Edwards: "I Believe That NAFTA Should Exist"

[sandnsea]

I always thought Edwards out and out opposed NAFTA. I guess he wasn't even clear on that.

''I believe that Nafta should exist,'' Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday's primary. ''I think Nafta is important -- it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF143CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63

[Tess99]

1. I think he's apologized for his support of NAFTA.

[sandnsea]

19. And stunningly - it STILL doesn't matter n/t

[Tess99]

23. Edwards's record does not matter! Haven't you heard?

[kenfrequed]

26. Oh sure

'Cause Hillary, Obama, and Biden are sooooo progressive and anti-Nafta.

[sandnsea]

28. The complete flip-flop is the point

And the hysteria that Edwards is being lied about over NAFTA, when he actually isn't.

[kenfrequed]

38. Nope

Nafta is the point, and I never begrudge someone waking up to the truth of the damage free trade is doing.

Save that Flip Flop talking point for the repugniks, they are far more fond of it.

[struggle4progress]

40. Uh ... US signed NAFTA 12/92 under GHWB; Senate ratified 12/93 pre-Edwards (who first ran in 98)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

3. Well jesus christ, I didn't say that

I said he wasn't clear, and didn't out and out oppose it the way I thought he had.

You really need to learn to do your homework so you stop making a fool of yourself.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Ha ha what did they say? n/t

[sandnsea]

24. LIAR LIAR LIAR

Edwards doesn't oppose ALL of NAFTA, or something along those lines. :crazy:

I was surprised to learn Edwards supported any part of NAFTA, I always thought he was 100% against it. Now it's my fault for pointing it out. Weird.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. So, you put words in his mouth and are then outraged that he contradicts what he never said?

Apparently, your crayon set has only two: black and non-black.

This is another situation where the man has been quite consistent with a modulated, qualified stance on a complex issue, and people DEMAND that it be made more simple.

When asked in one of the "debates" this year along with the others whether it should be left as it is, modified or scrapped, he came down with the second choice. Again, this is very consistent.

He, on balance, doesn't like it in its totality, but doesn't believe we should become knee-jerk protectionists either.

Here you're quoting him from nearly four years ago, and his stance on it is very close to what it is now; the very article you cite as proof is conclusive proof that you're wrong. Where's the inconsistency? The article is mostly negative on NAFTA, which is only slightly more accepting of it than he is right now. Had he said that he'd conclusively called for a complete repeal from the beginning, you'd have something, but he hasn't.

Just because you "always thought" something that is incorrect and well-documented doesn't make it his fault when you finally find out that you were wrong. This is ridiculous.

In light of the continued angle that he's a lying sack of shit cynical opportunist, is it any wonder that such statements bring forth a great deal of ire? He's been very consistent on trade, and he's to be commended for that.

You accuse him of making an about face when he's done nothing of the kind. Why is your confusion his fault, and why is your inaccuracy proof of his slipperiness?

All partisanship and blame aside, isn't he to be given some credit for this?

His biggest mistake is crediting people with the ability to accept complexity, when so many want things writ large in sharpie.

[sandnsea]

36. I didn't put words in anybody's mouth

The Edwards campaign calls Obama a liar for telling the truth about Edwards' position on NAFTA. He did not oppose it. I posted his own words that proves he did not oppose it.

That's all there is to it. That's it. That's all.

[maximusveritas]

4. Maybe it's time you stepped away from the computer

and calmed yourself down?

[ProSense]

10. Oh my! n/t

[Donnachaidh]

5. geez -- just when I thought postings couldn't get creepier

Of course, those of us who've WATCHED the debates know how Edwards stands on Nafta NOW. TODAY. THIS MINUTE.

:eyes:

[Tess99]

6. as opposed to what he believed 4 years ago, right. LOL

[DemKR]

7. This Hillary supporter LOVES Edwards

[Tess99]

9. If he wins Iowa, it's a win for your girl. I can't blame you for loving him. LOL

[Adelante]

15. But he's never been on the cover of Fortune Magazine

Even John Edwards, who has worked hard to win over the unions, stopped short of calling for the United States to pull out of Nafta.

“Scrap it or fix it?” the moderator, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, asked.

“It needs to be fixed,” Edwards said, then quickly changed the subject to take a swipe at Clinton, who was recently featured on the cover of Fortune with the headline “Business Loves Hillary (Who Knew?).”

“The one thing you can count on is you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying, ‘I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on,’ ” Edwards said. “That will never happen. That’s one thing you can take to the bank.”


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/12/america/trade.1-113375.php

[Deja Q]

8. If NAFA involves 'fair trade', why not?

'free trade' seems to be jobs for nothing these days. :(

[Faygo Kid]

11. This is crap. It's from Feb. 2004, and isn't true. Reprehensible.

For you to post an article from Feb. 24, 2004, that uses "yesterday" is dishonest and intentionally misleading. Back your candidate honestly from now on.

[sandnsea]

16. This in reference to the "Obama lies about Edwards" shit

He did not oppose NAFTA. Why is anybody saying he did??

[Faygo Kid]

21. No excuse.

Your post lacks any credibility, and you have been called on it. I would be happy to discuss how he characterized NAFTA, but not under this patently dishonest posting.

Goodbye.

[sandnsea]

22. They're HIS WORDS

Why am I responsible for HIS WORDS??

[Redbear]

12. This is from 2004. n/t

[K Gardner]

13. Why in the world would you post something like that? It tends not to lend

credibility to anything else you post, and you tend to be one of the sensible ones around here.

[sandnsea]

17. It's HIS words, he didn't oppose NAFTA

How does EDWARDS' words have anything to do with MY credibility?

[struggle4progress]

41. And don't forget: he didn't speak out against secession in 1861

[indimuse]

43. love your

avatar...I used to have that Maxfield Parrish...I still have a few.

Happy New Year.

[last1standing]

14. Do you really trust Adam Nagourney for your political coverage?

This is a guy who has a long, sordid history of twisting quotes and presenting as fact rumors and lies against Democrats. Unfortunately, I remember this kind of misleading posting against Dean in 2004. I guess some habits die hard.

[sandnsea]

18. I trust John Edwards' OWN WORDS n/t

[last1standing]

25. It makes no difference how they've been edited or cut, huh?

Just so long as the actual words were there everything is fine for you.

You know, I want my candidate to win the nomination, but I have a better opinion of myself than to distort or smear another candidate in the attempt to make it happen. It's especially sad when people smear and distort on a site like DU where everyone is supposed to be a committed Democrat because that means that you're trying to manipulate those with whom you allegedly share basic values.

We all deserve better than threads like these, not just from you but from a handful in every camp.

[sandnsea]

29. Those particular words are clear

There's no way to misinterpret them. He believes NAFTA should exist. He never opposed it. There isn't any lying going on in any way shape or form.

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

42. "I think we do need to renegotiate it. The problem with NAFTA is these side agreements don't work ..

.. You have to put these labor/environmental protections in the text of the agreement."

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

[midnight]

27. I saw Edwards in Wisconsin last Fall. He spoke admittedly

about the lose of jobs from American corporations who claim status at home"America", but then ship all their jobs out of the country. He said he wants this stopped. I know this may not cover all the Nafta issues, but to me this is a big one. I also can't stand visas being given to foreign nurses, who are keeping the wages suppressed for American nurses. Also many visas for Indian Engineers,or shipping medical film to be read in India and keeping American radiolgist from these jobs. Nafta has found many ways to drive down salaries across the board for many jobs.

[sandnsea]

30. They all say that n/t

[FrenchieCat]

32. So what was Edwards stance regarding the H-1B visa policy?

when you saw him speak?

Here's what it was in September of 2007:
San Jose Mercury News:

EDWARDS: Regarding the H-1B visa question: I think it is important for us to have available, for the work that’s being done here in this valley, plus all over the country, the talent and the mental capacity we need.

So the H-1B visa program is important; it should be expanded, based on the needs that exist.
http://blog.noslaves.com/john-edwards-is-a-hypocrite

[TeamJordan23]

31. But remember, this is the new John Edwards. The "reformed populist" one. nm

[rodeodance]

33. Published: February 24, 2004--he has seen the folly of his past position.

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR; Edwards Says Nafta Is Important, but in Need of Change


By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: February 24, 2004

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Don't give in so easily: this is four years ago and he's talking about renegotiating NAFTA!

This is more proof of his consistency on trade than it is some kind of flip-flop. The very subject of the article is how he felt that NAFTA needed to be renegotiated.

You're caving to simplistic bullies who chorus primitive untruths: he's changed on everything, you can't trust him. That's bullshit. Here he is, four years ago, saying that the damned thing needs to be renegotiated and that it's caused too much job loss. Mistakenly crediting human beings with any ability to see nuance, he's honorably pointing out that his remedies won't fix everything like some sugar-candy mountain or heaven-on-earth, but that it would slow the job losses and ease the adjustment into the reality that is future globalization.

Stand fast against these assholes. He has not changed his positions on that many things.

What he HAS done is been consistent AT THE TIME, and not bullshitted different audiences with different stances on things. He's changed his mind on some of them and he's been clear about these changes while others have danced around them, played to the cheap seats and hypocritically claimed they've done nothing of the sort.

What we're witnessing here is the group-tyranny, mob mentality of a repeated series of falsehoods.

[sandnsea]

37. You better alert the Edwards campaign

Because they're the ones who said Obama is lying about Edwards opposing NAFTA.

[Rydz777]

39. Maybe he's seen the reality now. In any case, Edward's core

supporters are strongly against NAFTA, and if elected Edward's will have to take that into account. NAFTA has been a disaster on both sides of the border.