"When you vote this November, remember which party (Democrat) places unionizing the largest private employer’s workers over jobs and low retail prices for the communities and families who need them the most."
"Wal-Mart also announced this month that it is raising wages by an average of six percent for employees in over 1,200 of its 4,000 U.S. stores. Further, the company offers qualifying employees a menu of 18 healthcare plans, some costing as little as $11 per month."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HermanCain/
2006/08/22/hezbocrats_attack_wal-mart
"One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year."
"In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery."
http://article.nationalreview.com/
?q=ZmU4MjM4NmQ1OWU1NTYzMDdiMmJiNjg4OWRmMTU5ZTA=
"It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/
la-ed-walmart23aug23,0,2463162.story
"When in history has a store clerk had a claim on the middle class life … home ownership, a late model car or two?"
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/
2006/08/democrats_war_o.html
"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."
"It's horrific politics and silly public policy - but a joy to watch."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006
/08/walmart_drives_democrats_batty.html
"...it is unlikely that there is any single organization on the planet that alleviates poverty so effectively for so many people."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ex=1156651200&en=babcc417c997b486&ei=5070
====
I could cut and paste these wonderful excerpts from responses to the democrats' Wal-Mart bashing (as reported in the concluding new york times article) all day. This is just one big fat curve ball lobbed over the plate (that's a baseball reference for you hippies) for conservatives to knock out of the park. And, as you can see, they have, responding all the way up to yesterday. I'm anxious to see more.
Even though i disagree with him (as exemplified in a previous post), at least Robert Kuttner, in the only liberal piece I have seen in response to the story, addresses the bigger picture.
While I was reading a piece earlier today on the 20 most expensive places to rent (Interestingly, 18 of them happened to be in predominantly blue states. Hmm...), I started thinking about the Wal-Mart issue. It seems many of them are located in the suburbs, which tend to be more conservative, while the number is lower the closer to downtown one goes, where it becomes more liberal. So, those who live in the suburbs, and tend to make more in a year, have easier access to lower priced goods, whereas those who live in the inner cities, where the less affluent tend to live, would seem to have to pay more. (It should be said that there are some affluent people who live downtown and uptown, but, nose firmly in the air, do not wish to have the stain on their area that such a store as Wal-Mart represents to them.)
This seems to be another example (school choice comes to mind) where the poorer among us are losing out. Their elected representatives are failing them, or, rather, have their leash held by unions. How else to explain recent anti-Wal-Mart legislation passed in Maryland (which has since, fortunately, been struck down in court due to violation of equal protection) and Chicago? How many more such examples need to occur before inner-city residents realize that they are voting for people who are putting them second to special-interests (unions)?
No comments:
Post a Comment