Edwards' Doubletalk On Drivers Licenses For Undocumented Aliens

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

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.

< Support the Writers Stirke | Monday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Edwards' Doubletalk On Drivers Licenses For Undocumented Aliens | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ok He has been my candidate but this reeks (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:37:38 AM EST

Nail him.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

I nailed my own guy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:40:29 AM EST

on this. Of course I will nail him.

I knew there was a reason he was not giving his position on this.

[ Parent ]

You mean your not just a HRC suck up? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:45:02 AM EST

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

You might be iterest ed in (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:52:10 AM EST

this.

[ Parent ]

: Good One (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:05:41 PM EST

I couldn't agree more.

[ Parent ]
: I agree generally and specifically (none / 0) (#9)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:06:48 PM EST

I deplore this focus on "doubletalk" (as if all them do not engage in it.)
Double talk (and straight talk) claims will come back to bite any politician.
FDR- hero or double talker? Both, of course.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

The issue is being clear on your position (none / 0) (#16)
by pioneer111 on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:40:20 PM EST

Edwards was clear. No he doesn't support the Spitizer plan.

You may disagree with him, but he gave an answer. At some point one may need to vote. He made the hypothetical vote. He also pointed out the complexity of the issue. So did Clinton, actually she never gave much substance to the issue, she used a number of rhetorical questions to obfuscate.

But she also equivocates on Iran, on Iraq and numerous other issues. The Politics of Parsing wasn't just on the Drivers' Licence issue. To focus on that is to miss the wider picture and I am surprised that you are doing that.

Nothing to nail Edwards on from my perspective. What I have noticed about his answers is that he often gives the yes or no and then explains. That is all that Clinton needed to do.

[ Parent ]

Clear? (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:10:20 PM EST

It is clearly double talk.

Clinton is much clearer than Edwards on this.

Ah, you candidate supporters are hilarious.

[ Parent ]

: just keep saying (none / 0) (#23)
by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:00:06 AM EST

yeah keep calling his position double talk, when you cant prove echo chamber it. Maybe in your next post you can cite it as fact.
On Clinton, if she was so clear about her position, why did her campaign have to come out the next day and reexplain what her position was?
I'm never sure if you even believe what you write. Aren't you a lawyer, why cant you make a case for anything you say.

[ Parent ]

Don't Belive any Presidential Candidate-on Either (none / 0) (#5)
by TearDownThisWall on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:55:29 AM EST

side...would actually stand up, stand out and state loudly something to the effect:

""Look-this is the way I feel about X...and I know my party thinks the opposite...but as it is right now, my FIRM belief is that we should support X, as it is my sincere opinion, that X is the very best solution, for this very difficult and complex situation facing our country right now""

As my dear uncle Frank (an attorney) once advised me when I was in a legal conflict regarding real estate dispute-
"tell the "hearing office" the whole truth...even if it hurts your case....tis better to have 100% credibility, and 80% of the evidence on your side, rather than owning 100% of the evidence with just 80% credibility"

: Yes, (none / 0) (#6)
by tnthorpe on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:01:29 PM EST

wouldn't it be refreshing to see a bold statement of principle (other than an embrace of the unitary executive) as opposed to some waffling toward a non-existent middle?

[ Parent ]
: Exactly (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:03:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Is there a reason? (none / 0) (#10)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:36:06 PM EST

Is there a reason to supply illegals with documentation that will allow them to vote? If you are in favor of doing so, you should be able to defend the proposition.

Signature Song

: That's a legit concern.... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:03:57 PM EST

and it's fair to ask the candidates to address it.
However in some locales all you need to vote is a utility bill, and there is nothing stopping non-citizens with utility bills in their name from voting right now. Not to mention crooked voting shenanigans have been around long before illegal immigration became a hot-button issue...like dead people voting for Kennedy in Chicago.
I really have no position on this personally...give the undocumented licenses, don't give 'em licenses, whatever....just don't lock 'em up for being undocumented alone, thats all I care about.

[ Parent ]

Flip Flop (none / 0) (#11)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:01:46 PM EST

Edwards has changed a lot of the policies he advocated in 2004, so if you support him already, i don't see how this matters.

Where is the double talk though?

He explained how he thought a DL's would fit into comprehensive immigration reform.

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.

and that he opposes spritzers plan.

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

I disagree with him in that i support Spitzer's plan.

There is no inconsistency in what Edwards is saying. Come on BTD! Who really has substance free attacks?

Your posts seem like you think what line of attack would do its best to nullify this mans attack on the Hill, then you find some quotes parse them a bit, and say you proved your point. The reality is that you never prove your headline. It's a big joke.

Another perfect example of how Obama and Edwards are not righteous enough to criticize Clinton in BTD's eyes.

This is doubletalk (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:24:37 PM EST

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."

Since, at this time, undocumented aliens
HAVE NO WAY TO SEEK CITIZENSHIP while staying in the country, this is pure doubletalk.

Spitzer is dealing with reality, not John Edwards' wish list.

Incredible that you do not see the obvious doubletalk here.

Actually, from you, not so incredible at all. My gawd, Hillary is a paragon of clarity compared to this.

[ Parent ]

I agree kinda (none / 0) (#14)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 02:45:01 PM EST

It's the wrong position, i support Spitzer.
I dont see the double talk.
Do you think the way he inserted the condition is aimed at confusing people? if so i could see that as double talk, or just plain misleading.

I interpreted him saying that: If/when he creates comprehensive immigration reform, with a path to citizenship, those in that path will get DL's. And that right now he doesn't not support allowing illegal immigrants to get DL's.

it's a stupid position, but its consistent.

[ Parent ]

Of course he is trying to confuse (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:47:01 PM EST

Migawd.

I truly wonder about you supporter types.

[ Parent ]

: I don't support Edwards (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:52:02 AM EST

Infact i don't like him much. None of that changes the fact that your post doesn't prove your headline.
I'm not the only one who has pointed this out in here. you have a headline that doesn't match your text.
There are three things your evidences says about edwards.
He has changed his position since 2004.
He does not support giving immigrants drivers LC, or Spitzer's plan.
Then he explains under what condition he sees giving immigrants DL's.
That is clear
It is not a position i agree on, but he is being honest. it's a straight answer.
You on the other hand just came up with a headline that makes a good talking point, and it does.... expect you don't prove it.
It's like your MoDo post. You just make up a talking point, but never prove it.
I must admit you are a great litmus test for how effective someone is at criticizing Clinton. If your try and make up a reason why they aren't sufficiently righteous to attack her, i know its a threating attack.

[ Parent ]

Hillary's worse (none / 0) (#18)
by Lora on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:32:19 PM EST

Edwards at least came out and said he's not in favor of Spitzer's plan. He wants reform first, licenses after. You may hate it, but it's clear as can be.

Hillary on the other hand, same article:

Unfortunately because the Bush administration has failed ... to bring about reform, governors are holding the bag. ... Therefore, I broadly support what governors like Spitzer are trying to do. I don't pretend to know all the details. But I think it's understandable that states are trying to fill a vacuum left by federal government...

"broadly support"...O...kay, Hillary.

"When I'm president, we'll get comprehensive reform,... But finally, I do not believe we can resolve this problem unless we bring people out of the shadows" and give them a path to citizenship, she continued.

Gee that sounds like what Edwards said, if you cut through all the doublespeak.

[anecdotes of being hit by unlicensed immigrants]

Clinton responded, "At some point we've got to solve this problem. Because we're seeing all sorts of consequences..."

Yuh. Good call, Hillary.

[ Parent ]

No no no (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 04:45:46 PM EST

Broadly supports is supports.

Edwards says no to licenses EXECEPT is the undocumented are seeking citizenship (residency no eneough?).

But that is sheer doubletalking NONSENSE.

There is no mechanism for an undocumented alien to stay in the country and at the same time seek citizenship.

It is utter doubletalking nonsense. The biggest piece of nonsense yet.

I wonder at some of you sometimes.

[ Parent ]

Who's in denial now? (none / 0) (#21)
by Lora on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:07:18 PM EST

Edward's stand is perfectly clear. He has said he does not now support drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants at a federal level. He wants to see immigration reform first. Then he wants to give those immigrants who are going through whatever hoops and hurdles toward citizenship that immigration reform will have set up to get drivers licenses. Not those who have no intention of becoming legal. Maybe you think that stinks. Maybe you think we won't get true immigration reform any time this century and he's blowing smoke out of his a**. But his position is NOT doubletalk. You can understand it. You can hate it. And you know exactly where he stands.

I wonder at your support of Hillary's "stand." "Broadly supports" is that she supports the general idea. What idea? Only the attempt, not the specifics of the actual plan, about which she knows diddly-squat. That is NOT support. Once she bothers to learn about the specifics of her own state's governor's plan, she could easily say, oops, I don't really think I can support it. Read:

Therefore, I broadly support what governors like Spitzer are trying to do. I don't pretend to know all the details. But I think it's understandable that states are trying to fill a vacuum left by federal government...

"Broadly support?" "Governors like Spitzer?" "trying to do?" "Don't pretend to know the details?" Puh-leeeze.

[ Parent ]

Say what? (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:10:13 AM EST

Excuse me, when did the FEDERAL government get in the drivers license business?

Stop this. You are embarrassing yourself.

[ Parent ]

Aren't the feds trying to mandate certain (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:52:22 AM EST

technology in state-issued driver's license as a condition of receiving highway funds? Supposed to guarantee identity of holder and enhance homeland security. Big privacy rights issue.

[ Parent ]

: Link and correction: (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:59:03 AM EST

If state-issued driver's license doesn't meet homeland security standard, federal agency's will not accept the license as identification.

[ Parent ]

He was explaining (none / 0) (#24)
by Jgarza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:10:29 AM EST

under what conditions he would allow immigrants to get DL's. Not trying to make people think he supports it.

Its very clear that he doesn't support giving people here illegally DL's.

Maybe you think it's double talk because you have poor reading comprehension, and its hard for you to figure out what he is saying. IMO opinion you are a lawyer I'm sure you get it, plus there is already a pattern of you claiming Hillary critics aren't sufficiently righteous to criticize her.

[ Parent ]

flip-flopper (none / 0) (#15)
by diogenes on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 03:15:21 PM EST

The new approach:

Hillary is a flip-flopper
However, everyone else is a flipflopper too
Therefore, Hillary is OK.

This begs the point which is that if everyone is equally a flipflopper on issues than we should elect on personality. Obama is more likable (especially in red states) and charismatic. Hillary is polarizing and Nixonian in temperament. Nixon beat the hapless McGovern in 1972 with no coattails; if anything, people didn't trust him and wanted the Democrats as a check on him.