John Edwards: Restrict Freedom of Travel

[RafterMan]

Here's a downer:

In 1999, John Edwards joined his Republican colleagues in blocking an amendment which would have restored Americans' freedom to travel to Cuba (1). Maybe you're not itching to go to Cuba, and this doesn't seem like such a big deal to you. But a penchant for ill-considered authoritarianism should concern everybody in the Patriot Act era.

As Chris Dodd (who sponsored the amendment) puts it:

"Because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have a Bill of Rights. We have fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people."(2)

Why is keeping Americans out of Cuba so important to John Edwards? Mojitophobia? It's hard to say, but his website claims "Edwards believes that we need to get serious about political reform and human rights in places like Cuba, North Korea, and throughout the Middle East."(3) If his travel ban is part of a larger pro-democracy push, can we expect to be banned from travel to undemocratic countries like Egypt? Syria? China? Edwards isn't saying, but he has declined to retract his Cuba position, abstaining from a 2003 vote on the same issue (4).

It seems to me that John Edwards just wants too much control for too little reason. Maybe that's why so many of his supporters in Wisconsin claimed to be "satisfied" with President Bush.

Sources:

(1) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html page S7888 (June 30, 1999)
(2) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html pages S7888, S7889 (June 30, 1999)
(3) http://www.johnedwards2004.com/foreign-policy.asp
(4) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00405

Added: link to 1999 vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00189

[bluestateguy]

1. Florida. That's what

The Cubans in Florida want to keep the embargo.

[RafterMan]

3. So

Edwards was running for president in 1999?

It's not the embargo, it's just travel.

[arcos]

5. Yes, he was n/t

[KittyWampus]

8. Yes, The Only Reason Edwards Became Senator Was To Run For POTUS

that's why he couldn't get re-elected. People hate politicians like that.

[AP]

23. From age 18 Kerry wanted to be President, like JFK. What does an 18

year old know about how the world works, expecially when the world you know is Swiss and New England boarding schools.

His driving motivation has been an ambition for power and he has wrapped a political persona around that.

For Edwards, his driving motivation has been to carve out the American Dream for himself and his family from NOTHING except his ability to work hard, and a government that was willing to help out the little guy.

Now that the goverment has changed, and that Edwards has achieved success beyond his wildest dreams, he has decided to accept less personally so that more people can experience America they way he did.

Which one of those, uhm, "reasons" to be president do you find more compelling? honestly.

[KC21304]

26. This is hilarious. Kerry holds public office for 30 some years

and then runs for President. Edwards holds public office for 4 years and then decides to run for President and you say that Kerry's motives are less laudatory then Edwards? That is amazing.

[AP]

29. Laugh it up, but this is going to make the difference in the election.

Mark my words.

[Mairead]

36. AP, did you grow up with a lot of privilege yourself, that you can call

Edwards's intact home and middle-class upbringing 'from NOTHING'? His childhood was hardly 'nothing' except perhaps by comparison to Kerry and Bush. By comparison to the millions who really did and do struggle to reach functioning adulthood 'from nothing', Edwards had it all.

[AP]

37. Edwards is way closer to the typical experience of American life than any

candidate in years.

And unlike many candidates who start from a lower point, he hasn't had to make a single compromise to make up for the fact that he didn't have connections to the powerful.

If you have a candidate who started from a point closer to home for most Americans, and has a chance to win, show him to me. I'll vote for him or her.

[KC21304]

38. That says not one wit about his being more qualified

to be President. I would never say a person from a poorer background was more qualified to be President any more than I would say the reverse. They both would be snobbish statements in my estimation.

And I sure would not be inclined to go with a candidate who tried to make his past seem more humble than it was.

[AP]

39. I think the veteran of the American life I've lived is more experienced.

I think are biggest risks have to do with middle class opportunity, and not terrorism.

I think Edwards and not Kerry has the experience that matters.

[sandnsea]

2. This is extreme

Taking the situation in Cuba and trying to apply it to every situation around the world isn't accurate. Edwards doesn't support Cuba travel. Seems we could leave it at that and debate it on its face.

[RafterMan]

4. What is special

About Cuban travel that does not apply to, say, Iran or the Sudan?

[leyton]

6. I do not agree with Edwards on this, although it's not specific to Cuba.

That is, Edwards may have a Cuba-specific rationale for his position, but I don't support blocking the amendment anyway. For safety purposes, the American government should be able to restrict travel into the country (within reason, of course) but it shouldn't restrict the travel of its citizens to another country (assuming this person didn't, you know, escape from prison). Unsafe as it may be, contributory to the Cuban economy as it may be (god forbid), it is the business not of our government but of the Cuban government whether or not we travel in Cuba.

[RafterMan]

9. Don't worry too much about the "contributory" bit

Burmese activists wrestled with this issue, except it was in terms of whether right-minded travellers should boycott their country. They decided interaction and what money the people got out of it outweighed the dollars the government brought in.

[AP]

7. Kerry's a rich man whom voters will not be able to distinguish from Bush

and, futhermore, Edwards's policies reflect the fact that Edwards understands which direction wealth and power flow in America.

Are we really going to be voting on the issue of who is for or against the travel ban on Cuba? Really?

[KittyWampus]

10. Edwards Is Fear-Mongering And Spewing Protectionist Nonsense

It failed for Dean and it will fail for Edwards.

[AP]

11. Why don't you ever respond when I tell you this:

Edwards is not a market protectionist. He's protecting the value of labor.

[spooky3]

12. Is that why Kerry says they have the same positions on trade?

[RafterMan]

13. Could be

Is Kerry's wealth, or Edwards' (or DK's lack of it) a better reason to vote?

The Cuba travel ban is heavy-handed nonsense. It is an important issue because it's such a small thing. We're fining Americans for travelling abroad? What will stop the nonsense?

[AP]

17. Kevin Phillips said it was crazy to run richie riches like Gore & Bradley

in 2000. I think he's right.

[KC21304]

24. You are not saying that Edwards is not REALLY, REALLY rich, are you ?

It makes no difference to me, but you seem to be saying Kerry cannot get elected because he is rich.

[AP]

30. Symobls: Edwards got rich from working. How did Kerry get rich?

[not systems]

14. Why not care?

Edwards seems to have a very low dedication to personal liberty.

From https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/bio/?id=439&congress=1081&lvl=C

Passed Government Surveillance Powers 05/08/2003
Agreed To Ban on Raves 04/10/2003
Passed H.R. 3162 - Overbroad Anti-Terrorism Legislation 10/25/2001

[AP]

19. Personal liberty? Kerry has a more aggressively worded poliy towards Cuba

and doesn't even look like Edwards voted for this bill, despite what's claimed. Check out link number 4.

[Mika]

15. Only one Dem candidate differs from Bush on this

This insane policy will remain as long as the Dem party continues to pander to the extremist minority of Miamicuban exiles.

Wesley Clark: "I will not take steps that reward Fidel Castro.”

Howard Dean: "… Castro must not be rewarded …”

Sen. John Edwards: "Full sanctions should not be lifted until Castro and his brutal regime are gone.”

Sen. John Kerry: "I am not prepared to lay down conditions at this time for lifting the embargo, because I believe that we need a major review of U.S. policy toward Cuba.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "I strongly favor ending the embargo on Cuba. Our policy toward Cuba has created misery for the Cuban people and has harmed our own national interests. My administration will work to normalize relations with Cuba.”

Candidates on the issues: Cuba
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/29/p



Only ONE candidate for US president
openly states that he would end the
unjust policy of sanctions and embargoes
against Cuba AND Americans.

That candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

-The Democratic Presidential Candidates on Cuba-
http://www.lawg.org/tools/prez-candidates1.htm

[RafterMan]

18. DK gets extra points

for being against the embargo -- though I thought Sharpton was, too.

The issue here is just travel -- a bad domestic policy as opposed to the embargo, a bad foreign policy.

[wuushew]

22. This does not tell me the views of the honorable Rev. Sharpton

n/t

[Mika]

25. Sorry. Bad link. Now fixed

Here


Democratic Presidential Candidates on Cuba
http://www.lawg.org/tools/prez-candidates1.htm

The Rev. Al Sharpton's position on the embargo is unclear. "If we can trade with China and Russia and others, what is the difference in terms of policies in dealing with these countries?" (January 29, 2004 (AP) Candidates on the issues: Cuba The Associated Press)

[AP]

16. "Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting" According to your link #4.

It doesn't look like he voted with Republicans on that bill.

What other evidence do you have?

[RafterMan]

20. I added the link to the 1999 vote

Thanks for pointing out my omission.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Who are you trying to help with this lame attack on Edwards?

Just wondering.

[RafterMan]

27. So you support the policy?

I think it's an ill-conceived and mindless restriction on Americans.

Support whoever you like.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Because I asked you who you support, justifies putting words in my mouth?

No, it doesn't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Who are you trying to help with this lame attack on Edwards?

[RafterMan]

34. I am ABE.

I don't trust his judgement.

I am trying to show one reason why I don't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. That's believable.

:eyes:

[Shanty Oilish]

28. Ill-considered authoritarianism?

Gee, I was beginning to think nobody worried about that anymore!

But since you brought it up, I am troubled by Edwards' proposal to put high school kids to work at community service as a prerequisite to graduation. Used to be, you had to commit some sort of juvenile delinquency before you incurred community service.
Forced service is bad, no two ways about it.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but Kerry's no better on this issue. He also wants to require community service from children.

It's a booted fascist foot in the door.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. This is deliberate obfuscation

A casual reader who's just scanning the headlines would think that it's just further proof of Edwards' calumny.

Not knowing the history of the person posting, I'll give the benefit of a doubt--slight though it is--that it's just incredibly poor writing. It smacks of smearing, because it proclaims a desire to restrict the travel of our citizens, not just a continuance of a restriction on a specific country that's been in place of a long time.

This thread should have been locked for intentional smearing.

Please explain how the American Conservative Union rates Edwards to the left of Kucinich. He's not a stealth nazi; he's literally the most progressive of the two principal contenders.

Tactics like this should not be allowed on the board; if you're going to accuse someone of something, you should do it specifically.

Shame on you.

Mods, if this has strayed too much to the personal, please note that it's a thread based on hysteria-creating deception, and as such has long since violated the rules.

The constant "Edwards is a stooge of the right" line of attack is absolutely baseless. The true dynamic is this: many non-Democrats are fed up with Junior too, but they're much more hard-pressed to sign on with a Massachusetts Urban Liberal than a Rural Southern Populist. (Rough though these tags are, they're the ones in many minds.)