Is Edwards getting political mileage out of NAFTA?

[jpgpenn]

He keeps saying he would have voted against NAFTA. The man wasn't in the senate at the time!

Also he and his never ending tale of being the son of a mill worker. His father was in managment! Seems like Edwards lil heartfelt stories, once looked into are all hot air, IMHO.

[AP]

1. He ran against in '98, and he has voted against free trade bills that

jeopardize American jobs consistently since then.

It's why the DLC doesn't like him, according to Dan Schorr.

He deserves political mileage on NAFTA. He's put his neck out for American jobs, he's entitled to reap the kudos now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Which bills? References, please.

[SangamonTaylor]

2. do people not understand what 'would have' means?

[jpgpenn]

4. yes, he "would have" won Ok. if ...

he had more votes then Clark but looking at Edwards site at the time he claimed to have "TIED" with Clark even though he lost by thousands of votes!

I guess he likes stating anything that might show him in a good light!

Please address his "son of a mill worker" rant.

[AP]

6. Clark would have stayed in if he could have beaten Edwards by

more than he did in OK, and if he could have gotten more delegates.

[jpgpenn]

8. don't side step

First off Clark beat Edwards in about 5 states. Now address why a guy like Edwards would say he "TIED" when in fact he "LOST"!

[AP]

10. Clark had 57 delegates when he dropped out and Edwards 144, or

something like that, right?

[SangamonTaylor]

11. wow, the bitterness is still there I see.

[AP]

3. And he doesn't just say "I would have voted against it." He says he puts

American jobs first, and has a long record of doing so.

[xray s]

5. Not sure what it does for him

He says he would have voted against NAFTA, but I do not believe he has said he would withdraw from the agreement if elected. I am pretty sure Edwards and Kerry both agree what needs to happen now is stronger environmental and labor protections within the current agreement.

Today it sounds like Kerry is starting to agressively make this point.

[jpgpenn]

7. you bring up a very good point!

If he was so against NAFTA then , why don't we hear his steadfast opinion now about totally withdrawing from it?

[mmonk]

9. NAFTA is where he gets basically

all his mileage and telling the people that he's the one that really cares about them.

[revcarol]

12. He's getting anti-NAFTA mileage

but he voted for "normalized relations with China!!"

We've lost a hell of a lot more good manufacturing jobs to China than NAFTA ever took!!

And many of the maquiladoras in Mexico have closed down and gone to CHINA.

Mr. Save-Jobs-For-America guy??NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!

[DjTj]

14. He voted against Fast-Track

...and struggled with his PNTR vote:
September 19, 2000:

As U.S. goods and services flow into China and as our engagement grows, the opportunity for real change in China grows. We are all aware that China has a long way to go in improving its record on human rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and labor rights. The abuses in that nation are serious. And I am committed to continued efforts to end those abuses. As American ideas, goods, and businesses surge into China , I believe China's record will improve.

But I am mindful that globalization and this bill in particular may have a real downside. As a Senator from North Carolina, I am well-positioned to see both the enormous benefits and the large costs of this measure.

Textile and apparel workers, many of whom live in North Carolina, face real challenges as a result of this measure. While in almost every respect the agreement with China benefits our country, textiles is the major exception. As a result of joining WTO, quotas on Chinese textiles and apparel will be eliminated in 2005. As a result, Chinese apparel will flow into the United States. By and large, the Chinese imports will likely displace imports from other countries. However, there is no doubt that an additional burden will be placed on the textile industry. To be sure, the industry can try to protect itself through the anti-surge mechanism put in place by this legislation. Yet it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt. I know that textile workers will work their hearts out competing with the Chinese. I know these people; I grew up with them. When I was in college, I worked a summer job in a textile mill. My father spent his life working in mills. The impact of PNTR on them is personal to me. Dealing with the impact of this bill on them will always be a top priority for me. And I will fight throughout my career to protect them.

Mr. President, China's entry into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trade relations with America is not without its risks. No one can predict with certainty that China will live up to its commitments. I vote for this bill because I believe that we must turn our face toward the future. But we must be mindful of the risks. So I warn that I will monitor China's compliance with its agreements like a hawk. If they renege, I will lead the charge to force them to live up to their obligations.

But to vote against this measure--to deny PNTR--not only fails to accomplish anything productive but also denies us enormous opportunities. We cannot hide our heads in the sand. China will join the WTO. The Senate has no impact on that decision. The only question we face is whether the U.S. will grant China permanent normal trade relations or whether it will fall out of compliance with its WTO obligations. If we fall out of compliance, the U.S. will be denied the Chinese tariff reductions and rule changes, while every other country in the world takes advantage of the Chinese concessions. We must decide whether the U.S. will be able to compete with other countries--Germany, France, Japan--as they enter the Chinese market. American companies and workers deserve the right to enter those markets. On balance, I believe that China's admission into the World Trade Organization and its attainment of permanent normal trading relations is for the good.

And so I vote for this legislation, mindful of the risks, prepared to watch the results carefully and optimistic about the future.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2000_record&page=S8701&position=all

[For PaisAn]

13. Time to pop that hot air balloon

[David Dunham]

15. Edwards' anti-NAFTA position will hurt him in big trading NY and CA

[KittyWampus]

16. Yup, Like Dean & IWR

[Padraig18]

18. Prove that his father was management, please.

Rule 8 requires proof of something not generally-accepted as being true about one of our candidates, and that is not generally-accepted as being true, jpgpenn.

[mlawson]

19. It's only necessary to repeat a line over and over, then

it becomes believed, a "truism". Just watch now: we will see this pipe up from more and more posters.

Hey, maybe even KKKRove will pick it up, too.

[jpgpenn]

20. here ya go!

If you have further question or problems take them up with the author and his source!http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

“The Edwardses were solidly middle class” when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state’s most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s true that for a few years as a young man Edwards’ father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards père (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a “time-study” man — which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards’ grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager — and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never “notes that his father was part of management . . . ‘John was more middle class than most of us,’” says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate