AFGE Congratulates Obama on Reelection

By on November 7, 2012 in Current Events with 16 Comments

American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr. issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s reelection win:

President Obama’s reelection is a victory for the nation and for all working class people.

Under President Obama’s leadership, our country rebounded from the brink of economic collapse. Job growth is up, unemployment is down, the housing market has finally turned a corner, and America’s prestige in the rest of the world has been restored.

We campaigned vigorously for President Obama’s reelection, so obviously we are very pleased that voters gave the president another four years to continue what he’s started.

Now that the election is over, we look forward to working with the president and our elected representatives in Congress to pursue a legislative agenda that protects and preserves our vital government services and programs and recognizes the substantial sacrifices that federal employees and agencies already have made toward reducing the deficit.

© 2016 All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. AKFed says:

    Regardless of how we feel about the outcome of the election, the fact is the people have spoken. Our duty as citizens does not stop now that the election is over, now we have the responsibility to insist our elected representatives put partisan politics aside and work together to resolve the issues facing our country. If we cannot find a way to bridge our differences this country is doomed to failure.
    Hopefully both parties took away lessons from this election. The Democrats should have learned that if they wish to capture the vote of the middle class, that although the majority of us support a social safety net, we do not do so at the expense of our economy.
    The GOP needs to realize that the social fabric of this nation has changed and that despite claiming to be the party of smaller government, they need to get out of the private business of citizens. They would be far better served by focussing on fiscal responsibility. This is no longer a country of angry white men.

  2. rickaroo says:

    The Union supporting Obama is exactly why I quit the Union and refuse to give them another penny of my money.  If they think for a minute that Obama has their back, they better think again…wait until the big RIF comes…see how much your President and the Union helps you.

    • AFGEpres says:

        I can see how you are soo much better off without the union. Obama is still the president regardless. As far as a RIF is concerned please note two things. 1) The union is involved in reducing adverse impact, and 2) it would have happened much sooner under Romney.

      • Badfed says:

        AFGEpres–Mystic and seer.  Union dupe that can predict the future!  All hail Comrade AFGEpres, dear leader!
        2) it would have happened much sooner under Romney. 

        • AFGEpres says:

           Yes, resort to personal attacks, you learned that on FOX News, no doubt. Go back and check the record. I see no challenge matching wits with a mental midget. Come back when you have something of substanced to discuss.

  3. NoDonkey says:

    Super, four more years of failure and blame.  Can’t wait. 

    • AFGEpres says:

       do you even get it that fact you are saying this means you are in the moinority?  This is one of the hazards of living in a democracy, I suppose, EVERYONE gets a say in who our leader is. I hear they have much less turnover in North Korea, Cuba and China than they do in America. Four more years knowing that change will occur afterwards is fine by me.

      • msgrowan says:

        That assumes that we can easily survive another four years of major domestic and foreign policy failures.   In a democracy, with all of its “hazards,” precisely because “EVERYONE gets a say in who our leader is,” minorities can evolve into majorities – and vice versa – in a free society, as, for example, happened between 2004 and 2008.  This is one of the fundamantal  benefits of our open political system.   (This recalls to mind Churchill’s saying that democracy is a very poor form of goverment – until you consider the alternatives.)  But such evolution takes time, which we may be short of, given the horrendous challenges facing the nation.

        • grannybunny says:

          We’ll survive and — if we can break the gridlock in the House of Representatives — even thrive.

          • msgrowan says:

            The gridlock you speak of will not be resolved by changes in the House alone.  Both sides displayed intransigence in the period leading up to the election and will need to moderate their partisan “inner child” in the interest of compromise and accommodation – whether they want to or not.  This is inevitable in the face of the comfortable majorities both sides maintain in the House and Senate respectively.  Hopefully, the President has also “grown” in his first term and will also contribute to the required bipartisan dialogue.  Whether we will eventually “thrive” or not depends on both parties putting the national interest ahead of narrow partisan interests and moving beyond the kid-like name calling and playground level taunting  level of discourse that characterized much of the recent campaign.

        • AFGEpres says:

              So far we have “survived” 236 years of all kind of failures. As a nation we have been attacked by enimies both foreign and domestic, yet we press on. After all this time government OF the people, By the people, and FOR the people continues to exist. I prefer home grown quotes, so “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. “Abraham Lincoln

          • msgrowan says:

            I would in general agree with the thrust of your latest post.  However, in a technical sense, Lincoln’s quote regarding the need for consent of the governed is actually not the way that the American representative democratic process works.  “The majority rules” is the name of the game, and the minority are expected to acquiesce (a very different and passive form of action rather than actively consenting)  either cheerfully or not in the result.  I did not support the President’s re-election bid; yet though I did not give my “consent,” I will therefore (not so) cheerfully acquiesce in /defer to the majority’s choice.  For better or for worse, he is my President, and I will support him when I believe his policies are supportable.  On a minor issue, to be picky, in quoting – without direct attribution – an excerpt from Lincoln’s pithy yet immortal Gettysburg Address, you, like many others, misplace his emphasis.  Lincoln in speaking actually put his emphasis on the word “people” three times, rather than the introductory terms “of,” “by” and “for,” which I think clearly strengthens the point he was making.   It’s to be seen if the newly released movie on Lincoln will right this minor historical error.

          • AFGEpres says:

             The American process is exactly the same today as it was in Lincoln’s Day. The electoral college. The stengths and weakenesses of this system have been debated for many decades, yet it is thew same as it was when Lincoln was elected. Please do not try to minimize what is, and has been the only way we have elected presidents of this nation since it’s inception. Because of this process, we do “consent” to be governed by whomever wins the election. Then we do it again every four years. It is what has made this experiment in democracy a success. Though it has been often copied, it rarely has been duplicated by other nations seeking what we have taken for granted.
             Regarding the emphasis of Lincoln’s quote in the Gettysburg address, the emhasis was mine, however it does not materially change the point he was making. The person in leadership is responsible and accountable to those who elect him/her. Whatever majority that may be.

          • msgrowan says:

            We’ll agree to disagree on the semantics.

          • AFGEpres says:

            We agree.