Be fair about that China trade bill vote for which Edwards is being criticized.

[madfloridian]

I will be the very first to admit that this primary I have no excitement, there is no real passion or drive in any of it for me. But hubby and I are supporting John Edwards for various reasons after knowing his stances and his previous votes.

He is apparently fair game here at this forum. I will defend him when it appears he is a target. We had another major target here in 2003 and 2004. So let's be fair.

The Senate Permanent Normal Trade Relations Vote that occurred on September, 20, 2000....was a bill that got major support from Democrats.

I will post an article from the Democratic Leadership Council's leader, Al From, in which he praises Bill Clinton, then president, for this bill. He also chastises those who did not support it.

Then I will post the votes, and they will surprise you.

National Vs. Special Interests

Read all of this article to see where our party was on this issue. Condemning Edwards for voting for it is really out of line unless we do the same to others.

s this magazine went to press, Congress was preparing to vote on President Clinton's request to grant permanent normal trade relations to China. While passage in the Senate seemed virtually certain, the vote in the House was expected to be close. The question was whether the President could convince enough House Democrats to join with a majority of Republicans to reach the magic number of 218 votes needed for passage.

Like President Clinton and Vice President Gore, most New Democrats support granting permanent normal trade relations to China. But too many other Democrats don't. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt opposes it. So does House Minority Whip David Bonior and most members of the House Democratic leadership. And so does the AFL-CIO and many liberal interest groups aligned with the Democrats.

The debate over China's trade status is first and foremost about U.S. politics. It is not about the merits of the historic deal the Clinton administration negotiated to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. goods and services as part of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. If it were, the vote in favor would be a slam dunk.

Unlike most trade agreements, this one is one-sided. China made all the concessions; we made none. To get into the WTO, China has to do all the giving. This deal is so skewed in our favor that some have called it America's biggest steal since the Louisiana Purchase. You'd hardly expect any member of Congress to reject a cost-free opportunity to open up one of the world's largest consumer markets.

Run that by me again? It is "skewed in our favor"? Doesn't seem like that now.

Here are the votes by party.

US Senate Extends Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China

On September 20, 2000, the US Senate voted 83-to-15 to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. A yes vote was to approve normal relations and a no vote was to reject normal relations. Thirty- seven Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted yes. Seven Democrats and eight Republicans voted no.

DEMOCRATS YES

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Bryan, Nev.; Cleland, Ga.; Conrad, N.D.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerrey, Neb.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Moynihan, N.Y.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Robb, Va.; Rockefeller, W. Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.; Wyden, Ore.

DEMOCRATS NO

Byrd, W. Va.; Feingold, Wis.; Hollings, S.C.; Mikulski, Md.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Wellstone, Minn.

DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING

Akaka, Hawaii; Lieberman, Conn.

REPUBLICANS YES

Abraham, Mich.; Allard, Colo.; Ashcroft, Mo.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burns, Mont.; Chafee, R.I.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Me.; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Gorton, Wash.; Gramm, Texas; Grams, Minn.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Mack, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Roth, Del.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Stevens, Alaska; Thomas, Wyo.; Thompson, Tenn.; Thurmond, S.C.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

REPUBLICANS NO

Bunning, Ky.; Campbell, Colo.; Helms, N.C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Inhofe, Okla.; Jeffords, Vt.; Smith, N.H.; Specter, Pa.

Also at the site is a speech from Tampa on that day by President Clinton praising the passing of the bill.

It just seems petty to go after one person when it was a bill pushed by the DLC and by President Clinton.

The House passed it as well. Here are vote totals.

To pass the 435-member House, the China trade bill needed to garner at least 218 "yes" votes.

With passage sewn up, 164 Republicans and 73 Democrats voted in favor of the trade agreement, while 57 Republicans and 138 Democrats voted against.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/24/china.trade/index.html

Gephardt, Pelosi, and Bonier spoke out against the bill. I don't have the individual votes.

[Selatius]

1. There is a fairly significant neoliberal contingent in the party.

On economic issues, the Democratic Party proves to be schizophrenic because not everybody thinks it's a good idea to have fair trade as opposed to free trade.

[madfloridian]

3. Well, it's hard work

presenting facts to show that just one person is not deserving of so many hits.

It is just hard work.

[madfloridian]

2. Here are the House votes, and amount of union and business support of each.

Long list, but revealing. A lot of Republicans voted against it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/china_housea.htm

Here is more about the numbers voting.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/china_house.htm

"The historic 237-197 vote in favor of the trade bill marked a major victory for members of the Business Roundtable, a coalition of more than 200 corporations that had pumped millions of dollars into lobbying members of Congress in favor of the legislation. In political contributions alone, members of the Roundtable have accounted for more than $58 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions this election year.(See this week’s Money in Politics Alert for further analysis on the Business Roundtable’s political giving.)

But did the money have an impact on today’s vote? An analysis of campaign contributions made by members of the Business Roundtable shows that House members voting to approve the China bill have received an average of $44,000 in PAC and individual donations this cycle. Lawmakers voting "no" took in an average of $25,000.

The average money gap is even wider when broken down by party. Republicans who voted "yes" received an average of $47,000 in contributions from Business Roundtable members, while those voting against China trade took in roughly $31,000. Democrats voting for China trade received an average $37,000 in contributions, while those voting "no" received an average donation of $22,000.

Of course, that’s not the only money that appeared to have an effect on today’s vote. Unions, which have contributed roughly $31 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions this election year, also appeared to play a significant role in how the House voted today.

An analysis shows that House members who voted in favor of expanding ties to China received an average of $23,000 in PAC and individual contributions from unions. Lawmakers voting "no", on the other hand, received an average of $58,000 in union money.

[madfloridian]

4. More on union donations and the effect on the vote....

"Not surprisingly, the gap dramatically expands when broken down by party. Democrats voting "no" took in an average of $76,000 in contributions from unions, while those voting for the China deal received an average of $59,000. Republicans voting "yes" received just $6,400 in union contributions, while those voting against permanent China trade took in an average of $12,200."

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/china_house.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. So, if unions had given more money to Edwards, perhaps he would have voted differently?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

7. Well, you know what? I have no idea. Ask the same about all the others.

.

[madfloridian]

5. More from the DLC and how they pushed this issue nonstop.

More from the Democratic Leadership Council on the China trade deal. They were pushing this non-stop.
Do the Right Thing

They give the pluses for the bill. They sound a little awkward now.

It will be no easy task. New Democrat members of Congress must visibly demonstrate their support for a policy of American engagement that could draw the wrath of organized labor as well as some consumer and environmental activists. Worse, they risk losing the political support of these groups, leaving these moderate Democrats in a weakened political position and thus enticing even greater Republican efforts to target them for defeat.

But look at all we have to gain by convincing Congress to approve permanent normal trade relations for China:

*It's good for American businesses that export to or invest in China.

*It's good for American businesses and consumers at home.

*It's good for American workers.

*It's good for the human rights of the Chinese people.

Hindsight gives another view.

And another article from the DLC pages with second thoughts....from 2006.

Idea of the Week: Redirecting the U.S.-China Trade Relationship

Vilsack and Carper went on to suggest three specific initiatives dealing with the three big problems:

*Trade and Financial Imbalances. To "reduce America's growing trade and current-account deficits," a cooperative approach is necessary. "On the Chinese side, this will require more rapid movement toward market-based currencies" and cooperation with an internationally coordinated effort to "revalue the major Asian and European currencies." The United States must reduce borrowing and raise savings through a "bipartisan budget summit" to "overhaul tax and budget policies that have recreated a large structural fiscal deficit and required us to engage in heaving borrowing overseas."

*Intellectual Property. "Intellectual property piracy in China has become not only a financial problem for American innovators and the credibility of Chinese trade policy, but a long-term threat to economic growth and public health." The United States and China must quickly reach agreement to deal with "the most serious intellectual property right problems," including use of pirated software by government agencies; the spread of counterfeit medicines, and a large trade in pirated auto parts.

*Opening Markets. With the WTO's Doha Round of trade negotiations facing an imminent deadline on agricultural, services, and manufacturing issues, we need "a public commitment by both countries to the Round's success, through Chinese commitments to deeper reforms and market-opening, as well as American commitments to tariff reform in light industries." This commitment would help produce "stronger prospects of global growth, development and poverty reduction in coming years."

"The three measures together," conclude Vilsack and Carper, "would help stabilize the U.S. and global economies, help preserve America's ability to invent the high-technology, high-wage industries of the future, and help spur growth and job creation worldwide."

I am no expert on stuff like this....but I do remember this post at DU not long ago. It does not dwell on the technicalities like above, it cuts to the chase.

Thanks, OmahoSteve.

1.8 Million U.S. Jobs Lost Due to China Trade

That is the bottom line that the American worker and his family feel.

[rinsd]

11. I'm no expert either but Edwards was a New Democrat so his vote makes sense.

[madfloridian]

8. Gonna be hard work defending Edwards...off to do more research.

Cause I see some Obama folks are promising this will all continue.

Guess it's primary time.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. "Fair"? This is DU! What is this "fair" you speak of?

It wouldn't be DU without misleading distortions of candidates' records, over-the-top hyperbole, and outright lies!

And if you expect anything better, just lower your expectations!

I can sympathize with you, mad... I too don't have any passion this time around, but there are times when I'm just as glad my guy is sitting this one out.

[rinsd]

10. Didi I miss something? Has someone gone after Edward's China Vote?

[madfloridian]

12. Yes, you must have really really missed something.

.

[rinsd]

13. All I see is people talking about Stephanopolis's interview

Where have people bashed Edwards for his China vote?

[madfloridian]

14. I did not use the word "bash". I said criticized.

And yes there was a lot of criticism in several posts.

[iamjoy]

15. I Fully Believe

That when John Edwards has made "mistakes" or voted in a way I wish he hadn't, it was done with the best of intentions and because he was too hopeful and optimistic. Here's my take -

He voted for the Iraq War. He really thought we could liberate Iraq and bring Democracy to the middle East.

He voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill, which required people to go for counseling before filing bankruptcy, and that if creditors denied reasonable terms for repayment of debt, that would reduce what they could collect. He believed it would reduce the people filing for bankruptcy by providing them an alternative.

He voted for No Child Left Behind. He was under the impression it would be funded, and standards would help. Heck, even Senator Kennedy was enthusiastic about NCLB.

He vote for trade with China. Some people do have the belief that trade would increase our influence and help bring greater liberty to the people of China. And that it would help our technology exports.

You can question his judgement, but please don't question his motivation and say it was all political. In each case there were strong constituencies opposed to Edwards's votes at the time he made them. If everything he did was with the goal of running for President (in 2004), he had to know primary voters wouldn't like these votes.

I think he's a little older now, wiser and more cynical. He won't be so trusting again. I'm backing him too.

[madfloridian]

16. Nice post.

There was such pressure from the party to vote the party line. The DLC was exerting great influence. At that time there was no one questioning that group's power over the party policy. It took the Iraq War and our anger as a nation and as a party to realize that their advice in this case was so damaging.

[iamjoy]

17. Influence Isn't Always Threats

It isn't "vote for this or else you will lose politically"

For example, on the China Trade - Reading that DLC article, it really made it sound like one would have had to have been crazy NOT to vote for it. That it really was good for America and the ones voting against it lacked political courage to stand up to Unions.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Vote for it, you're a corporate tool. Vote against it, you're too heavily tied to Unions and other special interests.

It wasn't a calculated political move, because on any of those, it's a stale mate.

I'm glad he's had his eyes opened and hope he continues to listen to the people, not the so called "experts"

[madfloridian]

18. Another memo from the DLC in 2000....putting pressure not to listen to unions.

The pressure to vote for this bill must have been great. We did not at the time recognize that this group was pushing this issue so much.

http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=494&kaid=127&subid=170

The coming vote will be a gut check for congressional Democrats, who hold the balance of power on this issue. If Congress rejects permanent normal trade relations with China (or puts the matter off, which would effectively be the same in the current political context), it won't be because foes of normalization had the better argument. It will be because the labor movement and other powerful Democratic constituency groups are opposed, if only for symbolic reasons.

With all due respect to those opponents, the U.S. economy wouldn't be roaring today and voters wouldn't trust Democrats more than Republicans on economic issues if the President and congressional Democrats hadn't stood up to labor and other liberal interest groups on trade expansion, the balanced budget agreement, and welfare reform.

It needs to happen again. At a time when Democrats are optimistic about holding onto the White House and retaking at least one branch of Congress, the congressional Democratic leadership should not split the party and fight President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore on this issue.

Almost a warning to unions and Democrats who were not on board.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Of Course We Should Condemn EVERYONE Who Voted For It

And everyone who voted for the IWR - particularly those who sponsored it

And everyone who voted for either 'Patriot' Act - particularly those who voted for BOTH of 'em.

And so forth.

[madfloridian]

20. I posted some stuff for you in the thread you started.

I think you should provide answers as you and others were demanding, don't you think?

[madfloridian]

21. I just was told that I don't try to answer questions.

So I am kicking this post. It must have dropped right down.