Dodd Challenges Edwards On NAFTA, Astonishingly Misses The Point

The Dodd Campaign issued the following press release this morning regarding John Edwards and NAFTA:

On background, thought you may be interested…

John Edwards on NAFTA Today:
NAFTA was Sold to the American People with Empty Promises
“NAFTA was that it would grow the economy and create millions of new jobs. But today, we know those promises were empty,’ he said in remarks prepared for delivery at a town hall forum in Derry. ‘In all three countries, it has hurt workers and families while helping corporate insiders.’” [Associated Press, 12/8/07]

John Edwards on NAFTA in 2004:
NAFTA is “Important” and It “Should Exist.”
In a 2004 meeting with the New York Times editorial board, John Edwards said “NAFTA should exist” and declared “NAFTA is important—it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.” In the same meeting, Edwards also cast his trade positions as “a tick away” from the free trade championing Democratic Leadership Council. At the time, Edwards was seeking the endorsement of the paper’s editors, who had supported NAFTA in 1993. [New York Times, 2/24/04; New York Times editorial, 11/17/93]

John Edwards on NAFTA in 2002:
NAFTA had “Unintended Consequences.”
“‘NAFTA had a lot of unintended consequences,’ he [Edwards] said Tuesday. ‘No one knew when it passed how dramatic the effect would be in places like North Carolina.’” [The Asheville Citizen-Times editorial, 4/20/02]

*sigh*

Alright, this is really a silly press release. The Dodd campaign is trying to portray Edwards as being inconsistent on NAFTA. The truth is: he really hasn’t been inconsistent in his statements on NAFTA. The 2004 quote came as during a time when he was beginning to set himself up to be Kerry’s running mate. He had taken Kerry (and others) to task on NAFTA during the campaign and was beginning to moderate his position a bit. Even though in that quote he said NAFTA was important and should still exist, during that time he began arguing for revisions to NAFTA to address what he considered to be problems with it.

What frustrates me is that it really wasn’t necessary for the Dodd campaign to stretch quotations in order to make Edwards look like he has inconsistent opinions on NAFTA. It would have been better had they gone after his record.

For example (and there are plenty of others), Edwards voted against S.J. Res. 27, which was a resolution “disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of the People’s Republic of China” (Legislation like this takes on new meaning now over concerns of lead in Chinese products). It might have been better for Dodd to target Edwards for claiming that if he is elected president, he will bring about change, but noting that when he was a senator and had the ability to effect change, he did not stand by his beliefs and statements. That to me, seems like a much more legitimate criticism than attacking someone over a quote clearly taken out of context.

Unfortunately, more meaningful political discourse would either require voters to raise the bar on the press and on presidential candidates or for presidential candidates to act like the leaders they claim to be and demonstrate that politics can discussed in a much better way. I don’t really see the latter happening anytime soon, but maybe, just maybe, we will all soon realize that voting is more than just an exercise, it’s a delegation of authority to someone who will make decisions that affect us in very real ways and will therefore start demanding more of our candidates.