Sound Politics Public Blog: Far Left Walmart-Basher/U.S. Senate Candidate Ned Lamont OWNS Walmart Stock

August 04, 2006

Far Left Walmart-Basher/U.S. Senate Candidate Ned Lamont OWNS Walmart Stock

Wealthy far-left Democrat senatorial candidate Ned Lamont---challenger to U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's upcoming primary, and outspoken critic of Wal-Mart---owns Wal-Mart stock, reports the Washington Times.

Despite being sharply critical of Wal-Mart's employment practices and policies, it turns out that between Lamont, his wife and a child of theirs that the family owns up to $31,000 of the retailer's stock and enjoy a healthy annual dividend from the shares. Lamont has been engaged with Lieberman in at times what sounds like a "Who Hates Wal-Mart More?" match, in an attempt to garner support from the democrat base.

Lieberman previously accepted a political donation from Wal-Mart but subsequently returned it.

I personally have no beef with Wal-Mart, but it is staggering that Lamont would go about trying to score points with the anti-Wal-Mart democrat base while expecting to be taken seriously even after it is discovered that he OWNS the stock! Am I missing something here??

Posted by MicheleDeRouis at August 04, 2006 12:15 PM | Email This

Comments

1. It doesn't suprise me at all. It is like during the 2004 election when Kerry came out and attacked VP Chenney over his connections to Halliburton, but it was later uncovered that Kerry owns a good chunk of Halliburton stock. I also find this whole race intresting. It shows that the Anti-war left is willing to turn on any democrat that supports the President on the war in Iraq. I feel that this could actually hurt them more than they like to admit. It shows that they have no loyalty to one of their own. Sen. Lieberman has voted along party lines 90% of the time of the past 18 years and when he disagrees with them on the Iraq war they are willing to throw him overboard. I have a feeling that this will not sit to well with the American Public.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 4, 2006 03:46 PM

2. Slightly off topic, maybe someone knows the short version.

Why do mostly Dems have such a hatred for Wal-Mart? Governments around the country are passing, or trying to pass laws forcing Wal-mart to pay employees more, force Wal-Mart to have 100% health care, etc.

If the store is so crappy, why are the parking lots always full? Why do they always seem to have enough employees?

I thought that minimum wage was an entry level wage - part timers, high school kids, and such - has it always been required to be a livable wage? What is defined as livable? One person household? 2? 3? 4? more?

Does Wal-Mart pay per Washington's minimum wage law today? If so, why are some people still mad at them?

If the pay and benefits are so bad, why work there? You would think they could just go to Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, Lowes, Home Depot, Target, Penney's, Sears, Albertson's, etc.

Wal-Mart isn't union - so what? If union representation gains far better benefits for the employee, why not get a job with the company that has union representation?

Wal-Mart kills mom and pop stores - doesn't a neighborhood with a Fred Meyers, a Safeway, an Albertson's and a QFC within less than a mile do the same? Why aren't these stores attacked, boycotted and reviled?

Wal-Mart makes "too much profit" - so what? Every multi-millionaire sports "hero" and actor or actress could be accused of the same. In the end, it's still us, the public, that pays for it all.

I'm just curious. Is it really just because they aren't union and that they make a lot of money? Money that doesn't go to the unions and therefore doesn't go to the Democrat politicians?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 05:42 PM

3. I should add - "Money that doesn't go to the unions and therefore doesn't go to the Democrat politicians?" and now Democratic governments seem want to use the power of government to punish Wal-Mart...

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 05:45 PM

4. Sounds to me like you already have most the answers figured out southernroots...as for their wages I found this on their site:

Our average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage.

so it looks like it is above the minimum wage already.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 4, 2006 06:09 PM

5. TreuSoldier, if I'm close, then maybe here is the short version:

Wal-Mart = non-union = no union dues = no democrat contributions = democrats pass laws to punish Wal-Mart = more Wal-Mart GOP contributions.

Their average is even almost $2.50 higher than the new proposed federal minimum wage. Makes me wonder what the "right" wage is then.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 06:57 PM

6. SouthernRoots and TrueSoldier: While others undoubtedly know more than I about the situation, it's my understanding that because Wal-Mart is huge and succesful while trying to stay non-union AND they give lots of $$ to republican races, those are the catalyzing ingredients causing Democrat hatred and predatory legislation against the retailer. Seems to me they're thinking that if they can destroy Wal-Mart, they can put a big dent in $$$ going to republican races.

Posted by: MicheleDeRouis on August 4, 2006 07:17 PM

7. I think you hit that nail on the head Michele. The only thing that the D's are not thinking about is that Wal-Mart may just pull out of areas that pass legislation (i.e. Chicago) and take with it thousands of jobs which some voters depend on.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 4, 2006 07:30 PM

8. Michele, good point. Is that why a dem senator said we should impose a 100% windfall profits tax on the oil companies? They get all those extra billions to earmark and take away political donation money?

Government and politicians should have as little to do with businesses as possible.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 09:59 PM