Edwards on NAFTA.. a CURRENT position statement

[K Gardner]

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS01/712090428/1322/NEWS97
Article published Dec 9, 2007
Concord
By Chelsea Conaboy
Monitor staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 9, 2007


John Edwards renewed promises that, as president, he would restore America's moral position in the world, work to end global poverty, lead an international coalition to abolish nuclear weapons, end the war in Iraq and create trade policy that is good for American workers and requires fair labor and environmental protections abroad.

Edwards used the 14th anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement to once again condemn the trade policy that he said is responsible for the loss of 1 million jobs to overseas workers.

Sen. Hillary Clinton last month called NAFTA "a mistake" because it wasn't enforced as it was designed.

After a town hall meeting in Concord yesterday, Edwards was asked what he thought about Clinton distancing herself from the policy, which her husband signed into law in 1993.

"They were the movers behind NAFTA," Edwards said. "She'll have to carry that burden herself."

Edwards has pledged to assign top prosecutors in the Department of Justice to enforce trade law and to eliminate tax incentives to corporations that move overseas.

[kimmerspixelated]

1. Edwards is DA MAN!

[Double T]

2. Good Stuff!!

Great candidate!!!

[K Gardner]

3. Yeah, hated to ruin the fun by posting something that wasn't four years old

but if we want to go back that far, we might as well be talking about the Clintons and their NAFTA positions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hillary-nafta

Harold Meyerson's column in The Washington Post today is a terrific read -- and got me thinking about just how unprincipled and smarmy Hillary Clinton really is on this one. You'll notice Meyerson reports that "Clinton has yet to take a position" on the NAFTA expansion that will be voted on in the House today.

My guess is that Clinton will vote against the first part of the NAFTA expansion -- the Peru Free Trade Agreement. That "no" vote would be a good thing. But her silence in the lead up to the vote is really the bigger story that's already been written, no matter how she ends up voting. She wants to please the Big Money interests who are underwriting her campaign and who are pushing this trade policy, but she also faces an increasingly competitive primary challenge from John Edwards, who has come out strongly against NAFTA-style trade policies (more on Edwards in my upcoming nationally syndicated newspaper column out on Friday).

So my guess is that what's going on is that she has told the lobbyists, corporate executives and other Big Money interests financing her presidential run that she'll stay quiet in the lead up to the vote, so as to not change the dynamic of the vote in Congress by getting more Democrats to oppose the Peru deal. Then, when its clear the deal is going to sail through because folks like her haven't stepped up and been leaders, she'll quietly cast her vote against it, and then during select campaign appearances with select groups, she'll brag about her supposed courage and pretend she took a strong stand for the middle class.

You can call this smart politics, and sure -- if Clinton votes against the deal in the end, that's good. But what this really is is Triangulation 2.0. And, as I said, it's unprincipled and smarmy -- the opposite of, ya know, "leadership."

[Vanje]

4. Kick'n nt

[jillan]

5. I'm sorry - but that last sentence really bothers me.

Edwards invested, and made millions, in Fortress Hedgefund that was based out of the Cayman Isles.
So does this mean that he wants to prosecute himself?

This is just another example of the problem I have with him.

[Triana]

6. YES! That's my man! (n/t)

[maximusveritas]

7. He's right on this issue now

but I think the point of that other post was that he wasn't always opposed to NAFTA like he is now. But still, I think he's at least owned up to his past mistakes, unlike Clinton.

[sandnsea]

10. The point was Obama didn't lie

Even if he said Edwards didn't oppose NAFTA, that would be true. Edwards didn't. He supports changes to NAFTA, which is different.

[K Gardner]

8. Kick

[sandnsea]

9. Yeah, he didn't oppose NAFTA

:shrug:

I was posting in response to Edwards' campaign lies about Obama.

[K Gardner]

11. OK.. if something was said that was untrue about Obama, let's work to fact-check

and correct it.

[sandnsea]

12. Uh, yeah, that's what I did

The Edwards campaign said something untrue about Obama, that he is a liar - I fact-checked and corrected it. Edwards did not oppose NAFTA.

[K Gardner]

13. Gotcha :-) I evidently got lost in the flying attack wars...:-)

[Little Star]

14. K

[ecstatic]

15. What's funny is that every statement he makes needs to have a date and a star by it

He changes his mind so frequently. :crazy: And 2004 was NOT that long ago.

[K Gardner]

16. Well, I for one am glad to see that candidates evolve. As I remember, when Bill Clinton

passed and lobbied for NAFTA, a lot of people thought it was a good idea. Years later, the end result is horrifying. I'm also glad they're changing their minds about the war in Iraq and other issues whose time has passed.