'I believe that NAFTA should exist,'' - John Edwards in 2004

Does he think he can really ignore his past record...while criticizing others for theirs?



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

:P

and Kerry wanted it tweaked for environmental concerns, as well.

instead of talking about recent past of Hillary Clinton and her constant triangulating and double talking.

I'd take Edwards any day over her.

Doug D.

The guy has spent four years running away from virtually every position he took in the U.S. Senate...but yes lets just ignore that now that he is born again...

Hillary is a double talking amateur compared to Johnny...

BTW -- WHEN is she going to release her first lady papers?

And how many of her people have been planting questions since she started campaigning? And oh yeah - Rupert Murdoch's money - did she ever return it?

And that doesn't even take into account the several dozen shrill Hillbots posting this sort of nonsense on DU. She must have a fabulous payroll to play with. :sarcasm:

Five years is not ancient history, for goodness sake.

Let me check on that.

I sure wish Senator Clinton would.

When Hillary appears to take a position closer to what people would want here...she is accused of flip-flopping, and only doing it for political gain...

But when the golden boy does it it is because he has grown and matured...

Edwards is trying to remake himself into a populist that his entire record says he is not...

he ingratiated himself to credit card companys, George Bush and Halliburton = Hedge Funds consultant.

Clinton and Globalization: The Deceit Goes On
Alan Tonelson
Sunday, August 01, 2004
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1161

"Clinton’s remarks about trade laws were even less excusable. First, nothing has weakened America’s trade laws like his determination to create the World Trade Organization, whose main purpose was to limit U.S. authority to enforce these laws. Second, Clinton claimed emphatically that the WTO would put world trade diplomacy on a strictly legal basis. Therefore, the status of China and Japan as America’s bankers should have no effect on America’s ability to secure economic justice at the WTO.

More fundamentally, why is Clinton worried about foreign debt in the first place? After all, as he insisted, “We live in an interdependent world.” And Democrats want “more global cooperation.” What could be more interdependent and cooperative than this? China and Japan lend us more and more money, and we buy more and more of their goods. Is Clinton suggesting that one day the lending might stop? How could it? That wouldn’t be interdependent or cooperative.

Of course, Clinton is now a political act, not a policy-maker, so he has an excuse for self-serving incoherence. Not so for his Democratic audience, whose claim to future leadership eroded with each burst of wild applause for this latest exercise in cynicism."

Expect more of same from HRC.

Don't address Edwards rank hypocrisy...I can understand...it is pretty indefensible...

I know, my job went to Bangalore thanks to Clinton and the DOL's 'ship jobs out' policy and 'give corporations a taxbreak to do it' policies. That is indefensible. Now, with the mortgage meldown the jobs in India that used to be in the US...they're gone too. Funny how what goes around comes around isn't it ? (Greenpoint Mortgage, CapitalOne)

From this...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=632

To this...
http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/greenpoint-mortgage-closed/

Edwards won't allow this kind of stupidity via 'globalization' rah-rahs like HRC.

Just look at the meltdown in mortgage servicing, quite a litany:
http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/a-list-of-recent-mortgage-closures-mergers-and-layoffs/

Buy a clue. The Unions are supporting Clinton because she is interested in changing NAFTA!

Try to keep UP!

Being a true leader does not mean you never change your mind. When circumstances or your knowledge of a given issue changes, it only makes sense to adjust your views accordingly. Edwards is still the best candidate for the progressive thinking man or woman.

But Edwards is trying to completely make himself over...trying to run away from the 6 years in the Senate he never talks about...

China trade, NAFTA, licenses of undocumented aliens, IWR, right to work laws...and on and on

Why is it only his record in government is irrelevant to his qualifications to be President?

He wants everyone to forget what he stood for befor e this year, but wants to hang the others on their past records...

but being wrong on such a significant number of his senatorial votes, raises questions about his judgment. I doubt that he'd be retained at a normal workplace with that track record, and certainly not promoted for advancement.

...this article was from Jan 2002 and so you be the judge as to how NAFTA has made the lives of working pweople any better

<snip>
How much does "free" trade really cost?
by Berger, Rose Marie, Hochstedler, Jodi

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) turns 8 in January 2002. Congress is now considering a hemispheric expansion in the form of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. A look back at life since NAFTA.

8,000,000 -- Number of Mexican families that dropped from the middle class into poverty since NAFTA.

44 -- Number of tons of hazardous waste dumped in Mexico daily since NAFTA.

400,000 -- Number of U.S. jobs lost due to plant relocations.

77% -- The average pay of a displaced U.S. worker's next job, compared to prior salary.

19,000,000 -- Number of children in Latin America working (and receiving no education) since NAFTA.

$203,000,000 -- Amount the U.S. agricultural trade surplus with Mexico and Canada increased before NAFTA (between 1991 and 1994).

$1.498 billion -- Amount the U.S. agricultural trade surplus fell since NAFTA.

Source: Sojourners Magazine, Jan/Feb 2002

take place.

Our Candidates -- no matter who they are cannot change
a position.

I thought the characteristic of wisdom is the ability
to change our mind after studying an issue.

They will be all over HRC about that darn drivers license
issue--She has had to reverse on that. We will play right
into GOP hands affirming Immigration is the most serious
issue going.

They will find something on which Obama may have thought
better of the situation. I believe Obama held the same
position as did all our candidates except Dodd.

We must never have any hope of changing Trade Policy.
Edwards will be the next one, we like a bunch of legal
eagles spend our time, it seems looking for some little
discrepancy.


How about if we let them all come out do a Mea Culpa
and explain how circumstances and more information
and observations, they have changed positions.

We never get to have discussion of issues, the good part
and issues always have down sides --

I am sorry but the nitpicking just hit me wrong . Sorry.

First, this AdNag piece is, like everything AdNag writes about Democrats, meant to hurt him. Nonetheless, it doesn't support your argument that Edwards changed his position. AdNag's spin notwithstanding, even AdNag uses the word "repeatedly" to describe Edwards's position on NAFTA. In fact, it says this:

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR; Edwards Says Nafta Is Important, but in Need of Change
Print
Save
Share
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: February 24, 2004

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.''

...

Mr. Edwards said yesterday that even the kind of protections that he advocated would not produce a dramatic change in the flow of jobs from the country, which he has blamed on Nafta.

''What we want to do is have a trade policy that's fair and allows free trade to continue, but slows the loss of these jobs,'' he said. ''It won't stop it. Slows it.''

...

With help like this Edwards doesn't need to "attack"

Besides, if you want more of the same globalization offshoring outsourcing, vote for HRC or Obama. They'll both keep doing the same thing they're doing now with Bush.

If you want progressive change and have experienced outsourcing firsthand and don't want to see any more of it, VOTE EDWARDS !

n/t

:sarcasm: :eyes:

What are you trying to say? That Hillary is a better candidate because she has a different current position? A different past position?

Or are you just pretending you are a republican and are trying to dig up every old vote, muddy it up and see if it sticks?

I really don't understand your post.

I think what Elmer is trying to say is that John Edwards continues to do what he does best. He doesn't hesitate to change his tune whenever he thinks it's politically correct for him to do so.

What is it called when you criticize someone for something you yourelf have done? What is that word...

Obviously Edwards is campaigning hard for us citizens, not mega-corporate entities.

Woo hoo, go John go!

In response to yet another hypocritical position shift from Edwards