Fox News repeatedly echoes only opponents of Employee Free Choice Act
SUMMARY: Fox News hosts, reporters, and contributors have repeatedly provided or echoed the claims of only opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers the right to form or join a union if a majority of workers sign a card stating they want to unionize. Absent from numerous reports and discussions on Fox News is the argument made by proponents of EFCA that under the current system, employers often fire union supporters and pressure employees to vote against unionizing.
In the past month, Fox News hosts, reporters, and contributors have repeatedly provided or echoed the claims of only opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would give workers the right to form or join a union if a majority of workers sign a card stating they want to unionize. Absent from numerous discussions and reports of EFCA on Fox News is any mention of the argument made by proponents of EFCA. They say that the legislation is necessary because under current law, in which an election process is triggered when 30 percent of workers sign a card stating that they want to organize, employers have responded to unionization efforts during the period before the vote is held by intimidating workers, firing workers, and threatening to shut down factories and businesses.
As The New York Times reported, "Union officials say they do not dislike the secret ballot, but rather the lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign before the vote in which companies often fire union supporters and use videos, large meetings and one-on-one sessions to pressure employees to vote against unionizing." A September 2000 study by Kate Bronfenbrenner, the director of labor education research at Cornell University, examined more than 400 NLRB certification election campaigns in manufacturing plants between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999, and found that 25 percent of employers fired at least one worker for union activity and that 51 percent of employers told employees that their plant might close if workers unionized. In a December 2005 study of organizing campaigns in Chicago, Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore of the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago wrote: "Aided by a weak labor law system that fails to protect workers' rights under the law, employers manipulate the current process of establishing union representation in a manner that undemocratically gives them the power to significantly influence the outcome of union representation elections. ... The findings of this report suggest that unions were unable to maintain worker support throughout the course of representation campaigns because employer interference eroded that support."
Fox News reporters, contributors, and anchors have also on numerous occasions echoed or failed to challenge the claim that EFCA eliminates the "secret ballot." Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of EFCA, addresses that "myth":
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice - whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up - a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
Below are examples of segments on Fox News in which only the arguments of EFCA opponents were articulated:
- During the November 21 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) "warns that many on the left have been out of power for years and may want to fill their legislative dreams all at once. ... Proposals such as ending the secret ballot and union elections known as 'card check,' which McConnell called nonsense and unacceptable." Angle then quoted McConnell claiming of congressional Democrats: "I noticed they had a secret ballot yesterday choosing between [Rep.] Henry Waxman [CA] and [Rep.] John Dingell [MI]. If it's appropriate to elect the chairman of that committee in the House, it's certainly appropriate in deciding whether or not you want to be represented by a labor union at your company."
- During the November 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said of President-elect Barack Obama: "He went to the AFL-CIO and said, I'm in favor of card check -- taking away the working man's right to a secret ballot. But he didn't make that part and parcel of his daily campaign."
- During the November 8 edition of The Journal Editorial Report, host Paul Gigot said: "I don't know how that's going to go over on Capitol Hill, but let's say you are at the AFL-CIO -- John Sweeney, the head of that union organization -- and you think, look, we spent tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats. We want some payback, OK. We want some reward for our effort. And that includes this ban on secret ballots -- card check -- that would unite the business community in opposition to said -- to one of -- if Barack Obama did that, went right out of the box, to one of his first initiatives. How do you -- if you're in the White House, what do you say to [AFL-CIO president] John Sweeney, who says, I want something back for what I did for you?"
- During the November 8 edition of The Beltway Boys, while discussing "the worst parts of the liberal agenda," co-host Fred Barnes said: "I mentioned card check, which of course would allow unions to organize without allowing a secret ballot among people who may or may not want to be in a union. And that's when Republicans can have a field day. That may not come until the spring, but it'll be there. And then we'll see if -- particularly whether Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, can put together filibusters again."
- During the October 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity said: "Here's what you can expect within Obama's first two years: ... The biggest pro-union bill since 1935 -- it's called the Employee Free Choice Act -- would erase secret ballot elections." Hannity then aired video of Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) claiming: "If you get rid of the right to a secret ballot, there is no way to stop a workplace from being unionized."
From the November 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: But he warns that many on the left have been out of power for years and may want to fill their legislative dreams all at once.
McCONNELL: It would not be a good idea for the new administration, in my view, to go down a laundry list of left-wing proposals and try to jam them through the Congress. I think that would not be a great way to start.
ANGLE: Proposals such as ending the secret ballot and union elections known as "card check," which McConnell called nonsense and unacceptable.
McCONNELL: I noticed they had a secret ballot yesterday choosing between Henry Waxman and John Dingell. If it's appropriate to elect the chairman of that committee in the House, it's certainly appropriate in deciding whether or not you want to be represented by a labor union at your company.
ANGLE: Republicans would fight card check every step of the way, he argued, because it would Europeanize America.
A number of Democrats also believe President-elect Obama intends to govern in the center, so one House Democrat says no early move on card check.
REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Well, I think sometime in 2009, but probably not in the first couple of months.
ANGLE: Early on, many Democrats believe Mr. Obama will take care to propose things that have broad support.
From the November 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): But what he did say, he would close --
ROVE: What happens -- what happens --
O'REILLY: -- Guantánamo. So I think that's what he's going to give them.
ROVE: Right. Well, but you know what? He said one or two of those things. Like he said once, he said I'm going to be for the Freedom of Choice Act, which does away with any restrictions on abortion.
O'REILLY: That would be suicide if he does that.
ROVE: Suicide. He went to the AFL-CIO and said, I'm in favor of card check -- taking away the working man's right to a secret ballot. But he didn't make that part and parcel of his daily campaign.
O'REILLY: No. If he does any of that stuff, where the talk radio and cable axis gets him --
ROVE: Right.
O'REILLY: -- he's dead. Real quick --
ROVE: Right.
From the November 8 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: All right, I don't know how that's going to go over on Capitol Hill, but let's say you are at the AFL-CIO -- John Sweeney, the head of that union organization -- and you think, look, we spent tens of millions of dollars to elect Democrats. We want some payback, OK. We want some reward for our effort. And that includes this ban on secret ballots -- card check -- that would unite the business community in opposition to said -- to one of -- if Barack Obama did that, went right out of the box, to one of his first initiatives. How do you -- if you're in the White House, what do you say to John Sweeney, who says, I want something back for what I did for you?
DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Right, what I would say to John Sweeney is: Mr. Sweeney, we're in an economic crisis now. What your members need more than card check is help with their mortgages, unemployment insurance, home heating oil this winter, and aid to cities and to states that are having trouble balancing their budgets. That's far more meaningful than special interest legislation that will arguably benefit union leadership.
GIGOT: So, put that off for a couple years, and maybe we'll try to do -- see what we can do on other things --
SCHOEN: Absolutely.
GIGOT: -- and put it off later.
SCHOEN: Absolutely. You know, Bill Clinton got distracted by gay marriage early on in his administration, and -- again, putting aside the merits of that -- I think he felt that that undermined his ability to get things done. I think if Barack Obama went forward with card check, it would similarly hurt his ability to forge the kind of consensus we need.
From the November 8 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
MORT KONDRACKE (co-host): It doesn't look like it, but I hope you are right. OK.
BARNES: OK.
KONDRACKE: Third, Obama needs to control expectations, something he tried to do just hours after his election on Tuesday night in Grant Park in Chicago. Watch.
OBAMA [video clip]: The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term, but, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we, as a people, will get there.
KONDRACKE: I thought that sounded like he was declaring for re-election, you know, that he's not going to finish in one term. But seriously --
BARNES: He can put off card check until the second term.
KONDRACKE: Yeah. Yeah. But, seriously, one thing that he has to avoid is a Clinton-like "gays in the military" snafu.
BARNES: Yeah.
KONDRACKE: And that card check could be his issue. He starts getting asked about card check and makes a position on that, there will be a battle royale.
[...]
BARNES: And the other thing they have to realize -- Republicans need to realize, there is only one big story now and its name is Barack Obama. And they're going to get lavish coverage that will drive Republicans crazy, but, you know, look, they're stuck with that for a few months. And taking, you know, little nicks at Barack Obama here and there is just not going to serve them in any way. What they need to do is hold their fire, just wait, just wait until in -- the Democrats in Congress and Obama get to the worst parts of the liberal agenda -- and there are a lot of them.
And I mentioned card check, which of course would allow unions to organize without allowing a secret ballot among people who may or may not want to be in a union. And that's when Republicans can have a field day. That may not come until the spring, but it'll be there. And then we'll see if -- particularly whether Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, can put together filibusters again.
From the October 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Here's what you can expect within Obama's first two years: universal healthcare. Obama's plan is a public insurance system and that means millions in taxpayer dollars funneled from private coverage to government entitlements. The biggest pro-union bill since 1935 -- it's called the Employee Free Choice Act -- would erase secret ballot elections.
SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV) [video clip]: If you get rid of the right to a secret ballot, there is no way to stop a workplace from being unionized.
HANNITY: An overhaul in tax reform for super ultraliberals. That means imposing huge taxes on small businesses and corporations. Now, that's the lifeline of America -- exactly what we don't need.















9:45pm Wednesday, Saigon
Same to you, Oscar. Over here, we will be having our Thanksgiving turkey when you guys (those of you in the states) will be sound asleep. And no, we won't be having rice with turkey -- but stuffing and mashed potatoes :)
Doug Reese
Same good wishes to Oscar, Doug, and all the rest.
(I counted it up and over 30 people will be celebrating dinner with us tomorrow.)
I third that emotion! One fried turkey, and (new for me!) a brined turkey! And I'll be bringing a few plates to my favorite staff at Wings N More who will be working Thanksgiving evening. (Please don't tell them, it's my surprise!)
Snoop,
Be sure to let us know how the brined turkey tasted. That's a new one for me too.
Done two brined turkey breasts. I'm impressed with the results. Try it with half salt half sugar.
I brine my birds. Snoop, be sure to drain and dry it out good (inside and out), I had some mushy stuffing the first time I did it.
I guess I'm amazed. I drained it well, and showered it off too (was I supposed to do that?). Then I did dry it in an out. Now, we roasted it, and when it was done, viola and I were looking at it and both had the same idea of trying it. So we both cut into that butt piece that everyone cuts away and tosses because it's fatty - darned near freaked because it was really salty! Viola's stomach shrank 10 sizes that day...
But it was really, really tender! And it must have been a fluke that the butt piece was salty.
The fried turkey was awesome too! I think the injection seasoning really made the difference this time.
Yup rinsing the bird after brinning is good. Some other bits include triming the neck skin and then pulling the outer forward skin out jaming those skin parts in there. Use the space to hold a mixed spice/ butter mix. Supporting the bird off the floor of the pan and putting water into the pan. I made gravy this year from the drippings, a first for me.
Hey Oscar Happy Thanksgiving to you & all my old buds here.
I'm sick of politics, OD'd on it during the longest campaign I can remember. Haven't posted in awhile...But I miss you guys.
You've been missed too Jeter. I understand the fatigue of being here. An idividual decision on everyones part.
Looks like the sites going on a four day holiday, give everyone a chance to decompress.
Appy Olidaze to all.
We miss you too Jeter. Have a great Thanksgiving.
They have the power to dominate the media while remaining virtually invisible.
This item's good, I wasn't sure where the "outlawing the secret ballot" bit was coming from, I'd been hearing it for weeks. How many Americans are drinking enough of the Kool-Aid that "forced unionizing" is way up there on their threat list?
Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
I know this isn't the primary topic in this item, but it really disappoints me when the wingnuts miss an opportunity to get on script---
ROVE:...he said I'm going to be for the Freedom of Choice Act, which does away with any restrictions on abortion.
O'REILLY: That would be suicide if he does that.
No, dammit BilldO, that would be infanticide! Get that bat offa your shoulder!
I can't believe they're missing the chance to claim that Obama is going to go all Jonathan Swift on us at Thanksgiving and have "roast unsuccessfully aborted baby" for his feast. Maybe they're just slow on the uptake lately...
I've got a 6 pounder brining in Merlot and kosher salt at this moment. Those chubby little drumsticks are sooo tender.
It goes both ways: Employer intimidation of workers is wrong, but the EFCA assumes that union organizers would not use intimidation tactics on workers to coerce them into signing the card. I've worked with unions before and they can be VERY thuggish.
If there's no union there, what power would they have over the workers? "Join our union or..." What, exactly?
" or we'll behave thuggishly at you!"
CHS is always So funny!
It's apparently funny because it's true. I'll believe that they may be thuggish towards management at times, certainly. That seems entirely possible. What I don't get is how a union is going to extort signatures from a majority of employees effectively and without prompting an investigation. It's not exactly a "behind closed doors" situation, as strong-arming management would be.
If there's no union there, what power would they have over the workers? "Join our union or..." What, exactly?
That's a GREAT point! Never thought of it. It demolishes that management argument.
What unions should do is just don't call them "elections, call them company elections, a la Frank Luntz. That's exactly what they are. And there's no reason why workers need to have an "election" if they want to unionize.
Thanks! It was a natural reaction for me, because I've worked in manual labor. We would have liked to have had a union, but I can only imagine what would have happened to anyone who tried to intimidate most of us into doing anything. "Brutal" is the word that leaps to mind.
So unlike management I've had experience with.
Management is firm and persuasive, only workers are thuggish.
I've worked in, for, with and around unions my entire life. I'm almost sixty years old. I've never seen any factual evidence of thuggish behavior by unions.
The media loves stories about the corrupt union official and how unions drag down the economy etc. It's all bull. Media companies have been guilty of labor law violations with their unions since the inception of labor laws.
If you have any evidence to back up your claim, why haven't you gone to the authorities? You describe criminal behavior and you stood by and allowed it to go on and then have the balls to come here and bitch to us about it?
I could take a picture of my keyed car from a few years back, but perhaps that's not thuggish enough for you. Just a prank, right?
And what was the outcome when you reported the criminal behavior that you were a victim of?
How do you know it was someone from the union that did it? Did you report it to the police?
My cars have been keyed, my tires have been slashed. I even had a car stolen and burned during a dispute with our employer. Maybe I should have had my boss arrested.
I can counter with a picture of my keyed car, and where I work (until Dec. 1st) we don't have a union. Just a bunch of angry builders who are watching their job being shipped overseas because the company can make a quick buck off of lower wages and transformation costs.
Speaking of thugs, I could show you a picture of my keyed pick-up truck from 2004. It was keyed the day I put a Kerry-Edwards sticker on the bumper. The next day? Tires slashed.
But aren't you the guy who said he was proud to cross the picket line? I seem to remember you saying that some time ago on these boards. If you are a proud scab, I'd have to say that you, sir, are the thug.
The media loves stories about the corrupt union official and how unions drag down the economy etc. It's all bull.
That's because they are-- er--- companies. And never forget that newscasters are management. They are all indeed economic royalists, as FDR called them.
Amazing, isn’t it?
Even more amazing are all the blue-collar right-wingers who today enjoy all the things that unions fought for and won that have spilled over into the workplace as a whole, yet they nod their heads in agreement at any right-wing professional liar who blames our economic woes on unionized workers. It's almost as if they'd be much happier working in conditions like those in places like China.
Pete,
Sounds like the same argument the cattlemen gave, fighting off the indians only to let ungrateful farmers fence off their land. :-)
It looks to me that the law needs to be changed to protect those non-union workers who were fired for supporting the establishment of unions in their workplace.
Unions do a great job protecting the rights of workers and raising wages, no mistake about that. However most of us know of instances where the unions, in their desire to protect the worker, have gone beyond common sense by imposing strict rules about what different unionized, non unionized, and managment can and cannot do. Add to this forced union contributions and right now, rightly or wrongly, unions are perceived negatively by many Americans.
Where do you get this idea that unions impose strict rules? Do you have any examples?
All the unions that I'm familiar with in my neck of the woods have bargained and negotiated for contracts that they expect to be honored. The imposition comes from the agreement, not the union.
Depending on the nature of the contract, both sides wield power, by way of strike or lockout. When I was a union member, our contract had a strict "no strike, no lockout" clause. The union had no iron fist whatsoever.
Pete,
Yes they bargained for those rules and management agreed to them. I was not taking issue with how those rules were created.
Some anecdotal stories I have heard concern of workers refusing to do job specific job tasks that would have just taken a minute or two and instead waiting an hour or two for another job classification worker do the job thereby impeding productivity.
I'm sure many have heard those typical, "It's not my job" stories.
Also I heard countless protected union jobs and inability of management to fire non productive union workers or give jobs and/or raises to productive employees because of union rules.
There are many different unions with many different agreements. Just because your union had a "no strike" clause in it's agreement does not mean all unions were weak.
The point is, that unions are perceived negatively by many, and much of it is their own doing.
fourth paragraph should read, "Also, I have heard countless times of protected..."
Sorry for the confusion.
Alright lets make policy on anecdotal evidence. Not as satisfying as inuendo and slander I suppose.
ewe,
Who said anything about making policy? My comments are only in the context of the poor image many people have of unions.
Wonder where they got that image?
To try to paint this as a union issue is very disengenious. Heck, I'm not allowed to move my office pc and books from one cube to the next even though it's a simple task. But we don't have unions, so how do you account for that?
Some anecdotal stories I have heard concern of workers refusing to do job specific job tasks that would have just taken a minute or two and instead waiting an hour or two for another job classification worker do the job thereby impeding productivity. AA
"Impeding productivity"? Maybe management isn't that bright if they don't have enough staff to deal with day to day operations.
And when I worked in non-union position, I saw this all the time. It usually was some new junior employee being asked to do something that the company already had a higher paid professional to do that particular job. The new guy, wanting to keep his job and for management to like him, did whatever was asked. At that point, the professional wasn't needed anymore and "let go" paving the way for the new guy to do the same job but for a lower salary. And of course the quality of the work suffered.
Aw, just let AA wallow in his countless stories he's heard and anecdotal urban legends.The rest of us can spend the weekend being thankful that we're not him.
I know I know. It's just one of my pet peeves, that exact scenario I cited, where management takes advantage in order to cut cost (and corners).
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Don't forget to get lots of sleep so you can be on line at Target at 3:00 am on Friday for the big sales. Keep shopping (on credit of course) or the economy might get worse =>
I plan to be sleeping in quite late on Friday.The economy will have to soldier on without me until later in the day.
BTW, I stared looking around for some of these Union Tales, and found a good bit about Paul Harvey.(about halfway down the page, under "Beyond Tall Tales" is a good Union-related item)
Heckova a guy doing a heckuva job. You betcha.
I'm not sure how other unions handle it, but in my union. The IBHA (International Brotherhood of Hateful Ageists), all union officers and stewards have to punch out before doing union business. So we're not paid by employers when were defending someone for just hating on the old folks.
I know this is just another anecdotal story but it gives the other side to Harvey's.
But your Union is made up entirely of imaginary members like Sam the Socialist, right? And who do you have to punch out before doing union biz, fellow members or management?
I lived in Canada for several years. While there, I had the second heart surgery to repair a heart valve. My husband had Carpenter's Union insurance to cover Doctor's costs and BCHIS for hospitilization and when I went to the hodpital, it cost me $34.00 for 34 day hospital stay. I have had a total of 4 heart surgeries. One in Hawaii, one in Texas, one in Canada, and the last one here in Arizona. I ahve had work related insurance during all of these surgeries except the one in Canada. When I got sick in Canada, I immediately got an appointment to see a heart specialist as was true in all of the other times. the myth that universal insurance somehow makes for second class medical care is a myth pushed on us by folks who care less about the health of people who need medical care. In every casein the US , I had good insurance but the cost for my care has totalled nearly $600,000 which I have paid with payments over most of my life. In Canada hospital costs were furnished by the governemtn (plus I paid a total of $34.00 for 34 days of care. My husband's carpenter's union medical insurance.paid the physician's costs. Only a fool who knows nothing about health care cost burdens on a family thinks that universal health care is a silly idea. With it, health problems are gotten to early in the history of a given disease. That makes care cheaper, keeping the patient heathier before the problem gets so severe. I personally know a person who lived in Wyoming who suffered a major illness and who wasted away because she was not old enough for medicare, and she could not work, she was unmarried so she depended on herself to make the money to pay for her health care. She died very early in life, 41 years, because of lack of adequate medical care. Some folks like Hannity etc should have a look at people with overwhelming medical histories and understand that they fade away due to our stupid uninclusive health care system. I can just hear Hannity et al screaming, "Go eat cake" to these sad, sick folks. How cruel. Mari
My husband had Carpenter's Union insurance to cover Doctor's costs and BCHIS for hospitilization and when I went to the hospital, it cost me $34.00 for 34 day hospital stay.
Socialist!
I lived in Canada for several years. While there, I had the second heart surgery to repair a heart valve. My husband had Carpenter's Union insurance to cover Doctor's costs and BCHIS for hospitilization and when I went to the hodpital, it cost me $34.00 for 34 day hospital stay. I have had a total of 4 heart surgeries. One in Hawaii, one in Texas, one in Canada, and the last one here in Arizona. I ahve had work related insurance during all of these surgeries except the one in Canada. When I got sick in Canada, I immediately got an appointment to see a heart specialist as was true in all of the other times. the myth that universal insurance somehow makes for second class medical care is a myth pushed on us by folks who care less about the health of people who need medical care. In every casein the US , I had good insurance but the cost for my care has totalled nearly $600,000 which I have paid with payments over most of my life. In Canada hospital costs were furnished by the governemtn (plus I paid a total of $34.00 for 34 days of care. My husband's carpenter's union medical insurance.paid the physician's costs. Only a fool who knows nothing about health care cost burdens on a family thinks that universal health care is a silly idea. With it, health problems are gotten to early in the history of a given disease. That makes care cheaper, keeping the patient heathier before the problem gets so severe. I personally know a person who lived in Wyoming who suffered a major illness and who wasted away because she was not old enough for medicare, and she could not work, she was unmarried so she depended on herself to make the money to pay for her health care. She died very early in life, 41 years, because of lack of adequate medical care. Some folks like Hannity etc should have a look at people with overwhelming medical histories and understand that they fade away due to our stupid uninclusive health care system. I can just hear Hannity et al screaming, "Go eat cake" to these sad, sick folks. How cruel. Mari
You're both socialists!
Laugh, run away!
I like this proposal. It ties into the EFCA.
"I have two policy suggestions which would ecourage such an outcome:
First, that the federal government impose an income standard on any bank, insurance company or manufacturer that receives a federal subsidy that its highest paid executives make no more than 10 times the salary of that company's lowest paid worker. Two highly successful companies, Ben and Jerry's and Costco, operate with such a standard, and there is no reason that it could not prevail throughout American industry. This would give company managers a strong personal incentive to raise wages throughout their enterprises and would prevent huge portions of corporate income from being directed into executive compensation.
Secondly, the Congress and the incoming administration should revise labor law to make it much easier to organize unions, encouraging unionization drives in the lowest wage sections of the American economy, especially retail trades, food processing, agriculture and the hotel and restaurant industry ( including fast foods). Strong unions will assure that workers get a fair share of corporate profits and that low wage workers can become consumers without incurring huge amounts of debt.
Only policies such as these can create an economy where consumer demand rests on a firm enough foundation to promote economic growth without uncontrolled debt and speculation.
Promoting econmic equality is not only a strategy for national unity in times of hardship, it is the only way out of the mess we are in."
Colmes Leaves 'Hannity & Colmes'
Alan Colmes, the longtime liberal cohost of the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes, will leave at the end of the year. What do you think?
Li Knutsen,
Systems Analyst
"Man, I don't know what Hannity will do without his intern."
John Ashford,
Grocery Bagger
"This will allow Alan more time to concentrate on his substitute teaching career."
Brandon Rautenberg,
Assembly Line Worker
"Colmes was too liberal for me with all his moderate views and support of Rudy Giuliani and such. Good riddance to that leftie wing nut."
Just couldn't resist putting that up here.(From The Onion)