With a disaster looming in less than a month Democrats and Union bosses are meeting in a Washington, D.C. hotel conference room to simplify funding of Democrat candidates.
What's emerging seems to be a plan to merge the organizations into one gigantic entity. The hope is that the new group will be able to directly fund candidates most willing to dance to union tunes without messy PAC transactions.
An attendee who spoke under condition of anonymity said a secondary goal is to structure policy in such a way that members can be directed how to vote, relieving the individuals of any need to even consider making a choice. An obstacle appears to concern the nature of sanctions that might be applied to members who "wander off the reservation" as one leader termed it. One side is suggesting that any dissident be immediately stripped of party membership. Since party and union would be one and the same then that person would be forever barred from working in his/her/its trade on any government project or, indeed, any job being performed by unionized employers. The other side wants more severe sanctions which are being termed "sanctioned with extreme prejudice".
A major complication has appeared over existing cross-memberships. Some democrats are already union members; some union members are already Democrats. Some, mostly on the union side, are affiliated with The American Communist Party (ACP) and are unwilling to give up those memberships. This has resulted in suggestions of a three-way merger but the emerging majority suggests that would be so blatantly honest as to be unacceptable.
A series of meetings will be held after November's election to move the plan forward in time to be effective in fielding DAC (Demo-Amer-Con) candidates for 2016. The Communist contingent is already insisting the new organization becalled "DACC", the final "C" acknowledging their contribution. For now the majority position seems to be that the single "C" version of the name can be read to stand for "Congress" OR "Communist" according to the proclivities of the reader. This group insists that the name follows the trend set by the former International Business Machines company which transmorgified into simply "IBM".
/sarcasm
/satire
What's emerging seems to be a plan to merge the organizations into one gigantic entity. The hope is that the new group will be able to directly fund candidates most willing to dance to union tunes without messy PAC transactions.
An attendee who spoke under condition of anonymity said a secondary goal is to structure policy in such a way that members can be directed how to vote, relieving the individuals of any need to even consider making a choice. An obstacle appears to concern the nature of sanctions that might be applied to members who "wander off the reservation" as one leader termed it. One side is suggesting that any dissident be immediately stripped of party membership. Since party and union would be one and the same then that person would be forever barred from working in his/her/its trade on any government project or, indeed, any job being performed by unionized employers. The other side wants more severe sanctions which are being termed "sanctioned with extreme prejudice".
A major complication has appeared over existing cross-memberships. Some democrats are already union members; some union members are already Democrats. Some, mostly on the union side, are affiliated with The American Communist Party (ACP) and are unwilling to give up those memberships. This has resulted in suggestions of a three-way merger but the emerging majority suggests that would be so blatantly honest as to be unacceptable.
A series of meetings will be held after November's election to move the plan forward in time to be effective in fielding DAC (Demo-Amer-Con) candidates for 2016. The Communist contingent is already insisting the new organization becalled "DACC", the final "C" acknowledging their contribution. For now the majority position seems to be that the single "C" version of the name can be read to stand for "Congress" OR "Communist" according to the proclivities of the reader. This group insists that the name follows the trend set by the former International Business Machines company which transmorgified into simply "IBM".
/sarcasm
/satire
