Edwards calls trade 'a moral issue' that sets him apart from Kerry

[maddezmom]

MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2004


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



(02-19) 08:50 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

John Edwards, his campaign boosted by criticism of U.S. trade policy and the loss of jobs to overseas markets, on Thursday called trade "a moral issue" that sets him apart from John Kerry in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"When we talk about trade, we are talking about values," Edwards said in a speech at Columbia University as he tried to build on a surprisingly strong second-place showing in the Wisconsin primary.

The North Carolina senator focused on the economy and jobs while campaigning in Wisconsin, largely by making the case that trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement have led to a flow of high-paying jobs to China and other low-wage countries.

Edwards said he believes the same theme will work in the 10 states holding "Super Tuesday" primaries March 2. He is targeting Georgia, Ohio and the industrial regions of upstate New York.

While Kerry has been critical of the way free-trade deals have been carried out, the Massachusetts senator voted for them, setting the stage for the loss of jobs in the United States, Edwards said.


~snip~

more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/19/politics1150EST0576.DTL

Worth a read....going to see if I can find the speech from Columbia on the Edwards' site.

[AP]

1. Kerry only talks about the China trade normalization bill.

Edwards, "told his college audience Thursday that his disagreements with Kerry extended well beyond NAFTA and include many trade agreements he has opposed. "

It'd be helpful to see the complete list of trade bills and see how they both voted.

Dan Schorr said on NPR over the summer that the line for Edwards is whether they hurt American jobs. I wonder what his info was.

[maddezmom]

2. yes, it would be helpful

looked for the speech on the site, but only listed a press release. Maybe it'll be on later.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 19, 2004 Contact: Jennifer Palmeiri
[phone]

Edwards Asks Four Simple Questions On Trade
NEW YORK, NY: Speaking at Columbia University two days after his strong finish in the Wisconsin primary, Senator John Edwards (D-NC) today outlined the four questions he will ask as president to make sure our trade agreements work for the American economy and the American people.

"When we talk about trade, we are talking about values," Edwards said. "There is no question that our current trade policies are good for the profits of multinational corporations. They are good for some people in the financial sector here in New York City--not all, but some.

"But that is not good enough. It is not good enough to serve the interests of shareholders and executives but sacrifice the needs of ordinary people who work for a living. It is not good enough to say that we'll drive up stock prices if it means driving down wages. If we really believe in honoring work and working people, we must change our trade policies."

Edwards said America needs to choose a different path when it comes to trade agreements - a path that honors America's values of hard work, responsibility, integrity and fairness. "When I am your president, every time I look at a trade deal, these are the simple questions I will ask."

Will this deal create jobs in America, or will it destroy jobs?

Does the trade deal have strong labor standards in the text of the agreement, to make sure companies cannot profit by using child labor or paying people pennies a day to work in disgusting conditions?

Does the deal have strong environmental standards, or does it instead allow companies to challenge our own environmental laws and drag them down?

Are these provisions enforceable, or are they merely advisory?
"When it comes to bad trade agreements, I know what they do to people," Edwards said. "I have seen it with my own eyes what happens when the mill shuts down. It's devastating when those jobs are gone. We can't stop them all from leaving and we can't bring them all back. But we can pass trade deals that keep American jobs in America."

Edwards has a strong record of standing up to trade agreements that are bad for our workers and bad for our values. In addition to opposing NAFTA, Edwards voted against Fast Track and trade agreements with the Caribbean, Africa, Chile and Singapore. "Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our standards. We have got to put trade policies in line with our values. We can do this and make our economy strong."

###

__________________________________

The item that isn't in this press release is his support for Perm Trade Relations to China http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/floor_pntr.html

[SEAburb]

4. What about Edwards YEA vote on Andean Trade Preference Act

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00130

Doesn't seem to jibe with his rhetoric.

[AP]

6. How 'bout his no vote on everything else (here's an article).

Edwards, who came in a surprisingly close second in Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday, emphasized the nation's 5.6 percent unemployment rate in his campaign and blamed it on trade policy.

The loss of manufacturing jobs has been a key issue for Democratic presidential candidates. . . . In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, the N.C. senator insisted that "it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have a very different record on trade."

. . . the two split on a May 11, 2000, Senate vote on a trade pact for Africa and the Caribbean. Kerry supported it; Edwards opposed it.

Edwards also voted against two trade agreements last year, one with Singapore, the other with Chile. Kerry didn't vote on either.

http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/article.pl?newsid=&sid=04/02/19/1044248&mode=nested&commentsort=1

[seaglass]

19. Do you know if Edwards voted for Kerry's amendment

on Fast Track in May 2002?

During debate of the bill Senator John Kerry (D-MA) proposed an amendment that would have prevented future trade agreements from including provisions identical to Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. These provisions grant foreign corporations broad powers to sue U.S. taxpayers for damages if U.S. environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with the corporations’ businesses. However the Kerry amendment failed to pass by a vote of 55-41 on May 21, 2002. The bill passed the Senate, and in August emerged from conference with its House counterpart.

[AP]

23. He voted Nay, along with Kerry and 41 others.

http://capwiz.com/c-span/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

[seaglass]

24. thanks. n/t

[gottaB]

3. It does set him apart, at least rhetorically

But sermons are best left for the clergy.

I demand ethical conduct and responible governance from the people I vote for. I don't want to hear about their morals.

Every Democratic candidate presumably finds child labor, slave labor, poverty and other forms of human suffering to be morally repugnant. Even Republicans have been known to feel that way. The question is, though, what are you going to do about it?

Kerry has plans for job creation, improving conditions for American workers, raising the minimum wage, discouraging companies from taking jobs overseas, and bringing fairness to international trade agreements. I reckon Edwards does as well, but it seems like all he wants to talk about are his qualifications to be our chief moralist.

Edwards says he wants to go toe to toe with Bush on the question of morality. That's unwise. For one thing, I don't know what Bush's morals are. What I know for sure is that he is incompetent and irresponsible and that he says things which aren't true. I suspect Edwards has a better moral sensibility, but I can't prove it, and it's not the kind of thing one proves anyway.

[Armstead]

5. It IS a moral issue

One problem, I have with Kerry is that he looks at "free trade" as a technocrat. He thinks it is a good system, but just needs some tinkering.

He ignores that fact that the present "free trade" policies are NOT what they are presented as. They are not merely agreements to facilitate trade.

NAFTSA/WTC and all the ret are POLITICAL. They are an attempt to impose a conservative political agenda on the entire world, anmd undermone the ability of nations and governments to have their own economic policies.

That is a moral issue that gets to the heart of Corporate Conservativm of the right wing variety. By igngoring that dimension, Kerry is ignoring the problem.

[Gin]

7. I want to start hearing how it can be fixed....I know it's unfair..

and I know the wealthy benefit...now I need to hear how the dems can do something to make this playing field more level.

I hear lots of rebel rousing and getting voters worked up to vote for them......what is their plan now???? Can any of these agreements even be fixed?

[gottaB]

8. political, yes

moral, I don't want to hear it. Certainly not from a politician.

You talk about what's moral, and opposing a conservative political agenda, but have you considered the consequences of describing this conflict in those terms? Does that kind of talk really promote a liberal agenda?

Decency, fairness, responsibility, all these words that Edwards cites as values, those I agree are relevant and can be debated. But how do we debate who's got better morals without dragging religion into it? Who among us is the final arbiter of what's righteous and what is wicked?

How does John Edwards feel about pluralism? Is that a fundamental value of his? If it were, I should expect that he would think better of talking up his moral differences with his political opponents.

[jpgpenn]

9. Edwards is going try the "moral" stance?

This is the same John Edwards that has made over 40 million dollars as a high % trial lawyer but never did any pro bono work? :puke:

[revcarol]

10. It's such a moral issue that he voted for "normalization" of trade with

China!!

Anyone checked WalMart's shelves recently? Most goods made in China.

Just another enabler of shipping out American jobs, disguising himself as labor's godsend.:puke:

Or maybe I am wrong. He's trying to build up China's middle class.

[AP]

11. China's cheating on that trade deal. Up above is a list of some of the...

...trade bills Edwards voted against.

[anti-NAFTA]

12. Better than Kerry.

Kerry won't even mention trade once Edwards gets out of his way.

[AP]

13. And until that happens, Kerry is ONLY going to talk about China.

[anti-NAFTA]

14. And Kerry's rhetoric is the most idiotic bullshit I've heard

since Lieberman's "made in America and sold abroad" comment. Calling companies that outsource "Benedict Arnold companies" is such a cheap appeal to patriotism. How about the fact that many companies have been forced to outsource because they could either do that or go out of business. How about raising tariff barriers to allow foreign goods to compete with American goods in our market while raising revenues instead of your bullshit "close loopholes" platitudes, Mr Kerry?

[GreenArrow]

17. cheap appeals to patriotism work

I suspect we'll see plenty of additional sheep appeals from both of these candiates, not to mention Darth Bushler.

[mouse7]

15. I don't see Edwards pledging to end NAFTA and WTO Treaties

If Edwards isn't pledging to pull the US out of NAFTA and the WTO, I don't see any substantive difference between Edwards and Kerry.

[GreenArrow]

18. there isn't

it parsing, rhetoric, and presentation; in short, a sales pitch.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Kerry: "Clearly Unaccountable Global Bureaucrats" At WTO/IMF

Knowledge is power. Check out these links before coming to hasty decisions about Kerry's trade position:

The WTO/IMF comments:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:L3dpESAnS2wJ:www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf+john+kerry+stopping+at+the+water%27s+edge&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

See the Kerry Amendment to NAFTA to get a sense of his priorities:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=34553

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[revcarol]

20. I've never see such a crock of cat shit in my life.

Even Clinton wasn't this bad as he promoted the loss of our jobs overseas to "develop their middle class."

Further comments would be aginst the rules of DU.

[anti-NAFTA]

21. i don't understand your point

???

Are you referring to Kerry or Edwards?

Clinton advocated loss of jobs to "develop their middle class"?

[revcarol]

22. Kerry: he calls them unaccountable, yet continued to vote for MORE.

And says that some countries need more globalization, not less.Not more trade that might benfit them, on mutually agreeable terms, "globalization!!"

I was teaching in El Paso when Clinton came through for NAFTA. He said that NAFTA would develop the Mexican middle class. HAH!! Mexican wages have gone DOWN since NAFTA was introduced.

Kerry's statement is a bunch of pretty words that don't mean anything. His actions speak louder, to me. He shows no grasp that coporatism is a dangerous thing to let loose on poor unsuspecting countries, and has no regard for Americans losing their jobs. He has a great spiel about "reviving the manufacturing sector" on his site, but won't admit culpability in voting for AGREEMENT AFTER AGREEMENT that decimated our manufacturing base. Sure, we can't tell what industries would have remained here without these agreements, but they sure ACCELERATED the loss of American jobs.