Edwards Vows to Reverse Trade Policies

Source: The Associated Press

Edwards Vows to Reverse Trade Policies

By MIKE GLOVER – 3 hours ago

DUBUQUE, Iowa (AP) — Democrat John Edwards vowed Wednesday to labor leaders that if elected president he will reverse trade and tax policies — some of them dating from Bill Clinton's administration — that he said are designed to wipe out middle-class working families.

He introduced his mother and father — Wallace and Bobbie Edwards — to underscore his argument that as the son of a mill worker he understands union issues best among the candidates.

"I grew up in a Carolina mill town and I've seen firsthand how people's lives are devastated when factories close down and those manufacturing jobs are lost," said Edwards. "Manufacturing has suffered more than any other sector of the economy because of currency manipulation, illegal foreign subsidies, bad trade deals and rising energy and health costs."

The former North Carolina senator capped three days of appearances by Democratic candidates before a regional conference of the United Auto Workers, a union that has a heavy influence on Democratic politics in Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses.

* * *

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iq7b7Abnxla6a3NamBPUcID9KzYgD8STL2Q02

Edwards is looking better all of the time...

Edwards is the only one right now that is making the "people" his priority. While Obama and Clinton are getting ready to vote for another "free trade" agreement, Edwards is speaking out about the problems that are affecting the people of this country in regards to such agreements, and on the HB1 visas.

You can't "claim" to be for the people, or against agreements like NAFTA, and then vote for more of the same! :spank:

YES, YES!

And while he has not always spoken this strongly populist, I believe he is earnest, and second to Kucinich, seems like he would enact truly progressive policies in office.

been treated as legal persons. Is it the case now that "our friends" have now somehow made corporations "natural persons", at least in the sense of being invested with the same rights?

You obviously use the word, populist, in the positive sense it should convey, but here is a conundrum: right-wing reactionaries imply that the word carries negative overtones - as in, "playing to the crowd", I dare say. However, "populist" relates to people, "corporatist" to corporations; and if consideration of people, indeed prioritising them is bad, why have these Republicans made corporations, equivalent to natural persons? Capital is God, but it undergoes a divine incarnation, when its high priests so ordain - evidently, not for man's sake, however, but capital's. There's something wrong here folks, even by the perverse logic of Mammon. Well, no. Mammon is mammon, an ever-growing monster, as it is increasingly let off the leash.

It may tell us that what's good for capital is good for us, but we've learnt to our cost (if we ever needed to learn, that is), that "trickle down" means "cascade up". And why wouldn't it, since the definitive half-wit of far-right economics, Milton Friedman, opined that the taxes the rich paid were all their own money, to dispose with as they pleased! None of it is owed to the public at large, to the country's workforce, apparently.

If you read Thom Hartman's book, "Unequal Protection", and some os his articles you'll note his extensive research in this matter. Nowhere in the constitution or in our legislated laws does it say the corporations are persons. This notion is derived from an 1886 Supreme Court case from the robber baron era of "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad". The court decision itself made no specific ruling that corporations had personhood rights, but the court clerk writing the head note inserted his own opinion in the court case head note as if it was the ruling of the case, which is what most legal scholars read from that point forward. The Court Clerk himself was a former railroad exec and therefore shouldn't have been writing this as a point of conflict of interest.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

The corporations are and have been a proxy of power and financial gain for the wealthy elite in this nation. When they are given more power in this nation, the wealthy elite running them are given more power, and that is why you see the wealth gap between the wealthy and the poor approaching pre-depression levels of the last century.

It is why they want to maintain the system of campaign financing they have in place now which is nothing but institutionalized bribery, so that they can pack the government and our courts with those that continue to protect this corporate power. The Republicans claim to want to be constitutionalists and fight "judicial activism", but they are very good at making sure that noone in the court appointment approval processes ever ask them about whether they would overturn this case as a way of demonstrating this philosophy, or would they have some strange hypocritical reason for supporting it stay in place. Just like the DLC Democrats like to avoid putting their hides on the line by not voting on controverial issues such as impeachment or funding the war, the corporatists also find ways to avoid their brethren from answering this question too.

of your body politic. Or rather, the deafening silence of the putative Democrats on the subject. Very interesting.

Want to bet against Dennis bringing the matter up, if elected President! I wouldn't.

Equals I'm for Edwards or Obama or Biden or Kucinich or Dodd or Richardson or GRAVEL....hmmm who am I forgetting?

cuz that's what I woulda said! lol

Some one asked why Biden, Dodd, and Richardson don't rise in the polls. Take a stand hombres, on something like this!

Looks like Edwards plans to change the way we do business and put the power back in our hands, the working folks. Corporate entities don't give a crap about the American citizen.

Big difference.

However, any time sensible trade and tax policies are discussed it's a wonderment.

I'd be more worried about those who say nothing, or couch their words with concessions.

The north won the war because they had a manufacturing base.. the only thing the south had to fight with was corn stalks...that is the way the United States could be, if we outsource every thing and leave us here with out factories and the knowledge to do anything,

What you're saying needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Even if the well-off don't care about the working man, I would think that they'll care about the country being able to defend itself.

The current trade policies are anti-defense! They're a direct threat to our security!

There's a story that Churchill wept when he heard the United States was entering the war. The U.S. had about half the world's industrial capacity at the time, even after a decade of depression. Churchill knew the war was essentially won!

Now? We're even starting to outsource some defense work. Don't believe me? Do a Google on: Magnequench

Be Afraid! Be very Afraid!

I say - Don't hold your breath.

:patriot:

say what he will do to defend the interests of working Americans who are losing their standard of living because of the detrimental trade deals agreed to by Bill Clinton, Bush I, Bush II and Reagan. We need to turn the current trend around. Our country is being stolen blind by the big corporations in cahoots with Bush II and Congress. Our debts are mounting, jobs are disappearing and there is no hope, no relief from the fire sale of America's assets, know-how and property. Perhaps the worst of it is that the poor in the underdeveloped world are not earning their fair share. The profits go to the few wealthy greedy and aggressive enough to grab the largest share. We need justice. We need John Edwards. America needs justice. America needs John Edwards. The poor all over the world need justice -- and John Edwards.

Bush brags about all the new jobs that have been created in this country. He neglects to mention all the H1-b visas that have been given out in other countries for people to fill those new jobs.
Hillary wants to INCREASE the number of work visas. That means an INCREASE in the number of people coming into this country to take the better paying tech jobs.

Or the only "top-tier" candidate?

Of course, you may not consider a Constitution defender like Kucinich a candidate, but then you'd be wrong.

Good for Edwards to start saying what he's been saying all along, though.

..."I will hold Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and Rumsfeld accountable for their actions"

:kick:

I've seen the devastation so-called "free trade" has done to working families, small farmers and family-owned businesses in my old hometown. Myself, I've already re-trained after two different jobs that more or less ended up in China or India. What's going to be left for us to do here in America if something isn't done to stop this race to the bottom? Edwards seems like the only candidate that really gets it on this issue.

is now outsourcing to India & I'm hanging on by a thread... It has to be stopped, and fast. I hope Edwards shouts it from the rooftops because it needs attention, and the other "top 2" aren't even acknowledging what a big problem it is.

a Dem candidate on the side of the working man/woman. :thumbsup:

hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?” Kucinich asked. “How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?”


Full article and additional links...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3716361

‘Made in China’ hazards began with ‘Made in Washington, D.C.’
Democratic Presidential candidate Kucinich charges

Are they ALL going to be there?

no time will be allowed to really discuss past records too much, AKA the mess they are trying to clean up now.

Sure would not want an informed public :evilgrin:

does not correspond with past actions. The Republicans would have a field day in the general election pointing out the inconsistencies.

CSPAN ran the Edwards speech from 9/12/02 a few weeks ago which was a week after the Intelligence Committee had a briefing with Tenet who told them that there were no updated intelligence reports!

And then a week later he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post basically saying 'time is of the essence' in going after Saddam???

After that meeting with Tenet four or five senators wrote letters requesting a NIE, I have not seen anywhere that Edwards pressed for new reports.

If I know these few facts surely the Republicans do as well.

:shrug:

So I am not sure who you are supporting, but is there anyone of those running on the dem ticket that don't have something the republicans will dig up? The problem is that some have even more to dig up than others, and none of them will be immune to the republican "smear" tactics.

I back Edwards because even though I may not agree with him on all of the issues that I think are important, I do honestly believe he is the only one in the top 3 who is taking the side of the people, and who is willing to make some drastic changes to help this country. Can he do it all? Hard to say, but I really think he will do his best. The others give a good talk, but I just don't think they will follow through with the changes we need, especially not Hillary!

The top 3. Sorry, but I really don't think he has a chance to win the nomination. But if he did, yes I think he would do what he says, not doubt about it.

to be an effective president. It really shouldn't surprise you that there are many progressives who don't want Kucinich to be our nominee. I assume you have seen the low number of people who have contributed to his campaign.

However, if he attained the presidency, I think he would carry out his announced goals ---
barring assassination.

I've contributed to his campaign ---

and isn't he leading here at DU?????

Take a look ---

the most consistent in his words and actions. Also someone who is willing to stand up for the people, even to his own detriment and before an issue is popular.

I support someone who cares about all people whether they are citizens of our country or the oil union workers in Iraq who asked the Congress and the U.S. citizens to remove the draft Iraq Oil Law benchmark from the last supplemental that all other candidates, including Edwards with his TV ad, supported.

A candidate who knew an invasion of Iraq was wrong based on the lack of intelligence and who knew how our domestic programs would suffer as a consequence.

Also someone who has shown more of a balanced approach to countries in the Middle East, Dennis Kucinich.



http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Edwards...

"...I saw firsthand the threats you face every day. I feel that I understand on a very personal level those threats. The challenges in your own backyard – rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel.

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons..."

McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. What about Gore in 200 vs. 2008? People change their minds. Now Mitt "I am more liberal that Ted Kennedy" Romney is a flip flopper.

honestly struggle with and change over time, as woman who is pro-choice I have accepted that fact about him and realize that it is a weak point in his past.

Trade policies, lack of intelligence before voting for war etc. are not strong personal beliefs that someone grew up with and then had to change, so they cannot and should not be so easily compared IMO.


Abortion..Dennis explains it well in this short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVKtwS-UvM

It is just that the Kucincich supports think it's ok on anything related to Kucinich.
The Hillary supporters think it's ok on anything related to Hillary.
Etc.

I am not bothered by Kucinich's extremely dedicated anti-choice record (up until he started running for President). It may be strategic, it may be geniune, no one will ever know. Mitt had the inverse path and has his own explanation. Personally, I have changed my tune on trade about 100% and the war about 90% (I wasn't for it, but I wasn't as against it as I should have been. I actually believed Powell's presenation). I am the same on choice as I have ever been.

Regardless, Kucinich's bad voting record on choice isn't why I think he and Hillary are tied for last on my 08 list.

issue and just plain make mistakes :)

What I mean on the abortion issue is that it is something many grew up with, it was a belief (pro or con) they were taught from an earlier age, at home, in church and maybe in school. I do not think you can say the same for trade policies and preemptive war.


"It is just that the Kucincich supports think it's ok on anything related to Kucinich.
The Hillary supporters think it's ok on anything related to Hillary."

Personally I do not think that is true, but if that is what you think.

:shrug:

his view on abortion. He is against it, and he has always been against it. He has changed his view on the law.

Edwards made the claim that Iraq had WMDs. If you just listened to Colin Powell and the mainstream media, one could be fooled. But Scott Ritter published an analysis of WMDs before the war. Dennis Kucinich used this analysis and organized 125 Democrats to vote against the war. Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It was one thing that Edwards voted against the war, but he further claimed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he not bother to investigate? Did he just believe the mainstream media? How could he make this claim?

I do not care for Edwards for several other reasons, but I do not understand how Edwards supporters can get over the fact that Edwards claimed that Iraq had WMDs.

But it's doubtful he would have changed without NARAL calling him out on it.

First of all, is the one that people are OK with their favorite candidate changing positions but try to use similar shifts against other candidates. I suppose that's just the way the game is played these days, but it does tend to make everybody look silly. Not saying I'm not guilty of it myself.

And you're right about people changing their minds. I thought NAFTA sounded like a good idea at the time. Now I realize I was wrong. My position has changed on that, and that's OK.

he must be like 1800 years old now hehe

...which puts him in second place behind DK. While he didn't have a perfect voting record, he was solidly against NAFTA and other FTAs. The PNTR vote in favor of China was a huge mistake, and I expect him to be questioned about it in the upcoming debate.

I like Edwards' populist message and I strongly support him, but I really want to know why he chose to vote for normal trade with a government that cares so little about human beings.

sad but true

folks 63% isn't really a very consistent vote for something you say you now stand for!

have more weight, or consequences, than others and that is something not taken into account in this rating of the candidates.

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/08/how-the-prez-ca.html

"...I make no attempt to weight the votes, or to account for the number of votes..."

More Republicans than Democrats voted for this bill.

Big business, Clinton, Bush (and Edwards) were all for this bill, while labor, human rights groups opposed the bill.

For Edwards to now be using this issue to attack others appears disingenuous IMO and not a characteristic that I can support.

I called his campaign office a couple of times for answers on a few questions, but never received a reply.

:shrug:

Kucinich doesn't attack Hillary or Obama - but has attacked Edwards in debates several times.
I'm so sorry I wasted my vote on Kucinich in 2004!

And my "Edwards in 2008" is going back up!

I love Edwards' populism, and, after Kucinich, Edwards the most progressive Democrat running.

Krash

Kuchinich or Obama will be ok if they were able to get the nomination and we would really have change in the WH for the better. These guys care about us all.

Senator John Edwards said yesterday that his proposal to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact he has repeatedly blamed for economic distress, would not significantly cut the flow of jobs abroad.

And even as he criticized the trade agreement, Mr. Edwards described it as ''important'' to economic prosperity. He said he wanted to promote global trade but that trade pacts should include measures to slow the loss of jobs to other countries.

''I believe that Nafta should exist,'' Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday's primary. ''I think Nafta is important -- it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.''

''It's important to be straight with people about the jobs issue -- about trade and jobs,'' said Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina. ''The kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- not an extreme trade policy, but the kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- is not going to save all those jobs. And I think people deserve to know that.''



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF143CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63

Corporations might be greedy and evil, but they know who will put corporations first, and that person is not Edwards. Edwards will put people first, or will at least TRY. (Same with Kucinich).

just slightly different, they are not! There is a big difference.

Look at their voting records, what they said when they voted and whether or not they had the courage to stand almost alone instead of going with the popular sentiment.

But obviously Kucinich is going to be more progressive over all. Alas, being right on the issues isn't the only thing I care about in a candidate, that's why Hillary and Kucinich are my last picks for 08.

and who could not foresee the long term consequences of our trade policies and invading Iraq does not interest me.

These are big mistakes with severe consequences for millions of people and also for future generations.

It is easy for Edwards to tell others to stand up to the administration, but you know what they say about talk :evilgrin:

I find this extremely ironic coming from a Kucinich supporter, but hey, that's just me. The only people I have ruled out supporting are Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel for varying reasons, but I am not an Edwards die hard or anything.

should stand up to the administration and stand up for working people, but that is not how he voted on the trade issue. :shrug:


Senate vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251


"Clinton hails Senate vote on China trade

I believe that we will deeply regret this stampede to pass this legislation and the way in which we have taken all the human rights, religious freedom, right to organize, all of those concerns and we just put them in parenthesis, put them in brackets, as if they don't exist," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota. Other opponents worried that the U.S. would be unable to influence Beijing over human rights concerns without a yearly vote on trade...

The Senate beat back 19 amendments on labor, covering environmental concerns, human rights and weapons proliferation, during the two weeks it argued over the measure. Any amendment would have required the bill go back to the House, where opposition was stronger...

In addition to Clinton and most of the business community, the major-party presidential candidates --Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican standard-bearer -- supported the measure."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/19/pntr.vote.hfr/index.html

Remember their deal for the Iowa Caucus? Obviously Kucinich was fond of Edwards.

So it makes sense. :)

:patriot:

Trade policy. Pro labor. Corporate interest. Veeerrrrry interesting.

K&R!

all this hoopla like it's a new idea. Kucinich has held from the very first that he will get us out of NAFTA and several other bad deals, and all of a sudden Edwards says it (Late) and he's some working class hero?

The blind eye to Dennis around here blows my mind.

See my post on the bottom line on Edwards. Unfortunately, until we have public funding of elections we will sadly always have to choose between a watered down populist type/"centrist" posing as progressive (Hillary) or *real* populist progressive who, again unfortunately, simply stand no chance of actually winning the nomination (I feel that Edwards is the best of the candidates *likely to win*, by far).

I know, I know, a lot of people will get REALLY angry over that last sentence but is it incorrect? If you say "yes" then you'd be ignoring how flawed our media and election process is.

The fact is, you MUST have at least *some* amount of money relative to the front runner and *some* amount of decent polling numbers. If not, the media WILL marginalize and dismiss you and that is a death sentence for most voters (again, I wish this weren't the case but who can argue it's not?).

I just think that rather than passionate people spending so much time, money and energy on a candidate who they know is *incredibly* unlikely to even win the nomination (much less the presidency), they could be spending that same time, money and energy on the fight to make publicly funded elections (and maybe some form of run off voting, at least in primaries) THE number one issue in America.

Assuming you like Edwards as a candidate he's clearly far less of a DLC type compared to Obama and especially Hillary. His stances and policy proposals on labor, wages and trade (and health care) make that quite clear.

Personally, I like him because those domestic issues are important to me. Yes, foreign policy is important (I can hear you Biden fans screaming now), but I feel like a good secretary of state can more than make up for a lack of experience on the part of a given president in that regard (it's a common problem for most presidents).

Also, I balance potential to win with who I want. I think too many people go too far one way or the other.

A lot of the time you end up with people who'll vote for someone who (figuratively speaking) has raised $10 and is 2% in the polls. Well, while this candidate might have BRILLIANT ideas it's clear he/she has absolutely NO chance of winning (This is why I support run-off voting for primaries by the way).

On the other hand there are also far too many people who think the candidate who raises the most money MUST be the best candidate. The media also seems to frame it this way, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as people see high poll numbers (for Hillary in this case) and then contribute to the polls with an attitude of "well, the polls have her ahead so I guess I'll vote for her".

So I'm in the middle. I want someone who has *some* chance of winning but also promotes a strong pro-middle class platform.

PS---For anyone who says Edwards can't care about the poor and middle class because he has money, I call BS. FDR was the most economically progressive (and pro-poor/middle class) president in our history, and he was RICH. In fact, he had far more money than Edwards has today.

...feed the wealthy and powerful -- starve the poor and the weak

I'm thrilled to hear John Edwards articulating such progressive positions, but I don't think that would've been possible without the influence of Dennis Kucinich, who is tenaciously tugging the Democratic Party back over to the left side of the political spectrum where it belongs.

I'm still hoping for Dennis, but the statements that Edwards has made on a number of issues (not to mention the fact that he kicked off his campaign in New Orleans) convince me that he's the real deal, someone who actually cares about the little guy and would be a fine fallback choice if Kucinich doesn't win the nomination.

then I've just switched from Obama to Edwards, and I've been leaning Obama for pretty much all of 2007.

It's time to talk to each other that doesn't GET IT. Edwards is the real candidate for change.

I just hope he is able to implement reforms if he is the next POTUS.

How could DUers possibly support him?

We need to back up our support for him with cold, hard cash. I just sent him $100.

NT!

The former Sen.Edwards who voted for the Iraq War,the Patriot Act, the China Trade Deal, and the Bankruptcy Bill or the one who is talking about these progressive ideas. I do not trust Sen.Edwards.He is just like the Democrats elected in 2006 who promised to end the Iraq War and to make Bush accountable. He is just another politician who will promise everything to get elected.

The only candidate who have done what he is saying is Kucinich. If you want change stop getting fooled by double tongued politicians. Their records speak louder than words. If Kucinich should win the DLC will surely be defeated together with the Republicans because he represents the people not the corporations. He is the only candidate whose ideas make sense.The others are mere talking points given by their DC consultants.

enough of this sending our jobs out of the country