Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ACORN President Says Edwards an Ally in Struggle Against Poverty

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-29-07 11:40 PM
Original message
ACORN President Says Edwards an Ally in Struggle Against Poverty
ACORN President Says Edwards an Ally in Struggle Against Poverty

ACORN’s President Maude Hurd issued the following statement following publication of the New York Times front-page piece June 22, “In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008.”

Press stories that question Senator John Edwards’ commitment to ending poverty require a strong response from those of us who spend our lives in that fight. ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization working to eliminate poverty in America.

As ACORN’s president, I can personally attest that Senator Edwards has been a steadfast ally in this struggle – from raising wages to rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

One of the best ways to end poverty is to pay workers fair wages. In the summer of 2005, I traveled with Senator Edwards to cities and states across the country, launching ballot initiative campaigns to raise the minimum wage above the shamefully low $5.15 an hour.

While Senator Edwards could have chosen to do anything else with his time, he chose to spend it on the road with low-wage workers and their allies who were fighting to lift workers out of poverty. Edwards worked directly with grassroots community-faith-labor coalitions on the ground, leading rallies and press conferences to galvanize public support and working outside the spotlight to help organize support and raise funds to bring wage increase proposals to the ballot.

Last November, voters rewarded the efforts of Edwards, ACORN and our allies by resoundingly approving six state ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. As a result, more than 1.5 million of the country’s lowest-paid workers will get a raise. The ballot measures were just the most high-profile victories in a year that saw an unprecedented 17 states raise their minimum wage – many for the first time – including Edwards’ home state of North Carolina.

This movement in the states helped create the public pressure for a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, which was passed last month and will help another 12.5 million low-income workers make ends meet. In addition to his work to raise wages, Senator Edwards has made an ongoing commitment to work with ACORN and others in the struggle to rebuild the Gulf Coast and help Katrina Survivors return home.

In making poverty the defining theme of his campaign, Senator Edwards has shown his true colors. It is a sad statement that someone working not only to raise the issue of poverty, but to offer ambitious solutions and his put his feet on the ground to end it -- is attacked rather than applauded.


http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2579




Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-29-07 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. That adds a great deal of credibility to Edwards focus, as far as I'm concerned.
ACORN represents the whole spectrum of positive activism. Endorsing Edwards is quite a step and a meaningful one. K*R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-29-07 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
3. And definitely NOT an ally on civil rights
Edited on Sat Jun-30-07 12:10 AM by TechBear_Seattle
At least, not on gay civil rights. But that's acceptable, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. If you don't want to support Edwards, perhaps you could still try not to misrepresent his positions
In supporting civil unions but not marriage, Edwards doesn't seem to differ from the other D candidates. That you regard him imperfect in this regard is understandable. But it's inaccurate to claim he generally opposes civil rights for gay people.

Here, for example, are some quotes:

Let gays serve in the military

Q: Do you believe you're born gay?
A: I'm not an expert on sexual orientation. I think that there's a real possibility that people are born gay, yes.
Q: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that openly gay men and women should be able to serve in the military.
A: Yes.
Q: And you would do that as president?
A: Absolutely.

Source: Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series Feb 4, 2007




Enormous strides for gays and lesbians without gay marriage

Q: How is your stance on gay marriage moving the country forward on gay rights?

A: There are a whole group of issues on which we can move the country forward. For example, the recognition of partnership benefits, changing our immigration and adoption laws, so that they provide equality to gay and lesbian couples, a re-examination of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy with our military leadership. There are fundamental things that we still haven't done.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary Debate in Greenville SC Jan 29, 2004


Let each state decide about civil unions and gay marriage
Q: President Bush said in the State of the Union address that the Defense of Marriage Act is not strong enough to protect the institution of marriage. Would you have voted against it in 1996?

EDWARDS: Yes, because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. Massachusetts has just made a decision that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.

Q: Should other states be obliged to honor and recognize the civil union which Governor Dean signed?

EDWARDS: I think it's a decision that should be made on a state-by-state basis. I think each state should be able to make its own decision about what they embrace.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm


That his wife is stumping on gay marriage should also tell you something:

Edwardses differ on gay marriage
Candidate's wife airs views in Seattle stop

~snip~ In a brief campaign fundraising stop in Seattle, a city with one of the nation's most prominent and politically influential gay communities, she suggested that the difference between her upbringing and that of her husband, Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, accounted for her acceptance of gay marriage and his inability to do so.

"Whereas I had a more eclectic background ... and saw a lot of different lifestyles, John was raised in rural Southern mill towns and very conservative places," Elizabeth Edwards said during a news conference at the Seattle Hilton Hotel.

But she emphasized that her husband, a former senator from North Carolina and the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, "is for complete rights for gay and lesbian couples, for eliminating 1,100 federal distinctions that are made between same-sex marriage and straight marriages, and he's for rights for gay and lesbian individuals in our country."

John Edwards supports civil unions among gay couples. No major presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, has publicly endorsed gay marriage.
~snip~

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/321378_dems27.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Civil unions = Jim Crow
Sorry, but creating "straight only" marriage is NOT supporting civil rights for gay people. It is institutionalized bigotry which violates the principle set down in Brown v. Board of Education: separate is inherently unequal.

No person who supports "civil unions" supports equal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. It seems to me then you must have the same problem with all our Presidential candidates
Edited on Sat Jun-30-07 04:13 PM by struggle4progress
The comparison to Jim Crow, of course, is inappropriate, because segregation was a pervasive system of legal strictures and terror, designed to maintain an economic underclass of Southern laborers while mystifying the exploitation by forcing all discussion to occur in terms of a fictional concept, race.

But if you wanted to argue (say) that the issues in Loving v Virginia remain relevant to the discussion of gay marriage, then the following would probably be needed: (1) a certain minimum number of states actually recognizing gay marriages, and (2) a Federal judiciary that was sympathetic to the discrimination claim.

Ad (1). As far as I can tell, effective public opposition to civil unions is much less likely than effective opposition to marriage, which is why the handful of states actually moving in this direction have civil union laws. In any case, since marriage has traditionally been a state matter, if you want either civil unions or marriage, you should work at the state level to obtain it: there's no reason for a federal election to revolve around that issue. On the other hand, if your priority is elimination of existing Federal discriminations, then you should consider supporting a candidate who opposes those discriminations, and I think you should perhaps examine Edwards' stands in that light.

Ad (2). To obtain a sympathetic Federal judiciary, one needs a President who will appoint judges who take civil rights issues seriously. It should be clear that any of the current Democratic candidates are better than any of the Republicans in this regard. It seems to me that p!ssing on Democrats is unlikely help get a Democrat elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. FU, New York Times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. His Predatory-Lending Hedge Fund Was Very Helpful
As was his vote for permanent 'free' trade with China.

Good stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks for kicking this thread, Manny!
I was wondering where you were... you missed a few; you can find them here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue



for the :kick: :hi:



Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Is there a candidate running with a lower rating from the CATO institute?
As you know, Edwards was rated even more of a fair trader than Kucinich and Gephardt.

if this is your key issue, then who has a more pro fair-trade record than him?

Nobody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. Anyone who takes on poverty
Will be demonized in America.

Especially since the ascension of Reagan. Although it has long been a streak in our history, as the Gilded Age reflected.

A generation later, the dogma of so-called "free market conservatives" has run this country into the ground, and so when someone (anyone) speaks up, they are going to be attacked from many fronts.

They'll scream about the haircut, the speaking fees, the hedge funds, and any number of issue-avoiding talking points. When they lack a argument against the eradication of poverty, they will get more strident and desperate and ugly.

There will be more Coulteresque poison. More smarmy editorials. More hypocrisy, and more false dichotomies ("you can't be rich and speak out against poverty!").

So while they distract and distort, the problem continues being ignored... just like they want it to be.

Why?

Because the dogma of free-market economics, as honed by Friedman in the ivory crucible of the University of Chicago, dictates that the wealthy have earned their ill-gotten booty, and that being poor is more than just an inevitable and necessary economic outcome, it's a moral failure. This rationalization helps them keep their consciences suppressed, keeps their prejudics justified. IT keeps them feeling complacent and entitled and smug to do absolutely nothing, and feel good about doing it.

Or as they sometimes cloak it, poverty is a choice. "People choose to be poor! They need to work hard! If they just pull themselves up..." *bootstrap snaps*

When those fuckers aren't choking on Horatio Alger's Mighty Boner of Bucks, they are gargling on Ann Coulter's wart-ridden nutsack.

The biggest lie they ever sold America is that wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It is.

And when too many people have more than they will ever need in a thousand lifetimes, too many will have too little. The powerful will classically scapegoat the poor just to scare the fuck out of the shrinking middle class. A middle class edging more towards the downside of the scale, rather than the upside. And those on the upside are leveraged to the moon.

The middle class is sagging, about to fall from its own weight in debt, negligence, and a failing healthcare system and decaying infrastructure.

Wealth is a zero-sum game.

The solution isn't simply, as the free-market propgandists fear, just "socialism and redistribution of wealth". That's an important element, but far too simplistic to stand on its own, and creates its own kind of dogma only slightly less desirable than what it claims it will replace.

What is actually needed is the will to recognize free market blather for what it is, and question it at all opportunities. Its assumptions and prejudices go consistently and completely unchallenged every day, in every mass medium. Goebbels was exactly right about the power of repeating lies often enough so that they become 'truth'.

So it's not just 'the system' that needs reforming. It's our way of thinking.

Creativity which transcends ideological pigeonholes and endless theorizing. Not just reacting to what is, but re-creating it.

Not working to change things from within necessarily, but to change things from without.

The attacks against Edwards will only increase in their hysteria and stridency the more he presses forward.

Just remember though: Ayn Rand wrote for shit, about shit. Milton Friedman was a sociopathic liar. Their ideas are as rotten and decrepit as anything they ascribe to Marx. They claim allegiance to Adam Smith, whom like Marx, was a prophet destroyed by his disciples.

The bottom line, besides the Bottom Line, is that the wealthy and powerful are afraid their money and power, both of which they have in infinite surplus, will be taken away. Never mind the supreme irony inherent in that fear.

If it were only so simple as shaking them by the neck, and saying "Relax! You, the wealthy, will never be eradicated, or taxed out of existence, or regulated away!" No one is aaying they should, either. Not Edwards, especially.

So we work to eradicate poverty, not wealth. That continues to escape them as long as they are so deeply ingrained with their free-market dogma.

We work to eradicate poverty.

The creation of true wealth demands it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Edwards is being demonized right here on DU by a select group.
It makes one wonder if their motivation is consistent w/what you've posted, which, btw, is an excellent post... worthy of a thread of its own, rather than a reply post!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You mean our "auto-threadkickers" :)))
Very nice diary SB, KnR :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That would be them :)))
"auto-threadkickers"... I'll have to add that to my auto- replies! :rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. ***** KICK ***** for ZombyWoof's outstanding Post #8!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. Happy to give this a kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-30-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Me too...
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC