrat Party.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So we have a Democrat urging the unions to ‘get a little bloody when necessary.’ We’ve got effective money laundering taking place here. Public sector unions are beneficiaries of government spending, so union dues end up in Democrat Party coffers including those of the president. But the president was in Tucson, and he said don’t get into this uncivil behavior. We’ve got this stupid — I cannot believe it, the biggest bunch of bull malarkey I’ve seen in I don’t know how long — Institute for Civility at the University of Arizona, Bill Clinton as a co-chair. Greta Van Susteren is the only media person to accept some position of note at this Institute for Civility.
Something important, ladies and gentlemen. All of these decisions that states and localities are having to make regarding budgets, layoffs of public sector union members and so forth, they result from the real world. They result from the fact that they must balance their budgets. They can’t endlessly print money. They cannot deficit spend. Obama has no such limits on him. So he’s an out-of-control, reckless big government spender who doesn’t have to make a single tough decision — and, as such, he won’t. But all these governors and mayors, town council presidents (I don’t care how deep you want to go here), they have to make realistic decisions. Obama can continue to pretend otherwise, leaving it to others to try and rein in spending and taxing.
But if you look at the way he’s behaving, he’s not even qualified to be a governor or mayor given what he has done and what he is doing. From Madison, Wisconsin: ‘Democrats kept the Wisconsin Assembly up overnight with a droning filibuster in another desperate attempt to block the Republican governor’s bold plan to strip public sector workers of nearly all of their bargaining rights.’ Well, wait a minute, now. We thought the Democrat Party hated filibusters. We thought they despised filibusters. Oh, I get it! Unless they’re using them to fight civil rights legislation. ‘The debate marked the first moment in days in which what has become a high stakes game of political chicken between Democrat lawmakers and Governor Scott Walker.’
It’s funny kind of game of chicken. In reality, Governor Walker is trying to save union jobs here — and if his reforms fail, there will have to be layoffs, possibly as soon as Friday. It’s like gravity: It’s not a suggestion; it’s the law. ‘The governor says the bill is needed to help solve the state’s looming budget deficit, but Democrats see it as an all-out assault on unions, their staunchest campaign ally,’ and by ‘staunchest campaign ally’ they mean their paymaster and their de facto bosses. So note the headline of the story here: ‘Wisconsin Democrats Filibuster to Delay Anti-Union Bill. The stenographer here is Todd Richmond of the Associated Press. Mr. Richmond, this is not ‘anti-union legislation.’ This is budget reform.
But you just couldn’t see fit to put that in your headline, could you? You couldn’t mention that in the story. Budget reform is what this is. That’s what this governor is ‘charged’ with. It’s what he campaigned on; it’s what his job is. Why leave it out? Everything the Democrats do is called ‘reform,’ and now all of a sudden filibusters are great when Democrats do them! And then note that the legislators ‘had to be heavily guarded because of the protesters.’ Imagine the outrage if these were Tea Party protesters! Oh, yes, they had to be guarded because of the protesters.