I think the question isn’t “Does he know everything about everything?” but “Does he know anything about anything?”

So when is he going to turn up on the panel of judges for some reality show?

No, no, no! It goes “I know a thing or two about a thing or two.”

Base Boy: Danger! Danger!  Useful Idiot powers in red zone!  Conservative Tool level near zero!  Aura of competence deflated!  JoePlum effectiveness level exhausted!

Holy crap, Conservative Man, what are we going to do?

Conservative Man: Don’t worry, little buddy.  I’ve got a plan. 

This lame diagram should hold them until we can get the Palinbot rebooted and get its Horny Fan Boy powers recharged, or get the Jindal 2012 fully debugged so it doesn’t keep sticking its foot in its mouth…

Base Boy: Great thinking, Conservative Man!  I guess that’s why you’re in charge and I’m still the unintelligent and nearly useless sidekick…

Please let this bumblef*ck run for office - he’s a conservative gift that keeps on giving.

Had fun during the last eight years?

That must have been some cosmic experience for Joe the Plumber.

Surely when asked “What reasons do you have for opposing the EFCA?” Joe meant to reply, “Oh, all of ‘em, any of ‘em.”

But stogoe, Joe the Plumber. People will be so transformed by having touched the hem of his garment that they’ll create their own talking points. He’s walking proof of the fact that you don’t need talking points to become a successful conservalebrity. Ain’t America Grand?

If he doesn’t know any of the talking points for the only reason he’s on tour, what is he actually accomplishing?

Other than banking a paycheck beyond the wildest dreams of an unlicensed plumber’s assistant?

Ah, but everyone from Palin to Shimkus (in my neck of the woods) has gotten elected. Is JtP significantly more stupid than they are? I mean, stupid is a selling point to conservatives. It’s so much less threatening that way.

@Mnemosyne, unlicensed plumber’s assistant?

I think the catchier term is “plumber’s little helper”. But there’s not a lot of shelter to run for there.

Jeez, I would think any organization would be embarrassed to sponsor that guy as a spokesperson.

Characterizing Americans for Prosperity as an anti-labor group didn’t pan out when I went to its website.  It’s a predictable keep government-out-of-everything and lower-our-taxes kind of group, it appears.  It doesn’t even list labor relations as an issue.  A word search brought up an article where EFCA was featured from last May, but nothing since except tangential mentions. 

I’m bothered by EFCA’s features of banning of secret elections and requiring mandatory binding arbitration.  I’ve been watching this board for awhile to see if someone will address it.  This string is probably not the right vehicle.

ThresherK…ouch. Well you know, men are different today.

Reality TV has the same effect on me as watching this guy try to field questions; I wonder why the person is subjecting themselves to this kind of humiliation. Squeezing out a little bit of noteriety at the cost of a lot of dignity just does not seem worth it.

I don’t know Beam but here’s his article, which is in favor of EFCA but doesn’t say what you say it does.

http://www.slate.com/id/2213352/

The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. If at least half of the work force signed cards saying it wanted a union, there would be a union—without the rigmarole of a full-blown election.

Workers still have the option of holding a secret ballot election, of course. But, again, as a practical matter, it’s hard to imagine why a group of workers, having just won a union, would then also decide to hold an election. Sure, a smaller group of workers—it’d have to be at least 30 percent—could still petition for a secret ballot. But the legislation clearly states that “if the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations … the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative.”

(Emphasis mine)

Calling an election “rigmarole” reveals Beam’s bias on it.  The purpose of secret ballots in any context is to allow voters to vote their wishes without having to endure the displeasure of other people around them who disagree.  Characterizing the issue as one of who chooses whether to have a secret ballot is sophistry and sounds like a union talking point (it is a question repeated to Joe the Plumber in the clip above).  One’s wish to have a ballot secret is hardly secret itself if you have to petition to get it, and why would anyone after having the union certified by cardcheck petition for a secret ballot if he is going to vote for a union? 

If it is such a sure thing to win an election once over half of the workforce votes to have one, why be
so dead set against a secret ballot?

The chief argument in favor of requiring card check is that employers intimidate.  This change seems to try to solve that problem by making it easier for the unions to intimidate.

BTW that notorious right wing nut George McGovern opposes EFCA in its current form.

Dude, if you honestly believe that a non-coercive secret ballot election can take place at the average unionizing workplace, I have hundreds of billions of undervalued CDO’s to sell you.

Why in HELL do YOU think it’s in any way fair that management has any role to play in the formation of a union?

Because they represent the people who own the business.  The question is not how a union, once established, runs itself, it is whether a particular business location has a union or not.  Management shouldn’t control that decision or even have a vote, but has a role.  Once you have a union, run it as you like, use arm wrestling or primogeniture or Iowan caucus drop-a-marble-in-your-favorite-candidate’s-jar to determine officers if you like.  Secret ballots are a democratic tradition, for good reasons.  Stricter controls on coercion and requiring on-hours access are better approaches.