Kerry takes on Edwards on trade issue

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Massachusetts Sen. Kerry contended Wednesday that he and Edwards have almost identical Senate records on trade votes and propose essentially the same remedies for improving trade agreements. "We have the same policy on trade," Kerry said in Dayton. "He voted for the China trade agreement. So did I. We both of us want to have labor agreements and environment agreements as part of a trade agreement." Edwards begs to differ. In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, the North Carolina senator insisted that "it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have a very different record on trade."

In fact, while there are differences, the two are broadly similar on the issue.

Edwards and Kerry both voted to grant China favorable trade treatment, for example, and both call for including terms that protect labor and the environment in all future trade deals. However, 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. In addition, Edwards voted against two trade agreements last year, one with Singapore, the other with Chile. Kerry didn't vote on either. In a statement in the Congressional Record, Kerry commended both deals but said they failed to include adequate enforcement of worker rights.

The biggest trade issue dividing the two is the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, the 1993 pact with Mexico and Canada. Kerry voted for it. Edwards wasn't in the Senate in 1993; he said now that he opposed NAFTA. "I don't know where he registered his vote," Kerry said archly, "but it wasn't in the Senate."

<snip>

Despite Edwards' empathy for the unemployed and working poor, Kerry fared better in Wisconsin among low-income voters and voters without a college education, according to surveys of voters as they exited polls. Kerry won among voters in income groups from $15,000 to $50,000 and among voters from families who considered their financial situations worse. Edwards won among voters who thought the national economy was "good or excellent," while Kerry won among those who thought it was "not good or poor."



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7983361.htm

Main Entry: arch
Function: adjective
Etymology: 1arch-
1 : PRINCIPAL, CHIEF <your arch opponent>
2 a : MISCHIEVOUS, SAUCY b : marked by a deliberate and often forced irony, brashness, or impudence
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=archly

That mischievous, saucy Kerry!

[BayCityProgressive]

1. so basically

people who just want to stall kerry voted edwards. "people who thought the economy was excellent voted edwards". Who do you think thinks the economy is excellent? Conservatives. I like edwards and would support him, I just think conservatives were trying to slow Kerry's momentum.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Yes the exit polls reveal where the ABK movement is based.

[DjTj]

3. Edwards also voted against Fast-Track

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00203

The bottom line is that there are differences. Kerry supports free trade more than Edwards does.

[revcarol]

4. Both voted for "normalization of trade" with China.

"So how many manufacturing jobs did we lose to China when whole plants and industries moved there?"

That's a question to be asked of Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards!!

[DjTj]

7. Edwards on PNTR:

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

[AP]

5. Dan Schorr described it this way months ago: Edwards votes against

globalization bills when they've hurt NC jobs.

I get the impression that Kerry has never voted against globalization bills.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Which bills did Edwards vote against? References?

[AP]

9. Apparently every one other than the China normalization bill, 'cause that'

is the only one Kerry cares to mention.

[revcarol]

10. You would have to check the dates.

Most were before he was elected to the Senate.But, of course, he wudda voted against NAFTA. Maybe there are some more wuddas.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. YOU SAY Edwards voted against unspecified bills. Which ones?

Is it true?

Please back up your assertions.

[genius]

6. I like trial attorneys. If I weren't voting for Dennis, I'd chose Edwards

However, I'll vote for the nominee in the general election and I like Kerry too. I do want out of NAFTA though.