The truth: Edwards' voting record on trade is like Ted Kennedy's

Edwards

Date Bill Title Vote
07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill N

Edwards also opposed South Korea trade, Peru trade, and CAFTA since leaving the Senate. I don't know if he commented on Oman but he presumably would have also voted against that.

Kennedy

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill NV

NT

Trade is one of the centerpieces of Edwards' populism. He was swiftboated on this. Where are the fuckers now?

Where are you folks now? Where you lying all along or did you just never bother to check his record and verify the bull you were spewing? If it was the former what, um, "motivation" did you have for doing it?

like edwards does now.

I cant find any info otherwise.

I would grant since NAFTA, lots of dems have moved left on trade -- seeing its effect on jobs and income. Edwards, however, bothers me (and I think others) on this issue because he is sanctimonious towards the other candidates. The truth is, as your post clearly indicates, John Edwards has a mixed record on trade.

Ted Kennedy claims to be an advocate of working folk, just like Edwards. Mixed record on trade? He's opposed every trade bill to come down the pike during his career except for one. Granted that was a big one but Ted Kennedy and many other good Democrats voted for it. Maybe Kennedy saw what Edwards and a Democratic president saw as potential benefits at the time?

No serious Democrat says they are for free trade anymore per se. Even Obama and Hillary say they want fair trade.

but his record isnt pure here. NAFTA (our neighbors) and China (our #1 business partner) are not small exceptions.

Ted Kennedy
# Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
# Voted YES on NAFTA

In addition to:
# Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
# Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)

Mixed Record on trade. He's just not attacking other dems on trade. He targets republicans.

Too many progressives make the mistake of waiting for a perfect candidate, who has never made a mistake and agrees with them on every issue, every vote. That candidate does not exist, will never exist.

I wonder why Kennedy is staying out of the endorsement game? I was under the impression that Kennedy and Edwards got along famously.

Just my opinion, but I appreciate office holders staying out of things and letting the people decide.

Campaigning for other Dems in general elections is great, but not in the primaries. People are being steered enough as it is. Those in positions of power have the potential for having a built-in bias and conflict of interest and they also have an unfair and disproportionate influence over the process by virtue of the office they hold.

book marked.

Where are you punks?

no on the the China PNTR bill. More Republicans than Democrats in the Congress voted for the China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, which did not have to be passed for entry into the WTO as some have claimed.

This report was published before the vote.

"Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses"

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137


How many jobs have been lost to Singapore, Chile and Africa and how have those trade deals affected our deficit? Some votes count more than others :)


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-4444

Are you going to claim Ted Kennedy is a corporate crony who sold out working folk? Maybe we need to examine the context, legislative history, and the rationale for the PNTR bill?

Kucinich is great at saying "no" to everything. Presidents have to get things done.

I posted the entire record because you can see their predispositions that way. Compare their records to Kerry's, or even Hillary or Obama's on trade, for example.

Let's look at the nations involved in these trade agreements Edwards opposed: every nation in Africa and the carribean, several Andean states, Chile, Singapore, South Korea, several central American states, Peru, always supported fixing NAFTA. Add it up. What are the populations of these countries? The size of their economies? They matter. The overall record matters. The PNTR flyspecking is bull because it doesn't put it into context.

before voting for bills than Edwards does?

How did the people benefit from this bill. Sure we can buy more things made in China, that may or may not be safe, but in the long term who has benefited more? Job losses and our trade deficit has probably been more affected by China than the countries you mentioned.

Not sure why you added in other countries now? I had a longer reply, but it was lost with a computer error.


http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/congress-%91doesn%92t-get-it,'-and-neither-do-other-democratic-presidential-candidates/

"...“When they’re standing in front of a union audience or outside a closed plant somewhere, they bemoan the three millions jobs that have been lost because of free trade agreements,” Kucinich noted. “When they had a chance to vote as a member of Congress, they supported those agreements, which means they voted against American workers.”

...He pointed out that Edwards has been critical lately of dangerous and
defective products being imported from China, but, “he carefully avoids telling voters that he supported the China Trade Agreement in 2000.”

In fact, Kucinich noted, Edwards made a statement in 2000 acknowledging that “it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt.”


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

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/%91made-in-china%92-hazards-began-with-%91made-in-washington,-d.c.%92/

WASHINGTON, D.C. – “Made in China” has become a health and safety warning label for American consumers following the recalls of tens of millions of Chinese-made toys, but the “real warning label should say ‘Made in Washington, D.C. by corporate lobbyists’ because the life-threatening hazards of these products were either ignored or brushed off by members of the Congress seven yeas ago,” Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

And, at least one then-member of the Senate, John Edwards, who has been railing lately in favor of higher safety standards for Chinese-made products, defended his 2000 vote supporting expanded China trade with the famously reported comment, “it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt.”

Kennedy has a long record of getting things done on behalf of working folks. Kucinich has a long record of playing to the cameras with false outrage. Most members of Congress are interested in getting things done, not getting national attention for quixotic presidential campaigns by complaining about everything and offering no real solutions.

I didn't add in other countries. You did not click on the bills I listed to see which countries they applied to.

Your links contain a shameless swift boat type smear of Edwards by Kucinich by using a partial quote and taking it out of context (it did get Kucinich some ink so it did serve its purpose). It also is full of Monday morning quarterbacking. Shall we compare the records of Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich when it comes to working folk? I know who I trust.

know. As far as comparing records why not just compare the current candidates???

Dennis has been advocating for a not for profit single-payer system since 2000 and as he said many times this is a fight within the party so he has offered solutions, but big money is not in favor of those solutions.

While I am glad to see Edwards has adopted some positions from Kucinich there already has been significant and long term damage to our nation. People made poor choices at the time and did not have the judgment and courage to stand up when it mattered. What Edwards says now sounds good, but I would rather vote for someone who had the wisdom and guts to speak out when it could have altered the course.

I'm not going to counter the smears you have thrown at Kucinich, let the record speak for itself on the issues.

I'll take him over those two as well, as great as Wellstone was and as good Feingold is on many issues (I hear a lot about him on the war, campaign finance, ethics, but don't know his economic record). We can single out Senators all day long. The point is this: PNTR was not a clear cut issue at the time of the vote.

Single-payer is not a real solution. It is dead on arrival. It is an example of what I am talking about. Kucinich, ever since he began running for president (he changed positions on several issues since then...), takes the most left-wing position on every issue, even when impractical. The best example of his demagoguery is his position for reparations (Kucinich was hardly the second coming of Malcolm X on race when mayor of Cleveland in the 70's when there was tension between white ethnics, like himself, and blacks...). He then goes and attacks other candidates for not being "true to the faith" by taking realistic positions. He keeps his cottage industry going of being seen as a progressive saint, takes his two percent, and basks on the national stage while getting fringe benefits such as meeting women through it.

Edwards did the right things when he it mattered. He does so now. It is a myth, as this thread shows, that he didn't.

as well.

"Edwards did the right things when he it mattered."

Helped pass the IWR, Yucca Mountain, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Bill, the largest trade bill...China, NCLB, Bankruptcy bill that Clinton vetoed because it was too harsh, The Financial Services Modernization Act

Forgive me if I do not say thank you for the above votes.

:eyes:


Financial Services Modernization Act

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

"After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

Go John! :D

:thumbsup:

:kick:

:hi:

Where are you folks?

other issues of vital importance to working Americans.

Looks like some people would rather smear Edwards than live in the reality-based community!

China issue, which he obviously sees differently now, some were outspoken AT THE TIME and saw the potential problems for people in this country and for people in China.


Report published 7 months before the vote

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536832

2000...

"China as 'keystone' to American prosperity

As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”


2008...

"Later Thursday, in a meeting with 200 voters in Boone, Iowa, he said, “We’ve got these trade deals that cost Americans millions of jobs, and what do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys.”

That line got a good reaction from the crowd.

Edwards didn’t tell them what he himself had said seven years ago when he voted for the China trade deal...

China accounts for 16 percent of U.S. imports — nearly $288 billion worth of goods last year. China is running neck and neck with Canada as the top source of U.S. imports..."

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

Costly Trade With China

Millions of U.S. jobs displaced with net job loss in every state

October 9, 2007 (revised) (originally released May 2, 2007)

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp188

"Contrary to the predictions of its supporters, China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) has failed to reduce its trade surplus with the United States or increase overall U.S. employment. The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs. Most of these jobs (1.8 million) have been lost since China entered the WTO in 2001...

Nearly three-quarters of the jobs displaced were in manufacturing industries. Simply put, the promised benefits of trade liberalization with China have been unfulfilled.


...China also engages in extensive suppression of labor rights; it has been estimated that wages in China would be 47% to 85% higher in the absence of labor repression....As a result, China's exports to the United States of $288 billion in 2006 were six times greater than U.S. exports to China, which were only $52 billion (Table 1). China's trade surplus was responsible for 42.6% of the United States' total, non-oil trade deficit. This is by far the United States' most imbalanced trading relationship. Unless and until China revalues (raises) the yuan and eliminates these other trade distortions, the U.S. trade deficit and job losses will continue to grow rapidly in the future.

...The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: New Hampshire (-13,000, -2.1%), North Carolina (-77,200, -2.0%), California (-269,300, -1.8%), Massachusetts (-59,300, -1.8%), Rhode Island (-8,400, -1.8%), South Carolina (-29,200, -1.6%), Vermont (-4,900, -1.6%), Oregon (-25,700, -1.6%), Indiana (-45,200, -1.5%), and Georgia (-60,400, -1.5%) (Table 2B).

China's entry into the WTO was supposed to bring it into compliance with an enforceable, rules-based regime, which would require that it open its markets to imports from the United States and other nations. The United States also negotiated a series of special safeguard measures designed to limit the disruptive effects of surging Chinese imports on domestic producers. However, the core of the agreement failed to include any protections to maintain or improve labor or environmental standards. As a result, China's entry into the WTO has further tilted the international economic playing field against domestic workers and firms, and in favor of multinational companies (MNCs) from the United States and other countries, and state- and privately-owned exporters in China. This has increased the global "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality and caused the closing of thousands of U.S. factories, decimating employment in a wide range of communities, states, and entire regions of the United States."


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

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/nc/trade/story/193784.html

"Within hours, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, a fellow Democrat, issued a statement criticizing Edwards for a vote in 2000 that liberalized trade relations with China "without the inclusion of those same labor and environmental protections he talked about today."

"As a result ... Iowa stands to lose more than 9,000 jobs this decade alone," Gephardt said.

He told The Associated Press that Edwards is a "Johnny-come-lately" on the issue."


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

http://www.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7406&eeid=5649131&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=

"Recalls
Published: 1/23/08, 6:06 PM EDT
By The Associated Press
(AP) - The following recalls have been announced:

_About 125,000 Battat Magnabild Magnetic Building Systems, distributed by Battat Inc. and made in China, because small magnets inside the building pieces can fall out and young children can swallow them. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause internal damage. There have been 16 reports of magnets falling out and no reports of injuries. The recall involves the 293-piece and 180-piece sets, sold at various stores nationwide and through online sellers from 2005 through 2007. For more information, call 800-247-6144.

_About 2,000 toy race cars, manufactured in China by OKK Trading Inc., because surface paints contain high levels of lead, which is toxic if ingested by children. No injuries have been reported. The cars were sold at dollar and discount stores around the country between October and November 2007. Details: by phone at 877-655-8697; by Web at http://www.okktrading.com or http://www.cpsc.gov."


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

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:0C6ZriF-FKMJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/932450.stm+Senator+Wellstone+on+China+Trade&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us

"I believe that we will deeply regret this stampede to pass this legislation," Senator Paul Wellstone said...

...Labour unions fear the move could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs as Chinese goods flood the market and factories move to China to take advantage of lower wages.

Others have warned the bill will exacerbate the massive US trade deficit with China, which hit $68bn last year.

China critics tried to scuttle the bill in the Senate by bogging it down with amendments on subjects ranging from weapons proliferation to human rights abuses, but these were all defeated.

Boost for business

Suppporters of the bill include business groups who say it will boost exports and create high-paying jobs..."

What you did is the classic game of finding a few articles to prove your argument instead of doing what Senators do and looking at all sides of the argument. Kennedy thought it was a good idea. No one has been a better champion of working folk in America than Sen. Kennedy. It passed 83-15. Why don't you post the legislative history and arguments for it? Whose idea was it anyway? A Democratic president's by any chance?

to the current deficit. Are you saying those facts are not true? I think even Edwards would agree with the job losses and trade deficit.

You can post the history if you like, read which groups supported the bill and which groups opposed the bill and that will give you a clue. Again more Republican in Congress voted for the bill, House and Senate combined.

HR 4444, I've already posted the link a few times.

As I said to you the first time, not all trade deals impact our economy the same, but you can believe that if you like.


Singapore
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5590.html

Chile
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3370.html

China
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html



http://www.alternet.org/story/74268?page=1

"The resilient 2008 candidate attacks the "inside game between competing corporate interests" in U.S. politics.


Hedges: Have we evolved into a corporate state?

Kucinich: I Look at it as the political equivalent of genetic engineering. That we've taken the gene of corporate America and shot it into both political parties. So they both now are growing with that essence within. So what does that mean? It means oil runs our politics. Corrupt Wall Street interests run our politics. Insurance companies run our politics. Arms manufacturers run our politics. And the public interest is being strangled. Fulfilling the practical aspirations of people should be our mission. How do we measure up to providing people with jobs? It was a Democratic president that made it possible for NAFTA to be passed, causing millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs that help support the middle class. . . .

NAFTA, GAT, the WTO, China Trade, and every other trade agreement that's passed in Congress has been passed with the help of either the leadership of or with the help of the Democratic Party, knowing that each and every one of those agreements was devoid of protections for workers, knowing that if you don't have workers' rights put into a trade agreement then workers here in the United States are going to see their own bargaining position undermined because corporations can move jobs out of the country to places where workers don't have any rights. They don't have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike. So what I see is that the Democratic Party abandoned working people, and paradoxically they're the ones who hoist the flag of workers every two and four years only to engender excitement, and then to turn around and abandon their constituency. This is now on the level of a practiced ritual. At least a biannual ceremony, or every two years. So you can see how pernicious this becomes when the minimum wage increase was tied to funding the war. That, to me, says it all. Because it is inevitably the sons and daughters of working Americans that are the ones who are led to slaughter. Aspirations for health care.

So what I've done in my campaign is to advocate a full-employment economy. How do you do that? A new WPA-type program. We'll rebuild America's bridges, water systems, sewer systems, our libraries, our universities, our mass transit systems. And we do that with a program that I introduced legislation in repeated Congresses with the cosponsorship of a Republican from Ohio by the name of Steven LaTourette and the bill, HR 3400, provides for rebuilding America's infrastructure. And I would put millions of people back to work in good-paying jobs. I would put millions more back to work in new energy policies where we would design, engineer, manufacture, install and maintain wind and solar microtechnologies which would be retrofitted into tens of millions of American homes and businesses, driving down our carbon footprint and dramatically reducing our cost of energy. This would be a major development in America to take us away from a condition where America is leading the way towards the destruction of our global climate. I call this part of it the WG: a Works Green Administration, where we turn government into an engine of sustainability, where the whole government becomes about moving towards green. The transportation plan, mass transit, housing and development - it's about green housing, solar, natural lighting, using recycled material, the energy department stops incentivizing coal and oil and nuclear, and moves toward incentivizing wind and solar, bringing forward a whole generation of entrepreneurs just waiting to get into green energy solutions..."

Most Democrats voted for it too. Only 15 voted against it.

trade and the impact they have on our economy. Although you continue to overlook the report published prior to the vote and continue to ignore the votes from the House. Taken together, which is what I have said along, more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats.

Th Senate vote was in September 2000 which is when Edwards said that the bill would...

"...As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”

He was wrong, yes others were as well, but each person must take responsibility for themselves. Again some made the right decisions and others made the wrong decisions.

Maybe he did not bother to read some of the information and was briefed...or something.

:shrug:


February 16, 2000 Issue Brief #137

The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal
Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137