EDITOR OF REDSTATE
Morning Briefing for November 7, 2011
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
On Friday, you met John Monteith, a Charlotte, NC print shop executive who was told that he would not be awarded any contracts in conjunction with the upcoming 2012 Democratic National Convention to be held in his town because his shop was not unionized. Given that Charlotte is located in a right-to-work state, this upset John enough that he sought media attention to shine light on what he viewed to be in stark contrast to the stated goals of Mayor Anthony Foxx, a close ally of President Obama. Foxx claimed that the convention would be a boom to the Charlotte economy creating plenty of jobs for everyone and plenty of work for local businesses while fervently denying that unionization was the primary factor in decision making.However, on the same day the DNC was scrambling to prove how pro-local business they are, it was revealed who they awarded the work that had been denied to John Monteith’s shop. The work went to a company called Hargrove Inc, a shop that boasts its work force of more than 3,000 union personnel and hails from the union bastion of the Washington D.C. metro area. They work with the biggest names in the union market. From the Teamsters, to the Carpenters Union, union favoritism seems to be a very important reason Hargrove was selected.Please click here for the rest of the post.
In February, when the Democratic National Committee chose Charlotte, North Carolina as the host city for its September 2012 convention, it left the door wide open for the Charlotte-area’s union-free workforce to be discriminated against in favor union workers. Although Charlotte’s Democrat Mayor, Anthony Foxx (who is facing GOP challenger Scott Stone in Tuesday’s election), has denied the allegation, it appears Foxx has been misleading Charlotte residents on both his (alleged) job creation record as well as the outsourcing of DNC convention jobs to union labor.Late last week, we received a tip that the DNC was forcing the downtown-Charlotte hotels to displace their own existing workers and bringing in union labor to work during the DNC Convention. While the Hyatt Place denied the rumor, numerous calls were placed to general managers at other area hotels but were not returned.However, at the Ritz Carlton, Charlotte, where President Obama is reportedly staying during the convention, employees did confirm that they had been told they would be laid off during the convention.Please click here for the rest of the post.
The habitual self-loathing of the American Left is perhaps its most endearing quality.Most of us remember actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus from her lead role in the late, lamented CBS sitcom Watching Ellie.Now she’s an expert on energy, international economy, and the environment. Here’s a video in which she expresses her opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline.Please click here for the rest of the post.
The attorney for the woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment in 1999 has spoken. Well, not really. As predicted, she sent her attorney out to the media – she continues to refuse to disclose her identity, answer questions, or provide any details whatsoever about the alleged incident. Her attorney’s statement is perhaps the most vacuous statement I have ever seen an attorney make, and that is truly saying something indeed.Contrary to the assertions of my esteemed colleague streiff, this has nothing to do with blaming messengers or victims. This has everything to do with the fact that it is impossible to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous accusation that contains absolutely no factual details. And the assertion that this woman is somehow not anonymous because someone knows who she is distorts the meaning of the word “anonymous” beyond recognition. Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat was – that doesn’t mean he wasn’t anonymous to the public, which is the only kind of anonymity that matters in this case.If this woman really suffered sexual harassment at the hands of Herman Cain then he deserves to take a lot of lumps – perhaps even the destruction of his entire political career, depending on the circumstances. But there is no way to judge whether that is the case- none whatsoever. The accuser’s lawyer said repeatedly in his statement that the accuser does not wish to relive the incident – however, literally the only point served by his null set statement is ensuring that the story lived on in the news cycle.Please click here for the rest of the post.