SEARCH
AFL-CIO Holds Off on Presidential Endorsement |
|
 |
|
On the last day of its summer meeting in Chicago, the AFL-CIO Executive Council agreed that several of the Democratic presidential candidates “have the experiences and credentials to lead our nation” but will not endorse a candidate at this time. The move enables individual unions to endorse or not during the 2008 primaries.
In a statement approved this morning, following last night’s AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum that drew 17,000 union family members to Chicago’s Soldier Field, the council issued a statement saying “the Democratic candidates are strong on the issues most central to working people’s lives.”
Nonetheless, continued engagement with them is essential to promote full understanding of workers’ difficulties and dreams. It is clear that a number of the Democratic candidates have the experience and the credentials to lead our nation. And it is equally clear that our members support a number of the candidates—many union members have told us all the candidates are impressive and they are eager to support many of them.
The council says the AFL-CIO will continue the Working Families Vote 2008 mobilization and education campaign in coming months, to give union members the opportunity to learn more about the candidates and a chance for the candidates to hear from working families. In addition, the council pledged that unions
will focus on preparations for the greatest involvement ever by working voters in the crucial 2008 elections.
Says AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:
The issues affecting our nation’s working families took front and center last night. We will make absolutely sure that the spotlight remains on working people’s concerns, like good jobs, affordable health care, and the freedom to join and form unions to improve their lives.
The AFL-CIO will not issue an endorsement now—in 2004 the AFL-CIO issued its endorsement for John Kerry in February—but each of the AFL-CIO-affiliated unions is free to endorse candidate for the caucuses and primaries, and the council encourages
all the unions to focus on promoting working families’ issues in the national debate and preparing for the most important national elections in our lifetimes.
In other action today, the council honored the decade-long leadership of retiring National Labor College (NCL) President Sue Schurman. More than 1,000 union members have earned their Bachelor of Arts degrees and thousands more have taken courses at the Silver Spring, Md., campus, which have helped them become activists, staff and leaders in the labor movement.
25 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If labor means what it says than the only canditate that should be endorsed would be Dennis Kusinich. But wait————
Fellow Workers,
I watched the forum. The AFL-CIO did a great job. It got a lot of attention from C-Span who ran it again. The AFL-CIO needs to do more of this in order to brings workers issues to the general public.
And also from the right-wing. Bill O’Reilly said it was a meeting of the “far left.” Rush Limbaugh is not a very good union member. He doesn’t even know much about his own pension benefits. He critized the disabled retiree who spoke about his pension. The day will come when O’Reilly and Limbaugh will be too old to work. After making careers sitting behind a microphone ranting about government, I wonder if they will send back any benefits they received from government?
I agree with Mother Jones Ghost. If we endorse candidates based on the issues, then Kusinich should get the endorsement.
Sen. Clinton is too weak on trade. We need to urge Clinton to add some teeth to her position on trade.
At the very least, Kusinich or Edwards should get the Labor Secretary’s job.
I totally agree, Mother Jones Ghost. Labor must endorse the ONLY true Labor candidate, Dennis Kucinich! Why endorse a any other candidate who has no intention whatsoever to get rid of NAFTA and the WTO. We all saw the debate, every single one of them, with the exception of Congressman Kucinich, went on about “fixing” or “reforming” it. It doesn’t take genius to figure out that these other candidates are all in bed with special interest groups, be hey lobbyists or some other form of corporate influence, which of course LOVE NAFTA and the WTO, all at the expense of Labor and the working calss of this country. Please do NOT endorse anyone but him. Do the right thing. They used to say that Carter and Clinton were both unelectable, and look where they ended up. We need the right person in the White House — Dennis Kucinich!
In response to “Mother Jones Ghost” I offer a reminder of candidate endorsement rule #1
The candidate must be viable. Kucinich is far from viable.
to pek3234, Kucinich would be viable *if* we all had a little more integrity and voted how we actually believed. we are our own worse enemy when it comes to political elections…. we need to throw the word electability out of our dictionary.
Union members who vote Republican are our worst enemy.
Naturally some of the Democratic Candidates are more Liberal than others but “Any” of them deserve our support.
I agree that Kucinich is the best candidate. It’s hard to believe that the labor movement isn’t doing everything we can to make him a viable candidate.
He’s right on every issue that concerns working Americans.
pek would have us believe that only corporate funded big money hacks are ‘viable’. Why let the mainstream media and the money primary hijack democracy and decide for us who is electable?
Kucinich would be instantly viable if the AFL-CIO endorsed him!
But it will never happen because the federation is conservative and will play it safe, even if it means selling out rank and file workers and getting in bed with Ms. Clinton.
Dodd, Richardson and Biden are good examples of candidates who are not credible and not electable. They have nothing to offer and should be booed off the stage and disinvited from future debates,
The main thing is SECURITY as these are unusual times. Since the working families are the backbone of any nation, security starts right here in the USA by protecting our jobs and pay. Whenever there is a big surge of jobs, there seems to be a big surge of less pay. I hope the next president is aware of job losses to foreign countries and job losses with American Companies no longer being here in the USA. These companies that move elswhere then are no longer Americans. I’m still waiting for a strong leader who will not sell out America.
I felt great seeing no endorsement as doing so is only party politics and not what is good forthe country. It is time for Labor to support the candidate and not the party or the Council on Foreign Relation (secret government).
America and labor need to be freed from the course this country has taken. If you have not heard of Ron Paul, I suggest you visit ronpaul2008.com and check out his record and what he stands for - Freedom and Liberty! There is but one candidate that will return America back to the Constitution, and again, that is Ron Paul.
Most of you will ignore this writing but if you want a future for your grandchildren and their grandchildren you will take a few minutes to see why I am so convinced.
Yes, absolutely. Dennis Kucinich is the most respectable, honest, and dependable candidate to make sure worker/union rights do not slide backwards. And Amandajm is absolutely right that “electability” needs to be thrown out. It is becoming a dirty word. It compromises the true spirit of the election (all elections) by making it a popularity pageant instead of choosing the best person for the position. If you want to be heard, email your local unions and tell them you want them to support Dennis!
Amandajm is absolutely right, that “electability” should be thrown out. It has become a terrible word. People are not endorsing/supporting/voting for the candidate that most reflects their personal needs and goals. Dennis Kucinich unarguably will make worker/union rights a priority. Hillary Clinton, while she may be well meaning, will not do that. Just check her track record.
If you really want Dennis to get more support email your local union and tell them so, just a quick short email is all you need. If enough of you speak, you might be surprised that someone may actually listen.
Dennis Kucinich is the TRUE Democrat of the pack. Clinton, although I liked her in the past, that quickly has faded, with her lobbyist interest and dollars from the health care industry and the fact she is a turn coat, a former Republican. She is too chummy with Rupert Murdoch and his cronies.
Kucinich, a card carrying union member, needs the support from labor. If not President, he would make a good vice-president. That will really get his feet wet for a future Presidential run. I think his HR 676 would become a reality, his pledge to get out of NAFTA would happen.
Obama, needs to get more experience. He could really shine in the future.
Richardson, has alot of experience, diplomatic skills, and who knows, another vice-preident candidate?
Edwards, another I like, is the politician who talks the talk but will he remember us if he gets in the White House?
AFL-CIO holding off to endorse Clinton. The Clinton’s supported the sucking sound called NAFTA. Want more of the same, go ahead and endorse Clinton.
You’re right, Kucinich is probably the best pick of the total lot but he will never win an election. Go ahead through your endorsement away.
Take Edwards. Go to http://www.youtube.com and watch John Edwards + Polar Bear Song under “News and Politics”
Viable and electable? By whose standards? Brothers and sisiters I am very tired of the media and political gossipers conducting “straw polls” and comparing campaign chests deciding elections. I will vote for the democrat who wins the primary but will do it holding my nose. I think Kucinich should be endorsed because he has ALWAYS belived in the ideas he talks about in addition to writing and sponsoring same in Congress. How many of the other candidates can make that claim-ZERO. BTW NAFTA is killing or maybe has killed the American labor movement. Wildly endorsed by Clinton/Gore. Lesser of two evils?
With no endorsement coming from the AFL-CIO Executive Council, it’s like handing our endorsement to Sen. Clinton…and the rank-in-file all know that. What does it matter if the Locals and Internationals split their support? Our voice is effective only when we speak as one. Clinton has a double-digit lead over her next closest opponent. If Labor doesn’t weigh in with one of her opponents now, before the Primaries, Clinton will walk away with the Democratic nomination. At that point, Labor will be married to her because all the Republican options are catastrophic. The worst part is: she knows it. I like Kucinich the best, no question. Edwards is my second choice; not because he isn’t good for Labor…but because he’s not as good as Kucinich would be. However, Labor can all speak with one voice for Kucinich and still not deliver him the nomination. Therefore; that makes Edwards my first choice, although my logical reasoning doesn’t seem to have any persuasive effect upon my wife. (She’s informed me that all the women are voting for Clinton.) We might be able to make a difference for Edwards, though. Clinton’s husband screwed Labor with NAFTA which led to CAFTA which will lead to FTAA. He also shafted us with PNTR for China. Bill Bradley had Gore on the ropes early on in the Presidential Primaries in 2000. The AFL-CIO had no problem making an early endorsement for Gore back then. Even though, Gore had not committed to fight against PNTR for China. Sen. Clinton was on the cover of Fortune magazine because she is in favor of globalization, just like her husband. Oh well, at least she’s for the Employee Free Choice Act. With that, we might be able to organize the service industry, but the Executive Council has abandoned the future of union life in the manufacturing sector. I want to hear what Trumpka has to say about all this. You gonna tough the line of the establishment or assert yourself as worthy of leading Labor?
I went to a fundraiser in North Carolina where John Edwards talked about the importance of unions in a room full of people who were not at all pro-union. Considering he was wanting these people to write big checks, this was a courageous stand. This showed me beyond any doubt that he is honest. He stands by his beliefs. And another important thing about Edwards is that he can pursuade people to change their minds. I have seen him do it. When he explains that standing up for unions is the same thing as standing up for families and for a strong middle class, it makes sense to people. Strong unions mean the same thing as a strong America.
In John Edwards we have a candidate who can win the general election, and who will really make some changes happen after he does.
Everybody talks union in front of a union crowd. John Edwards talks union everywhere he goes.
Paper tigers are those who talk, talk, talk, but when it comes time to take action they become “pragmatic”. Pragmatism too often comes at the expense of abandoned principles. (God knows we’ve seen enough of that from the D.C. crowd.)
Here is how endorsements should be made: Line up labor’s issues (out of NAFTA, WTO, etc.; true affordabe, universal, comprehensive health care for every resident [HR676]; out of Iraq [AFL-CIO Resolution # 53]; properly-funded public education; truly affordable housing; immigration reform based on human need which does not punish victims of Congressional malfeasance, i.e. NAFTA). Choose the candidate who best matches labor’s agenda. To do anything else is tantamount to saying “Hey, thanks for supporting everything we’ve asked you to support. Sorry, but we’re going to take a hike on you now. We gotta’ be “pragmatic”.
Hillary? *Worked for Goldwater when she was a teenager. *Sat on the Wal-Mart board of directors after becoming an adult. *Supports the Bill Frist nonsense about first insuring the wealthy for health care, and in time - true believer - it will trickle down to the least of us. *Supports horribly-flawed anti-worker, anti-union trade agreements. *With regards to the Iraq war, she (as a dear friend would say) would be happy sleeping on a clothesline. The wind would determine which way she’d fall.
Clinton does not get my vote. Neither does Obama. His saber-rattling re: invading Pakistan was a REAL turn-off.
1) Kucinich
2) Edwards
3) Richardson
4) Any of the others would be like electing GOP-lite.
About “LibertyLover’s” comments on Ron Paul…Yea, I’d say he’s the most fair-minded Republican. So…can you tell me how he voted on NAFTA, CAFTA, or PNTR for China? What about the Employee Free Choice Act? He’s been a Congressman now for over 10 years and has amassed an impressive 21% favorable lifetime voting record on Labor related legislation. (source: http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=TX&pg=2&id=381&year=06&congress=h ) He has a well-established record of voting against us, though…79% of the time as a Congressman. Surely, you’re not serious about wanting Labor to consider endorsing him. Come on, now. In all fairness, I respect (and agree with) his position against the Federal Reserve Act of 1913; as well as his stance against the 16th Ammendment of 1913, the federal income tax (or a tax on labor), on grounds that it lacked passage by a sufficient number of states. I am aware that 3/4ths of 48 States in 1913 would require 36 States to ratify. I know Secretary of State, Philander Knox, issued a proclamation claiming that 38 States had ratified the Amendment. I am familiar with the 1984 research by Bill Benson, a former investigator with the Illinois Dept. of Revenue, which discovered that only 2 States had successfully ratified the 16th Amendment; thus, de-legitimizing the existence of the IRS. I know the hidden “inflation tax” is killing the middle class and is created from the interest that the privately owned Federal Reserve places upon the currency that it produces for our Federal Government. (Basically, the privatization of currency production.) I got it! However, there is more to it. We still need certain cradle to grave programs for too many people and a way to fund them. Ron Paul opposes far too many of those domestic lifesavers. The “DemocraticSocialist” has spoken well. Labor needs you to stay in the Democratic Primary for the sake of other endorsed candidates further down on the ballot. You can’t vote for them if you’re voting in the Republican Primary, at least in most States.
Edwards has been talking union issues since the beginning. You’ll see a consistency there you won’t see with other viable candidates. Working families need to endorse him NOW so that he will have a chance.
How dare Hillary talk about how it’s become apparent that NAFTA isn’t working! It was apparent under Clinton. She’s disengenuous about her concern for working families.
Hillary Clinton has a 30 year record of committment to Women and Children’s issues. As my New YorK Senator, she has fought hard for Working Families and has the Pro- labor voting record to prove it. As president she will be a welcome change.
In response to the DemocraticSocialist’s last blog and/or anyone else:
Evidence that Hillary Clinton is favored by big business because of her stance on globalization can be found as recently as last year when she voted to pass this:
TRADE/OMAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT�S. 3569�The Oman Free Trade Agreement expands the failed model of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).� Like NAFTA and CAFTA, the Oman agreement does not contain adequate environmental protections or enforceable protections for such core worker rights as the freedom of association.� Oman is not a democracy, and its workers are unable to form independent unions or to bargain collectively.� At the same time, the agreement allows any company incorporated in Oman to sue the U.S. government, undermining the ability of state and local governments to protect public health, strong communities and the environment.� The bill passed June 29 on a 60-34 vote.� Y=W; N=R (R:48-5; D:11-29; I:1-0).
Sure, she’s been with Labor; 93% of the time as of year ending 2006. Obama voted with Clinton in favor of OMAN FREE TRADE. He’s been with Labor on everything else, though. But with only 28 votes lifetime recorded as of 2006, he is at 96% favorable. Edwards was with us 97% of the time, opposing us only twice, both times way back in 2000. The difference is Edwards has seen the light with regard to outsourcing since his vote favoring PNTR for China. He campaigns everywhere stumping against outsourcing. Kucinich, also 97% favorable as of 2006, has voted against Labor only 3 times as of year ending 2006. The latest, in 2006, being:
MINE SAFETY�S. 2803�More coal miners were killed on the job in the first five months of 2006 than in any full year since 2001.� Coal mine safety advocates said the Bush administration and the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration had failed to strengthen safety regulations and failed to strongly enforce the regulations on the books. In May, the Senate passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act (S. 2803).� The House considered S. 2803 under procedural rules that did not allow for amendments.� Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) objected to this suspension of the rules, which prevented him from offering amendments to improve the bill.� S. 2803 requires coal operators to develop and implement accident-response plans that mandate additional oxygen, improved communication and tracking and enhanced training.� The bill also calls for these standards to be upgraded as new technology becomes available, requires ready availability of mine-rescue teams, establishes stronger standards for sealing abandoned mine areas, calls for research and recommendations on belt flammability and puts more teeth in mine safety enforcement by enhancing penalties for flagrant violations and setting mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious violations.� The House passed S. 2803 on June 7 by a 381-37 count.� Y=R; N=W (R:219-4; D:161-33; I:1-0)
Which, right now, is rather untimely for Dennis and 380 other Congressmen.
Upon further reflection and deeper research, I believe, when you consider all the facts before us, Edwards has best earned the right to be Labor’s candidate for President. I’ll challenge any Local or International Candidate Screening Committee to weigh all the evidence and I bet they’ll reach the same conclusion.
Edwards is a southern democrat, to boot. He can win the general election in traditionally Red states where as a northern democrat will simply be viewed an outsider. Having him at the top of the general election ticket in Red territory will help pro-labor Democrats further down on the state’s ballots in regions that Labor is weakest. Who better to talk pro-labor to southerners than a southerner? The stronger Labor makes its weak regions; the more it can shore up the northeast and pacific strong-holds. If Labor looses any seated pro-labor Democrat like Clinton, Obama, or Kucinich; how much additional expense will be required to fill their vacancy in terms of financial and human resources? Do we even have viable replacements or resources prepared? Edwards has the means to deliver a knock-out to Republicans that is more brutal and sustainable than anyone else. Plus, we don’t lose anything legislatively or subject ourselves to additional expenditures. I just don’t understand why the Executive Council has decided to take a pass. The choice doesn’t seem any clearer or opportunity any better than this!
Sources: http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=OH&pg=2&id=312&year=06&congress=h
http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=NC&pg=2&id=103&year=04&congress=s
http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=NC&pg=2&id=65&year=00&congress=s
http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=NY&pg=2&id=63&year=06&congress=s
http://staging.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=IL&pg=2&id=26&year=06&congress=s
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/index.cfm
Hillary’s ‘commitment’ to women and children’s issues were as first lady - first in Arkansas and then in the white house. That’s not too impressive. As for what she did as a lawyer - who knows? Do you?
If we want change from the status quo, why would we elect the wife of the guy who started NAFTA and china’s most favored nation status? Do you think he was thinking of workers when he pushed these items?
Found out finally what hillary did at Rose - she represented Wal-Mart.
Can unions at least support a pro-union candidate?
Unions have a many year history of blindly supporting the Democratic Party candidate. How many anti-worker votes have these very same candidates placed as an appreciation for the blind following?
Support and endorsement must never be a party line. Look at where America is with these old ideas. Philosophies such as this have made the rich much better off.
I personally feel that unions do not represent me the individual nor me the American when they place the “PARTY” above the needs. When the union does not support the best person for this nation we are not on a course of being united or of a single union attempting to secure the best government for us and all of America.
I just seen a poll that asked if I vote by the party or if I mix Republicans and Democrats. I could not respond to such a poll. Like the national media that is destroying choice in this country, that poll ignored the fact that there are rightfully other candidates.
Every writing is around nationally pre-selected candidates as if Union leadership is part of the national media that tells us you have these to vote for. Truth be told - it is all lies!
Take a real look and you will see that Ron Paul is ahead of all the so-called top tier candidates. Here is a humble person who has a simple plank he stands on. He stands alone on this plank amidst all the other candidates. This plank, that some call quaint or outdated, is still the Law of the Land - the CONSTITUTION.
I do not feel that union leaders or elected officials represent me when they violate the principle document on which this country is founded or they support those that would violate the Constitution. I also believe that party-line politics are a great disservice and lead only to greater corruption in this country and around the world. We would be far better served by term limits for all elected officials.
I grew up a Democrat in northern Minnesota iron mining country. At 58 I say the worker has lost wage, benefits, security, etcetera and etcetera by following a party ticket. Has the living become better in the last 50 years with the help of the Democrats? No! Are farmers betters off? Hell no! The banks and corporations have stolen most of their farms. Do we have more manufacturing? NO it is exported! Then they said we will be a support industry nation. Try to get support! That foreign accent and the number of times they will hang-up on you only goes to show that they have also exported the support industries services.
Go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com and check out a candidate for America…