Posted on 04/03/2011 2:58:04 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Union bosses, through their cohorts in Congress, want to force airline and railway workers into unions. Luckily their amendment to the FAA bill (HR 658) failed to pass in the House on Friday by a 220 to 206 vote.
Every Democrat voted for the LaTourette/Costello amendment; no surprise there. However, 16 Republican Congressmen voted for the amendment. These Republicans stand against freedom and they stand with the fat-cat union bosses who want to eliminate freedom and choice for American workers.
Currently, American workers enjoy the freedom to form a union or join a union – it’s their choice. Democrats and these 16 Republicans want to take away their right to choose and force them to be in a union if they want the job.
* Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
* Jo Ann Emerson (MO-08)
* Chris Gibson (NY-20)
* Michael Grimm (NY-13)
* Tim Johnson (IL-15)
* Walter Jones (NC-03)
* Peter King (NY-03)
* Steven LaTourette (OH-14)
* Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
* Todd Platts (PA-19)
* Dave Reichert (WA-08)
* David Rivera (FL-25)
* Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
* Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
* Chris Smith (NJ-04)
* Don Young (AK, at-large)
The fight isn’t over though; the Senate and House versions of the FAA bill (HR 658) still need to be reconciled during conference committee. It’s crucial that Sec. 903 of the House bill, HR 658, remain in tact in order to prevent forced unionization.
Please contact Speaker John Boehner at (202) 225-0600 or send him an email and contact Majority Leader Eric Cantor at (202) 225-4000 or send him an email to tell them to repeal the Obama NMB’s union certification election rule change by preserving Sec. 903 of the House bill, HR 658.
Tremendous thanks goes to Mark Mix of The National Right to Work Committee for keeping us informed about these legislative issues.
Eric Cantor email: http://majorityleader.gov/Contact/
The National Right to Work Committee
http://nrtwc.org/
This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why it makes sense to elect MORE REPUBLICANS if we’re mad at the RINOs. When you get enough Republicans, you WILL have enough conservatives...and it was just shown in this vote.
The Republican House margin was about 230 to 205 prior to Pelosi taking the House in 2007 - with that majority, the RINOs would have prevailed on this vote.
This was a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why we need to get as many seats as possible - rather than getting mad at the RINOs and allowing Democrats to take their place (which seems to be the goal of half the people on this site).
What good is electing Republicans if they vote with Democrats?
These 16 a-holes almost cost us to lose this fight.
They need to be replaced.
“What good is electing Republicans if they vote with Democrats?”
Because well over 90% of the Republicans voted with the Tea Party on this vote...and if we didn’t have a big margin in the House, we would have LOST this vote.
You’re spending way too much time getting mad at RINOs and not spending enough time trying to win other races, so as to increase our majority more.
I want 100% of Republicans voting with Republicans.
We put up with 100% of Democrat voting with democrats, why is it Republicans cannot get that kind of voting.
We might put in 30 more Republicans next time and get 70% of
th Republican vote, would that suit you?
We need Conservative Republicans or we need no one.
“We need Conservative Republicans or we need no one.”
Not true...don’t take the liberal bait. We need enough Republicans to control Congress and WIN votes. That is ALL that we need. If we have other Republicans that sometimes vote our way, or sometimes don’t it DOES NOT MATTER...as long as we have 218 reliable votes in the House, and 60 reliable votes in the Senate.
In the House, we seem to have this number, so I could care less what those 16 Republicans do.
In the Senate, clearly not...which is why having so-called RINOs is very useful. For example, Snowe and Collins both voted to put Roberts and Alito on the Court. In my opinion, those were the most important Senate votes in the last 10 years. Do we really want to throw those people out?
No matter what the Rinos might do, electing democrats is still never an option for me.
Rinos are very dangerous to our freedom but I’d sooner vote for a pile of dog$hit then a democrat. Not kidding.
I’m with you...but keep in mind that people voting against RINOs (in November) don’t necessarily look at themselves as enabling Democrats...which they are doing. They often look at it as “making a statement” by voting Third Party.
Bookmark
“Electing MORE REPUBLICANS does not guarantee not electing more RINOs.”
Obviously...but the general rule is that more Republicans WILL result in a more conservative body, especially with the Tea Party watching and willing to help clean out the RINOs in the primaries.
I would agree if the Republican candidate had the backing of the Tea Party. If they don't, I would be very suspicious of their intentions.
Well that helps, but kicking one or two RINOS out of office, might go a long way to getting 4 or 5 others to toe the conservative line.
And then rinse, repeat until no more RINOs. They drag the party down by watering down both the message and any possible action toward conservative goals.
The idea that we don't address the problem of RINOs seems silly. It's quite possible to have one strategy, but two tactics, 1) try to replace D's in office with moderate Rs, 2) try to replace moderate Rs in office with conservative Rs. Don't let any moderate or left politician feel comfortable in office.
“Well that helps, but kicking one or two RINOS out of office, might go a long way to getting 4 or 5 others to toe the conservative line. “
FORGET IT. There’s no way to bring a RINO to the party except to have the Tea Party nipping at his heels in the primary.
“I would agree if the Republican candidate had the backing of the Tea Party. If they don’t, I would be very suspicious of their intentions.”
If they’re significantly more conservative than the Dem, that’s good enough for me. The Tea Party is icing on the cake.
Hmm? I’m thinking we agree. The only way to turn out 2 or 3 RINOs is to push all of them in the primaries and find which are vulnerable.
Agree.
Because unlike Democrats, they don't have criminal backgrounds to hold over them to enforce compliance? Just a thought!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.