August 26, 2006
Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome… LOL!
This is great, it truly is, to say nothing of vastly amusing in a pitiful sort of way, and demonstrates perfectly why the Democrats aren’t getting Congress or the White House back anytime soon.
While the Republicans are running on platforms related to national security and the survival of the free world in the war against global terrorism, et al, the Democrats’ big contribution is the “war on Wal-Mart”. Here is a retail behemoth that makes it possible for millions of low income Americans to make ends meet and at the same time enjoy many products and technologies that might otherwise be beyond the reach of their respective finances. It is also an entity that creates large amounts of jobs, with benefits, in places where employment is scarce.
When you stop to think that lower income voters are at the same time both the meat and drink constituency of the Democrats and the biggest customers of Wal-Mart, you just have to wonder… The Democrats don’t like that the unions don’t like that they can’t get into Wal-Mart for their usual profiteering activities, and given the size of the company, it would be an enormous coup, they could bleed the retailer until in order to survive it had to raise its prices, thereby hurting those same low income folks who depend on the savings they enjoy at Wal-Mart.
The Democrats in their present incarnation do more to campaign for the Republicans than the Republicans do. And these are the “intellectuals” among us. The cultural elite. The “champions of the poor”. Go, Dems!
In this weekend’s edition of Jewish World Review, Jonah Goldberg introduces a new malady called WMDS, or Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome.
The New York Times reported recently that the Democrats have, en masse, declared their party to be the enemy of the mega-box store. Sen. Joe Biden Jr., D-Del., recently delivered what the Times called a “blistering attack” on the company at an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, and other Democrats have appeared at similar events. Indeed, one of the few times Lieberman and Lamont appeared at the same event during their primary contest was at an anti-Wal-Mart clambake in the Nutmeg State.
This bonfire of buffoonery is helping me learn to love Wal-Mart. First, let’s talk politics. More people shop at Wal-Mart every week (127 million) than voted in the 2004 presidential election, according to a company Web site. They are disproportionately low-income folks who, by some estimates, are collectively saving hundreds of billions of dollars by shopping there.
Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton — who returned a donation from the devilish retailer — was on Wal-Mart’s board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store’s policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it “destroys communities” — which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock.
Read the entire column, it’s quite enjoyable.
With a hat tip to James Taranto, here’s another spot-on column on the War On Wal-Mart by Herman Cain.
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=502
August 26th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Hey, Seth, there’s a lot of us Republicans that shop at Wal-Mart, too. In fact I just got back from a trip to Wal-Mart.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Wal-Mart in the way they have stoved off the various unions that have eagerly attempted to gain toeholds among their employees.
Like BDS, WMDS is a terrible disease… however, it just could be a contributing cause to the GOP retaining both houses of Congress this fall.
August 26th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Old Soldier –
I love it, I really do — there’s a war on terror going on, criminal aliens are stampeding, in-bound, across the border, a gov’t that wants to destroy us is on the brink of having nukes, and the Dems’ top priority is going after Wal-Mart.
What’s fun to consider is the fact that after Bush beat Kerry in 2004, there were scads of “Democratic Party Strategists” complaining that the reason they weren’t winning elections was because they had no “message”, flash forward to now — they finally have a “message”: Get Wal-Mart!
As long as they devote the bulk of their assets to unwinnable, pedestrian crusades — even if they did win their war on Wal-Mart, the best they could expect where political gains are concerned would be, “Oh, you got Wal-Mart unionized? Good for you, pass the salt. So what do you think of that new chewing gum Wrigley’s just came out with?” — they’ll remain on the back burner among most of the voting public.
August 26th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Old Soldier –
Me, too. I sometimes grocery shop at the Superstores (there’s a 24 hour one near me) and about 3/4 of the utensils and appliances in my kitchen come from Wal-Mart.
August 27th, 2006 at 7:17 am
I have tried to ping this post several times. I have no idea what the problem may be.
Thanks, and great work on this article!
http://thespisjournal.blogspot.com/2006/08/ghost-light-posts-of-week.html
Mark
August 27th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Mark –
It’s a Mu.nu thing, hopefully only temporary, though it’s been “temporarily” going on for some time, LOL. Incoming trackbacks aren’t working, though outgoing ones are.
The Democrats’ interest in Wal-Mart does not reflect the retailer’s employees’ interests, it only reflects their own interests — but then, that seems to be the story of today’s Democratic Party on all issues. Unfortunately for them, the American people have, for the last few years, begun to see through the Dems’ ever-more transparently false declarations of tolerance, morality and concern for those they say they care about.
The Democrats of the days when I was growing up would be either sick to their stomachs or rolling on the floor in hysterics if they could see what their party has become today.
Thanks for linking!
August 27th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Seth,
Agreed, the Dems need a Karl Rove…one can only
guess they are indirectly addressing the situation of wealth distribution. You know, like
CEOs used to make 25X average worker, and now its
around 300X. All that economic stuff, for example Kevin Phillips ‘Wealth and Democracy’
states the Walton family fortune at $91.8B, while
the poor Getty folk only have $4.3 B etc, etc.
Of course its not PC for us Americans to want to
tax or otherwise “redistribute”. In fact, its
quite remarkable that WalMart runs on about 4%
margin and still generates that kind of $$.
The issue will sooner or later work itself out
“The concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable, and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast stystole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation..” Will Durant
Seth, I know you’ve devoured Phillips and Durant,
what’s your strategy suggestion for the Demos?
August 27th, 2006 at 10:48 am
BB –
Before they can ever hope to again compete with any chance of major victory, the Democrats need to step back and examine their more recent history, say going back nearly 20 years.
Somewhere along the line, they began to enjoy, a bit too much, taking money from liberal campaign contributors (especially the seemingly well-heeled far left with its PACs, teachers’ unions, etc), and eventually allowed the far left to hijack their party. True modern liberals believe that to belong to their club, you have to support every last one of their agendas, without exception. That’s why every one of their political groups, from environmentalists to pro-abortion orgs to feminazis to GLTB PACs, always become active in one anothers’ agendas. Anyone who disagrees with a single issue, no matter how gung-ho they are on all the rest, is automatically the enemy. This is highly reminiscent of Karl Marx’ attitude.
Under the influence of neo-liberalism, they have forsaken reality for “that would be nice, so it must be…”, embraced agendas that are contrary to American culture and integrity by trying to make the U.S. a playground for moralities that go against the very grain of the religious beliefs that were as strong a factor in building this country as was the desire for freedom, and allowed partisan political agendas to endanger both the public safety and national security. They have turned our educational system into a tax burning, bureaucratic fiasco that is now severely substandard on a global scale, turned gratuitous lawsuits into a cottage industry, done untold damage to minorities they purport to help, fanned the flames of racism at every opportunity for the sole purpose of attracting minority voters, and done everything they could to restrict any free speech that doesn’t agree with their own agendas through the introduction of political correctness. I could probably continue on for another paragraph or two, but I think you get my point.
The above are not the actions of the Democrats of my youth, they are the actions of the Democrats under their new liberal masters.
That said, before the Democrats can even begin to formulate a winning strategy for gaining back the House, the Senate or the White House, they would have to do some belt tightening, forego the big campaign contributions and influence of the far left (we are talking a 180 here), outright rejecting liberal influence and go back to being the Democratic Party of 30+ years ago.
This seems more than unlikely to happen, however, if anything, they move farther to the left every day. What I foresee happening in the next few years is the formation of the third major political party many have been talking up, and while the GOP will experience a decline in support as voters embrace the new party, the Democratic Party will be severely diminished as moderate voters defect, eventually being reduced to the political relevancy level of today’s Green Party.
Having already seen that they are critically handicapped when it comes to learning from their mistakes, I sincerely doubt that the Democrats will make the changes necessary to escape this fade into relative oblivion.
So much for their ever formulating any winning strategies, LOL.
August 27th, 2006 at 11:30 am
The Dems are shooting themselves in their own feet with this Wal Mart stuff. After all, it is low prices that attract many of the very people the Dems claim they speak for. I shop at Wal Mart and there is no shame in it! NONE.
August 27th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Raven –
They also offer better compensation packages than most retailers do to employees of the same skill levels, so the Dems are not only barking up the wrong tree, they’re in the wrong forest altogether.
Once they’ve allowed their far-left sponsors to run them all the way into the ground, we’ll only hear an occasional “yip!”
August 27th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Seth,
It seems to me that both major parties have put
together (probably accidently)uncomfortable coalitions: Enviros, peaceniks, welfare queens,
educators, intellectuals, hollygeeks et. al. in
one. Gun nuts, chickenhawks, fundamentalists,
homeschoolers, fiscal conservatives, limited
government, et. al. in the other.* So, they cater to their (much abused by the way) base. Base=$$ $$=Win. These are really wacky combinations, and our two party system is the victim; right now the GOP is handling its base well, although fiscal conservatives are tapping their accounting type fingers. For various reasons, Enviros are gaining ground. You may
be right about a third party, but George Wallace
and Rose Perot wouldn’t agree.
*PC apologies to all offended groups…
August 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
In my area Walmart is the one of the biggest contributors to a local social services agency. They regularly donate shoes, clothing, underwear, coats, raingear, school supplies for men, women and children of all sizes and ages. All brand new items.
I bet you never hear the Dems or the MSM report that.
August 27th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
BB –
There are so many disappointments with politicians on the right side of the aisle and the Democrats have gone so far into the Twilight Zone that a third party is inevitable, even if we don’t see it happen for awhile yet.
While it’s true that both parties have our extreme factions, the Republicans at least get some positive and important work done, whereas the Democrats only continue to slander, propagandize, bash and generally get underfoot, intentionally making the Bush Administration’s job harder for political reasons. This is hurting the country, big time.
August 27th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Atheling2 –
The likelihood of the Democrats reporting anything positive like that about Wal-Mart is about the same as the likelihood of Jack Bauer hanging out at a gay bar.
I recall seeing an anti-Wal-Mart video where they cite a local hardware store that closed, pointing out how the retailer puts local small businesses out of business.
It turned out that the owners sold the business before the Wal-Mart opened, and that since the Wal-Mart opened, the new owners have prospered.
The Democrats will obfuscate, spin, say anything, truth not required, if it helps to advance one of their agendas.
To plagiarize the Las Vegas chamber of commerce, “this is not your father’s” Democratic Party.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
One of our shop committeemen works for Walmart part-time and does not seem to want a union there. The union has proven to us, in our shop, that they want us to pay our dues, vote the way they tell us to and otherwise not bother them. We had to threaten to sue them one time to get them to act when we needed them; after which they made a half-hearted effort with settling our grievance with the companies previous owner — getting us about half of the thousands the guy owed us. They care nothing for the workers, just for us to get enough pay to give them dues.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Shoprat –
Welcome.
Unions are not the same entity that they were back when they first started in this country — there is no concern, as you said, for the workers they claim to represent, just for the dues they can collect.
In a retail situation ala Wal-Mart, there is little a union could obtain in the way of concessions that would make membership worth the employees’ time, anyway, based upon their present compensation packages, and the retailer would be well within its right to compensate for whatever it conceded by cutting back on already generous benefits that are beyond the scope of what a union can demand. The union would collect its dues and the members at Wal-mart would see no bang for the buck, just what amounted to another living expense. Further, the union would start collecting dues immediately, and employees would be paying them without seeing any returns at all for the 2+ years the union and Wal-Mart negotiated their first contract.
And the Democrats would declare victory, though it wouldn’t be a victory for Wal-Mart employees, nor over time for their customers. It would be a financial victory for the union, and a “2 attaboys, way-to-go” victory for the Dems as they stick it to yet another successful American business… oh, and undoubtedly receive larger campaign contributions by way of the appreciative union.
All off the backs of the “little people” for whom they claim to be “champions”. What a deal!
August 29th, 2006 at 3:43 am
Seth, you should be ashamed of yourself. If the democrats didn’t have such rightious indignation about Walmart, they would have to lie about Bush, the Iraq War, the Israeli treatment of the Palistinians and Hezbollah, the elimination of taxes on the rich and subsequent tax-till-they-starve taxes on the poor, the insidiousness of Big Oil, the deliberate Repuglikkkan blowing up of the dikes protecting the poor downtrodden of New Orleans, the threat of Global Warming… Oh, wait… They are!!!!
August 29th, 2006 at 8:17 am
LOL, George!!!!
It’s truly amazing how they manage to slander — oops, I mean COVER all the bases.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I got here! I actually got here! I can’t believe I made it… I feel like I’ve just reached the top of Mt. Everest, lol!
Seth knows what I’m talking about although anyone else reading this probably thinks I’m not rowing with both oars.
Regarding Wal Mart, I spent a goodly amount of time in Wal Mart today. I do most of my shopping there because the small stores in the town closes to where I live charge outrageous prices. I don’t know how they stay open, because everyone I know who lives around here drives the 40 miles to shop at Wal Mart, which saves money even with gas prices being what they are. And that’s why Wal Mart is such a success… pure and simple; they save folks money.
I swear the following is true: I saw a Hummer parked at Wal Mart today, and I see many other high priced and brand new cars parked there as well. The poor are not the only ones who like to save money. Very rich people are very tight; that’s how they got rich.
Another thing; many people I know personally who bash Wal Mart I’ve seen shopping there. Today I walked up to an extremely liberal lawyer I know and said “Hi! Slumming?” He wasn’t pleased. Then I come home and find out he made the local news because he defended two brothers who were growing acres of Marijuana plants. He got them off with 30 days in jail and a $500 fine! I’m sure he thinks he done good, the stupid asshat!
Sorry this is so long… thought I’d take advantage of finally getting here… it may be awhile before I can manage it again.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Gayle!
See? Neither rain, hail…
I think Wal-Mart’s a great store, and their Superstores are awesome places to go when you have a major shopping list to fill.
Wal-Mart bashers who shop there are like those famous liberals who bash the retailer while owning huge amounts of their stock. This leads one to wonder if all their rhetoric is merely posturing, since their stock value would plummet if they actually got what they ask for.
It must really hurt the Democrats whenever a new Wal-Mart opens, because a bunch of people suddenly having jobs = a bunch of people who don’t need to seek sustenance on the taxpayer’s dime.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Seth,
Regarding ” a bunch of people who don’t need to seek sustenance on the taxpayer’s dime.” , see
http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2005/03/taxpayers-pay-for-wal-marts-low-road.asp
in one small area of the country.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
BB –
I can’t speak for all those people the verrrrry liberal site linked refers to, but I can tell you this — It is not an employer’s responsibility, morally or otherwise, to be “all things to all people”, mom and dad, etc.
Retail is traditionally one of the lowest paying industries around, and entry level pay is only a career income for those who don’t use entry level jobs as stepping stones to establish track records and better their lot.
Wal-Mart pays within the range of the marketplace, more than some, a little less than others, and offers cheaper-premium health benefits than most. I’ve known several people, including single parents, who worked for similar wages and had more expensive health benefit premiums and gotten along just fine without asking the government for help.
I’ve known others who, if they didn’t think they were making enough money at one job, worked two jobs because they were too proud to collect govt alms.
There are 2 ways one can go: Using taxpayers’ money as a crutch, or walking upright and proud on their own two feet.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:49 am
Seth,
Once again you are absolutely right: an employer
owes an employee nothing…see
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/moneymatters/a/foodstamps.htm for US soldiers in line with the
WalMarters.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
BB –
I have known about the food stamp issue among junior grade military families for many years — I believe our armed forces personnel should be compensated a hell of a lot more than they are; If any civilian, I don’t give a damn what he or she does for a living, can earn enough not to need assistance, so should the lowest ranking enlisted man/ woman. They are, after all, the folks who stand ready to put their lives on the line to preserve the freedom of those who live in much more luxurious environments and take absolutely no mortal risks in the course of making their livings.
That said, the reality is that they do not get paid enough and never have, and that has forever been the story for the protectors of society — however, while the assistance comes out of a different agency than the Defense Department, it is still originating from our taxes, and that’s okay by me. I’d rather they get it than some worthless, lazy parasite from a family line of career welfare recipients.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Seth,
A friend in procurement sent me this report on
how some of our tax dollars are being mispent :
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/EthicsCorner.htm . I suspect this type of thing is something we agree is not good?
September 1st, 2006 at 1:49 am
BB –
Please pardon the delays in my latest couple of responses, but I’ve been mired in work and try to get to things like checking my email and so forth when I come to a juncture where I can break off.
While the author of your linked article provides several examples to justify his conclusions that, basically, the perpetrators to whom he makes reference believe they are justified in their deeds and that many feel they are doing no wrong — and further makes the point that these deeds of a few, even after being addressed, leave a stain on their company, agency or organization just the same, he does not present any solutions.
There are no solutions. G-d endowed us with free will, we all have our own minds and what we do as individuals is our responsibility. We hire someone to do a job, screen him as best we can — he may have a great employment history and a clean record, a history of honesty and loyalty, an exemplary record of service to his country, the unmistakeable air of total competence, etc, etc… Then a couple of years down the road, he is caught embezzling, misusing company/ agency equipment or misappropriating funds, taking kickbacks or bribes to perform tasks that are counter to the interests of the organization, whatever.
Go figure. It happens everywhere, in both the public and private sectors. Even people who have been screened into the ground by Bureau background checks have been known to break faith.
To blame a large company or organization that has previously and continues to provide quality output because one, or even a handful of employees has been caught out misbehaving, so to speak is, again, a choice made via that individual thinking capacity I mentioned above.
Personally, in most cases I would attribute such conclusions to stupidity in an extreme, unless the organization in question failed to thoroughly investigate the situation and then make the necessary changes, including adding safeguards against repetition, termination of responsible parties and, where applicable, legal action. Rather than blame the entire organization, if anything I would blame both the perpetrators and those immediately above them, whose responsibilities include monitoring their output and activities.
Is linking to this article intended, per chance, to explain why the Dems continue to harbor ill will toward Wal-Mart?
September 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Hello, Seth,
No, that link indicates that our taxes go for
things besides people “collecting govt alms”.
I have never been a union member, but this AFL
site http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/08/16/wal-mart-won%E2%80%99t-pay-workers-well-but-now-tells-them-how-to-vote/ demonstrates the arrogance
of WalMart. I have not shopped with WM since
1994, although I shop other ‘big box’ stores.
Note Brazil and Germany voted with their feet,
apparently not very tolerant of corporat arrogance either. As for the dems, Seth, I
agree with you, disparaging a large company is
a ludicrous strategy. Don’t you think they
should make our militaristic foreign policy an
issue and stand or fall on that?…from the
polls I’ve seen……..
September 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
You want to learn facts about Wal-Mart on a union website? That’s a little like going to a left-wing site for unbiased information on global warming, LOL.
BB, Wal-Mart pays more than a lot of other retail outfits. Why don’t the Dems go after all the mom & pops that pay $7.00 an hour and offer no benefits? There are plenty to go after.
As to the voter guides, as long as Wal-Mart enforcers aren’t following their employees into the voting booth, they are not compelling anyone to vote a certain way. Perhaps the retailer simply wants to inform their employees, as team members, which way the company hopes they’ll vote and why. I see nothing wrong with that.
And yes, the Dems might make a larger impact if they made their lead issue something of rather more import, but hey, they are Democrats, and today liberals have them doing a “sing for your supper” routine if they want those fat campaign contributions.
As to Wal-Mart donating millions of dollars to their preferred candidates, a union website has no room to talk — unions donate tons of money to the Dems’ campaigns, which is the sole reason they are crusading against Wal-Mart to begin with.
That’s another characteristic of the left — they hurl accusations at their political opposition for doing the same things they do, and have a way of curling the lip and making it sound like an abomination.
Pick up a copy of a book called Do As I Say, Not As I Do by Peter Schweizer. It’s an amusing and informative read.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Seth,
Sorry, I go to all sides of an issue. Thank me
for staying off the ‘WalMart Sucks’ sites! You
are correct about retail jobs/wages…I suspect
it has to do with competition and margins. I’ll
pass on Peter Schweizer, as I am familiar with
the Chamber of Commerce. I don’t follow Gore’s
writings either, fair enough? As for Global
Warming, I follow NASA, NOAA and the universities. You should too.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Seth,
I forgot to add that I haven’t contacted WalMart
since the “Happy Holidays” incident of last
Christmas season. They DO get a lot of flack.
September 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 am
BB –
LOL!
Have a great rest-of-Labor-Day-weekend!
September 3rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Seth,
Oh, my LOL is right! From the latest rightside
blogworld it looks like WalMart policy regarding
homosexuals is making more unhappy customers.
Now I’ll be joined at K-Mart with my rightside
friends. LOL, LOL, poor WM….
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
BB –
Go figure.
The American Family Association recently took umbrage with Ford over their ads in explicit gay magazines and waged a campaign that purportedly cost the auto maker a significant amount of business, so much so that the head of Texas’ Ford dealers’ association sent a letter to the home office about the fact that the AFA’s campaign was costing them beaucoup customers, most of whom told them the reason they were no longer doing business with Ford.
However, new cars are high ticket merchandise, whereas Wal-Mart’s customer base is mostly low income families and individuals, and one finds that budgetary considerations figure rather more prominently among low income families than making political statements. This means that Wal-Mart doesn’t have to worry about losing much business over the issue.
I’ve read a few accounts of this issue, including one in an email I received from the AFA, though I’m sure that, business being business, it’s all about marketing. Yes, Seth, repeat after me, Duh!
Seeing as Target and other stores of the genre don’t even come close to Wal-Mart re inventory and other considerations, again, I’m pretty sure Wal-Mart has a get-out-of-jail-free card. The Democrats certainly can’t attack them over the gay issue, right?
In summary, I don’t see that anything me or my fellow conservatives might have to say on the topic will matter to Wal-Mart at all, or have any effect on their policies, so I don’t even bother blogging about it.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Seth,
In answer to “The Democrats certainly can’t attack them over the gay issue, right?”
…wouldn’t be too surprised, the way their
strategies have been as of late.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
BB –
You’re right, LOL. The Democrats of today wouldn’t know a strategy if it walked up and introduced itself.
This is a product of their saturation by extreme liberals — those who were once conservative Democrats still have the same leanings, but they’re forced, via the intolerance of their liberal comrades for any thinking outside the realm of the bumper sticker on every issue, to “go with the program”, even if it goes completely against their sensibilities.
The result is a sort of political Tower of Babel phenomenon that serves only to fragment their party rather than get it all together on the same page. This will continue until the Dems realize, collectively, that liberalism is a disruptive element that they need to jettison from their ranks.
Being a registered Republican, I see this much the same way that Washington’s army probably viewed the intoxicated Hessians just prior to attacking them.