AFL-CIO mailers link Emmer and 35W bridge collapse
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 8:00 am
- 9 Comments
As part of its new campaign, the AFL-CIO is sending out 2.5 million mailers in 60 electoral races across the country — including one that targets Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. That mailer references the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge, which killed 13 and injured 145, and overlays it with Emmer’s voting record.
“Tom Emmer won’t fix Minnesota’s problems. He’ll make them worse,” the AFL-CIO mailer states. The federation notes that Emmer voted against funds that “may” have prevented the bridge collapse, he voted against a compensation fund for the victims of the bridge collapse, and he voted against “infrastructure improvements” after the collapse.
“He voted against fixing our bridges and when the I-35 bridge collapsed, he opposed compensating the people who got hurt.”
Here is the mailer courtesy of the Huffington Post:
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 9:04 am
And just when you thought that unions could not sink any lower, they do something like this to prove you wrong. NO CLASS
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 10:12 am
It’s about time the union movement caught up with modern Republican politics. No class my behind.
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 10:28 am
The unions are 100% right on this. There are consequences for “strangling government in a bathtub.”
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 10:53 am
More desperation by the left. Lacking any meaningful arguments, probably better off pushing the DWI scandals. But neither of these dogs will hunt.
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond – I suspect you know very little about dogs or hunting.
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Let Emmer explain voting against compensation for victims of the collapse of a bridge the state was responsible for. Good luck.
Comment posted September 21, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
I agree with you EricF, on that point. I was addressing the complaint that his votes “failed to prevent” (i.e. caused) the bridge failure.
Comment posted September 22, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond,
Nowhere in that mailing does it say “failed to prevent”. You’re quoting something that doesn’t exist. It says he voted against infrastructure infrastructure funds that “may have” prevented the collapse. Is there anything about that that is not true? Is it a false argument to say that funding for infrastructure improvements has no connection to a bridge suddenly falling?
Comment posted September 22, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t quoting directly but “failed to prevent” and even “caused” are both implied in the allegations. To suggest that “more money” (not a quote!) would have avoided the calamity is rubbish. Bureaucrats are so pathologically inept, more money may in fact have made the situation worse.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
