Wingers Now Admit Employee Free Choice Act Doesn't Eliminate Secret Ballots After All-- After 3 Years Of Lying About It!

Although the Republican talking points laid out for Republican members of Congress by Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck, claiming that the poor caused the housing crisis have been thoroughly discredited and debunked, it took the editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal to finally lay to rest the equally false Limbaughism that the Employee Free Choice Act would end the secret ballot in the workplace.

In a piece titled "Unionize or Die," the conservative, business-friendly scribes of the Journal admit that the legislation will not eliminate the secret ballot but rather allow workers to choose between that or a majority-sign up election to unionize.

"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act," reads the editorial, "but in practice makes it a dead letter."

That's quite the stark admission from Big Business' own newspaper-- especially when you consider that even if it was Limbaugh who got the ball rolling, it was the Wall Street Journal that gave the lie some degree of intellectual credibility and made it "ok" for hacks and propagandists to repeat it (virtually non-stop) on cable TV. It's a shame the Journal didn't admit Employee Free Choice didn't eliminate secret ballots before they wrote that "Democrats in the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that rewrites the rules for union organizing by eliminating secret-ballot elections" two years ago, or "Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s" last October, or "Big Labor's drive to eliminate secret ballots for union elections has united American business in opposition" last week.

I have an idea for them. Perhaps they should hire an ombudsman, someone who always gets everything just right. Well, maybe someone who occasionally gets part of something right. Like Michael Steele! He's going to be looking for a new job soon. In fact the GOP's embedded propagandist at Politico penned what sounds like a eulogy for the befuddled and besieged RNC Chairman-- whose only sign of doing anything remotely useful at the RNC is redecorating his office:

To me, the real question is not whether the Republican Party should find itself another chairman but whether the chairman should find himself another party.

I am finding it difficult to discern exactly what wing of his party Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, represents.

In recent weeks, Steele has said that abortion is a matter of “individual choice,” that Rush Limbaugh is “incendiary” and “ugly,” that homosexuality is not a matter of choice but of nature, that the party needs a “12-step program” and that people “have absolutely no reason-- none-- to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

There is a name for people who believe these things. They are called "Democrats."

As one would expect, Steele has gotten into terrible trouble with Republicans for saying a lot of this and, according to the Washington Post, he has “called a halt to his television appearances and curtailed national media interviews.”

Unfortunately, a major part of Steele’s job is being the “voice” of the Republican Party, and it is very hard to be a voice when you are spending a major part of your time shutting up.

Well, let the Republicans, Limbaughists and Wall Street Journal editorialists work on their obstructionist stratagems while the rest of us concentrate on cleaning up the mess they made, and figuring out how to prevent them from doing it again. I hope this helps: