ACORN celebrates failure of anti-affirmative action measure
Leaders of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) happily sent out a release Sunday evening lauding that “organizers of the so-called Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, led by rich California political operative Ward Connerly, failed to turn in signatures today in an attempt to qualify their initiative to ban affirmative action programs in Missouri.”
As ACORN rightly points out, “Signature petitions for all initiatives seeking to qualify for Missouri’s November ballot were due today in Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s Jefferson City office. When the 5 pm deadline rolled around, it became clear that MoCRI organizers were abandoning their efforts in Missouri….”
Brandon Davis, a spokesman for the WeCAN coalition, which opposed the ballot proposal, asserted in a statement that its supporters gave up because “Missourians have spoken loudly and clearly over the last several months – and they have said that Missouri will remain a state that embraces the value of fairness, and the goal of creating an equal playing field for women and racial minorities. Affirmative action programs have been one of the most effective tools in achieving these goals in the arenas of public education and public contracting.”
He noted that members of WeCAN (Working to Empower Community Action Now) had fanned out around the state to shadow the MoCRI petitioners “to make sure that they approached citizens honestly and that citizens were aware of the impact the initiative would have on valued public programs.”
Lara Granich, director of Missouri Jobs with Justice, credited the WeCAN effort to killing off the petition drive. The coalition says it was “the main opposition to Connerly’s initiative, and the only group that coordinated both paid and volunteer efforts to defeat MoCRI.”
From the context clues of LLS’ statements, these “thugs” could qualify for affirmative action meaning they must be of some minority. LLS assume that because these “thugs” are of a minority race and wearing certain colors that they must be gang members. And to #10… I’m for affirmative action and would never be able to qualify for those “freebies”. Get a clue if you think we live in a color blind society.
Funny how you can discern context from an incident you were not a witness to yet dismiss the first hand account of the person who was actually there.
I can think of other terms that accurately describe someone with either a rational or irrational fear of other people, but racist isn’t one of them. Do you even know what the word means?
You’re right. I only have LLS’ story to go by. Please share your other terms. I hope LLS can also explain her reasons for being against affirmative action.
#7,
How is standing next to people pushing a petition and explaining how you are opposed to such an initiative anything but democratic? It seems like this entire event has just engaged more people to actually think about their constitution and the democratic process, which seems great to me.
You first. Define racist. Here’s a hint - it does not describe someone opposed to affirmative action or other policies that favor one race over another.
is there some collective agreement that a level playing field exists therefore affirmative action is no longer necessary? there is simply way too much objective information showing that discrimination based on race is still a serious problem (access to quality education, death penalty rates, being denied a job or apartment cuz you’ve got one of those funny black sounding names, etc., etc.)
certainly affirmative action gets abused, like everything else humans do, but the continuing need for efforts to correct past and current discrimination is obvious to anyone who actually looks.
Responding to #11
Perhaps you’d be less likely to favor “affirmative action” if you had been denied a job, promotion, or universtiy admission simply because you did not fall into one or more “protected minority” classification.
As for the term “affirmative action,” one wonders why that benign euphemism is in use. Could it be that the more accurate description, race, sex, and ethnic preferences would not sit well?
By favoring the concept of so-called affirmative action, contributor #11 evidently favors negating the promise of not only the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well. Unfortunately for that position, we are supposed to be a Nation of Laws, laws designed to hold us together.
To deny the promise of the above-mentioned legislation is to start down the road to anarchy.
I am SO glad to hear that racial discrimination has survived here in Missouri. I can imagine the combined orgasmic response of the PD’s “editorial board” when they didnt file their paperwork to do away with institutionalized racial discrimination.
The truth is that Missourians took to the streets to tell voters what the initiative was all about, and voters overwhelmingly said no to Connerly and the petitioners. These petitioners make money per signature, and Connerly raised and spent big money to try to change Missouri’s constitution, even though he doesn’t live here and won’t have to live with the results of his “initiative.” Connerly is a dangerous rich man from California, and most of his signature gatherers were hired thugs trying to get your signature with a pick up line. Missourians don’t like to be told what to do with our constitution, and we sure don’ t like outsiders lying to us, so of course they failed. Now they slink home and we celebrate the victory of Missouri voters’ common sense.