Kerry, Edwards Refuse to Join Kucinich in Protecting U.S. Jobs

[redqueen]

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_022604.php

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 26, 2004

Contact: Terre Lundy/Matt Harris: [phone], [e-mail]

Congressman Dennis Kucinich tonight challenged Senators John Edwards and John Kerry to save American jobs by joining him in his pledge to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both refused.

In a nationally televised debate on CNN, Kucinich said that because of NAFTA and the U.S.'s membership in the World Trade Organization, not only are American jobs being "outsourced" to foreign countries, but the U.S. is powerless to stop foreign nations from unfair competitive practices. Kucinich cited an occasion when Congress was unable to protect American steel jobs from foreign competition because the WTO overruled the legislation.

Kucinich renewed his pledge to cancel NAFTA and the WTO by executive order as his first act in office.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards would commit to canceling NAFTA. Kerry voted for NAFTA and has consistently voted for other comparable trade agreements. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the China trade agreement.

Kucinich has been consistent in his opposition to so-called free trade.

Edwards and Kerry both discussed plans to "fix" the trade agreements. The fact is they cannot be altered. Any proposed change can be overruled by the WTO.

Free trade agreements have resulted in the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs. Internationally, they have failed to uphold workers rights and environmental standards.

A Kucinich administration would return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles.

Jobs: Putting America Back to Work IN America: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/jobs.php

Dennis on Ohio jobs: http://www.kucinich.us/jobstalk.php

For information about the National campaign: http://www.kucinich.us

For Congressman Kucinich's Schedule: http://www.kucinich.us/schedule.htm.

To schedule an interview with Kucinich or a spokesperson: [e-mail]

[SangamonTaylor]

1. Edwards wants to 'renegotiate' NAFTA

and that is pretty much the same as cancelling the treaty and then entering a new one that is enforceable.

[redqueen]

4. If it's the same, why not just say it flat out? Why dance around it?

NAFTA will not be changed. WTO tribunals have to approve of it and that's like thinking the Pentagon is going to approve cuts to the defense budget.

If Edwards expects credibility on this issue he has to realize that some of us know the scam and expect honesty.

[KC21304]

13. How about saying what Kerry really said on the subject.

That the side agreements are not being enforced and that would change in his administration.

[redqueen]

19. The side agreements are unenforceable

This is the kind of pandering that's not going to sell to people familiar with the loopholes in this scam.

The WTO will shut down any attempt to cut into the multinationals' profits.

[no name no slogan]

52. If workers rights were "so important"...

then why were they put into "side agreements", and not made a part of the main agreement itself?

Face it: the "side agreements" are nothing more than a bone tossed to those who opposed NAFTA on trade/humanitarian grounds. There was NEVER any intention to enforce them with the same rigor as the main NAFTA agreement itself.

NAFTA is a giant steaming turd of a trade policy. It needs to be shelved, and a new agreement (based on human rights) needs to be put up in its place.

No amount of "side agreements" will change this fact. They're STILL not part of NAFTA itself.

[SangamonTaylor]

21. I would think that you would know better

It is still substantively the SAME THING. Is using a more pleasing phrase dishonest? I don't think so. All Dennis is doing is saying the same thing as Edwards, only using more harsh rhetoric.

It is against our candidate's political interest to phrase NAFTA in terms of 'cancelling' it. Using the phrase 'renegotiating' is much less likely to be pigeonholed as protectionist.

WTO is always being renegotiated. That's why they were trying to meet in Seattle remember?

Actually, when it comes to trade, we just need an administration that enforces our existing laws property. We need to properly enforce couterveiling duty laws, anti-dumping laws, import surge laws, and our international IP laws.

[redqueen]

26. But it's not

Putting the word 'essentially' in there does not change the fact that we're facing a crisis and the guys who are supposed to be leading are not leading, but following.

If that works for Edwards, fine. But don't blame us as the living standard in this country drops precipitously after his 'renegotiation' fails.

WTO is NEVER renegotiated in favor of anything but the investors. Remember the demonstrators who were interested in advocating for the workers & the environment? Remember what happened to them?

Until we realize that all these laws are legally circumvented by multinationals due to Chapter 11 in NAFTA things will only continue to get worse.

I'd love to see our gov't try to enforce all those laws -- because it would not take long for the WTO to declare them as 'protectionist' and punish the US accordingly.

[H2O Man]

2. Your title is misleading.

Neither Kerry or Edwards is "against" protecting US jobs. I am very much against NAFTA and think highly of DK. Still, I know that there are parts of NAFTA that are not entirely bad, and that the US jobs & trade agreements are not going to be resolved with any simple "stroke of a pen." I suspect we will make more progress by moving in a positive direction one step at a time, which will also allow us to be more accurate in describing others' behaviors.

[redqueen]

5. Not my title, it's the title of the press release.

But I must say that if you expect gradual change from NAFTA someone's blowing smoke up your...

Any change to NAFTA has to be approved by the men on the corporate-handpicked WTO tribunals.

[H2O Man]

17. Then why would you post

something that you don't believe? DK isn't one of those fellows you alluded to, right? So, do you have a point, other than to attempt to say something bad about Kerry & Edwards -- regardless of the fact that it's something you don't believe? Perhaps that is a good place to start ... and then let's discuss NAFTA.

[redqueen]

20. I agree with it... I didn't say I didn't agree with it.

I just said it wasn't my title. I would have been more diplomatic, so as to avoid ruffling any feathers.

Notice I didn't call any of the Edwards or Kerry supporters on this thread 'delusional' for not catching onto the free-trade doublespeak being used by these candidates.

[sangh0]

47. If you agree with it

then why did you back away from it when questioned? Instead of defending the substitution of "cancelling NAFTA" with "protecting jobs" as being appropriate, you tried to pass blame on the press release.

[sangh0]

3. Unsurprisingly deceptive

Kerry, Edwards Refuse to Join Kucinich in cancelling NAFTA so redqueen posts "Kerry, Edwards Refuse to Join Kucinich in Protecting U.S. Jobs"

[redqueen]

6. One can always count on you to get personal

:eyes:

Not my title. It's the title of the press release.

[sangh0]

8. You mean the one thing you did NOT link to?

:eyes:

[redqueen]

10. Yep that one.

As for a link, all you had to do was ask. :)

[H2O Man]

27. caught again....

you say that this person can always be counted on to get personal ...now, wasn't that YOU that just said something to me about "blowing smoke out...?" Note I didn't mention Boarderline Personality Disorder?

[redqueen]

30. Ah another one

I didn't say YOU were 'blowing smoke up your (own)...'

Why is it so hard to differentiate between personal attacks on MEMBERS and personal attacks on CANDIDATES?

:shrug:

[H2O Man]

32. no

you are not being honest .... you were trying to get your little digs in there .... and there were two that had nothing to do with any candidate. I'm happy to talk to anyone with any opinion, but it is hard when someone doesn't want to be honest about what they've said.

[redqueen]

33. My digs are reserved for candidates

or other general groups. (At least on this thread, I do lose my temper as do most humans.)

However, note to kettle: "Borderline Personality Disorder" ?

You sure you should be having this discussion with me?

[H2O Man]

36. well, now, that would depend...

... if you want to come clean on why you are on d.u. if your goal is, even according to you, to make "digs" at democratic candidates, to make posts of things that you say you don't necessarily agree with, when people note the anti-democratic tone, and seem to have a remarkable difficult time being honest. All in all, I might just be the best person for you to talk to on here! Know what I mean?

[sangh0]

40. You might want to look at post #34

,

[H2O Man]

42. I did.

I also read your posts 3,8,9,(34), 35,38, & 39. You are right on target, sangh0. Our other friend is not being honest about his/her goal .... but trashing democrats is the tactic.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Who is paying Kerry and Edwards for their anti-American jobs stand?

It seems obvious that Democrats want to PROTECT American jobs, yet Kerry and increasingly Edwards seem reluctant to do so. Are they taking money from special interests who DON'T want to protect American jobs?

[sangh0]

9. American jobs depend on trade

Protectionism is NOT the answer

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Protecting American jobs is our Number One Priority

Obviously, we all support trade. Protectionism is THE answer.

[redqueen]

18. Using the loaded term "Protectionism" is a scare tactic

Meant to encourage the reader to associate protecting the American manufacturing base and American jobs with unfair tarrifs which cause unnecessary rancor between trade partners.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. sure, but it only scares rich people

most Americans support the idea of Protecting American Jobs. I say we use it - everytime we do, the Republicans and DLC Republicrats shake in their boots.

It's a simple choice - Protectionism for American Jobs, or the politicans who are AGAINST Protectionism for American Jobs!

Tariffs are a technical matter than can be worked out with our trading partners in bilateral trade negotiations.

[redqueen]

24. Well honestly I have to disagree

You may have seen the survey in which 25% of the electorate seems to believe they're in the top 2% of incomes. (!)

Judging from that, as well as various other signs, it seems to me that many upper middle class and even lower middle class people will buy into the spin coming from the investor classes, somehow identifying with those that are fleecing them. (?)

So I think more than just rich people flinch when they hear that term. But I do agree we should get the finer points out there starting YESTERDAY!

[Protagoras]

29. could you link that survey please :D

nt

[redqueen]

31. Trying to

Here's one hit on the study cited in a NYT article, but it's archived...

The Triumph Of Hope Over Self-Interest
By David Brooks (NYT) 1023 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Page 15 , Column 2

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1FF7345A0C718DDDA80894DB404482

"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."

(that text is given in a blog which provides a link to the same story)



Okay here's a link to the NYT article on another site:

http://www.voteamericavote.com/features.html

From the article:

Why don't people vote their own self-interest? Every few years the Republicans propose a tax cut, and every few years the Democrats pull out their income distribution charts to show that much of the benefits of the Republican plan go to the richest 1 percent of Americans or thereabouts. And yet every few years a Republican plan wends its way through the legislative process and, with some trims and amendments, passes.

The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves? Well, as the academics would say, it's overdetermined.

There are several reasons. People vote their aspirations. The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them.

It's not hard to see why they think this way. Americans live in a culture of abundance. They have always had a sense that great opportunities lie just over the horizon, in the next valley, with the next job or the next big thing. None of us is really poor; we're just pre-rich. Americans read magazines for people more affluent than they are (W, Cigar Aficionado, The New Yorker, Robb Report, Town and Country) because they think that someday they could be that guy with the tastefully appointed horse farm. Democratic politicians proposing to take from the rich are just bashing the dreams of our imminent selves. Income resentment is not a strong emotion in much of America.

[Protagoras]

43. Thanks RQ :D

:hi:

[redqueen]

14. American jobs are being hemorrhaged

No, the answer isn't protectionism (who's saying that it is?!)

The answer is to return to bi-lateral trade agreements.

FTA's and the WTO are NOT better alternatives than bi-lateral trade agreements.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. we have Protectionism for CEO's jobs

why not for regular workers jobs? I'll say it - I want protectionism!

[redqueen]

23. GOOD ON YA!

It's about damn time American workers started standing up for themselves again!

:D

[sangh0]

34. And that's not dishonest?

You ask me "Who for protectionism?" after WhoCountsTheVotes has been posting that he/she is.

And now, it turns out YOU are for protectionism

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. saying anyone who is for protecting jobs is for tariffs is dishonest

That's the smear that gets posted everyday - if you are against anti-democratic Nafta and the WTO you must be for "high tariffs/taxes" - the same smear Republicans use. And we get it right here from "fellow" democrats.

Dishonest? Oh yeah.

[sangh0]

45. So now you're not for protectionism?

I said nothing about tariffs. You're just covering up for redqueen's flip flopping from "No one wants protectionism" to "Protectionism is great!"

[idlisambar]

50. Kucinich doesn't mind the term protectionist

No, the answer isn't protectionism (who's saying that it is?!)

In one of the debates, Kucinich used the term to describe himself. There is no inconsistency between protectionism and bi-lateral trade; protectionism is just trade regulation that protects the interests of domestic producers.

[SangamonTaylor]

25. i agree.

[mac2]

11. Read my posted article about China in the Economic forum.

I just called Edwards about it. GE pulled a lot of jobs out of Wilmington, NC. Now, China wants the technology.

How dare this salesmen and CEO take all the years of work by previous managers and employees of a huge American company and just give it to China for their own profit. Wall Street Journal, pg.A1, 2/26/04 article, "China's Price for Market Entry: Give us Your Technology,Too".

They did the same thing to Motorola with the cell phone technology. They now have their own plants with our technology.

Angry? You bet.

[redqueen]

15. Angry enough?

[revcarol]

28. What gets me is that Kerry voted for the damn things over...and over...

and over...Now to get union endorsements, he's going to "review" them. HELLO? He can fuss and fume and pontificate all he wants about the environment, or labor, or green monkeys in a tree, but the fact remains that HE VOTED FOR EVERY ONE.

And NOW HE REFUSES to correct his errors or even say that they were errors.

EDWARDS is just as DESPICABLE as Kerry on this issue. He voted against those agreements that would take jobs out of his district, except for the big one:CHINA.

For a legal eagle, he sure is DUMB. He KNOWS that NAFTA cannot be renegotiated because the secret corporate tribunals of the WTO would slap it down in a NY minute, fining us $$MILLIONS for each "violation" of the WTO and its corporate investors.So where does he get off saying "I'm against NAFTA?"

I'm glad that Dennis got the facts out there. Maybe some voters who lost their jobs will hear them.Dennis:yourock:

[sangh0]

35. I guess you don't care about union members

There's a whole lot of Dems in the midwest who think their jobs building cars depend on trade.

[revcarol]

37. And a whole lot of those jobs went to Mexico...

like almost all auto parts manufacturing!!

I am a staunch union supporter, and I think the leadership of the AFL/CIO betrayed the members when they signed on to Kerry because of his "electability."
The trade agreements Kerry signed on to just accelerate the race of wages to the bottom. Any manufacturer can just threaten to take a plant or a WHOLE INDUSTRY elsewhere, and can reduce the wages of Americans by that threat.Then, a couple of years later, when the workers have given wage concessions, they just move it anyway.

Kucinich is not going to do away with trade. Bi-lateral agreements that benefit BOTH countries are much better for ALL, ESPECIALLY THE WORKERS.

[sangh0]

38. Those union members disagree

Are you're saying that YOU know what's best for them?

And as far as parts manufacturing, many of those plants were being built in those places known as "developing nations" with or without NAFTA for a simple reason. Those developing nations really are developing. Did you think they were going to just keep supplying us with raw materials on the cheap, or do you think their gaining high-tech skills and industries is/was an inevitability?

[rhite5]

41. Big Difference

There is a big difference between helping start new businesses in developing nations vs. MOVING existing U.S. businesses OUT of the U.S. and into developing nations, where wages are much lower. These are places where we can no longer enforce our country's safety and environmental standards along with the fact that it leaves hundreds of thousands out of a job in our country. Big Difference!

But these moves are profitable for the corporations, very good for the bottom line.

I assume the AFL/CIO made its endorsement decision for tactical reasons, but it really took me by surprise. Many out of work union people now understand the real score, and those who do understand are not likely to vote as the union tells them they should. When your company closes or your job has been outsourced or is about to be, you start studying the issue.

[sangh0]

46. What's the difference?

If they build new factories in developing nations without closing down a US factory, the overseas factory will still beat us on price due to low labor costs. Then, it's just a matter of time before the US factory closed down due to overseas competition.

In the end, what's the difference?

At least with a FAIR Trade agreement (with protections for labor and the environment, plus the sort protections that both Kerry and Edwards are proposing) we can make sure that there are minimal labor and environmental standards in place overseas.

I assume the AFL/CIO made its endorsement decision for tactical reasons

Why do you assume that? I haven't heard the union members complaining, and they seem to be voting for him. Your assumption is the result of your anti-trade bias. When it comes to how the union members feel, you don't have any facts. I KNOW many out of work members of unions (there are two unions in my workplace) and they have no problem with Kerry's labor endorsements.

[revcarol]

49. DK is a union man through and through. He would never do

ANYTHING to harm unions or trade.
Card-carrying union member

Walked with SEIU in Las Vegas and L. A.

Walked with AFSCME

Walked with ALL labor in the "Battle of Seattle!!" You remember that one, don't you, in which labor and environmentalists tried to get labor and the environment some concessions instead of naked aggressive predatory capitalism?

Brought down the house at the meeting of dockworkers when they were locked out!!Hmmmm....trying to keep international trade going while preserving union jobs...Hmmm...

And that's just a small part of what he has done.
No one is saying that some jobs would not go overseas, but setting up a playing field that encourages whole industries to go out of the country by validating the lowest wages and working conditions in the world, with the underdeveloped nations' corrupt leaders undercutting each other to get the industries, that is not my idea of a LEADER for American workers.

Edwards is just as guilty...with his voting for free trade with China, a massive whoosh of jobs gone there.

[sangh0]

51. Not intentionally

but trade is good for workers. Laissez-faire "Free" trade isn't, but *FAIR* trade is good for American workers.

And Kerry walked with those unions also. The difference is, Kerry got the union endorsements.

Don't get me wrong. I like DK, and might very well vote for him on Tues. But cancelling NAFTA is not the answer to the problems globalization presents. In all of economic history, no nation has ever been able to maintain a technological lead forever. Knowledge wants to be free, and the poor people in the developing nations want to eat. They are going to learn how to manufacture stuff, and they are going to sell it on the market at lower prices because their labor is cheaper.

Cancelling NAFTA does nothing to change that. People all over the world are going to be competing with us in the future, NAFTA or no NAFTA.

[revcarol]

53. And just what is Kerry's idea of "fair trade?"

This is a nice-sounding platitude that can mean ANYTHING.

All Kerry has said is that he will "review" all trade agreements within 120 days of taking office.HE WON'T GET OUT OF NAFTA. The Presidency has the right to serve notice on the other countries that America is leaving, to be effective 6 months later.NAFTA cannot be revised or re=negotiated because the WTO would shoot that down.HE WON'T GET OUT OF THE WTO. You saw the results of trying to revise the WTO in Seattle and more recently in Mexico, to provide some tiny improvement in fair trade.ZILCH. Both are set up entirely for corporate interests, not "fair trade."

If you really think that with Kerry as President, we will help the developing nations, stop the hemorraghing of American jobs overseas, and get "fair trade," OK.

I think Kerry's position is a con job. Over and out.

[sangha]

55. That's just not true. Why distort?

Both Kerry and Edwards have sponsored a bill that has various pro-worker provision to protect them against laissez-faire trade, including the abolition of tax breaks for companies that move jbs offshore, and requirement for three months layoff notices to workers.

They have also both called for stricter enforcement of the labor and environmental provisions in the laissez-faire sidebars.

If you really think that with Kerry as President, we will help the developing nations, stop the hemorraghing of American jobs overseas, and get "fair trade," OK.

Yes he will with the exception of stopping completely the flow of jobs overseas. Nothing can stop that. The developing nations are developing, and they will continue to do so. They will be competing with us and they WILL have the advantage of cheaper labor. The only way to avoid this competition is protectionism and that will cause job reductions also.

IMO, there is only one option. We must invest in our workforce (ie. education, labor unions, infrastructure, R&D), in renewable sources of energy, and we must make trade as fair as possible. This includes reforming those organizations you refer to like the WTO...

[idlisambar]

54. Tradewatch -- NAFTA is hurting Mexican farmers and workers

"But cancelling NAFTA is not the answer to the problems globalization presents. In all of economic history, no nation has ever been able to maintain a technological lead forever. Knowledge wants to be free, and the poor people in the developing nations want to eat. They are going to learn how to manufacture stuff, and they are going to sell it on the market at lower prices because their labor is cheaper."

This is a misrepresentation of NAFTA -- take a look...

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_mexico.pdf

Ten years of NAFTA has resulted in over 1.5 million
Mexican farm livelihoods destroyed as cheap U.S. corn was
dumped in Mexico, dropping prices paid to Mexican
farmers by 70%. Displaced rural workers have migrated to
Mexico’s overcrowded cities where underemployment and
have promised improvements not been forthcoming, but
the increased industrialization of the border under NAFTA
has resulted in massive increases in toxics dumping and
water contamination....

[sangha]

56. What's your point?

No one is denying that laissez-faire trade is bad. Your post does nothing to indicate that destroying NAFTA is better than fixing it.

[idlisambar]

58. The point is...

that your quote here...

"But cancelling NAFTA is not the answer to the problems globalization presents. In all of economic history, no nation has ever been able to maintain a technological lead forever. Knowledge wants to be free, and the poor people in the developing nations want to eat. They are going to learn how to manufacture stuff, and they are going to sell it on the market at lower prices because their labor is cheaper."


...suggests that you think NAFTA should not be cancelled because somebody in a a developing nation (Mexico)is benefitting. The article shows that this is not the case.

You want to fix NAFTA, not cancel it, that's fine. But you would really have to change the fundamental nature of NAFTA to fix it, which is basically the same as destroying it and starting over. So perhaps we don't have much of a disagreement, without getting into specifics it's tough to say.

[MaggieSwanson]

39. Thanks for posting this, redqueen!

Dennis has it exactly right. He cuts right to the quick, as always.

:toast:

[lams712]

48. Way to go DK!!!!

NAFTA and the WTO suck. The sooner we are done with them, the better.

[DrFunkenstein]

57. I'm Against U.S. Jobs

And I refuse to back any candidate that supports them.

[Sugarbleus]

59. Is this the Dems PNAC? Is Kucinich's dream all that off base?

There's a lot of good stuff in this website but theres also a sense that traditional dems want to do almost the same thing as the repugs, in terms of "leading" the world. Instead of Globalism, they say "Internationalism".
What say you?

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm


In times of danger, Americans put aside partisanship and unite in the defense of our country. That is why, as Democrats, we supported the Bush administration's toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We also backed the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein's malignant regime in Iraq, because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of United Nations Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law. We believed then, and we believe now, that this threat was less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for post-war reconstruction. Nonetheless, we are convinced that the Iraqi people, the region and the world are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone.
..............................
any mention of the permanent airbases we plan to build in Iraq? or is that the politicians little secret to be kept from the American people?

..........................


We begin by reaffirming the Democratic Party's commitment to progressive internationalism -- the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy. We therefore support the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values. The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom.