The ONE Vote '08 Can Make A Difference

By Jack Oliver Posted in Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Editorial Note by Erick: Jack Oliver is the Co-Chairman of the ONE Campaign.

Thank you for allowing me to address the RedState community regarding this exciting and critically important campaign – ONE Vote ’08. ONE Vote '08 is an unprecedented, non-partisan campaign to make global health and extreme poverty priorities in the foreign policy platform of the 2008 presidential election.

The next President will take office in a time of great hope: in this decade, there are effective and affordable solutions that save lives. AIDS drugs now cost as little as $1 a day in some places. $5 bed nets can keep less fortunte children from dying from simple mosquito bites. On a recent trip to Rwanda and Tanzania over the last two weeks – I witnessed the power of our dollar at work.  From Malaria clinics, natal care centers, and primary schools in Tanzania to hospital visits and house-call appointments with patients in Rwanda – there was no doubt in my mind that every dollar counts.  But, yet, it was also very clear that there is a long way to go to combat disease and poverty in countries less fortunate than ours.

Read on . . .

With the force of more than 2 million members from all 50 states and a coalition of more than 100 non-profit, religious and charitable groups, ONE Vote '08 can make a difference.  ONE Vote ’08 will educate and mobilize voters to ensure that the next American president is committed to using "smart" power to end global poverty and keep America strong.  President Bush set a great precedent in this regard by creating the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Since PEPFAR began, the program has been a proven success, allowing 1.1 million people living with AIDS in the world’s poorest countries to receive lifesaving anti-retroviral therapy.   Recognizing that there is still work to be done and lives to be saved, President Bush recently proposed that the United States double the amount it devotes to PEPFAR from $15 billion to $30 billion.
     
              
The next American president will be defined by global leadership.  ONE Vote ’08 will show every presidential candidate that millions of people will be thinking about the world’s poorest people when casting a vote for the next president. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue – this is a human issue.  Already, more than 2 million people – from all 50 states and from every walk of life - have added their voices to ONE by visiting www.ONE.org.

All my adult life I’ve set and worked toward aggressive but achievable goals.  That’s why I’m so excited to be involved with ONE Vote ’08.  The goals of this campaign are simple, direct and achievable: 

1. Save 16,000 lives a day by fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, three of the world's most devastating diseases.

2. Prevent 5.4 million young children from dying each year from poverty-related illnesses and 400,000 women from dying in childbirth each year.

3. Provide free access to primary education for 77 million out-of-school children with a special emphasis on girls.

4. Improve the living conditions of vulnerable populations by, for example, providing access to clean water for 450 million people and basic sanitation to more than 700 million people.

5. Reduce by half the number of people in the world who suffer from hunger, resulting in 300 million less hungry people each year.

We all agree that these critical steps need to be taken – Republican and Democrat alike.  I want my kids, Kate and Henry, to grow up in a better, safer world. Helping those that need it most not only sets an example I want my family to see - it also save lives and in a roundabout way increases our security here at home. Making my children safer by helping others, well that’s good sense, not just good politics."

Global health and poverty are not primary concerns of this voter, the war on terror and ilegal immigration is.

" it also save lives and in a roundabout way increases our security here at home" I am not seeing how in a roundabout way it increases our security. I have watched billions of dollars be given to many countries in my 41 years and yet children still starve in Africa and countries around the world still hate (envy, jealousy) us and of all the money we have given to the UN what have we achieved except hate, so your premise that we will be more secure has been refuted decade after decade. I would also say that Matt Damon being the first face on your site is a little disturbing to this conservative as he has been anything but non-partisan. I do wish you good luck with your campaign however I would not suggest that our country do any more then it already has in helping the poor of the world and that perhaps other countries need to step up to the plate. Americans are the most giving of any peoples and yet never is anyone grateful for that help and at some point we have to say enough is enough, we are not the father of the world.

I believe that a world where you "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a world where we will be concerned about these things.

.. but I recall that someone, somewhere, a long time ago said, "the poor you will always have with you".

My concern is that in our "benevolence" our largesse has been many times misappropriated in a culture of corruption.

I would be desirous of seeing that issue addressed to see that our benevolence actually gets to those for whom it is intended.

Thank you for this post!

”The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”…Edmund Burke

but he didn't say to let the poor starve. Your other point is well taken.

...my point was that it is a laudable effort, and "the point well taken" is that it gets to the needy to prevent that starvation instead of the enrichment of those who don't deserve it.

Why are all of these people soooo concerned about Africa etc.... when you can drive to parts of Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, etc... and find extreme poverty?? Hell, right in Mr. Poverty (John Edwards) own home town you can find hungry kids!
It really gets under my skin to see all of these RICH people asking POOR people for loot! If Bono, Matt Damon, John Edwards, Don Cheadle just pooled together some of the money that they have to burn, they could feed all of Rwanda or Tanzania.

I dont feel the least bit guilty for not contributing to these overseas causes that have little to do with our security. Im with others; Illegal Immigration and Killing Islamic Radicals is more important than giving more money to "feed" the hungry of Africa. Maybe the time will come when we all reach out to Africa. BUT NOT while there are hungry AMERICANS.

Again, if there were no hungry mouths or ill bodied people HERE in America where Bono, Matt, Don, Johnny Poverty, etc.. made their HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars, it would be easier to donate to another countries health and humanity. But it all starts at home for me, and those aforementioned folks simply look foolish having become millionaires in the "Land of the free" and asking us to give money to help elsewhere in the world!

I'll donate money to feed AMERICA'S sick and hungry. Feed the Children can help you donate a tractor trailer load of food to hungry AMERICANS!

I don't know that anybody is argueing otherwise, but this is a great country and I think we can take care of the poor in more places than just our own.

While I'm sure this is good work, I don't think the government should be doing this work. Thirty billion dollars is a staggering amount of taxpayer money to be talking about here, and that's just for one program you mention.

Let motivated charities that have incentives for efficiency take over.

Run like Reagan!

thanks to Jaded. Can't find fault with the generosity of the west, and with our desire to help others. And it is tempting to find analogy with welfare and education on the homefront, as it is easy to simply throw money at a problem and hope that conditions will improve in some direct proportion as to the degree of financial support donated or "extorted". Administrators of such dependency programs, like governments, will always be seeking more money to expand and perpetuate their existence, and who can resist the siren call to help the less fortunate? Incentive and opportunity can be encouraged and provided through better means than handouts. Agree that Shikwati's analysis bears trying a new approach to Africa.

I was going to add the same thing. Read that link!

If pointing out everyone one of Demophilius's aliases earned a cold one, this whole site would be drunk all the time. -Hoyasaxa

Ding! ... Beep! ... Code words registered.

Post Rejected. Group is functionally partisan but legally unaffiliated.

Perhaps all the wonderful illegal aliens can go there and build Africa like they built the USA.

"AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical."

Heh heh, NO kidding. And our prez just pledged another $30 bil for this goody-goody, Big Pharma fraud, and its slanderous corollary--that Africans are out-of-control sex maniacs who can't be expected to control their urges...so send more money!

over at Captain's Quarters, big push going on for some of our tax dollars to be spent helping the rest of the world and of course that big push to spend our tax dollars here (illegal immigration) how easy it is when it isn't your money to spend as much as you want.

While I am concerned about the people you are talking about, that is a personal concern and calls for private support. I would like Mr. Oliver to show me in the Constitution where the federal government has the power to give enormous amounts of our money away and make foreign charity a important part of our government. That is by definition a liberal and living Constitutionalist viewpoint.

I would suggest to you that every President takes office in a time of hope and that we American's are hopeful every day, that is really just a feel good talking point and I would suggest back in the 70's and 80's it worked, it doesn't work anymore we have seen the effects of all the billions and billions of dollars to Africa and it hasn't changed and it won't change because unless you stop giving hand outs as opposed to a hand up you will reap the same benefits. The beauty of 2007 is new media as opposed to the MSM who made us all feel like we should link hands together across America and somehow, someway the African nations would no longer have hunger. I remember Time and Life with the emaciated children with the flies on their eyes and man I felt awful, surely there was something we could do! We did and nothing changed because the countries are ruled by tyrants and until you change that the suffering will not go away.

Without capitalism and free markets to help them fundamentally reform their economies, every dollar just extends their lives a little bit longer towards a future with no hope until finally the dollars run out.

Sorry, I don't feel to good about US tax dollars going to 3rd world dictators and worthless Untied Nations meddlers. The best thing we can do for the 3rd world is to end US foreign aide. All it does is line the pockets of the corrupt.

While I agree that helping the poorest of the poor is a non-partisan issue, the approach that the ONE Campaign has consistently taken to the issue has been decidedly leftist. This probably explains why most of the ONE Campaign's celebrity endorsements have come from the Hollywood left and only a few misguided conservatives, usually social conservatives (like Pat Robertson) who have no concept of what it means to be a fiscal or economic conservative. The approach of the ONE Campaign relies almost exclusively on the redistribution of wealth - in other words, socialism. It is the spirit behind the Soviet Union rising from the ashes in another, much more clever form.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, the problems of the developing world are never going to be solved by the redistribution of wealth. Free trade may be the most important factor in the economic development of the third world, and yet the ONE Campaign consistently promotes so-called "fair trade," which is really protectionism and detrimental to the developing world. Moreover, we must stop redistributing wealth to corrupt governments like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, we must not be so quick to forgive or relieve debt, we must get tough with corrupt governments in the developing world, and - if we are going to give aid (a big if) - we should give it to our own private charities to be distributed as they see fit, not to governments or governmental organizations. Personally, I trust private charities far more than governments and governmental organizations to do the right thing with the money they're given.

I sincerely hope that the ONE Campaign will start to consider options other than the redistribution of wealth, but I'm not holding my breath.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

If they are promoting "fair trade" then they are promoting idiocy - which is not partisan, quite unfortunately. What they describe as "fair trade" - one of the great political misnomers up there with "progressive" - perpetuates poverty.

that doesn't compel you to bash Christians and social conservatives?

You obviously know nothing about them and I doubt that you have ever met one. You move in different circles.

Christians and social conservatives tend not prowl the bath houses and gay bars.

One of the major complaints about the more benign Colonial powers was that it took responsibility away from the natives. They were not taught how to govern and look after themselves.

Aid to Africa takes on the worst aspects of this.

Read what Kenyan James Shikwati has to say about this Leave us alone

I've talked to ONE reps before, as certain bands I like support them and have them along as part of the merch crew. The problem, though, is that this is an attempt to make government become charitable and provide for the needs of the poor around the world. I don't believe in goverment charity -- I don't believe that it works, and I don't believe that it is charity at all.

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, my belief is that government programs are inherently bloating and corruptive. In addition, coerced giving (taking tax funds and applying them to certain projects and not others) is not charity at all. Private citizens should be free to give of their own earnings to their own charities at the prompting of their own hearts. Why not initiate a church-based program, instead of a government-based program?

-
NARF

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service