John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

snip: The only top tier candidate who is clear and concise on illegal immigration is Barack Obama, who wants to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses. Whether you think it’s right or wrong one thing is clear besides his stance. It’s red meat for wingnuts. But if it’s the right thing to do and you can back it up it won’t matter. Richard Clarke agrees and he’s one of the most astute counterterrorism analysts in the country.

Everyone is attacking Clinton because she’s in front. Meanwhile, the guys get less scrutiny. It’s bad politics. It’s bad for our party. Unfortunately, not enough people care, which means we may get a nominee we don’t know. Treat them all equally, asking them each questions on the same issues so voters can compare, including follow ups. Dissect all of their views. It’s not over yet. Besides, if someone is as clear as Barack Obama is on illegal immigration he deserves to be heard on it. Just like we need to know when Edwards gets one wrong and he sure is on this one. What makes it worse is that he also tagged Spitzer while blowing it.

Now to that but from the top of my post because it’s important. Advocating giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses is bad politics by itself, but it’s not all Obama did either. Only comprehensive immigration reform will work, which is what he said, though that’s not in the article above. If Obama leads with a declarative statement about giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses he’ll get creamed and if he’s our nominee so will we. It’s not fair or right, but it’s what the wingnuts do and digging out after a negative onslaught is a lot harder than getting it right from the start. Say it with me: comprehensive immigration reform; targeting employers and funding investigative units included. Nothing less will do. Making sure the press reports not only Obama’s support for Spitzer, but also that he supports comprehensive immigration reform is part of the issue too.

Taylor Marsh

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Former Senator John Edwards (N.C.) has been accusing his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) of double-talk for a week, since she refused to say clearly whether illegal immigrants should get driver’s licenses – but his own position on the issue is also incoherent, experts say.Immigration policy experts on both sides of the debate say they’re puzzled by Edwards’ stance, which appears to hinge on blurring the distinction between state and federal powers.

“He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn’t support the Spitzer plan because it doesn’t include a path to citizenship,” said Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton.

“That’s not a rational position — Eliot Spitzer couldn’t ever offer somebody a path to citizenship,” said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform.

“I don’t know if they think you’re stupid or what they think,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigrantion Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop.

Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position.

That is “sort of like saying I oppose the confederate flag in Southern states because there’s not a corresponding flag burning amendment to it. It’s nonsensical,” Sharry said.

Indeed, opposing Spitzer’s plan on those grounds amounts to de facto opposition to any driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, something Edwards and his aides have not previously stated.

That’s a dramatic shift from Edwards’ stand in 2004, when he told “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews, “I’m for it,” when asked about licenses for illegal immigrants.

Edwards may be changing his position to court working-class Iowa voters, among whom illegal immigration is an emotionally charged issue.

However, his effort to soft-pedal the change seems aimed at a party establishment that is resisting populist anti-immigration forces, and hopes to win the vast bulk of the Hispanic vote in the general election.
(more…)

Taylor Marsh

If you want to know why I’m adamantly against negative personal attacks on our own, Edwards is exhibit A today.

[Video]

snip: Illegal immigration is the dog whistle issue ready to roll for the ‘08 general election. It’s an issue that is annoying when you hear politicians talk about it. They either don’t understand the urgency some of us feel about it or don’t get the domestic security issue rolled up in it or think it’s simple when it’s not. John Edwards was asked about it yesterday on “This Week,” but he had a lot of trouble distinguishing himself or even making it understandable, especially since he changed his position while slapping Spitzer for good measure. The other problem for Edwards is that he’s 180 degrees from where he was in ‘04, but doesn’t explain the reasoning very well.

The former North Carolina senator, who unequivocally supported issuing driver’s licenses to illegals when he was running for vice president in 2004, said that it should be up to the states to decide whether to issue licenses to illegals. However, once a national comprehensive immigration reform plan is passed into law, any illegal who gets on the path to citizenship should be permitted to obtain a license, he said.

Interesting that Edwards said he’s for states to issue drivers licenses until the feds get their act together, but he is against Spitzer’s plan. Obviously Edwards doesn’t understand the national security aspect of this issue, which is what Spitzer was trying to tackle.

Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser to three presidents, on Friday endorsed Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses.

“States should act to register immigrants, legal and illegal, who use our roadways as New York is doing,” Clarke said in a statement to be delivered in a morning news conference with Spitzer in New York City.

“From a law enforcement and security perspective, it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads, and to have their photograph and their address on file than to have large numbers of people living in our cities whose identity is totally unknown to the government,” said Clarke, who advised presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. … ..

Richard A. Clarke endorses Spitzer’s plan

Clarke, a former Bill Clinton man, supports Obama, by the way. He is also one of the most astute experts on counterterrorism.

Edwards went on:

Asked about his switch since 2004, Edwards said he had been primarily concerned about the dangers of people driving who hadn’t had any training. But he said, now, that concern fits into the bigger picture of establishing a rule of law in the United States that allows illegals to get driver’s licenses once they get on the path to earning citizenship. … ..

So let me get this straight. Edwards was for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in 2004, but isn’t today. He believes it’s up to states, but he’s against Sptizer’s plan. But he is worried about people driving around without training now, which now fits into “the bigger picture of establishing a rule of law in the…” .. ..

What’s Edwards’ plan for illegal immigration? Yesterday he was all over the map, but came out beside Clinton. It’s also important to note that he couldn’t meet the standard he set for Clinton during the debate to actually answer yes or no. That’s because this issue is more complex, as Edwards found out yesterday.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe illegal immigrants should be denied driver’s licenses?”

Mr. Edwards: “Well, I think, first of all, that’s for states to decide, not for the President of the United States to decide. But beyond that –“

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “So the 40 states that deny illegal immigrants driver’s licenses that’s okay with you?”

Mr. Edwards: “Let me finish. I think that is their decision to make, not the president’s decision. But here’s what I believe. I believe that, first of all, we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. And for anybody in this country who is making an effort and on the path to obtaining American citizenship, yes, they should have a driver’s license. If they’re not making any effort to become an American citizen, and we have a system for doing that, my own personal view is, no, I would not give them a driver’s license.”

In further back and forth to clarify, Mr. Stephanopoulos noted that Mr. Edwards, when he first ran for president in 2004, unequivocally supported giving licenses to illegal immigrants. Then the moderator played a video of Mrs. Clinton’s debate response — in which she said the controversy underscores the need for comprehensive federal immigration reforms — and Mr. Stephanopoulos suggested her stance sounded like Mr. Edwards’ position now: “You’re saying the same thing, right?”

Mr. Edwards: “That’s true.” … ..

Edwards Breaks His ‘Yes-or-No’ Rule, by 88 Words.

Oh, and if you think this is classic, when Stephanopoulos asked Edwards about his Bubba strategy the double speak was on full parade. He believes that if you won’t vote for a woman or a black for president he doesn’t want your vote. However, only he can win in “tough places,” especially in white rural America where they won’t vote for a woman or black man for president. Never mind that Edwards trails badly in both South and North Carolina. But he’s more electable, got that?

Note to all Democrats running for president: If you’re going to run an attack campaign against a fellow Democrat it would help if you actually held different views, and when demanding yes or no answers from them could actually deliver them yourself, while not campaigning in the same manner as you’re charging your Democratic opponents. Eriposte has more, hitting the same reality as it relates to Iraq and Iran, with the top three candidates sounding an awful lot alike, something I’ve been covering around here as well.

Taylor Marsh.com

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, launched a web ad so aggressive towards Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, upon first viewing I thought it was put together by the Republican National Committee. (WATCH IT HERE).

And today Edwards will continue making his case against the former First Lady in such a fashion, saying in Iowa City, per remarks released by his campaign, that “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. We have seen this movie before. And it doesn’t end well — in fact, as we all know too well, in Iraq, it hasn’t ended at all.”

I agree that Clinton’s debate performance exposed her to several charges of not presenting a clear opinion — what Edwards calls “double-speaking.”

But has Edwards exposed himself to that charge as well?

ABC Political Punch 11/5/07
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/the-high-standa.html

Edwards’ Doubletalk On Drivers Licenses For Undocumented Aliens

And it is the bad kind of doubletalk:

John Edwards on Sunday said he opposes a new program in New York to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, but the Democratic presidential candidate offered much the same plan for establishing a licensing system as his chief rival and party primary frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

So much for the straight talk. And note this is a xenophobic flip flop from Edwards’ 2004 position:

The former North Carolina senator, who unequivocally supported issuing driver’s licenses to illegals when he was running for vice president in 2004, said that it should be up to the states to decide whether to issue licenses to illegals.

Read the doubletalk:

“I believe that, first of all we have to have comprehensive immigration reform and for anybody in this country who is making an effort and on the path to obtaining American citizenship, yes, they should have a driver’s license. If they’re not making any effort to become an American citizen, and we have a system for doing that, my own personal view is, no, I would not give them a driver’s license,” Edwards said on ABC’s “This Week.”

. . . “I am against the [Spitzer] plan,” he said.

. . . Asked about his switch since 2004, Edwards said he had been primarily concerned about the dangers of people driving who hadn’t had any training. But he said, now, that concern fits into the bigger picture of establishing a rule of law in the United States that allows illegals to get driver’s licenses once they get on the path to earning citizenship.

Straight talk? What a joke of an answer from Edwards.

Talk Left 11/5/07
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/5/123316/368

Taylor Marsh

This seems so obvious I’m wondering if I’m missing something. [Watch the video] (again).

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’re against that plan, the Spitzer plan.

EDWARDS: I’m against that plan.

That back and forth begins the ad. Then the text goes at Clinton:

“6 days later”

“What’s Senator Clinton’s answer?”

“She Still Doesn’t Have One.”

Edwards seems to be saying that Clinton hasn’t answered whether she supports the Spitzer plan on illegal immigration or not, six days after the debate. That’s flatly false.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.

A Day Later, Clinton Embraces Spitzer’s License Effort.

The Clinton camp answered the question the next day, after her stumble at the debate, on October 31st. No doubt an Edwards’ clarification YouTube will follow. Maybe they just missed it, after all it was only reported by Adam Nagourney of The New York Times. Or maybe the facts don’t matter at all anymore; winning is all.

Seriously, I know team Edwards wanted to respond to this ad, but their response seems to have been so quick (and sloppy) they got the facts wrong.

Or again, am I missing something?

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

If Hillary Clinton seemed confused about how to answer a question about illegal immigrants getting driver’s licenses, it may not only have been because she was looking toward the general election.

Even among Democrats, there is grave concern about illegal immigrants in Iowa, a state that is more than more than 95 percent white and 4 percent Hispanic, according to 2005 Census Bureau estimates.

“We have a war going on and we’re paying for hospital care, children in school [for illegal immigrants]?” a woman pointedly asked John Edwards in Williamsburg Iowa over the weekend. When a person in the crowd said they had not heard the question, Edwards said the query was about one woman’s “view” of immigration, suggesting he did not agree with her sentiments.

snip: Earlier in the day, asked about illegal immigration, he drew the loudest applause of his entire event in Charles City when he declared “you should learn to speak English if you want to be an American citizen.”

The Washington Post

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/05/one_answer_on_illegal_immigran.html

The most questionable of Giuliani’s pronouncements is his call for citizens to speak the language.

Giuliani, radio ad:And then, if anybody becomes a citizen, we should make certain that they can read English, write English and speak English, because this is an English speaking country.

The federal government agrees. Speaking, reading and writing basic English is already a requirement for those applying for naturalization. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.” The exceptions to this requirement include those age 50 and above who entered the country legally and have been permanent residents for 15 to 20 years, and those with medical conditions that impair their language abilities.

factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_immigration_showdown.html

The Clinton campaign wouldn’t divulge what its postdebate polling showed, though a nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports poll found little change in Mrs. Clinton’s commanding lead in national polls over Messrs. Obama and Edwards, and the rest of the field.

But, as Rasmussen cautioned, its polling snapshot didn’t capture attitudes in the first voting states: “It is possible that Obama and Edwards will find a way to capitalize on the Clinton stumbles between now and the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.”

The rivals certainly are trying. Mr. Edwards, who is a distant third in polls nationally and has lost ground in Iowa, where he has focused his efforts, has been the most aggressive. His online video was headlined “The Politics of Parsing.” Campaigning in South Carolina Friday, Mr. Edwards kept to the theme, telling reporters, “What we saw in the debate were the politics of double talk. I have a really simple rule — if you get asked a yes-or-no question you shouldn’t give a yes-AND-no answer.”

Mr. Edwards wasn’t asked by the moderators in Tuesday’s debate for a yes-or-no answer to the question that has proved most contentious — about whether illegal immigrants should get driver’s licenses, as New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and other states have proposed. Mrs. Clinton said it made sense, given the need to encourage all drivers to have insurance and be counted, but she refused to endorse the Spitzer proposal outright and called for comprehensive immigration law overhaul.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz on Friday said Mr. Edwards opposes the Spitzer proposal, due to several provisions, but “Edwards does support drivers licenses for illegal immigrants…as part of immigration reform if they are on path to citizenship, pay a fine and learn English.”

Wall Street Journal 11/3/07
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119405134968581185.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

As part of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s “Road to the White House” series, former Sen. John Edwards appeared before 200 executives Aug. 1.snip

WRIGHT: Congress and the president failed to pass any kind of immigration-reform legislation. There are still two key aspects of immigration reform that are important to California: the H-1B visa and agricultural workers. What would you do about these two specific areas? And why do you think you might be successful in getting some progress?

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. Also important is that America needs to be doing a much better, more-effective job in producing, from our own young people, the talent pool that can perform these jobs, and my view is that we are not concentrating on science and math the way that we need to. We’re not concentrating on graduate education in those areas the way we need to. But immigration is a very hot topic out there in America, and a very divisive topic. You can be in front of a group of progressive Democrats, and there will be a lot of people in the room who want to know what you’re going to do about the illegal immigrants, and they’re not thinking about a path to citizenship. Secondly, I do think we should be tougher on employers who are knowingly violating the law, and in many cases, abusing workers. But the third piece, and this is the more controversial one, I do think that there should be a path to citizenship, and it needs to be a meaningful path to citizenship. I think the path that was in the bill that was last considered by the Senate was completely unrealistic. I mean most undocumented workers in America would never meet that standard, which means they would never become American citizens. And I don’t want to live in a country that’s made up of first-class citizens and second-class laborers. That’s not America.

San Jose Mercury News 9/3/07
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6790508?nclick_check=1