Edwards: Organized labor is the key

Source: Iowa City Press Citizen

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Edwards: Organized labor is the key

Attendees impressed with candidate's speech

By Rob Daniel
Iowa City Press-Citizen

CORALVILLE -- Labor unions will play a key part in expanding the American middle class, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Saturday.

"If we want to strengthen and grow the middle class, ... the organized labor component is critical for that," said Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina.

The comments, part of a 15-minute address before about 75 state union leaders, came at the Iowa Change to Win conference on Saturday at Northwest Junior High. The conference was a meeting for a consortium of seven labor unions.

Edwards, who later spoke at a town hall meeting at the Johnson County Fairgrounds and appeared without wife, Elizabeth Edwards, said labor unions provided workers a voice in the workplace. He advocated for the banning of the hiring of permanent replacements for striking workers and said workers should be able to unionize without opposition from businesses.


Read more: http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070617/NEWS01/706170317/1079

but interviewers need to start asking him about the Patriot Act.

It was his part in getting that passed that has cost him my wholehearted support.

Still, it's nice hearing from a pro choice candidate who realizes that 80% of the voting public has done very poorly since the liberals went out of power in 1969.

As for the Patriot Act, Edwards wrote the Sunset Clause. He got that clause in there.

We have a candidate talking about the importance of organized labor. It's a hugely important issue that been skimmed over in recent elections. Unions have been getting a bad rap in this country for a long time. When Ford closed plants, it was blamed on the unions. There was no blame on Ford making inferior products compared to other car companies.

But, you don't even want a democratic candidate out there campaigning for union workers? You'd rather screw all those union workers who are losing their jobs because you don't want John Edwards out there championing their cause? You'd rather Edwards only discussed the Patriot Act to the detriment of millions of hard working Americans. It's a really narrow minded approach to politics.

If Edwards is out there fighting for union workers that means Clinton, Obama, et al have to enter the debate as well. That makes our party stronger. You don't have to like or support Edwards, but i hope you will see how his campaign is helping the cause--assuming you support organized labor.

Edwards has some questions that need answering about his support for the Patriot Act.

After all, I said his economic rhetoric was correct.

It's not an all or nothing proposition. I'm sure he can talk about both issues.

I understand what you're saying now.

and organize in both areas and industries where it has not gone before. Only 8% of American labor is organized now.

And of course, John is from North Carolina-a "right to work" state with a long history of union busting in furniture and textiles. Both industries fast leaving the state.

Woot! :applause: Organized labor and education! Keys! Drive on doll!

Then why did he vote for permanent 'free' trade with China? (And both bamkruptcy bills, etc.)

He did?

Links?

He was not in the Senate for the most recent bankruptcy bill, and in fact wrote to his email list at the time asking his supporters to write their Congress people and oppose it.

He only had the opportunity to vote for one no-predatory-lender-left-behind bankruptcy bill.

Not two.

The permanent trade with China has decimated this country. For that, he needs to be held accountable. All of the current Democratic candidates suck (at least their voting records in the 90s do) and need to be held accountable by the public. I've said it before a million times: weak-kneed centrists likes do not have the spine to do what's necessary to solve (or at least soften the subsequent chaos and damage) the dire problems facing this country and planet in the years to come. We know this because they've proven it when they were in power for 8 years. None of them are truly on the side of the economic majority.

New blood is necessary for new results. And I'm not talking about Obama.

With weakened unions, there's less enforcement of illegal employment laws. With less enforcement, businesses small and large pocket the profits from their illegal labor while screwing you and having more money to continually erode the unions on the legal, legislative, and lobbying fronts. They get rich, South and Central Americans get exploited, and the knuckle-dragging rednecks who can't think the problem through vote for the very people who created the situation in the first place.

Exactly as Saint Ronnie intended.

:thumbsup:

Edwards gets it.

withdrawal from NAFTA (and ALL "Free Trade" Treaties) and the IMF.
There is no midle of the road solution.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

He has researched well and prepared a plan for each issue. I don't agree with the details of each of his plans, but at least he has done his homework. With congressional input, the plans can be worked into really good law.

I have not yet picked a candidate to work for, but I have leaned toward Edwards from the beginning.

The question is: Can Edwards win?

Clinton is ahead in the polls in terms of approval ratings. The problem for her is that she is also way out there with her negative ratings. Personally, I think that her negative poll ratings pretty much mean she cannot win a national race. In addition, if she is the candidate, she will have to deal with her past, and worse yet, Bill Clinton's past. Every mistake Bill made, real and imagined, will be thrown at Hillary. Just having to respond to the rotten tomatoes will disable her campaign. Personally, I think her nomination is a ticket to four more years of Republicans.

Obama has charisma. He speaks very well -- in broad terms. He seems to be creating policy positions on the fly -- literally -- as he campaigns. He is not really prepared for a national campaign. And he has no experience in a national campaign. We don't know all the skeletons in his closet, but, just thus far, it appears that there are some. My instinct tells me there is more to come. A lot of the accusations and rumors that Republicans will throw his way will be completely untrue. Thus far, Obama has appeared to be a little surprised by the negative stories spread about him. He needs to spend a lot more time reviewing his past and dealing with errors he may have made, jealous people who would love to get revenge and all the other issues that arise in a national campaign. I like him very much, but he is not ready for a national campaign. If he has led a very pure life and not made any enemies, he might survive the Swiftboaters that will come his way. I don't think he has the organization, self-knowledge or experience to imagine what he and his family are likely to face in a national campaign. Some old boy- or girlfriend could come forward. You never know. Some business deal. A family friend who committed suicide. Just think what happened to Clinton and Kerry. Obama needs to talk to everyone he has ever known and then some to find out where he may have problems he never thought of. Unless he does that, chances are he will just be destroyed in a national campaign.

Edwards has been through a national campaign. He is a trial lawyer who is used to learning voraciously about the subject matter of the cases he has tried. He has probably developed an amazing capacity for mastering trivial details as well as the big picture. That is what trial lawyers do. And he has been a good one. He has spent four years thinking about his positions on the issues. His understanding and knowledge of the issues is probably amazing. His enemies are down to criticizing his wealth and his vanity. Those seem to be his two soft spots. Trouble is, any Republican he goes up against is likely to be at least as wealthy as Edwards and to have acquired the wealth through a far less transparent and honest means. As for vanity and his natural good looks -- the only "pretty" Republican is Romney. So the Republicans will probably go after that. Edwards' strategy seems to be to present himself honestly warts and all. It is very difficult to Swiftboat a guy who is totally himself and not relying on an exaggerated image of himself to win over the public. But, he probably needs to find ways to counter the claims of "pretty boy" and "vain" that he will face. That should not be difficult. He can just deal with them with humor -- self-deprecating humor if necessary. The ability to laugh at yourself pretty much destroys an accusation that you are vain.

Edwards has tasted defeat and come out knowing what his values are -- family, friends and his core beliefs. I really like him more and more. I think he has discovered the secret to defeating Karl Rove -- not relying on your purported "strengths" to win an election but rather relying on your message and just being yourself. He should just continue to admit his mistakes and failings and focus on what he can do with and for others.

A political analyst that I know has stated that Edwards can't win because the middle class won't go for a candidate who runs on poverty and helping the poor as an issue. I agree. That is a problem. Edwards appears now to be moving toward a message with wider appeal. Labor unions are just about the only way left through which people whose jobs in industry are being jeopardized by outsourcing (especially to China) can ensure that they remain or find their ways back into the middle class. The currency imbalance between the U.S. and China is the only thing keeping working Americans in the middle class. Adjust the prices of Chinese goods to reflect the true relative currency valuation, and Walmarts will be empty all around the U.S. In other words, the illusion of a middle class life for most Americans hangs on the very thing that is destroying our industrial and service their middle class jobs -- the out of kilter valuation of the Chinese currency. Edwards speaks to the answer -- trade unions. Trade unions are the only way that working people can speak out and lobby for equal opportunity in the world market including a gradual adjustment in currency and trade regulation disparities that even the playing field for American workers.

At this point, I see Edwards as the candidate who can win, and his current emphasis on unions makes his win all the more likely.

Hillary is not to be trusted on the union issue. Bill signed too many agreements that hurt American unions. She will spout the same rhetoric as Edwards, but she will not put her money where her mouth is on this issue if elected.

Edited to apologize for the rambling. It felt good.

reasons stated above. I'm not willing to take a chance on the other two, we must get it right this time. America cannot afford another republican president.

The media's just focusing on Hillary because she's a woman (with a close connection to a former president--just as Dubya was during the '00 campaign), and Obama because he's black. The media's area of expertise is to gloss over details and reduce journalism to the level of Entertainment Tonight, and this campaign is no exception. The media attention is why these two candidates are leading in the polls (but you'll notice Edwards has been hot on their heels all along).

Once Edwards wins Iowa, that will make him newsworthy--then the media attention will raise John Q. Public's attention, and Edwards will start getting the overall poll numbers he deserves.

Go, Johnny, go! :yourock: :applause:

is that they are being thrown together so fast that I dont see how they could be even close to accurate. The sampling numbers are very low.The only purpose they serve is to give the corporate media's so called political experts something to included in their rhetoric.
When the dust clears I think Edwards will be our nominee (at this point) but for me I'm still waiting for that candidate to enter the race like a Gore, Kerry,or a Bradley type......

we are being BOMBARDED with POLLS that mean nothing at this point in time. I just ignore them myself. IMO, as time goes by regardless of ALL the negativity here at DU I think Edwards will be the one who may very well be very very close to being the nominee!

As you stated he HAS done his homework and from my vantage point HAS learned from past mistakes and is willing to learn and take advice from others. Of late he's been willing to take on some tough issues and take a stand when others want to wait and see how the wind is blowing.

No, he's not perfect and he's made mistakes.... but then THEY ALL HAVE! Because of so many attacks to him I won't list the reasons why I support him, but I will say I think his heart is in the right place. Because money is what keeps the machine oiled, I'm sure he's had to make some decisions to keep the "MACHINE" running so he can stay in the game and compete/

Clinton has so many "corporate" connections it's hard to overcome that hurdle. I like Obama, but I would prefer him as a VP first. My intuition tells me that some of the "stars" at the moment won't be shining as brightly this time next year!

But I COULD be wrong... I make mistakes too!

I agree with you.

Hell, if need be, I wil even suck it up and vote for Hillary if necessary, but I'll have to bring a barf bag to the polls with me just so I don't mess up their polling booth.

belong to a Union! Had it not been for the Union my husband belonged to we would never have been able to afford to save much money and have affordable health care.

I realize that Unions come with some negative baggage, but compared to non-union corporations and companies, I'll take the Union route any day!! Unless we have Unions, Americans will be sacrificed more and more each and every day! Take a look around... it's hard to find a good paying job for those people who can't afford to go to college, and even then those in college are having a hard time too!

and people's rights? what exactly are these things?

my husband worked for GTE that changed to Verizon so I guess that's why we had access to a Union.

GTE was MUCH better than Verizon though!

All three of them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nPeWSpB_7w4
(A public service announcement with guitar)
:headbang:

NOT!!!!! :mad:

I used to be a slave--I mean, worker--in Arizona back in the 1980's. It sucked to the max. :puke:

I don't think it's a coincidence that the middle class started shrinking and wages stagnating when unions started to decline. Let's face it, the only way we little guys are going to get anywhere with the big guys is by joining forces. Collective bargaining is our best bet for a stronger middle class.

Well, that's my opinion...

John Edwards, Mr. President....

Edwards Obama

Edwards Clinton

Edwards Clark

Edwards..??

Clark would be best as secretary of defense. Hillary would be best going back to New York and continuing to pretend she's a real New Yorker...or even a real Democrat. :mad:

I'll be able to cross the river to volunteer before the Iowa caucus. Nebraska Democrats will have a caucus a few weeks later instead of the May primary. Make no mistake, I'll back the person that gets the party's nomination.

If the state has the power to ban businesses hiring replacement workers, what is the point of a union? There would be no need for one since there would be no risk in the action taken collectively. There would no longer even be a need for collective action, except against the state, although I'm sure the state wouldn't want that type of opposition.

Not to mention that it's not going to help anything to do it only in this country. You have to get China and India and Mexico and every other country to do the same, yesterday.

I'm no free market capitalist. I despise corporations, and if they all were to go away today, I could sleep better. But to accomplish anything out of this, you have to do it on a global scale, and hope that corporate power doesn't fight back, in any way.

to the average "working Jo or Jane."

and I just hope his money holds out.

It's refreshing to hear a candidate talk about labor unions and I'm grateful for my union membership with its job protections, health benefits and a real pension for my retirement. Union membership still encompasses a lot of Americans. Can you imagine a Republican candidate talking about unions?

I have a lot of respect for John Kerry and I supported him as the nominee but I felt Edwards was the only Democrat that had a real shot at stopping Bush in '04. Our party must be careful not to nominate a candidate who may polarize voters. I feel Edwards is the complete package.

They are starting to reiterate Carville's "it's the economy, stupid"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19210158/

Edwards has been leading that field now for more time then Clinton and Obama put together. Edwards is platforming on issues, not name brand or charisma.

He's pointing at the side not reported. That is important.
Bush & Co. take every chance to point at 4-5% unemployment
and leave it at that. But that's not telling the full story.
Many of the mills that went overseas left workers with these
very specific skill sets not applicable to other jobs. They'd
found new work near the bottom of the ladder. Taking 2-3 jobs
to try and replace the lost income. Seeing pensions go with a
job they had, and realizing they'd do those 2-3 jobs til they
die. This is the new reality, the huge undercurrent. This is
reflected also in the stagnant wages. My local paper, in the
mid 90s, would advertise customer service jobs at $12 - $13
per hr. Now the same jobs have $8-$9 w/ exclamation points
after them like that's supposed to be amazing. Since many
have also gone overseas there's no need to pay more here.
We've an administration that rewards exporting jobs, we
have a congress that hasn't stopped it and we have the
public unaware. Too caught up in invented or incited
terrorism, who's marrying who, and Brittany's hair.
Corporations controlling everything keeps folks in
this stupor, missing the 'elephant' in the room...

This ties into illegal immigration. It's the one point I bump
heads with many fellow Democrats about. In the mid 80s we had
heard them say 'give those here amnesty, and seal the border
so we won't have to do this again in 20 years'. Well, here we
are 20 years later. Democrats need to go back to work for the
working class here. They will suffer the most if this sort of
'near slavery' type of 'guest worker' amnesty program wins it.

Then the 2-3 jobs that mill worker struggles at for $9 an hour
will drop to minimum wage. Why? Because they can. If he does
not like it, he can go, they've got tons of 'guest workers'
to hire in his place, and it's likely they'll be able to
get a few of them in below minimum wage anyway. They do
it now, this plan will just make it far worse and the
knowledge of this 'new plan' will cause a flood over
the border of 'new workers looking to sign up' like
we've never seen. This is fucking crazy. Anyone as
a citizen legally of this country who wants to do
40-60 hours of hard work deserves a living wage.