Posted on 08/06/2007 11:20:52 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Monday criticized former President Clinton, arguing that he allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs.
Edwards' complaints about the former president beloved by voters in his own party was a defiant move meant to highlight rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationship with special interests. It comes two days after Clinton refused Edwards' challenge to stop taking campaign donations from lobbyists, saying many represent good causes.
"It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers," Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. "It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first."
While Edwards' speech did not mention the name Clinton, the object of his complaint was obvious. Edwards criticized the presidential leadership during the 1993 passage of NAFTA, which was started by President George H.W. Bush and pushed through by Clinton. He said the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was "written by insiders in all three countries."
Edwards said the policies of President George W. Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America, but "this is not just his doing."
"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities," he said. "Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country."
Edwards' remarks come a day before he will share a stage with Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates at an AFL-CIO forum in Chicago in which the White House hopefuls will make their appeal to labor.
Edwards said the trade deal "did not serve the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in the core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen the growing inequality in the United States, and Mexico and in Canada."
Edwards used the campaign appearance to offer his trade proposals. The 2004 vice presidential nominee said the economy is growing and productivity is at an all-time high, but wages aren't keeping pace with the increased costs of education, health care and retirement. He blamed technological change and globalization, as well as outdated labor and workplace laws for a system that is benefiting the wealthiest and shortchanging workers.
"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a very simple reason — it's because our trade policies have been bad for working Americans," he said.
Edwards said his plan would:
• Require pro-worker provisions in new deals.
• Hold trade partners to their commitments.
• Invest more in dislocated workers and communities.
• Ensure that imports are safe
____
Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.
NAFTA is a miserable failure, but it has been for some time now. He's just throwing a rotting fish to his dwindling constituency.
He has 3rd locked up and that’s about it, his days of fishing for the top spot are toast long ago. His wife has a better shot at it.
Nobody that purty (or dense) could or should ever be elected POTUS. ;-)
Sounds like he’s throwing you a bone, imo.
You did mean that in a nice way, didn’t you?
Edwards aside, globalist GHWB began the movement toward NAFTA, Oxford fellow and globalist, Bill Clinton completed it for the one worlders, globalist GWB signed, sealed and delivered the NAU. If Commie Hillary retakes the White House, who else would she choose to be VP but Bill? The question is, could Bill run for President again when her term is history?
Folks, this is serious stuff! No more globalists! If we don’t elect a proven Conservatist, we will lose the two party system forever. And the baby does go down with the bathwater!
As if there were high levels of unemployment. We’ve had about 24 years of an excellent economy with just two rather mild recessions. Compare that record to the previous 50 years.
Not really. I’ve never thought of economic illiberalism as particularly “conservative,” in the (American) political sense.
What do you think of the Chinese manufactured goods that are shipped to places in Mexico where they are relabeled “Made in Mexico” then shipped on to US destinations?
The same way I feel about Chinese manufactured goods shipped directly to the U.S. It’s all crap, so what’s the difference?
Yes, it is better then watching the steroid infested WWE but not that much! /sarcasm
My fellow baby-boomers and I will be retiring and there is nowhere near the number of young American engineers coming up the ladder to fill the void.
This will be a real crisis, not a fake one. My guess is most of these jobs will go to foreign born people.
We only need so many hedge-fund managers and lawyers. There’s real work to be done in the near future and not enough people to do it.
My fellow baby-boomers and I will be retiring and there is nowhere near the number of young American engineers coming up the ladder to fill the void.
This will be a real crisis, not a fake one. My guess is most of these jobs will go to foreign born people.
We only need so many hedge-fund managers and lawyers. There’s real work to be done in the near future and not enough people to do it.
Good points....but I fear the GOP will go liberal globalist again. All the media darling GOPers are globalist...while Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo get little media attention.
Both parties are just so full of anti-American globalists
Jabs?! Surely they meant slap. And where’s the word “hissyfit”?
Too bad for Hitlary Edwards didn’t do anything while he was in the senate for her to attack.
Dear Mr. Edwards:
1) Free trade is a net positive for the economy
2) Trial lawyers and spurious law suits are a net negative for the economy
3) Unions have not done well for companies as a whole (see Detroit)
You’re welcome for this free educational moment.
Best Regards,
Just about every economist in the world.
Can’t happen. Other than that, you’re right on and so is Edwards to an extent.
These trade agreements are strictly for corporate gain not, better wages or working conditions for workers. As a matter of fact the Corps have figured out, by cutting benefits and hiring mostly contract workers (and foreigners), they come out ahead on both ends of the deal.
Globalism is Satan’s own form of Capitalism.
Wrong-o on #1, just look at the trade deficit with China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.