By Peter Andrew ConservativeAmerican.org
Talk Radio for your PC
ConservativeAmerican.org Exclusive Report
Another Amazing Flip-Flop from the Left. Wal-Mart used to be bad, but all of the sudden Wal-Mart is good! President Obama has gone from saying he wanted to “force” Wal-Mart to “re-examine its corporate values,” to being a fan of the company he has personally profited from. That’s because Wal-Mart now is backing at least part of Obama’s socialist healthcare plan!
Remember when Democrats used to hate Wal-Mart? Barack Obama even made fun of HIllary Clinton for her ties to the ‘evil’ company on his own website. Click here to check it out!
The democrat-socialists loved to talk about how the big evil corporationwas putting small companies out of business and hurting Mom and Pop. They loved to blast Wal-Mart for being a non-democrat-party-union employer. They loved to downplay positive employment numbers when they came out saying that they were all “just Wal-Mart” jobs.
Hillary Clinton got in huge trouble, from her present boss and others, over her ties to Wal-Mart. From Common Dreams in 2006 came this news story:
With retailer Wal-Mart under fire for its labor and healthcare policies, one Democrat with ties to the company, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has started feeling her share of the political heat.
Hillary Clinton had kind words for Wal-Mart as recently as 2004, when she told an audience at the convention of the National Retail Federation that her time on the board ”was a great experience in every respect.”
But in recent months, as the company has become a target for Democratic activists, she has largely steered clear of any mention of Wal-Mart. And late last year, Clinton’s reelection campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing ‘’serious differences with current company practices.”
As Clinton sheds her Arkansas past and looks ahead to a possible 2008 presidential run, the Wal-Mart issue presents an exquisite dilemma: how to reconcile the political demands she faces today with her history at a company many consumers depend upon but many Democratic activists revile.”The interesting question is not just Hillary Clinton’s history at Wal-Mart, but why it’s delicate for her to talk about Wal-Mart,” said Charles Fishman, author of ”The Wal-Mart Effect,” a book on the company’s impact on the national economy. ”Plenty of Democrats denounce Wal-Mart, but there are also plenty of people who need it, love it and rely on it.”So while Hillary ran from the company and Obama blasted her during the campaign for her ties to Wal-Mart, miraculously Wal-Mart is not the bad guy anymore!
Suddenly Team Obama and the Democrats like Wal-Mart because the CEO says Obama’s insurance mandate is a good idea! From BizTimes Daily:
President Barack Obama picked up a key endorsement for his plan to reform the American health care system Tuesday (6/30/09) when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. told the White House that it supports requiring large employers to provide health insurance to workers. The support of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, could give momentum to Obama’s intentions of providing insurance coverage to 46 million uninsured Americans. Small businesses would be exempted from the proposed requirement.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposed to such a mandate, saying it would prompt companies to cut jobs, lower wages and possibly drive them out of business.
Wal-Mart on Tuesday delivered a letter to Obama, taking a different stance.
“We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage,” said the letter, signed by Wal-Mart chief executive officer Mike Duke. Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, also signed the letter, along with John Podesta, who led Obama’s transition team and is chief executive of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank.
Why mention that the democrat party’s service employees international union supports the democrat party position? Isn’t that obvious? Who cares? They are a fully owned subsidiary of the party. Also, is it a big surprise or news to report that Podesta and his liberal stink tank support it?
Democratic Underground notes that Barack Obama has his own ties to Wal-Mart, and has personally profited because of those ties, despite the fact he was part of the Wal-Mart bashing crowd. From their report:
Michelle Obama…She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.
And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognize trade unions.
As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a “moral responsibility to stand up and fight” the company and “force them to examine their own corporate values”.
According to the couple’s tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse’s board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama’s political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife’s profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by “opposition” research teams working for rival White House candidates, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
It never fails to amaze me how the democrat-socialists will turn on a dime, or change positions in a heart beat for political gain. It’s one of the central differences between the liberal extremists and traditional Conservative Americans.