But during this primary, opponents have constantly tried to paint Edwards as a hypocrite and say that the things he fights for are new to him. Actually nothing is further from the truth. I decided to look back a few years and see if what Edwards was saying matches his current rhetoric. The facts didn't disappoint.
We all know that Edwards is building his campaign on fighting for working Americans over Corporations. He is the only candidate whose platform calls for fighting these interests, and not expecting them to negotiate their considerable power away. But does it match his past rhetoric? Well, lets look:
From Jan. 29, 2004:
Q: Is it realistic to talk to the American people about stopping the global economy and the movement toward it?
A: We can have a real impact on the loss of jobs. We can do something to bring jobs back to replace the jobs that we've lost. I've seen mills close, I've seen what it does to communities, I've seen what it does to families. We need to close loopholes in our tax code to give breaks to companies that are leaving, give tax breaks to American companies that will keep jobs here.
From Aug. 6, 2003:
Worker and Shareholder Bill of Rights. Some CEOs have lined their own pockets while workers lost their jobs and families lost their savings. Edwards will crack down on outrageous CEO pay, require honest accounting, and ensure pension fairness for ordinary workers.
From June 5, 2003:
We need to take on these insider deals. There is not just an economic crisis on Main Street America, there is a moral crisis in corporate America. I want business to succeed, I want CEOs to succeed, but I want them to succeed by doing the right thing- by helping their workers, by doing right by investors. This is why I am proposing a new Shareholder and Worker's Bill of Rights. It is not complicated.
First, it's time for pension fairness.
We need a Right to Know law for CEO pay to make sure the companies that are getting big tax deductions for big pay only get them when that pay is actually linked to the performance of the companies.
Finally, we need to bring democracy into corporate boardrooms. Shareholders should be able to nominate board members so they can have a say in how the company runs.
This will make our economy stronger, not weaker. This will restore confidence in markets and it will restore fairness on the factory floor.
In fact while Edwards has recieved much flak for being a "trial lawyer", he used that time to fight the corporations for ordinary Americans:
In a case where a 5-year-old girl was eviscerated by a pool suction drain, we considered 4 parties responsible; 3 settled. We sued the manufacturer of the pool drain cover, Sta-Rite.]
North Carolina's product liability statute was not crafted with the best interests of [negligence victims] in mind. For example, it protected a manufacturer from liability if its product had been altered or modified from its intended use. Sta-Rite contended, "If the screws are in place [on the drain cover], it's not a hazard," but they didn't indicate in their instructions that screws were required,] Sta-Rite had dumped a product on the market without considering its hazards. Underlying this case was Sta-Rite's corporate indifference. It's hard to sit there and listen to strangers say, "Lawsuits like these are what's wrong with America!" and then go home to your innocent daughter and her feeding tubes. [The jury awarded $25 million against Sta-Rite].
[Edwards won the Howard case, which awarded punitive damages against a trucking company for an accident by one of its drivers, who was induced to drive unsafely because of incentive pay.] There are 2 endings to the Howard saga-one quite happy, the other less so.
The trucking industry did indeed take notice of the verdict. Trucking firms in the state of North Carolina were soon placing greater emphasis no driver safety training. Some companies even abandoned the practice of paying drivers by the mile.
Unfortunately, the insurance companies lobbied the Republican state legislature and soon a bill was passed disallowing punitive damage awards against a company as a result of an employee's actions, unless the particular action was specifically ratified by corporate officers.
Yes, our lawsuit had sent a message, and that message ultimately was: if you don't like the law, change it. The message to me was: if you can't help enough people being a lawyer, consider being a lawmaker.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
As far as trade goes, Edwards on Jan. 25, 2004:
Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?
A: I believe we need trade that works for America and the world, and have outlined a new approach to trade agreements that will protect American jobs and require labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. My approach would also establish an international 'right to know,' so that consumers know if corporations have moved jobs overseas or engage in abusive environmental and labor standards. I would also take aggressive measures to make sure foreign markets are open to US goods and include strong environmental and labor standards in all trade deals.
From January 4, 2004:
EDWARDS: I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president. Gephardt has sent out mailings attacking and identifying all of us and putting us in the same category.
From Nov. 7, 2003:
Q: How do you intend to boost the manufacturing base?
A: We have lost over 3 million private sector jobs under President Bush. Two and a half million of those are manufacturing jobs. In order to protect the jobs we have I would do the following.
Put enforceable provisions into our trade agreements for environmental protection, labor protection, prohibitions for child labor and forced labor. All of these would be aimed at helping level the playing field for American workers.
Close corporate tax loopholes that give American companies an incentive to go overseas and take jobs with them. Instead I would give tax breaks to American companies who would keep manufacturing jobs here in America.
I would provide seed money of venture capital to new business who would locate in areas where jobs have been lost. For existing business and industries that are willing to locate a plant of facility those areas I would give tax write offs.
And in 2002, Edwards voted against fast-track for this horrible President:
In 2002, Edwards voted against giving President Bush fast-track trade authority, after several provisions he supported to help workers and the textile industry were dropped from the final bill. Edwards worked to include amendments about negotiating textile deals with foreign countries, aid to displaced textile workers hurt by the trade deals, and increased financing for community college retraining programs. When these provisions were taken out of the final bill, Edwards voted against it.
Then we have this statement:
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.
Newcomer to fair trade? I think not.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
On Government Reform, Edwards definately isn't new to the fight as some claim. From March 3, 2004:
I support a ban on contributions by federal lobbyists to federal officials, public financing of elections, and other measures to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. I strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill. I believe in equal rights and dignity for gay and lesbian Americans.
And Jan. 25, 2004:
Q: After the inauguration, what would be your first action as president?
A: I will introduce legislation and sign executive orders to limit the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. These measures will include: preventing candidates for federal office from taking contributions from Washington lobbyists; closing the revolving door between lobbyists' shops and government jobs; shining a bright light on lobbyist influence; and stopping the war profiteering in Iraq.
Then there was his vote on HR 2356 Vote 2002-54 on March 20, 2002:
Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill).
Vote to ban "soft money" contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
And his vote on Bill S.27 number 2001-64:
Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
On healthcare, from Aug. 10, 2004:
It is morally wrong to tolerate an America with so many uninsured and underinsured Americans. Working Americans who do not have health insurance live in the neighborhoods we call home. We see them every day behind the counter and around the corner. They build America's houses, run our small businesses, bag our groceries, and care for our elderly and our kids. And some American families, more than others, tend to fall through the cracks of our health care coverage system.
Also, from the same date:
Our plan starts by providing health insurance for every child in America. Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, the federal government will pay the full costs for the 20 million children in the Medicaid program. In return, we will ask states to expand coverage to children in families with higher incomes than are currently eligible, as well as low-income adults. It will expand coverage to millions of people & provide much needed relief for states that are struggling under persistent growing budgetary pressures.
And from Sept. 4, 2003:
I start with a very simple idea: children first. I will make sure that every child is covered, and I'll do it the only way you can, by making it the law of the land. I'm going to ask responsibility from everybody. Responsibility for the parents make sure their kids are covered. Responsibility from the government to make sure that they can pay for it. And responsibility from big HMOs and drug companies, to bring the cost down. And if they won't accept responsibility, we will hold them responsible.
And May 3, 2003:
No one's talking about cost [of health care to people]. We can't deal with the health care crisis in America unless we have the backbone and courage to do what I have been doing my entire life: fighting against big corporations, pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies, big HMOs. The president works for those people. There's a culture in Washington that stands against taking them on.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
Now, we know a certain candidate who supports Republican talking points on Social Security, but John Edwards has always fought for it:
Q: Can the stock market be a component of the Social Security retirement system?
EDWARDS: No, I don't believe it can. I think we have to do a number of things. One is, in order to lengthen the financial viability of Social Security, the single most important thing is to get away from this deficit spending that this president has put us in and move back to fiscal responsibility.
That from Mar. 25, 2004. Then we have bill S.1429 vote number 1999-236:
Vote on a motion to table (or kill) the motion to recommit the bill to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee with instructions directing the committee to "correct the fact that the bill uses" Social Security surpluses for tax breaks.
And his vote on Amdmt. 254 to S.557 vote # 1999-90 on April, 22 1999:
This vote limited debate on the amendment offered by Sen. Abraham (R-MI) that would have created a Social Security "lockbox" and establish limits on the public debt. [A YES vote was for a lockbox]. This vote failed because 3/5 of the Senate did not vote.
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)54; N)45; NV)1.
In fact this statement tells it all:
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
As far as his support for working people, from March 3, 2004:
I support job training programs, an increase in the minimum wage, greater protection for unionization, and greater help for Americans balancing work and families.
From Sept. 25, 2003:
Q: Would you be willing to repeal farm subsidies if it helped poor farmers overseas gain a greater standard of living?
EDWARDS: My belief is we have to stand by our farmers. It's been a huge issue in my state of North Carolina. I have specifically proposed that we stop subsidies for millionaire farmers. I don't think we should do that, and I don't think we need to be doing that.
From the same date:
We need to empower working people to organize. We need labor law reform in this country. Things like card check neutrality, putting teeth in the law to make sure that those who violate the law during organizing campaigns are, in fact, held responsible. And I think we ought to make the hiring of permanent replacement workers for strikers--we ought to ban it. We ought to make it the law of the land tomorrow. We need to empower working people so that they have more voice, not less voice in this country.
From Aug. 6, 2003, Edwards was already pushing relief for rural America:
An Agenda for Rural America. While many in Washington just fly over rural America to get from one coast to the other, Edwards comes from rural America, and he offers real help for rural America-investing capital, introducing technology, and protecting the natural heritage.
From July 17, 2003:
Edwards believes America's workers deserve fair pay for their hard work. Today, the minimum wage, in real dollars, is worth less than it was in 1968. That is why Edwards has consistently voted for increasing the minimum wage and believes we need to increase it again, which is why he is currently cosponsoring a Senate bill to increase the minimum wage in the Senate.
From the same date:
Labor has been a powerful force for good in this country and across the globe, and Edwards supports tougher penalties and stronger enforcement to protect workers' rights to organize and collectively bargain. Edwards also opposes permanent striker replacement because he believes we should not punish an employee with permanent job loss if he or she exercises a legally protected right to strike. Edwards has consistently earned high scores from labor unions for his votes on behalf of American workers.
Edwards also was a leader in the fight to preserve overtime pay for millions of Americans:
Edwards signed a letter from 43 Senators to the Secretary of Labor
To: Labor Secretary Elaine Chao
Dear Secretary Chao:
We write to express our serious concerns about the Department's proposed regulation on white collar exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. These sweeping changes could eliminate overtime pay protections for millions of American workers.
We urge you not to implement this new regulation that will end overtime protections for those currently eligible. Under current law, the FLSA discourages employers from scheduling overtime by making overtime more expensive. According to a GAO study, employees exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by the protections. Our citizens are working longer hours than ever before – longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to balancing work responsibilities and family needs. It is certainly not family friendly to require employees to work more hours for less pay.
Overtime protections clearly make an immense difference in preserving the 40-hour work week. Millions of employees depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and pay their bills for housing, food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes 20-25% of their wages. These workers will face an unfair reduction in their take-home pay if they can no longer receive their overtime pay.
We urge you not to go forward with any regulation that denies overtime pay protections to any of America's currently eligible hard-working men and women.
So, what did the AFL-CIO think about Edwards time in the Senate? Lets look:
Edwards scores 100% by the AFL-CIO on labor issues
As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.
http://www.issues2000.org/...
To any undecided voter in this primary I would like to say, please don't believe the propoganda put forth by other campaigns and their supporters that John Edwards is new to this fight. Don't believe he has changed his rhetoric for this primary. The fact is Edwards has fought for these things througout his time in public life and well before.
Since people cannot refute his ideas of One America that works for everyone and the hope it brings millions of Americans, they attempt to smear Edwards and lie about his past rhetoric. As you can clearly see, they are wrong. John Edwards has been fighting for working Americans his whole life and is certainly not new to this fight.
Please join us in our campaign of hope and equality for working Americans everywhere. We need you!!
Best wishes fellow Democrats!!
Comments are closed on this story.