Edwards and Obama split on "free trade" with Clinton undecided

Former U.S. Senator Edwards opposes "free
trade" deal backed by Wall Street interests

Today's Washington Post reported the positions of the Presidential candidates on the Peru "free trade" agreement. Harold Meyerson writes: Democrats have reverted to their accustomed divisions on trade as well, after mustering near-unanimous opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement -- the last accord to emerge from the Bush administration without Democratic input -- in 2005. Barack Obama supports the pact while John Edwards opposes it. Hillary Clinton has yet to take a position, though she has suggested the nation may need a little "timeout" from new trade agreements pending a review of the effects previous pacts have had on American workers."

The Edwards Campaign issued this press release concerning the proposed trade agreement:

As part of seven-day "Stand Strong" campaign, Edwards calls for smart trade policies that put workers and families first.

Newton, Iowa – Today, as part of his seven-day "Stand Strong" campaign, Senator John Edwards will announce his opposition to the expansion of the NAFTA model with the Peru trade deal now before Congress.

Edwards will make this announcement in Newton, Iowa - the former headquarters of the Maytag Corporation and the location of a Maytag washer and dryer plant. The Maytag plant, which opened in 1893, officially closed its doors last Thursday. Maytag was acquired by Whirlpool in March of 2006 for $2.6 billion. Several weeks later, Whirlpool announced it would close the Newton factory and former headquarters, eliminating 1,800 jobs. Whirlpool is moving production to non-union factories in Ohio where workers earn significantly less than their union counterparts in Newton.

"I grew up in Carolina mill towns and so I've seen firsthand the devastating impact trade can have on workers and communities," said Edwards. "Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO promising that they would create new jobs. Instead, in recent years we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits.

"For too long, Washington has been looking at every trade deal and asking one, and only one, question - is it good for corporate profits? And they haven't looked at all at the harm it will do to workers, their wages, or to the U.S. economy. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, the Peru Agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities."

Edwards believes we need smarter trade policies that lift up American workers. He has proposed four principles to ensure that globalization works for everyone:

Our trade deals and preferences must benefit American workers and communities, not just corporate bottom lines. This means that they must include strong labor and environmental standards and clearly prohibit illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.

Our trade policies must lift up workers around the world. Making sure that all workers share in the gains from trade is the right thing to do economically, and it will make America safer and more secure.

We must understand that "one size does not fit all" in trade agreements. Instead, we need to address differences in form of government, rule of law, state of economic development, and the day-to-day trade and business practices of our trading partners.

Our trade deals must be fully and fairly enforced. Edwards will make top prosecutors at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing trade agreements.

To mitigate the damage of earlier trade agreements, Edwards has also called for revamping trade assistance to help dislocated workers and communities. Edwards proposed the creation of training programs for American workers, help for communities to recover from mass layoffs and strengthening the safety net for workers who have lost their jobs.

During the week-long "Stand Strong" campaign, Edwards is traveling across Iowa and New Hampshire to discuss his bold and detailed proposals for health care reform, smart and safe trade policies, ending the war in Iraq and restoring America's moral authority in the world. One of the highlights of the week was a major policy address he gave yesterday in Des Moines on corporate responsibility. Edwards called for updating the social compact with hard-working Americans to protect them from abuse by corporations and help them achieve financial security in the new economy.

"Real strength comes from standing up for the millions of American families who don't have a voice," said Edwards. "We need a leader in the White House who has the strength and courage to stand up and fight for regular Americans rather than someone who defends the lobbyists that are destroying the better America we all believe in."

U.S. House expected to expand "free trade"

With the support of President George Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Peru "free trade" agreement is expected to pass the U.S. House of Representatives. As a populist Democrat, I am very disappointed that our Congressional leaders are allowing this matter to be brough to a vote. As Harold Meyerson pointed out in today's Washington Post, why the Democratic leadership rush to pass more "free trade" agreements ? See link to Meyerson column. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110601809.html

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) hits the nail on the head that the Peru "free trade" agreement is "by, for and about Wall Streeet." Despite the reality that previous trade agreements have given us a steady increase in the trade deficit (along with a falling dollar), our leaders in both parties want more such accords to further weaken our nation's manufacturing capacity. See the column below from The Oregionian. And Lori Wallach of Public Citizens makes an excellent case for why Democrats in Congress should side with American workers rather than Wall Street.

http://www.oregonlive.com/

DeFazio: Peru deal is "by, for and about Wall Street"
by Jeff Kosseff
The Oregonian
November 07, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., has never been known to hold back his thoughts, particularly when it comes to trade.

In his more than two decades in Congress, DeFazio has been a harsh critic of trade expansion deals, most prominently the North American Free Trade Agreement in the '90s.

As the House prepares to vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, DeFazio released a statement calling the U.S. trade policy a "dismal failure" and branding the Peru agreement as "not in the best interest of American workers, the U.S. economy, or our national security."
DeFazio's full statement is after the jump.

"The dollar is dropping like a rock. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas to buy things that we don't make in America anymore. We've lost 4 million manufacturing jobs nationally, and 40,000 jobs here in Oregon due to so-called free trade policies. Millions of middle class Americans are seeing their pay go stagnate or decline. Our current trade policy is a dismal failure. It's a failed engine for America's economy."

"Now along comes the Peru Free Trade agreement. The advocates say the burgeoning middle class in Peru are going to be a huge market for the goods that we don't make in America anymore. They tout the breakthroughs on modest environmental and labor provisions, but the destructive multi-national corporate-written chapter 11 core, that lead to the failure of NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade agreements, remains at the center of this policy. This agreement is by, for, and about Wall Street, plain and simple. It's not in the best interest of American workers, the U.S. economy, or our national security."

"If trade is the engine that drives our economy, we need an overhaul. Instead, with this bill, we're getting a new hood ornament, some side view mirrors and a misbegotten cousin of NAFTA as a trade policy."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2007/11/defazio_peru_deal_is_by_for_an.html

Lori Wallach of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch explains why Congressional Democrats must support fair trade and oppose the Peru trade deal.

Wallach writes:

While many corporations are eager to obtain the new rights and privileges offered by this FTA, expanding the NAFTA-CAFTA model will harm the interests of most people in both countries. Recent polling has shown repeatedly that the American public has had it with our current trade model. The recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that, by a margin of 2-to-1, even GOP voters think our current trade policy is damaging to them. Democrats won congressional majorities in no small part because of the scores of freshmen elected across the country, including in GOP-leaning districts, who focused their campaigns on stopping more Bush job killing rade agreements. It is good politics – and good policy – for Democrats to create a new trade direction for our country.

Unfortunately, the Peru NAFTA expansion does not accomplish this important goal, nor will the public perceive it as anything but more of the same.Worse, passage of the deal would give President Bush a high-profile victory, changing the message from the debacle in Iraq. It is hard to understand how a Democratic-controlled Congress would give Bush another NAFTA-style trade agreement under any circumstances, but more so the week after he announced he would veto the Democrats’ Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation, not to mention past vetoes of Democrats’ children’s health insurance and anti-war legislation.

There is a long list of trade policies on which the Democratic Congress could take initiative rather than helping President Bush expand NAFTA. We would be excited to work with you to address the imported food safety crisis, fix our disastrous China trade situation, halt the continuing importation of sweat shopmade goods, expand Buy America and anti-offshoring policy, and close the tax loopholes that promote offshoring. Such policies would be a foundation for a new direction on trade which could be built upon when a new president arrives in 2009. The first step towards this new direction is opposing more of the same. Please vote no on H.R. 3688, the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Sincerely,
Lori Wallach
Director
Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
http://www.citizenstrade.org/

The Democratic Gun Vote

Gov. Bill Richardson has a perfect score on gun rights

Chase Martyn is an astute observer of Iowa politics, a blogger http://cmondisplay.com/ and managing editor of the Iowa Independent. http://www.iowaindependent.com/ In a recent blog post, Martyn calls attention to the "Democratic Gun Vote" in Iowa. Pro-gun rights voters are critical to winning in that state.

Martyn writes:

In Iowa, Democrats have lost elections over gun control issues. When I knocked doors in rural areas in 2004 for a State House candidate I was volunteering for, I heard constant complaints from no-party voters who shut the door in my face because my candidate wanted to take their guns away. That was all fine and good, except my candidate (and, in general, the Iowa Democratic Party) had no interest in taking their guns away.

In 2007, the political landscape is vastly different. Democrats, who for years have been trying to compete in rural areas, have finally gotten their message across that they are not all in favor of Giuliani/Pelosi-style gun control. Two candidates in particular have attempted this campaign cycle to court Democrats who hunt: Gov. Bill Richardson and former Sen. John Edwards.
Richardson, who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association (and who was the only Democrat to address the NRA’s annual convention this year, although it was by video), recently highlighted his status as a pro-hunting Western governor at campaign stops in rural Iowa. From Dien Judge’s coverage of Richardson’s stop in Albia earlier this month:

“I’m a hunter, by the way,” said Richardson after answering an unrelated question. “I know a lot of you are hunters, so please support me. The NRA gave me an A+ rating.”
While the right to bear arms is obviously not a burning issue in the minds of most Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, Richardson’s record on the subject may well earn him the respect of rural Democrats in places like Albia and other small towns that are often ignored by presidential candidates.

Edwards today held a conference call to unveil his “Hunting and Fishing Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” Again, from Dien’s coverage on Iowa Independent:
In an impromptu telephone press conference this morning, Edwards said it’s part of his effort to “ensure that people who live in rural areas and small towns” that he has a commitment to “strengthening their way of life and their economies.”

Edwards used the event to announce a new set of policy proposals focused on hunting, fishing and the great outdoors. He explained that his “Hunting and Fishing Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” is an agenda to protect and strengthen hunting and fishing traditions.

While the majority of Democratic caucus-goers may not care much one way or the other about gun rights and hunting, Democrats in rural areas care quite a bit. Many of them are themselves hunters, and those who are not still recognize the importance of having a Democrat at the top of the ticket who will not alienate gun control opponents. Caucus-goers are known for their pragmatism, and having a name associated with strict gun control on the ballot as the Democratic presidential nominee could cause major problems for local Democratic candidates.

http://cmondisplay.com/2007/10/24/the-democratic-gun-vote/

Right Democrat: Support for the right to keep and bear arms is strong in Middle America. Millions of rank and file Democrats are gun rights supporters as Second Amendment defenders exist across party and ideological lines. Democrats need to favor gun rights to win rural America and firearms owners are a critical swing vote in many states.

Heath Shuler proposes the SAVE Act for Immigration Control

The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that Congressman Heath Shuler of North Carolina http://shuler.house.gov/ is introducing the SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement) which will mandate improved border security and employer compliance with immigration laws. Shuler is a populist Democrat and has been a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

Shuler targets immigration
by Doug Abrahms, GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
published November 2, 2007 8:30 pm

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771102106
WASHINGTON — Employers would be required to verify their workers are in the U.S. legally, under a bill Rep. Heath Shuler will introduce next week.

Shuler, D-Waynesville, who said turning off the employment magnet will reduce illegal immigration, has added 75 House Democratic and Republican co-sponsors for the measure. The bill would require employers to verify workers’ status through a Department of Homeland Security database, which currently is voluntary.

“North Carolina is dealing with one of the fastest-growing illegal immigrant populations in the country,” Shuler said. “This legislation represents a common-sense answer to the immigration problem facing our nation.”

Shuler’s bill also would add 8,000 Border Patrol agents, increase aerial surveillance of the border and spend more on workplace enforcement of immigration laws. So far, 41 other Democrats and 34 Republicans have agreed to co-sponsor the bill, including Reps. Mike McIntyre, Sue Myrick, Walter Jones and Robin Hayes of North Carolina.

Shuler’s bill “seems to be one of the most extensive enforcement bills introduced,” said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. His group favors stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

Typically, freshman lawmakers stand little chance of getting difficult bills through the House, he said.

But the Democrats who control Congress are struggling with immigration policy, just as Republicans did before 2006, Camarota said. Many Americans are frustrated that so many immigrants continue to cross the Mexican border illegally, he said.

“I think there’s real fear of the issue in the Democratic Party,” Camarota said.
Democracy Corps, a polling company run by Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville, released a memo this week warning Democrats that illegal immigration has caused current voter discontent. Many Americans wonder why the U.S. has lost control of its borders and doesn’t go after illegal employment, the memo said.

“Voters want control of the borders and workplace and (to re-create) an immigration system that works and oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants — positions supported by about two-thirds of the country,” the memo said. “If political leaders do not start there, they are not likely to be heard on other steps.”

www.citizen-times.com/ www.gannett.com/

One of the leading pro-immigration enforcement organizations, Numbers USA strongly endorsed the Shuler bill. In a letter to Congressman Shuler, Numbers USA President Roy Beck describes the SAVE act as a "middle ground" solution to the illegal immigration matter. Beck's letter is reproduced below:

The Honorable Heath Shuler512 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Shuler:

Numbers USA’s half-million grassroots activist voters are dedicated to removing the jobs magnet that is the biggest among many large causes of our illegal immigration nightmare. Your new bill is just what the nation needs.

I am most pleased to offer Numbers USA’s endorsement of your SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement).SAVE Act is the middle-ground answer to the illegal immigration issue. This not only will be the most effective solution, but it is what polls show most Americans want. When given the choice among (a) mass roundups and mass deportations, (b) mass legalizations, and (c) Attrition Through Enforcement & Self Deportation, the public chooses the middle-ground Attrition option which is what your bill offers.

I appreciate the many ways that the SAVE Act would increase our border security and help with interior enforcement.Our greatest excitement is in the promise of finally protecting American workers, legal foreign workers and law-abiding businesses from the unfair competition of massive hiring of illegal workers throughout our economy. And by requiring every worker to be run through the E-Verify system within four years, the SAVE Act would greatly reduce the opportunities for national origin-based discrimination.

Numbers USA has always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep up with competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens. Universal mandatory use of E-Verify will protect legitimate businesses, protect U.S. workers and remove the financial ability for most illegal workers to remain in the United States.

Under this bill, we can expect a peaceful self-deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens a year, immediately bringing relief to overburdened communities and improving wage prospects, particularly for the 23 million less-educated Americans who do not currently have a job.The sight of so many of their countrymen returning home after failing to find or hold U.S. jobs, will be a significant deterrent to foreign nationals seeking to enter our country illegally or to overstay their visas.

The SAVE Act builds on the assets of the E-Verify system and strengthens it in several regards. Most importantly, it deals with the current inability of E-Verify to catch illegal workers who have stolen the identities of Americans or of legal foreign workers. But the SAVE Act has provisions that creatively will identify these cases of identity fraud and will eliminate the ability of most identity thieves to remain in a job for long.

One of Numbers USA’s chief missions is to end illegal immigration in order to have a society that is more economically just. Our half-million members are fairly evenly distributed through every Congressional district and every county in the country. All have a stake in resolving illegal immigration for a better quality of life in their own communities. Thank you for introducing the SAVE Act. We will work diligently to educate the nation and the Congress about the need for its passage.

Sincerely,

Roy Beck

President,

NumbersUSA

http://www.numbersusa.com/

I applaud Heath Shuler's efforts. The American people are ready for real action to solve the illegal immigration problem. With Shuler's constructive leadership and growing bi-partisan support, we can secure our borders and protect the interests of America's working families.

Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Dodd on licenses for illegals

Chris Dodd is right and Hillary Clinton is wrong. Driving is a privilege and illegal aliens have no right to a license.

And if Democrats want to win '08, they had better start listening to the voters on illegal immigration. This isn't just a Republican issue - it is a working and middle class concern. Democrats are just as divided over the illegal immigration question as Republicans.

The elites in both parties want more illegal immigrants while the average citizen favors border and job security.

The witch hunt against mainstream Democrat Dan Lipinski

The DFA-Moveonner left is targeting Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) as a "Bush Dog" (a common slur against the Blue Dog Democratic Coalition even though Lipiniski has never been a member of that group) which is nothing less than absurd. It seems that some ideological wackos within the party have decided to attack Dan Lipinski and recruit a primary challenger because of his refusal to support an immediately cut off of funding for the war in Iraq and opposition to abortion on demand. Far out left bloggers have even labeled Lipinski as a "right-winger." Well, let's take a look at some of the progressive and/or humanitarian groups that have rated the Illinois Congressman over the past year or so. Here is Congressman Lipinski's report card which I obtained from a well informed and objective resource known as Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/

100% AIDS Action Council
100% AFL-CIO
70% Americans for Democratic Action
88% Americans for the Arts
89% Association of University Women
100% Campaign for America's Future
100% Children's Defense Fund
100% Citizens for Tax Justice
100% Disabled American Veterans
92% League of Conservation Voters
89% NAACP
100% National Breast Cancer Coalition
100% National Education Association
100% National Farmer's Union

Yeah, Dan Lipinski really sounds like a radical right-winger ! If anything, Lipinski's voting record is moderate to liberal on the vast majority of issues.
There are some socially conservative leanings reflected in Lipinski's voting record. He has voted against the Americans for Democratic Action position 30% of the time suggesting the presence of an independent mind but only has 16% rating from the American Conservative Union. Lipinski got a 71% rating from the Federation for Immigration Reform which indicates that he is not owned by the cheap labor lobby but also got a 66% score from the National Council of La Raza. The socially conservative Family Research Council gave Lipinski a 62 percent rating, however, the gay-lesbian activist Human Rights Campaign Fund agreed with his voting record 40% of the time. Given Lipinski's pro-life stand, it is not surprising that he received a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and a zero score from NARAL-Pro Choice America. And a strongly pro-life stand is not out of line with the views of the working class and heavily Catholic district that Dan Lipinski represents. After all, members of Congress should represent the values of their constituents.

The well-respected National Journal analyzed the voting record for Congressman Dan Lipinski and found that his voting record on economic and defense issues was more liberal than 71% of other members of Congress and more liberal on social issues than 58% of the members of Congress. See link http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/states/index.htm?state=il#vr I think this McCarthy-like witch hunt against Representative Lipinski shows just how radical the DFA and the Moveonners really are. You can have a 100% voting record from the AFL-CIO, the NEA and the Children's Defense Fund and maintain a voting record clearly to the left of most colleagues in the House and still be labeled as a "right-winger" and "Bush Dog." The anti-Lipinski crusade also casts light on the twisted priorities of the modern left. Supporting organized labor, fighting for the interests of children and working families isn't a priority anymore. To these extremists - the only important issues are immediate withdrawal from Iraq (we need to get out of Iraq but it would be irresponsible to cut off funding for our troops), absolute abortion rights, advancing secularism and gay marriage. The notion that a party must have a broad base and appeal to the center is lost on these fanatics.

I hope that the Democratic voters of the 3rd Illinois Congressional district will send a message that we need mainstream Democrats like Dan Lipinski in public office.

http://www.danlipinskiforcongress.com/

Politico: 'Lou Dobbs' voters will decide '08

Christopher Gacek makes a strong case in Politico http://www.politico.com/
that populist "Lou Dobbs" voters could decide the 2008 elections. As a 'Lou Dobbs' Democrat, I agree. Both political parties will ignore the concerns of anxious middle class voters at their peril.

Gacek writes:

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs may be the most important person in the 2008 presidential election aside from the candidates themselves. The bundle of concerns that Dobbs and his audience have about globalization, trade, diminished American sovereignty and immigration will be ignored by politicians at their own peril. The elites of the Democratic and Republican parties don’t realize the deep political vein Dobbs has struck. In fact, they tend to be quite scornful of him.

Nevertheless, the presidential candidate who pursues and captures the “Lou Dobbs voter” will win the 2008 election. In 1980, Dobbs began his career at CNN, where he gained national prominence hosting “Moneyline.” Currently, his “Lou Dobbs Tonight” reviews the daily news while focusing on stories related to U.S. sovereignty, immigration and trade policy.

The program includes an ongoing, popular segment called “The War Against the Middle Class.” Dobbs is denounced by conservatives as a protectionist, but this is grossly inaccurate. Reciprocity is the key to Dobbs’ thinking on trade. That is, he believes the Congress should reject agreements that give other countries the right to charge higher tariffs than the United States can for the same or similar products.

Dobbs’ thunderous jeremiads focus on the nonreciprocal trade provisions that our trade negotiators routinely accept.

For example, on July 9, Dobbs reported that the Chinese-made Chery car will face a 2.5 percent tariff when entering America, while U.S. cars imported into China will be taxed at 25 percent. Dobbs is also highly critical of U.S. immigration policy. It isn’t just that the lawlessness of mass illegal alien migration offends him but that Washington and Wall Street elites are allowing immigration (and trade) policies to undermine America’s own political, economic and cultural institutions.

Dobbs is an American who prefers his own nation to multinational and supranational political institutions — he is not a “globalist,” and neither are American voters. The fact that the Beltway establishment’s full-court push for immigration amnesty was defeated twice this year by an alternative-media-led populist rebellion indicates the political power of these issues. It isn’t just about immigration.

Middle-class families are deeply concerned about the impact of globalization — i.e., nonreciprocal arrangements for open borders allowing people and goods into the U.S. — on their ability to survive economically. The politics of the Lou Dobbs voters are still fluid, because neither party has moved to gain their support. The Democrats are too busy kowtowing to immigration interest groups as they look to import future voting blocs, and the Republicans are too beholden to big business globalists, trade ideologues and open-border libertarians.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6478.html