Which candidate is the best on labor/corporate issues?

[jpgray]

quick as I can edit: Too narrow a topic "corporate regulation" at first posting. If you want to change your vote, please post what you voted and what you change it to. Thanks, and sorry. :crazy:

[Tinoire]

1. Kucinich. Never pandered to them. Never will.

No stories of back-rooms deals in his closet...

If anything, we have the opposite with the Municipal Company in Cleveland.

On edit- answered to "Corporate Regulation"

[Darranar]

2. Kucinich. No question.

[DjTj]

3. Edwards has the best chance of bringing the issues mainstream...

...and actually doing something about it.

This is not just a matter of votes, but it is the way he talks about labor/corporate issues. He is the best candidate at energizing working people and explaining those issues to the general populace.

His stances may not be as purely pro-labor/anti-corporate as Kucinich, but Edwards would be able to accomplish more.

[AP]

8. And don't underestimate the significance of these qualities.

Clinton's health care plan was essentially a battle between people and corporations, and the corporations won because they mastered the discourse before Clinton did (and, well, there was the money angle -- Clinton spent, like 100K to sell his plan and the corps must have spent 10 mil).

[mitchum]

4. Kucinich, of course

[RichM]

5. "The Workers' White House" - A speech by D.J.Kucinich, 2/17/2003

Brothers and Sisters. I am Dennis Kucinich. I am a dues-paying member of the camera operator's union, IATSE Local 600, of the AFL-CIO. Tomorrow I am filing papers in Washington, DC to explore becoming President of the United States of America. Let us make 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the address of Worker's Local Number One.

On this President's Day 2003, let us reflect upon another address. One made at Gettysburg, where Lincoln prayed that "a government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth." If I am elected President, this union membership card will be placed on my desk as a reminder that in America the people rule.

You are the "people" to whom the spirit of Lincoln speaks today...

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech11.htm

[ShaneGR]

6. Kucinich and Edwards are the only 2 anti-NAFTA left

Wish I could vote for both.

[genius]

7. That's right. Your job could depend on your vote.

Does anyone know if Kerry has changed his position on NAFTA?

[AP]

9. Would you trust him if he did?

Kucinich and Edwards are anti-nafta in their blood.

[Indiana_Dem]

13. Show me where Edwards is anti-NAFTA? n/t

[AP]

20. From David Bonior's endorsement of Edwards:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=621

"The Carolinas and Michigan have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since the passage of NAFTA , and one of the reasons I am supporting John is that he campaigned against NAFTA and knows that we have to fight for fair trade, not just free trade," Bonior said. "As someone who grew up in a small town of working class people, John knows and understands the challenges facing families all over the country, and I admire the fact that he is addressing fundamental issues like race and poverty."

[redqueen]

21. Does he understand we can't change NAFTA ?

Does he understand why we need to get out of the WTO?

If he thinks it's a lie when Kucinich says we cannot change NAFTA under the laws of the WTO, why won't he explain how we can? And for that matter, why we haven't changed it to the benefit of workers anytime during the past 10 years?

[AP]

23. Bonior's endorsement, plus:

Stop the global "race to the bottom" by creating fair trade deals. Edwards will support strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in trade laws. He has opposed trade deals like NAFTA because they don't have these standards and hurt workers both in the United States and abroad. Edwards also supports an international "right to know" so consumers can act when corporations mistreat their workers or the environment. And Edwards will protect farmers by opposing trade deals like the Australian Trade Deal, which is likely to hurt Wisconsin dairy farmers and could accelerate farm closings in Wisconsin.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=652

Support Strong Labor and Environmental Standards in Trade Policies. John Edwards believes that trade deals without strong labor and environmental standards are bad for American workers and bad for workers overseas. These weak deals encourage a corporate "race to the bottom" in which companies go to the countries that treat workers and the environment worst. For this reason, Edwards has opposed NAFTA, fast track authority for this President, and recent and proposed trade deals with Chile, Singapore, and Central America. Senator Edwards would only enter trade deals that protect labor rights and the environment. He will:

-Incorporate core labor standards of the International Labor Organization into trade agreements, including the right to collective bargaining, prohibition on slave labor, and minimum age requirements for labor, as well as real minimum wage standards.


- Establish strong mechanisms for enforcement of international labor standards. For example, Edwards would seek to include provisions permitting the United States to treat imports produced in highly abusive conditions as "hot goods" that would be stopped at the border.


- Uphold health and environmental laws, rather than undermining them. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, foreign investors have gained the ability to challenge U.S. health, environmental, and safety laws in arbitration hearings that are closed to the public. Chapter 11 is an outrageous attack on the ability of America and other nations to protect the environment. Edwards opposes the inclusion of Chapter 11 in labor agreements.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=653

[redqueen]

26. So he sees these are unacceptable.

Will he end them?

[AP]

27. If I had to guess, the strategy would have to be very clever.

I have no idea what Edwards would do next with NAFTA, short of what I've heard (which is no new treaties that hurt American jobs).

You can see the problem: pull out of NAFTA and WTO immediately and the right wing will probably blame an inevitiable short term economic downturn on the Dems. Dems lose next election. NAFTA and WTO legitimized, and embraced even more firmly by the right wing (which would become even more entrenched).

What do you do?

There are several regions outside of NA which have yet to have trade agreements. If I were advising Edwards, I would say hold up on attacking NAFTA for 8 months, sign a FAIR trade agreement with South America immediately -- one that builds up the middle class in SA immediately (by protecting wages and rights) and which keeps jobs in America. Focus all efforts on making, eg, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and US work really well together. It might hurt Mexico short term, but once it becomes obvious that flowing money to middle class here and abroad works to create better markets, more happiness, and greater social wealthy, NAFTA and WTO will be scrambling to replicate the successes by modifying their agreements.

I think that's the smart strategy. And I think (guessing) that that's what Edwards is leaning towards when he says no new bad treaties -- he means new good treaties which outshine NAFTA and WTO, and take more and more commerce out from under the auspices of those treaties and place it within the framework of GOOD trade agreements.

The US-South American relationship is a gold mine of liberal progressivism waiting to be realized. I'm sure Edwards would love to work with Lula and Hugo -- they have the same core principles and hold keys to mutual prosperity.

[redqueen]

28. Sounds good to me!

He sees the problems, though, so holding his feet to the fire if he wins will be easy. :)

Thanks for the info!

[AP]

29. then a kick wouldn't be totally unreasonable.

[Indiana_Dem]

30. Well, that changes my mind a little about Edwards....

[AP]

33. informed opinions are the best opinions!

Here's a good thread, by the way:

Top Ten lies about Edwards

Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 09:08 PM by anti-bush





Lie #1. Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act.

Truth : Edwards was on the committee that wrote the Patriot Act, but the only portion of it that he was responsible for was the sunset provision which called for the Patriot Act to end, which is why Bush is now having to ask for the Patriot Act to be renewed. Read his floor statement at http://www.cdt.org/security/011011senate.txt to find out the portions of the bill that are good for America that he supports, and his advocacy for the sunset provision.

Lie #2. Senator Edwards Voted to Support President Bush 71.5% of the time - 76% of the time in 2002

Truth : Senator Edwards voted against the President 58.7% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly's (independent) analysis. He voted against Bush more than any other Senator. Ames Article
Here are some of the votes which are part of that 58.7:
S.743, Naming a Post Office, S.620, Requiring sprinkler systems in fraternities, S.941, Establishing a National Heritage Area .

Lie #3. Senator Edwards has no foreign policy experience.

Truth : Senator Edwards served on the senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first Senators to visit Afghanistan after the Taliban was forcibly removed from power, and met with US troops and coalition forces. Edwards has also traveled to Pakistan and Central Asia to discuss the war on terrorism. He has visited our vital ally, Israel, and other Middle East states to discuss the peace process, and has met with America’s key allies at NATO Headquarters and in London. He has an extensive plan for foreign policy. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/media/foreign-policy.pdf

Lie #4. Senator Edwards voted for the Bush Tax cuts.

Truth : Senator Edwards voted AGAINST the Bush Tax Cuts in bill HR 1836 and against the Tax Cuts in bill HR 2. He voted for the extension of Unemployment Benefits bill which also contained temporary business tax breaks in HR 3090. These TEMPORARY business tax breaks were for development in around the World Trade Center.

Lie #5. John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, but has changed his position and is now against it.

Truth : Senator Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, and believes that we should improve the bill and properly fund it. Bush's budget for FY2004 is $9 Billion short for NCLB, and was $7.3 Billion short in FY2003. Edwards is against unfunded mandates. He believes there are core values in NCLB tho improve our education system, but that the bill can be improved. His stance is outlined on his website.

Lie #6. Senator Edwards voted for the IWR, but now is against the Iraq War.

Truth : Senator Edwards did vote for the IWR and has steadfastly stood by his vote. He was not changed like other Senators. He voted against the $87 Billion blank check because of the way the Bush has mishandled the war. Senator Edwards has a detailed plan to insure a stable democracy in postwar Iraq.

Lie #7. Senator Edwards has weak policies, and what he has were stolen from another candidate.

Truth : Senator Edwards' detailed policy booklet Real Solutions for America and his followup Real Change for American Families are extremely detailed policies and plans for America. Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta in Time Magazine says "If you look at who's got the best stuff out there, it's {John} Edwards." His "Real Solutions" booklet was published and distributed in early 2003, before any of the other candidates began forming their policies and ideas.

Lie #8. Senator Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer.

Truth : John Edwards was a trial lawyer who fought for people without a voice against large corporations and insurance companies. In his Senate run, the Faircloth campaign failed to identify any Edwards case that could be labeled as frivolous or an abuse of the legal system. Chicago Tribune Article. In fact, Edwards has a plan to end frivolous lawsuits, and to remove lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits with a "three strikes you\'re out" policy. This policy will be enforced by a panel of doctors to reduce Medical Malpractice premiums.

Lie #9. Edwards is too young to be president.

Truth : John Edwards is 50 years old, despite his youthful appearance. John Kennedy was 43 when elected, Roosevet 42 when he became president, and Clinton was 46. Edwards will turn 51 in June.

Lie #10. Senator Edwards has good hair.

Truth : Okay, it's not a lie. He has nice looking hair. But having good hair is no reason to keep somebody from becoming president.

For links to supporting material, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=279430

[corporatewhore]

10. Anybody who doesnt say kucinich whats wrong with you?!?!

[jpgray]

11. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised to see him winning this poll

My avatar should leave little question as to where I stand here. :)

But on several other polls I did, it seemed people tended to vote their favorites over the available evidence. DU never ceases to surprise. We're all pretty goofy in here, I'm afraid.

[jpgray]

12. Bedtime kick (nt)

[jazzsammich]

15. hehehehehehehe...

perhaps they aren't paying attention. ^_^

seriously, though, i know a number of democrats who don't quite yet grok the damage that our trade policies and labor policies have been wreaking for the past however-many years. instead, they chalk it up to the idea that the businesses need this leeway to create jobs. never once do they ask what quality the jobs are, or back it up with actual economic statistics that support their stance.

i need to start carrying my david korten books around with me for easier reference. ^_^

--jim k

ps, and... almost totally unrelated, i've been very impressed with the images in your sig this past week, CW. ^_^

*revolution fist in the air*

[ThirdWheelLegend]

14. Odd trend here on DU...

Kucinich handily wins nearly every poll asking "Who is best on 'insert important issue here'?"

Then when asked who will you vote for, quite a few people seem to compromise those issues because of the media created electability myth?

:shrug:

TWL

[jazzsammich]

16. glad to see someone else putting those pieces together.

and then when people see the numbers like 5% here or 2% there, they assume that those numbers ACTUALLY REFLECT the percentage of the population out there who's progressive. which, in turn, feeds the perception that "a progressive candidate can't win". somebody should make this a nationwide survey and get this information out there. the questions should probably be issue-based, rather than candidate-based, though, and then back-calculated to match it to the candidate... seeing as how much of the general population has been either unaware of or ignoring DK and Al.

example:

"Which of the following statements most closely matches your position on health care?"
A) (summary of kerry's position)
B) (summary of dean's position)
C) (summary of kucinich's position)
D) (summary of bush's position)
etc. for as many as needed (I'm assuming some people's positions may overlap or be virtually indistinguishable on certain issues.)

any thoughts on this?

--jim k

[ThirdWheelLegend]

17. Kucinich would come out on top EASILY..

Many times links to surveys/quizzes have been posted that rank the candidates based solely on issues. Always a large majority of people end up with Kucinich as their top match. Then unceremoniously they forget Kucinich and go back to supporting the ones they believe 'electable'. And how often are we subjected to poll results, that mostly reflect name recognition, as proof of who is electable?

TWL

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. Oh yeah, Welcome to DU!

!!!

TWL

[jazzsammich]

34. thanks!

i'm mad glad to be here.

^_^

--jim k

nothin' like a little late-night politics to get my blood boilin' before i try to sleep.

[bornskeptic]

18. Kucinich. No contest there. n/t

[LWolf]

19. Kucinich.

No contest.

[redqueen]

22. Kucinich, of course!

HellO?!

;)

[redqueen]

25. Kick

for ending corporate rule.

:kick:

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[bigtree]

32. DK No Contest

[LWolf]

35. It wouldn't matter if the question

was about labor issues or corporate issues or corporate regulation. Kucinich is miles ahead of the pack on all of those.

Or, it could have been health care. Or the environment. Or civil rights. Or...should I keep going?