I don't understand why this is. The AFL-CIO is butting their head into a brick wall by supporting Kerry. He represents a major stumbling block in their efforts to regain a share of the labor market lost to foriegn labor. Makes no sense to me!

AFL-CIO is against NAFTA, Kerry voted for NAFTA

AFL-CIO is against favorable trade status with China, Kerry voted for not only favorable trade with China but lower tarriffs on Chinese goods.

AFL-CIO is for drilling in Alaska for new oil reserves, Kerry voted against it.

Those the three biggest issues for the AFL-CIO, due to the fact that it represents thousands of jobs lost or gained according to how the voting goes.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

 

Because they sold thier interest to the democrats years ago and he is the candidate they think will get nominated.

 

Three words - He's not Bush.

Kannata

 

Awhile back I asked my brother-in-law who was the president of a UAW local why union leadership always endorsed Demorcats when the membership did not. His answer,"Because we have the Democrats' ear, the Rebublicans don't hear us".

 

Maybe they are tired of seeing the country headed for a financial mess like a lot of other americans.Bushs handling of our tax dollar leaves a lot to be desired.

 

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore – the guy who was the head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush enraged free traders – and our precious European "allies" – by imposing tariffs on steel imports.

AFL-CIO leader John Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor. Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio and Florida in the coming election.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry – who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global-warming treaties and hybrid cars.

Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas." Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's explanation that – like his vote for war with Iraq – he voted for free trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.

Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says: "Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our standards."

Except – like Kerry – Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds remarkably like Barbra Streisand.

 

Bush has done little to change our trade deficits that i can see,so I don't think his policys are working either.

 

The key word here is "our". The money our government so freely spends comes out of our pockets.

 

He didn't vote for these issues because he didn't hold an office that allowed his opinion on these issues. I also don't see after 3.5 years where he has changed Americas position on any of these issues either. Why can't he make changes in these areas if they are so detrimental to our economy, he's been in office for almost a full 4 year term? If the President and the Republican Congress have no power to change any of these "horrible policies", why do we bother voting??

 

Easy....Republicans traditionally try to bust unions....In the state where I reside...every republican governor since who knows when tried to push right to work....It finally happened and it didn't mean squat....! Repubs are traditionally for privatization as well....as of late privitazation hasn't been working to well either....maybe it is kinda a "trickle down" effect.....!

 

Oh yeah, they have the Democrats ear, thats why they (Democrats) signed NAFTA into law, and continously pass regulation that hurts the Auto Industry!

 

What are some examples of legislation passed that has hurt the auto industries? When auto makers (or any manufacturer) move plants to Mexico, or any other country, the reason is simple: they are lowering labor costs. In my industry, the migration overseas started in the early 80's. Do you expect the government to step in now and protect the car industry when they've sat back for the last 30 years and watched every other industry pack up and leave? We as Americans have created our own paradox, we want to make more and more money at our jobs, but we want to pay less and less for our products.

 

Kerry voted consistantly to cut back or kill almost every major defense program he voted on. These were 100% American jobs employing Union workers. As a 20yr IAM and AFL-CIO member if Kerry gets in I have no doubt I'll be out of a job since he's already voted to kill the program I work on (F22). Union leaders are totaly out of touch w/their membership. I get the IAM Journal at home and I just toss it in the trash, all it does is bash Bush. The Unions are all about money. The only reason I remain a member is to have a say in our Local contract and officers. In '96 the AFL-CIO took extra $ out of our pay without our pernission to send to the DNC. They thought they could sneak it by us I guess, most people got their money back by filing some papers but many did not. This added up to 100,000's $ sent to the DNC to promote nafta and Chinese trade.--Jack

 

Jack, I think we need to consider the fact that every dollar spent on defense is not necessarilly a good investment. Defense spending is subsidised 100% with tax dollars. That means, in essence, people that derive their income from companies that benefit from defense contracts could actually be considered "civil servants". I know it sounds like a stretch, but consider what happens to their jobs if the government cuts funding to their companies. That said, our government collects some percentage of every working Americans income to pay for defense. My vote would be to spend exactly what is needed to keep our country safe and not a penny more. Republicans seem to be wishing for a euphoric existance that allows for infinite spending on defense, a trillion dollar prescription drug plan, while staring into a literal vacuum of jobs leaving this country and a staggering national debt. I must be missing part of the equation because it appears we can do all this and still cut taxes!

 

Because they're anti-working man?