« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Revelations About the SEIU’s Union Mole Inside the White House

Do you know what a union mole is?

A union mole is someone who is paid by a union to get a job at a company and then secretly work with his outside union handlers on spreading the union word throughout the company from within.

While so much time and focus has been spent on the SEIU’s Andy Stern and Anna Burger, their frequent visits to the White House, and their appointments on presidential task forces, very little attention has been paid to the SEIU’s full-time guy inside the White House, White House Political Director and former SEIU New York boss Patrick Gaspard.

Gaspard served as national political director for much of Obama’s general election campaign and was named deputy director of personnel for the transition effort. Prior to his work with Obama, Gaspard was the lead political operative for the 1199 branch of the Service Employees International Union, a huge and hugely influential union representing health care workers in New York. He spent the 2004 general election as the national field director for America Coming Together.

Recently, there’s been some light shed on the SEIU’s mole inside the White House that, not surprisingly, the mainstream media (MSM) has not picked up on.

Several weeks ago, Big Government blogger Kyle Olsen exposed the fact that, in 2009, the SEIU 1199 paid Gaspard $37,191.  That’s on top of the $74,552 that SEIU 1199 paid Gaspard in 2008.

Now, the unanswered question remains…unanswered: Why did the SEIU pay nearly $40,000 to the White House Political Director?

Keeping in mind that Gaspard spend much of 2008 on the Obama campaign, as well as from November 2008 through January 2009 working on Obama’s transition, the SEIU can’t really claim Gaspard was doing any SEIU work in 2009…or was he?

Is there any correlation with this?

This past Saturday, Politico’s Ben Smith broke an intriguing story about SEIU’s Andy Stern and Anna Burger having “advanced” talk” with Gaspard about taking over the SEIU as the number two person, to replace Anna Burger when she assumed Andy Stern’s role upon his retirement.

The talks grew quite advanced: Stern and Burger spoke with George Gresham, the pivotal president of the union’s largest local, New York’s 1199, and offered him assurances not just that Gaspard would be given the number-two job, but that he would eventually succeed Burger as president, the sources said. Gresham indicated that he would throw his weight behind the slate.

Gaspard, who left the post of 1199 political director to take the same job on the Obama campaign, could well have pulled a united union behind Burger. Between the support of 1199 and the catch of a former senior White House official, it’s unclear that a rival campaign would have developed.

They started working on him in late January/early February to join her as Secretary Treasurer while Anna filled out the remainder of Andy’s term,” one of the sources said. “Their calculus was that he would never turn down the dream job — President of SEIU — and that this would lock in the votes for her because Gresham and [executive board member Gerald] Hudson would give her their votes since they are tight with Gaspard.”

Another source said that while there was never an explicit promise of when Burger would hand over the reins to Gaspard, the promise of the presidency at some point was explicit.

Although the early leak of Stern’s resignation from the SEIU supposedly squelched the triumvirate talks over who would run the SEIU, it was the internal mutiny against Burger taking over the SEIU helm that completely fried any chances that the plot plan to put Gaspard into the number two seat would come to fruition.

According to Smith’s sources, Gaspard turned the offer down out of “loyalty” to the President.  However, that too is questionable, since it appears there was already an underground campaign to keep Burger from taking Stern’s position once he left.

Of course, it remains arguable whether the Obama administration’s rules prohibiting aides from becoming lobbyists would restrict Gaspard from going back to the SEIU, especially since the rules against lobbying seem so unclear in the SEIU’s case.

But, of course, you can learn all about this in the media…[When the media starts doing its job.]

In the meantime, regardless of whether Mary Kay Henry or Anna Burger is running the purple behemoth, the SEIU still has its mole man inside the White House, doing its bidding and keeping an eye on the union’s investment, and it looks like that’s not going to change any time soon.
__________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

For more news and views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com.

Cross-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    I can’t remember if it was a post here or somewhere else right now but somebody mentioned it’s always the same people at the top organizing everything.

    It’s like there are a group of key “players” like points on a compass manipulating everything else that’s going on in the country from the illegal immigration riots to the Black Panthers intimidating people at the polls.

    Or a pyramid scheme…

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I thought they already gave Barry his marching orders.

    • Achance

      Media Matters, and the various incarnations of the Democracy Alliances and all the array of 501s and 527s that John McCain and his “good friend” Russ Feingold made possible. If I thought the SOB was smart enough, I’d think he was in on engineering the coup that took place in the Fall of ’08. And I still think they yanked his chain on something they had on him and that caused him to just fold on the “financial crisis” and essentially throw away any chance of winning. That’s why there was all the bad blood between the top of the campaign and Palin; she didn’t understand that they were supposed to lose.

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        when he was campaigning he flat out told a group they had nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. Sounded like an endorsement to me. I figure all those people at the rally thought so, too.

      • Scope

        I think McCain never really did have any desire to win. He ran many many campaigns including a presidential campaign in 2000 against Bush. He had the perfect opportunity to hire the best and brightest, based on his own experiences. Glenn Beck has him pegged perfectly as a Republican Progressive, and he probably knew that the O would take us there much more directly and quickly than he could. It kept the Progressive tag on the left, and, he didn’t have to dirty his hands in doing the deed.

        • Achance

          He conflates the late 19th, early 20th Century liberals, mostly Republican, who wanted to use the power of the state for social engineering with the later socialists and communists who adopted the term progressive as their code word. TR was no communist, neither was WW, or even FDR. They were all liberals who wanted to use the power of the state to enact change in society. We can have a good debate about how much, if any, of that is proper, but wanting to change society and especially wanting to elevate those left behind by war and economic change does not make you a socialist or communist even if you use some statist ideas to try to accomplish your goals.

          McCain is mostly just a political opportunist. His family history is one Admiral after another. An Admiral is a ship captain who can play politics, so it is in his blood. It is hard to tell if he believes in anything other than keeping his butt in the big chair. You’re giving him a lot more credit than he deserves; he’s not a part of some “progressive conspiracy,” he’s just a dumbass opportunist who was able to translate post-Vietnam guilt into lifetime office.

      • Doc Holliday

        you are saying McCain wanted to lose? I expect this from some of the others who posted absurd comments in this thread, but this is snark right? I agree he did not have the desire to win, but that is different than a concerted effort to lose.

        • Achance

          move. Don’t know why, but I know it makes no sense and I don’t believe in coincidences. At first, he’s all hot and bothered to stop campaigning and go to DC and save the nation. Then he does nothing about saving the Nation. Then he essentially stops his campaign and Comrade Obama wins in a walk.

          • Doc Holliday

            I agree the “suspend the campaign” process was a fiasco and helped the campaign fail. McCain made a lot of mistakes and probably did not have the desire to win. He wanted to win, but he still wanted to be the favorite Republican of the inside the beltway types. He was foolish to think they would support him, they only like losing Republicans just like they all of a sudden like Bob Bennett.

            An argument can still be made that McCain did as well as any Republican could have done at that time. Bush is a good man, but he left the party in tatters, he did nothing to hand the party over in good shape to the next guy. The country was almost brainwashed to hate Republicans and to chant for “change”. I just don’t see any conspiracy in the McCain loss. I saw a dispirited party unable to overcome opposing forces. These forces included the MSM and general stupidity.

            Now we have an opening, and if we get the right men in place, we might win a few.

          • The_Gadfly

            should be trusted with anything sharper than a spoon. If you just flipped the ticket and made it Palin-McCain it would have performed better than it did. Remember she didn’t resign to get out of the ethical slime-fire range until after the campaign. And her instincts to go for the political jugular would have made a huge difference in the debates. While I’m inclined to agree with Art that she’s more interested in self-advancement than idea or party advancement, her self-advancement would have been best served by defeating The Big 0 outright. Her problem isn’t in dealing with overt political foes, its dealing with the semi-covert ones Art has spent his life dueling.

          • spainishirish

            like the geriatric he was and is, was the day McCain lost. It was without doubt one of the most stupid and worthless political stunts ever mounted. It is easy to forget that at one point he had been ahead, too. I voted for McCain, and somehow managed to control the gag reflex. He didn’t intentonally lose. No, he clung to the pathetic hope his best good friends in the dinosaur media would come to the rescue, and he hired advisers too pathetic to run a city alderman’s campaign.

            I actually disagree with you over the progressive movement in that statism is its root as it is with socialism, Marxism, and fascism, Art. I won’t threadjack and save that argument for another day. But to the question: Is McCain a progressive? I doubt he even knows what it is. He cites TR as his model, and TR definitely was a progressive. But where I agree with you is that McCain is an opportunist, and the older he gets the less good he is at it. It was sadly on display as he ran for president, and it is painful to watch as he faces a tough primary.

          • Achance

            statist “progressives” with the mid-20th Century communist/socialist progressives. They’re not the same and it is just another example of the Left’s Orwellian use of language. Unfortunately, a lot of people on our side of the ditch can’t distinguish it.

          • spainishirish

            the 20th century socialists/Marxists/Mussolini-variety fascists were the logical extensions of the 19th and turn of the century progressives, only much more extreme in nature and kind. And, yes, Beck and some others wrongly conflate the movements when he goes beyond their statist similarities. He’s dead on about Wilson, who was horrible, but he fails to grasp those hundreds of thousands he made political prisoners by and large were socialists.

            But it is nice to hear someone who has at least a limited grasp of these darker political impulses comment on it. And I’m threadjacking and stopping now.

          • Richard Mullins

            while killing off that great chance to win. It might have not been on purpose to lose but “Suspending the Campaign” keep a bill that had enough life as Zombie moving. BO wanted this and got it. All of the end was stupidity.

    • Richard Mullins

      Because at this point, Barack is a test of how to get your way. The mole is necessary in order to have more Presidents in the future that support them.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

      If you invest in stocks do you not keep track of how their doing?

      When your portfoliio slips, do you not give it a nudge or a poke now and then?

      If you know that your guy has no experience, wouldn’t you want to put one of your pitbulls by his side?

      • Achance

        The AFL-CIO had a zillion bucks invested in Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). Mike had a whole bunch of bad habits, one of which involved getting caught up in the Elizabeth Ray scandal. Committee on Political Education (COPE/AFL-CIO) paid my salary to be on his campaign staff just so they could know what he was doing and what he spent their money on. He lost, I got laid off. I learned a lot about politics though, particularly about political logistics; how to keep husband A away from Husband C and Wife B or D is a challenging task, but I became quite good at it.

        • http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

          Because I know exactly what you’re talking about.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    But then, part of the role of ‘mole’ assumes that at least some are unaware of your mission and loyalties.